It is true that one of the primary doctrinal characteristics of a cult is a denial of salvation by grace alone (Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Correcting the Cults [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 10; Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 28). Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, Mind Science groups (e.g., Christian Science) and a host of others all have their works-based salvation plans firmly in place and espousing it with zeal (cf. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publisher, 2003]). But have you ever wondered where the reasoning came from in establishing a works-based salvation theology? I’m not talking about the motivation for establishing a works-based theology but the actual reasoning. This question came to mind when I was studying the order of reason with respect to predestination. Could this order of divine reason with respect to predestination lend any insight into why a person would establish a works-based theology or salvation? I definitely believe so. But to know “not that” (works-based salvation), you first have to know “that” (graced based salvation). So, we must first start with the order of reason as it pertains to predestination.
Why work (for salvation)?
Saturday, July 17th, 2010Overcoming Islam’s Strict Monotheism
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010Much to Oprah’s dismay, last Wednesday’s radio show guest, Stephen Prothero, rightly asserted that not all religions lead to God. The reason his assertion is true is because of the Law of Non-Contradiction which says that “a thing cannot both be and not be at the one and the same time and in one and the same respect” (Francis H. Parker and Henry B. Veatch, “Logic as a Human Instrument” [New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959], 116). Thus the god of pantheism is not the same God of theism, certainly not at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, not all religions are the same; diversity of religion is true. This concept and debate of diversity in general is carried into the world of theism, which is characterized by three main religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity. That is, there is a debate among the three monotheistic religions as to whether there is diversity or plurality in the theistic Deity (i.e., God/Godhead). So, while all three readily admit that there is only one Deity, the critical difference is whether there is plurality or diversity within this one Deity. Muslim apologists are quick to affirm that there is no diversity in Allah (Sura 112); that Allah is characterized as a strict singularity. Jewish rabbis are also quick to quote the Shema (Deut. 6:4) of the Hebrew Bible, that “God is One.” The evangelical Christian can certainly understand and appreciate these assertions. But the question remains, why is diversity of personhood within the Deity Itself not allowed, especially within Islam? Let’s explore this topic and try to find a reasonable answer to Islam’s strict monotheism.
Summarily, there are three primary issues that impede a Muslim from believing in the Triune God. First, there is the issue of logic as it relates to the concept of the Trinity, which most Muslims erroneously equate to tri-theism (3 gods or polytheism). Second, whether Muslims realize it or not, the concept of Allah is firmly rooted in Nominalism and Neo-Platonism, which, in the context of Islam, is the view that the divine essence of Allah is merely the sum of all his perfections (e.g., the ninety-nine names of Allah), and consequently, no one particular perfection or attribute can be used as the basis for describing his actual nature in terms that man can comprehend. Thirdly, as a consequence to Nominalism and Neo-Platonism, the Muslim also subscribes to Voluntarism, which is the belief that something is deemed right for the sole fact that Allah willed it so. When all three issues are taken in conjunction, it is no surprise why the Gospel is so distasteful to the Muslim. Indeed, as we understand the impediments that face a Muslim as he contemplates the Gospel, our hearts should go out to him, and patience should thus follow on the Christian’s part. Nonetheless, we begin with logic.
What’s Behind Baha’i? The facts about a trendy and growing belief system
Monday, June 21st, 2010As a first-year engineering student and recent transplant to Michigan, Marshall was eager to network and make connections within the automotive industry. When some fellow grad students invited him to a Fellowship Dinner, he eagerly accepted. But friendship development and networking opportunities took a back seat as the meeting turned into a recruitment vehicle for Baha’i.
Marshall’s new hometown of Detroit has been known as a hub of automotive manufacturing for more than a century. But recently, Detroit and nearby Dearborn have become America’s hub for something else— several unique strains of Islam. One example is Baha’i, a faith spreading especially among affluent young adults.
Baha’i now has over 6 million adherents worldwide and is growing. How may a Christian effectively respond to the teachings and followers of Baha’i? Unfamiliarity with Baha’i has prevented many Christians from making any response at all.
History and Beliefs
The word Baha’i comes from an Arabic word that means “glory” or “splendor.” Begun in 1844, Baha’i is considered young among the world’s religions. Mirza Ali Muhammad (a descendant by marriage of the Islamic prophet Mohammed) founded Baha’i. A convert named Baha’u’llah led after the death of Mirza Ali, and it was his followers who came to be called “Baha’i’s.” Baha’u’llah declared himself to be the Manifestation of God who would unify all great world religions.
Baha’i teaches that prophets have appeared throughout history, each progressively more perfect than the one before. The “Bab” or “Gate” (the name Mirza Ali took for himself), replaced all previous ones. Historian Bernard Lewis says of Baha’i, “Their very existence presents a challenge to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection and finality of Muhammad’s revelation.”
Baha’i teachings can be summed up in three principles: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of mankind. Baha’i emphasizes compulsory education, personal devotion, and social action. Part of their appeal is due to their commitment to world peace.
Baha’i sees humans as essentially good, with a problem of ignorance, not sin. To alleviate this spiritual ignorance, there have been many Manifestations of God, including Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Muhammed, and the Bab. Jesus is also named among the great teachers, but not as divine incarnation. The unification of mankind- around the tenets of Baha’i is seen as the greatest issue today. The principles derived from the writings of Baha’ullah form a plan for a theocracy to be administered by Baha’i.
Christian Response and Critique
In spite of some worthwhile beliefs (such as the purpose and importance of marriage and the family, and service to humanity), Baha’i teachings are replete with contradictory statements. Their teachings are not confirmed by any outside lines of evidence and their incompatibility with the Bible is clear.
Baha’i teaches that all religious leaders are equal manifestations of the divine mind, yet history’s religious leaders presented conflicting claims and directives. Baha’i has much to say about God, though it is believed that God may not truly be known. But if God is unknowable, then what the Manifestations have taught about God cannot be trusted. Baha’i essentially says, “We know that we can’t know.”
Many of the words and ceremonies mimic Christianity, which appeals to the Western mind, but the foundational doctrines of Christianity are rejected. Baha’i places great emphasis on moral and spiritual education and on developing a sense of world citizenship and a commitment to serving humanity. It is acceptable to be a nominal Christian, but one must acknowledge Baha’i.
Challenge becomes opportunity
“Reaching out to those enamored with Baha’i forced me to gain a deeper understanding of the Christians beliefs I was raised with,” said Marshall. “After doing some remedial work on my own Christian growth, I began to equip myself to talk intelligently with converts to Baha’i. This included reading several books on apologetics and Biblical worldview.”
Baha’i’s pride themselves on being insightful thinkers, so dialog with them and make friends. Model authentic Christianity. We must know what we believe, know what they believe, and dialogue respectfully. Intelligent people who are concerned about world problems are drawn to Baha’i. You will soon find that they know their scriptures. Christians must know theirs even better.
From urban areas to heartland America, Baha’i is here. To reach the growing numbers of Baha’i followers, the church must pray, prepare, and share.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hebrews 1
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010As noted in other posts, the Jehovah's Witness have their own version of the Bible (the New World Translation or NWT) that contains several key changes to the English text to support their heretical doctrines. In Hebrews ch. 1 there are several issues.
Worship of Jesus
The first issue is over the "worship" or "obeisance" due to Jesus Christ. Obviouslky if Jesus Christ is worthy of worship then He is God. Now, the Greek term is from "proskenuo". BAGD gives this definition:
‘to kiss’ (used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy.) to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully . . .
The JW's little apologetic text Reasoning from the Scriptures gives the same basic quote and admits that the term can be used for worship toward God. So neither view can simply argue from the word itself. However, their view is still mistaken and there are some easy ways to show it - using their own materials no less.
If one looks up the verse in the Jehovah's Witnesses' own "Kingdom Interlinear" one can see the Greek and English together. In it, Hebrews 1:6 is translated "worship" (in the 1969 edition at least - sometimes they catch their "mistakes" and "fix" them later - they at least missed this one on their first pass!). Second, even without the Greek it is easy to show that the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation is false, for Hebrews 1:6 is a quote of Ps. 97:7, so whatever the phrase means in Ps. 97:7 it also means in Heb. 1:6. Now, Ps. 97 is talking about Jehovah - and it is applied to Jesus Christ in Hebrews! Oddly, the NWT's own footnote cross references Hebrews 1:6 here (it is letter "Y" in my copy). This shows, in fact, that Jesus is Jehovah!
Yet another fun thing happens when we look at Heb. 1:6's footnotes in the NWT. They were clever enough not to reference the Psalm that it comes from - instead they reference Dt. 32:43 (where the same Greek term for "worship" is used in the LXX). But guess what? This is referring to Jehovah too!
Christ's Throne
Another verse in Hebrews 1 that might sound odd to those familiar with standard translations is 1:8 in which God says to Jesus Christ, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." The NWT has "God is your throne forever and ever.” This translation is possible (both "thronos" and "theos" could be substituted for the subject in Greek). The NWT version is quite doubtful, however. In Hebrews Christ the Son is being shown to be better than any competitor for worship. In chapter 1 Christ is being shown to be better than the angels. God being His throne sounds odd, but could be seen as God the Father being the Son's authority. But in what sense would this not also be said of the angels? This would not advance the thesis of the chapter. It would be like me saying that my brother is better than my sister because he is under my parent's authority. Well, so is my sister.
Christ's Creation
In Heb. 1:10 Jesus is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. But this verse is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says that God (Jehovah) laid the foundations of the earth. In yet another instance of Watchtower inconsistency they correctly translate"kurios" as "Lord" here instead of "Jehovah" (which they do in all cases where they believe it refers to God the Father). So from the NWT itself we can see that Christ is Lord ("Jehovah" to JW's) and did what only God could do (cf. Isa. 44)!
Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1
Monday, January 4th, 2010“God” or “a god” ?
As mentioned in rpevious posts, the Jehovah's Witness have their own version of the Bible (the New World Translation or NWT) that contains several key changes to the English text to support their heretical doctrines. One of the most famous is their treatment of John 1:1. While virtually all translations have "the Word was God," the Watchtower sees fit to translate "theos" as "a god," thus describing Jesus (the Word) as "godlike" rather than God Himself as the text states.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' argument for translating "theos" (God) as "a god" centers on the use of the definite article (Greek "ton" or "the" in English) in the first occurrence of "theos" in the verse and its absence in the second. They claim that "ton theon" must refer to the God (Jehovah), while "theos" by itself is only a description of the godlike characteristics of the Word.
Several points need to be understood when showing that this is not a matter of correct translation but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text rather than letting it speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English - "a" or "an"). So any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text. There are over 20 uses of the definite article in Greek - some have equivalent usage in English (such as identifying one particular among many, i.e. "the man" rather than just any "man"). However, some usages do not have an English equivalent. Therefore the absence of a definite article may or may not have anything to do with what that absence would mean in English.
There is a perfectly good explanation for why "theos" has no definite article in this passage that does not result in the Watchtower's conclusion. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why:
1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. We are used to the Subject - Verb - Predicate style sentences, and we learn to recognize these parts of speech by their position in the sentence. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "The dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. In this verse, we see two case endings for the root "theo" . . . one is "s" (theos), the other is "n" (theon). The "s" ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the "n" ending identifies a noun as the direct object.
So far, so good.
2. When a noun is functioning as a predicate nominative (in English a noun that follows a "being" verb such as "is") its case ending must match the noun's case that it modifies so that the translator will know which noun it is describing. Therefore, "theo" must take the "s" ending because it is modifying "logos" (the subject, as "logo" has the "s" ending). Therefore the sentence transliterates to: "kai theos en ho logos" See the problem here? Is "theos" the subject or is "logos"? Both have the "s" ending.
The answer is found in the next rule.
3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case endings, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on "logos" (the Word) instead of "theos." So "logos" is the subject, and "theos" is the predicate nominative. In English we would read this verse as: "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
No indefinite article, no theological heresy.
The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique - just a few verses down (1:6) they translate another case of "theos" without the indefinite article as "God." (See the Jehovah's Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for proof!). See also the inconsistent translation in 1:13-14. In Jn. 1:18 the Watchtower translates "theos" as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence!
Even if Watchtower defenders could succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have, they cannot show that it is the proper translation, nor can they explain the fact that that they do not translate the exact same Greek phrases in the very same book in like manner. It is only their pre-conceived heretical belief that forces them to inconsistently translate the Greek text into their own particular English version thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy to those ignorant of the facts.