A Defense of Cessationism

A Defense of Cessationism

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Cessationism is a term that carries a lot of baggage. By itself it's negative, suggesting what no longer exists or, in current debate about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, what one is against. So at the outset, certain misconceptions about the "cessationist" viewpoint need to be addressed.

It's not that today God's Spirit is no longer at work in dynamic and dramatic ways. What, for instance, could be more powerful and impressive, even miraculous, than the 180-degree reversal in walk that occurs when the Spirit transforms those dead in their sins into those alive for good works? This, Paul says, involves nothing less than a work of resurrection, of (re-) creation (Eph. 2:1-10). Awesome INDEED!

Nor is the point that all spiritual gifts have ceased and are no longer present in the Church today. As will become clear, at issue is the cessation of a limited number of such gifts; the continuation of the large remainder is not in dispute.

People sometimes tell me, "You're putting the Holy Spirit in a box." In response at least two things come to mind. First, I take this response to heart. Unduly limiting our expectations of the Spirit's work by our theologizing is by no means an imaginary danger. We may never lose sight of the incalculability factor noted by Jesus in John 3:8 (like an unpredictable wind). A mark of any sound doctrine of the Spirit's work is that it will be content with an unaccounted for remainder, an area of mystery. Secondly, however, the Spirit himself, "speaking in the Scripture" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10), as I will try to show, puts his activity "in a box," if you will, a box of his own sovereign making. The Bible knows nothing of a pure whimsy of the Spirit. The Spirit is indeed the Spirit of ardor but also, and no less, the Spirit of order (1 Cor. 14: 33, 40-note, particularly in the matter of spiritual gifts). A perennial challenge to the Church is to seek and see maintained this ordered ardor or, if you prefer, ardor-infused order of the Spirit.

Apostolic Foundation Laying

According to the Nicene Creed, the "one holy catholic" Church is also "apostolic." What does that mean? What constitutes the apostolicity of the Church? Answering that question biblically is the important first step in the case for the cessation of certain gifts of the Spirit. Here the focus will be on those gifts whose cessation is perhaps most contested today, namely prophecy and tongues.

In the latter half of Ephesians 2 (vv. 11-22), Paul provides as comprehensive an outlook on the New Testament Church as anywhere in his writings or, for that matter, the rest of Scripture. Using a favorite biblical metaphor for the Church (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8), the one Church, composed now of Gentiles as well as Jews, is the great house-building project that God, the master architect-builder, is at work on in the period between Christ's exaltation and return. The Church is, Paul says, "God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (vv. 19-20).

Two considerations, closely related, are noteworthy in this description. First, the foundation in view is finished; it is a historically completed entity. When a builder knows what he's doing (as we may assume God does in this instance!) the foundation is poured once at the beginning of the project; it doesn't need to be repeatedly relaid. The foundation's completion is followed by the ongoing work of building the superstructure on that foundation, until the building's completion. From our vantage point today, we are in the period of the superstructure; laying the foundation is done, a thing of the past.

This conclusion is reinforced, secondly, by considering exactly how, in this description, the apostles and prophets, along with Christ, are the Church's foundation. For Christ that plainly consists in his saving work, in whom he is as crucified and resurrected; "no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11; cf. 15:3-4). But the apostles also belong to the foundation. That is so not because the saving work of Christ is somehow incomplete but because of their witness, a witness, authorized by the exalted Christ himself, which is fully revelatory (e.g., Acts 1:22; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:13). This unique redemptive-historical role of the apostles comes to light in Ephesians 2:20. As revelatory word focuses on redemptive deed-a correlation that marks the history of salvation throughout its unfolding to its consummation in Christ (Heb. 1:1-2a) -the situation is this: to the foundational work of Christ, that is, his once-for-all and finished work, is joined the foundational apostolic witness to that work, likewise once-for-all and finished. Indicated here is the matrix for the eventual emergence of the New Testament canon.

Ephesians 2:20, then, points to the temporary, noncontinuing role of the apostles in the life of the Church. Their place was in the foundational era of the Church's history. Their function was to provide revelatory, infallibly authoritative, canonical witness to the consummation of salvation history in Christ's finished work. That function does not belong to the superstructure period to follow but provides the completed basis on which that superstructure, as it continues to be built, rests.

Several lines of New Testament teaching confirm the temporary role of the apostolate: One job prerequisite was to have been an eye and ear witness of Christ prior to his ascension (Acts 1:21-26). In 1 Corinthians 15:7-9 Paul sees this requirement being met in his case by an exception (see 9:1), and along with that, he is best understood here as saying that he is the last of the apostles. The Pastoral Epistles are largely concerned with making apostolic preparation for the post-apostolic future of the Church beyond. Two of these letters are addressed to Timothy, viewed by Paul, more than anyone else in the New Testament, as his personal successor. Yet Paul never calls him an apostle. "Apostolic succession" in a personal sense, for the redemptive-historical rationale already noted is a contradiction in terms. The apostolicity of the Church is not secured by an unbroken succession of officeholders that can be traced back to the apostles but by the uninterrupted possession and maintenance of their witness or tradition (2 Thess. 2:15), inscripturated in the New Testament.

Notice that in the current debate about spiritual gifts many in the charismatic movement (but probably not most Pentecostals) agree that apostles-in the sense of those who are "first" among the gifts given to the Church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11), like the 12 and Paul-are not present in the Church today. In that respect, at least, whether or not they care to think of themselves as such, the large majority of today's charismatics are in fact "cessationists." Anyone, then, who recognizes the temporary nature of the apostolate, needs to think through, in the light of other New Testament teaching, what further implications this basic cessationist position may carry.

Ephesians 2:20 itself includes one such implication-and an important one at that. Along with the apostles the prophets have a foundational role. Who are these prophets? Surely not the Old Testament prophets, as some hold. What works against that view is the word order, "apostles and prophets" (not "prophets and apostles"); Paul's point is not that the foundation is composed of witnesses from the old as well as the new covenant. More importantly, just a few verses later and in almost identical wording, the prophets in view are said to belong to the "now" of the new covenant, in contrast to the "other generations" of past covenant history (3:5).

Nor are the prophets here identical to the apostles ("the apostles who are also prophets"), as some have argued more recently. Because of the syntax of the Greek text of verse 20 and in view of Paul's next reference to apostles and prophets beyond this context (4:11: "some to be apostles, some to be prophets"), this view is hardly plausible. Ephesians 2:20 points us to conclude that prophecy was a temporary gift, for the foundational period of the Church, and so that New Testament prophets, along with the apostles, are no longer a present part of its life.

Prophecy's Superiority to Tongues

First Corinthians 14 deals with prophecy and tongues in far more detail than any other New Testament passage. As a quick perusal will show, a contrast between prophecy and tongues, like a backbone, structures the entire chapter, beginning in verses 2-3, continuing throughout and culminating in verse 39. The broad concern of this argumentation is to show the relative superiority or preferability of prophecy to tongues. Prophecy is "greater," because (as speech intelligible to others) it edifies the Church, while tongues (unintelligible to others) do not. The immediate proviso, however, is that tongues, when interpreted, are on a par with prophecy for edifying others (vv. 4-5). Tongues, when uninterpreted, are eclipsed by prophecy, while interpreted tongues are functionally equivalent to prophecy. A close tie exists between prophecy and tongues. We may even say fairly that tongues, as interpretable and to be interpreted (vv. 13, 27), are a mode of prophecy.

What these two gifts have in common and what makes them contrastable in this way is that both are word gifts. Specifically, both are revelation. Both bring to the Church God's Word, in the primary, original, nonderivative sense. That prophecy is revelation is explicit in verse 30 and also clear, among other considerations, from the only instances of prophecy existing in the New Testament, those of Agabus (see Acts 11:27-28 and 21:10-11) and the book of Revelation (see 1:1-3).

That tongues are revelation is plain from verses 14-19; they are inspired speech of the most immediate, INDEED virtually unmediated kind. In its exercise the gift completely bypasses the "mind," in the sense that the intellect of the speaker does not function in the production of what is said. Speech capacity and organs are so taken over by the Holy Spirit that the words spoken are not the speaker's in any sense. Also, "mysteries" (v. 2), as an indication of their content, confirms this fully revelatory understanding of tongues (as well as the link with prophecy, see 13:2). Elsewhere in the New Testament, at least without any clear exceptions, this word always refers to revelation, more specifically, the redemptive-historical content of revelation (e.g., Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16).

From those passages that are most pertinent and decisive, then, the basic thread of the argument for the cessation of prophecy and tongues is this: By divine design, apostles and prophets have a temporary role in the Church's history and do not CONTINUE beyond its foundational era. The redemptive-historical "specs" of the church-house are such that they are not permanent fixtures (Eph. 2:20), and so neither are tongues, tied, as we have seen they were, to prophecy (1 Cor. 14). They, too, pass out of the life of the Church, along with the passing of the apostles and prophets (and other means of bringing God's Word).

What About 1 Corinthians 13?

Noncessationists on prophecy and tongues feel most secure in their view biblically at 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. For them this is a "gotcha" text that by itself settles the issue. But this passage is not as unambiguous as they believe.

Primary is a comparison between the believer's present and future knowledge. Present knowledge is partial and obscured (vv. 8-9) in contrast to full, "face-to-face" knowledge that will be ours (v. 12) with the arrival of "the perfect" knowledge (v. 10), at Christ's return. With this accent on the partial quality of our present knowledge, the particular media of that knowledge are incidental. Prophecy and tongues are no doubt singled out given Paul's pastoral concern, within the wider context (chapters 12-14), with their proper exercise. But the time of their cessation is not a concern he has here. To insist on the contrary from verse 10 is gratuitous. His stress, rather, is on the duration, until Christ returns, of our present, opaque knowledge-by whatever revelatory means that knowledge may come (including, by implication, even inscripturation) and whenever they may cease.

This reading is reinforced in Ephesians 4:11-13, which says that the exalted Christ "gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, ... until we all reach unity in the faith ... and become mature [or, perfect] attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Almost certainly the "unity" or "fullness" of verse 13 is the same state of affairs as "the perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 (echoed perhaps as well in the use of "perfect" in Eph. 4:13), namely the situation brought by Christ's return. On that assumption, Ephesians 4, read as noncessationists insist 1 Corinthians 13 must be read, leaves us with the unavoidable conclusion that there will be apostles, as well as prophets (and tongues), until the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ, a conclusion that many (though not all) noncessationists reject.

But how can they coherently? In terms of gifts related to the ultimate goal in view, how is this passage any different than 1 Corinthians 13:8ff? Those noncessationists who recognize, correctly, that there are no apostles today, in the sense of Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, can't have it both ways. If these passages teach that prophecy/prophets and tongues continue until the Parousia, then so also do apostles. A sounder reading of both passages is to recognize that whether prophecy or tongues (or any other gift) will cease before the Parousia is not addressed by them but left an open question, to be settled from other passages.

A dilemma confronts noncessationists. If prophecy and tongues, as they function in the New Testament, continue today, then the noncessationist is faced with the quite practical and troublesome implication that Scripture alone is not a sufficient verbal revelation from God; the canon is at best relatively closed. Alternatively, if, as most noncessationists insist, "prophecy" and "tongues" today are nonrevelatory or less than fully revelatory, then these contemporary phenomena are misnamed and are something other than the New Testament gifts. Noncessationists are caught in a redemptive-historical anachronism, seeking within the superstructure of the Church's history what belonged to its foundational era. They are involved in the contradictory effort of trying to maintain along with a closed New Testament canon the presence of those revelatory gifts that were for the open canon period when the New Testament documents were in the process of being written.

Prophecy and tongues have ceased. What remains, supremely and solely sufficient and authoritative until Jesus comes, is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10).

Aseity of God

Aseity of God – What does the Bible say?

“’Aseity’ comes from the Latin aseite, meaning literally “of oneself.” Used by God, it denotes that He exists in and of Himself, independent of anything else. He is self-existent… The biblical basis for God’s aseity is found in the facts that 1) He existed prior to and independent of creation and that 2) He brought into and sustains in existence everything else that is.”1 – Geisler

Aseity of God – What does the Old Testament say?
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’” (Exodus 3:14).

Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways (Daniel 5:23).

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God (Psalm 90:2).

Aseity of God – What does the New Testament say?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:1, 3).

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26).

And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).

For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Romans 11:36).

‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’ (Acts 17:28).

But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe (Hebrews 1:2).

In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered (Hebrews 2:10).

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being (Revelation 4:11).

A CALL TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY

Phil. 2:12-16 A CALL TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY

Intro: Ill. Paul has spend some time encouraging the Philippian church to be humble and submissive to the Father and to the Lord Jesus. Paul even appeals to the supreme example of humility, Jesus Himself. In these verses, there is a call given to this young church to carry our the instructions they have been given and to do the Lord’s work in true humility. This is a message that we all need to take to heart tonight. I would like to spend a few minutes looking at these verses and talking to you about Paul’s Call To New Testament Christianity.

I. v. 12 A CHALLENGE (Work Out)

A. Not for salvation - Eph. 2:8-9. These people were already saved - Phil. 1:1.

B. Work Out - Literally - “To bring to the fullest completion.”

Used of mining - To get every ounce ore out of a mine.
Used of farming - To work he land to achieve the greatest possible harvest.
C. The Challenge is two-fold:

1. To make your Christian life all it can be for God. (Ill. Talents - Mt. 25:14-

30)

2. To be yourself - God never called you to be a cheap imitation of any one else. We are reflect Christ - Ill. Moon and sun! (Ill. You can display a reflection that no one else can duplicate.)

D. Ill. “Fear” and “Trembling” - Why?

His BUSINESS is serious business - Souls are at stake!
We are entering an unknown - Ill. No one knows how much following Jesus is going to cost them, or where it will lead - Ill. Paul - 2 Cor. 11:23-29. (Ill. However, we do have His promise - Luke 18L28-30.
3. We will have to face God and give an account of our lives - 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12; (Ill. 1 Cor. 3:10-15)

II. v.13 A COMPANION

A. Work in v. 12 means to fully COMPLETE. Here, the word means to energize. This verse means that God gives us the energy to do His will. (Ill. We do not have to do it alone!)

B. God’s work in us is 2-fold.

1. To Will - God reveals His will unto us and coaxes us into adopting His will as our own.

2. To Do - Not only are energized to know His will, but we are empowered to do His will as well. (Ill. The Holy Spirit is the key - John 14:6) (Ill. God works in, so the we can work out!)

C. God doesn’t just save us and leave us to sort out His will. He moves in our lives and brings us into His work, (Ill. Absolutely imperative to be Spirit-filled - Eph. 5:18)

III. v. 14 A COMMAND

A. We are to carry out God’s work and will in an atmosphere empty of:

1. Murmurings - Secret disputes; displeasure and complaining. This is carried out more privately than publicly!

2. Disputings - Hesitation and doubt. This refers to doubting God’s promises and hesitating at His commands.

B. Our lives are to be emptied of these symptoms both privately and publicly.

IV. v.15-16 SOME CONSEQUENCES

A. When we dovetail with God’s ideal for Christianity, there will be some positive consequences in our lives.

B. We Will Stand Out - The true Christian is and will ever be different and distinct from the world. We will be seen as:

Blameless - No one can point a finger at us.
Harmless - Lit. “unmixed” Not diluted by the world, but full strength for the Lord! (Ill. Harmless to the Kingdom are those around us.)
3. Without Rebuke - faultless

4. This type of life stands in stark contrast to the standard of the world. Ill. “crooked” - bent (Ill. Even plants grow toward the sun!) Ill. “Perverse” - To oppose, to turn against and plot against the truth. This is the world and we are to be different!

C. We Will Shine Out - (Ill. A light in the darkness!) When we are in line with God, we are spotlights in a dark world! (Ill. We are literally living out the Word of God - v. 16. Ill. 2 Cor. 3:2; Ill. Matt. 5:14-16

Conc: How’s YOUR light burning?

What is Lordship salvation and is it biblical?

What is Lordship salvation and is it biblical?
by Matt Slick

Though there are variations on what Lordship Salvation really is, it is basically the view that in order to become a true Christian a person must receive Jesus as both Savior and Lord and that he must also cease from sin or be willing to cease from sin in order to be saved (i.e., repent). The controversy deals with whether or not salvation is a one- or two-step process. Is salvation by faith alone, and nothing beyond it is required (one step)? Or, is faith to be accompanied by a submission to the Lordship of Christ and repentance (two steps)--both of which result in salvation? Let's see if we can make sense of it.

Related to this topic is what is called the ordo salutis, the order of salvation. As it relates to this discussion, we have to ask if regeneration precedes faith or does faith proceed regeneration? If regeneration precedes faith, then God is changing the person and enabling him to believe the gospel and repent. Furthermore, this would mean that salvation and turning from sin are the result of God's regenerative work and would be, of course, a natural consequence of His making us new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). If, however, faith proceeds regeneration, then a person's decision to believe in God and the gospel would also require an attempt to turn from one's sinful behavior (Mark 1:15). It is in this second position that the controversy arises.

If lordship salvation is meant to say that a person must believe the gospel and also repent of sin in order to be saved, then it is teaching that salvation is not by faith alone in Christ alone. Instead, it would be by faith and also the act of turning from sin as a person makes Jesus Lord of "all" of his life. In other words, salvation is obtained by faith in God and turning from sin--which amounts to keeping the Law. This would be, of course, false. Now, we are not saying a person need not repent from his sins. Instead, repentance is the result of God's regenerative work in us. Let me explain.

The position of CARM is that regeneration precedes faith the way electricity precedes light in a lightbulb. The order is logical--not temporal. Electricity must be present for light to occur in a lightbulb, but it's not true that light must be present in order for electricity to occur. We would say that whenever electricity is present in a lightbulb, the automatic and natural result is light. The electricity is "logically" prior to the light--not temporally prior. In other words, it is logically necessary that electricity precedes the light; and when electricity is present, light is also present.

With this analogy, I think it is easier to understand that it is God who regenerates us (2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Peter 1:3; John 1:13), and that the necessary result of his regenerative work in us is our faith and repentance. God GRANTS that we believe (Philippians 1:29) and grants that we repent (2 Timothy 2:25). Therefore, our position is that repentance is a necessary result of God's work in us (yet it's also something that we do). The issue of Lordship salvation incorrectly addresses the order of salvation by implying that faith leads to regeneration, which leads to repentance. I believe this mistakenly puts the focus on man's ability instead of God's work, and this is where the error of Lordship salvation arises. The truth is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Repentance from sin is the result of salvation--not a contributing factor to it.

If it is God who grants us repentance (2 Timothy 2:25) and faith (Philippians 1:29), then there is no room for the Lordship salvation controversy. Instead, we understand that the Lordship of Christ and our repentance are both the natural result of the work of God--not the work of our faith and repentance.

"What is dominion theology / theonomy / Christian reconstructionism?"

Question: "What is dominion theology / theonomy / Christian reconstructionism?"

Answer: Dominion theology refers to a line of theological interpretation and thought with regard to the role of the church in contemporary society. Dominion theology is also known as Christian reconstructionism and theonomy. Dominion theology states that biblical Christianity will rule all areas of society, personal and corporate. Christian reconstructionism reasons that society will be reconstructed by the Law of God as preached in the gospel and the Great Commission. Theonomy is a post-millennial view believing that all of the moral laws contained in the Old Testament are yet binding today. Although these might sound somewhat disparate, they have all been closely linked together to the point that people often use the terms interchangeably.

Those who hold these views believe that it is the duty of Christians to create a worldwide kingdom patterned after the Mosaic Law. They believe that Christ will not return to earth until such a kingdom has been established. The principal goal, then, of dominion theology and Christian reconstructionism is political and religious domination of the world through the implementation of the moral laws, and subsequent punishments, of the Old Testament (the sacrificial and ceremonial laws having been fulfilled in the New Testament). This is not a government system ruled by the church, but rather a government conformed to the Law of God.

Dominion theology / Christian reconstructionism is largely based upon a post-millennial view of covenantalism. Post-millennial refers to the belief that Christ will return to earth after the thousand-year reign of God's kingdom, and covenantalism refers to the belief that biblical history is divided into three major covenants supposedly described in Scripture—of redemption, of works, and of grace. Adherents believe that we currently exist under the covenant of grace, and that the church has replaced Israel, and we are now in the millennial Kingdom of God. Man, under the covenant of grace, is responsible to rule the world, to hold dominion over it, in obedience to the laws of God.

The problem with these beliefs is that they rest upon a distorted view of Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches a premillennial view of the Kingdom of God (Zechariah 14:4-9; Matthew 25:31-34), the "covenant of grace" is an extra-biblical construct, Israel and the Church are distinct throughout biblical history and prophecy, and God never commanded the Church to revamp society. Instead, believers are commanded to preach the Gospel as in Matthew 28:19, 20, but God clearly intends to implement worldwide reform Himself (Revelation 19:11-20:4). Though it is clearly unbiblical, dominion theology persists. It is, in fact, a great threat to biblical Christianity. Once at home solely within Reformed circles, dominion theology and Christian reconstructionism are now creeping into many Protestant churches and are making a large impact on the beliefs of Charismatic churches in particular.

As with any new teaching we are exposed to, we need to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11: "And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth." Dominion theology / Christian reconstructionism doesn't align with what we read in the Scriptures. Although this is just a "nutshell" summary of dominion theology, the points made are very clear. Dominion theology is not a theology for a believer to live by, but rather one to avoid.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html#ixzz38TBruasx

Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?


Even those who are not persuaded by Christianity often have great respect for Jesus. Among those who reject the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, there are many who are nevertheless followers of him to some degree. “Jesus was a great moral teacher”, some say, “but he wasn’t God”. According to this view, Jesus is to be followed as a great human being, but not as a divine one.
This idea that Jesus was merely a great human being, i.e. a great human being but nothing more, is, as C.S. Lewis argued in Part 2 of Mere Christianity, indefensible.
Jesus made the most astonishing claims, not only about God, society and ethics, but also about himself. He claimed to have the authority to forgive sins, to be the representative of all humanity come to die in order to reconcile man to God, and to be the only way for people to attain salvation.
Faced with the fact that Jesus made these claims about himself, there are three things that we might say about him: Either Jesus’ claims were false and he knew it, or his claims were false and he didn’t know it, or his claims were true. None of these suggests that Jesus was a great, but merely human, teacher. Anyone who has that view needs to think again.

The first thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he knew it, in which case he was a liar. If Jesus did not believe that his claims about himself were true, then when he made those claims he was lying.
Jesus’ claims about himself were so central to his teachings, though, that if they were lies then he can hardly be deemed a great teacher. If Jesus set out to systematically deceive people about who he was and how their sins were to be dealt with, then he was among the worst teachers that have ever walked the earth.
The second thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he didn’t know it, in which case he was a lunatic. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true, and they weren’t, then he was a delusional egomaniac. If an ordinary person believes himself to be God incarnate, then that person is, put quite simply, insane.
Again, if this were the case, if Jesus taught that this is who he was and was mistaken, then he was as bad a teacher as there has ever been.
The third thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were true, in which case he was, and is, Lord. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true and they were, then Jesus was not only a great human being, but was also God on Earth.
If we take Jesus seriously, then we must take Jesus’ claims about himself seriously. We cannot say that Jesus was a great teacher whom we admire and look up to, but that the most fundamental element of his teachings was a monumental error. Jesus was not a great, but merely human, teacher; he was either much less than this, or much more.

Those who respond to this argument by writing Jesus off as either a liar or a lunatic are, for all that has been said so far, just as reasonable as those who respond by accepting Jesus as Lord. This argument is an attack only on the view that Jesus was a great teacher but not God; there is nothing in it that counts against the view that Jesus was a terrible teacher. In order to show that it is better to view Jesus as Lord than as either a liar or a lunatic, it would have to be demonstrated that there is some reason to take Jesus’ claims seriously.
Do we have any reason, though, to take Jesus’ claims seriously? Many have argued that we do, that we have the strongest possible evidence that Jesus knew what he was talking about when it came to the supernatural. There is, it is argued, substantial historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, endorsing his claims to religious authority.
The Resurrection, it is said, was a divine endorsement of Jesus’ teachings, God’s confirmation that Jesus’ teachings were true. If this is correct, then there can be no doubt as to which of the three positions concerning Jesus outlined above is the correct one. If there is significant evidence for the resurrection, then we have to take Jesus seriously.

Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy," Heretics

Somebody complained, I think, to Matthew Arnold that he was getting as dogmatic as Carlyle. He replied, "That may be true; but you overlook an obvious difference. I am dogmatic and right, and Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong." The strong humour of the remark ought not to disguise from us its everlasting seriousness and common sense; no man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error. - G.K.C. ("Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy," Heretics)

Creation and the Virgin Birth

Creation and the Virgin Birth
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The incarnation of Jesus Christ is such an important doctrine of the New Testament that without it there can be no true Christianity. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (I John 4:2,3).

But how can the one who "was God" (John 1:2) from the beginning be the same one who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us?" (John 1:1,14). How can He truly be "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us?" (Matthew 1:23). How can the infinite, eternal God become finite and temporal? Such a concept seems impossibly paradoxical, yet millions quite properly believe it to be a real and vital truth.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the incarnation is that a God who is absolute holiness could reside in a body of human flesh. Is it not true that "they that are in the flesh cannot please God?" (Romans 8:8). Our human bodies have been formed through many generations of genetic inheritance from Adam himself, and "in Adam all die" (I Corinthians 15:22).

The paradox is partially resolved, of course, when it is realized that Jesus Christ came in a body which was not of sinful flesh. His body was truly "in the flesh," but only "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3).

But even this doesn't resolve the dilemma completely, for how could His body be of flesh (carbon, hydrogen, amino acids, proteins, etc.), received by the normal process of reproduction of the flesh of his parents, without also receiving their genetic inheritance, which is exactly what makes it sinful flesh? "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble … Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4).

The Problem of Inherited Physical Defects

Not only is there the problem of inherent sin, but also of inherent physical defects. Over many generations, the human population has experienced great numbers of genetic mutations, and these defective physical factors have been incorporated into the common genetic pool, affecting in some degree every infant ever born. Yet the Lamb of God, to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be "without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19). The very purpose of the incarnation was that God could become the Saviour of men as well as their Creator, but this required that in His humanity He must be "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26), and this would have been absolutely impossible by the normal reproductive process.

The solution could only be through a mighty miracle! He could not be conceived in the same manner as other men, for this would inevitably give him both a sin-nature and a physically defective body, and each would disqualify Him as a fit Redeemer. And yet He must truly become human. "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17).

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ has always been such a watershed between true Christians and either non-Christians or pseudoChristians.1 Without such a miraculous birth, there could have been no true incarnation and therefore no salvation. The man Jesus would have been a sinner by birth and thus in need of a Saviour Himself.

On second thought, however, one realizes that it was not the virgin birth which was significant, except as a testimony of the necessity of the real miracle, the supernatural conception. The birth of Christ was natural and normal in every way, including the full period of human gestation in the womb of Mary. In all points, He was made like His brethren, experiencing every aspect of human life from conception through birth and growth to death. He was true man in every detail, except for sin and its physical effects.

The miracle was not His birth, but His conception. And here we still face a mystery. Conception normally is the result of the union of two germ cells, the egg from the mother and the seed from the father, each carrying half the inheritance and thus each, of course, sharing equally in the transmission of the sin-nature as well as all other aspects of the human nature.

"Each individual gets exactly half of his chromosomes and half of his genes from his mother and half from his father. Because of the nature of gene interaction, the offspring may resemble one parent more than the other, but the two parents make equal contributions to its inheritance."2

Each parent thus also makes an equal contribution of defective physical and mental characteristics due to inherited mutations. Both mental and physical traits are inherited in this way.

Some writers have tried to make the virgin birth appear more amenable to human reason by comparing it to the process of parthenogenesis, which has been known to occur in some insects and even in some mammals, by which process the female egg begins to divide and grow into a mature animal without every being fertilized. Others have compared it to the process of artificial insemination, by which the sperm is artificially introduced into the egg without actual copulation.

In addition to the rather crude concept of the work of the Holy Spirit which such suggestions involve, neither solves the problem of how the contribution of inherent defects contained in the mother's germ cell are kept from the developing embryo. If genetic inheritance in any degree is received from either parent, there seems to be no natural way by which the transmission of the sin-nature, as well as physical defects, could have been prevented.

The Necessity of Special Creation

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.

That is, God directly formed a body for the second Adam just as He had for the first Adam (Genesis 2:7). This was nothing less than a miracle of creation, capable of accomplishment only by the Creator Himself. "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Surely God would devote no more attention to the design and construction of the body of "the first man, of the earth, earthy" than He would to that of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" (I Corinthians 15:47)!

The Marvel Of Inheritance and Pre-Natal Growth

For that matter, the formation of every human body is a marvelous testimony to the power and wisdom of the Creator of the first human body, and so is His provision for its reproductive multiplication into the billions of bodies of distinctive individuals who have lived through the ages. "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14).

The 139th Psalm contains a remarkably beautiful and scientifically accurate description of the divine forethought in the processes of heredity and embryonic growth. Verses 15 and 16 of this psalm (with explanatory comments interspersed) are as follows:

"My substance (literally, my frame) was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (literally embroidered -- probably a foregleam of the intricate double- helical structure of the DNA molecule as it carries out its function of template reproduction of the pattern provided by the parents) in the lowest (or least seen) parts of the earth (God originally made the dust of the earth -- the basic elements -- then man's body from those elements, and then the marvelous ability to multiply that body)." (Verse 15)

"Thine eyes did see ‘my substance yet being unperfect" (all one word, meaning embryo, in the original; note the embryo is not imperfect, but unperfect, still in the process of being completed); and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance (literally which days -- that is, all the days of development and growth were planned from the beginning) were fashioned (same word as formed, used in Genesis 2:7 for the formation of Adam's body) when as yet there was none of them (the whole amazing process was written into the genetic code even before actual conception)." (Verse 16)

The Body of Christ

With such careful divine care and attention given to the development of every one of the billions of human bodies conceived since the days of Adam and Eve, how much greater must have been the extent of the divine preparation of the body of God's own Son! As a matter of fact, the design for His body was prepared before the very foundation of the world itself (I Peter 1:20; Hebrews 10:5). It is probable that, in some degree at least, God had this very body in mind when He undertook to make Adam "in our image after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). That is, God formed for Adam a body patterned after that perfect body which had already been planned for the divine incarnation, when the time would come.

Then, "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4,5).

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). The verb "prepared" in this verse is striking. It is the same word in the Greek (i.e., katartizo) as used in the next succeeding chapter in Hebrews, in one of the greatest of all those verses in the Bible describing the Creation. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).

The "preparation" of Christ's body by God was the same process as the "framing" of the worlds by God! As the latter were created ex nihilo ("not out of things which do appear"), so must have been the former. The word is also translated "make perfect" (Hebrews 13:21, etc.).

Thus, the body of Christ was prepared by the great Creator, with no dependence on prior materials, and was made in total perfection, ready to receive Him as its occupant. In that perfect body, which would one day be "made sin" and would "bear our sins" on the tree (II Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24), He would dwell forever after its resurrection and glorification (Revelation 1:14-18).

When God created the world, it was only a little thing (Isaiah 40:15-17), but the formation of any human body required the special planning of divine omniscience, eliciting the inspired testimony, "How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!" (Psalm 139:17).

The greatest of all creations, however, was that of the body in which His Son would take up His eternal abode. Miraculously created and conceived, then virgin-born, God's eternal Son became the perfect Son of Man.

There is yet another "body of Christ," of which all believers become members, now in process of formation, with Christ the head (Ephesians 4:15, 16). This body also is being supernaturally formed by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13), with no genetic inheritance from sinful flesh. Its members are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13), so that when complete it also will be a body "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:27).

Here is another mighty act of special creation, repeated again and again whenever a new member is added to Christ's body, when a new son of God is born. "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). "Therefore if any man be in Christ, be is a new creation" (II Corinthians 5:17). These have "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24). "Ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him" (Colossians 3:10). "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Ephesians 2:10).

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ thus testifies of the marvelous creation of His human body, which then speaks symbolically of the marvelous member-by-member creation of His spiritual body.

The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological Ethics

The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological Ethics

Just over one hundred years ago, the renowned pastor and statesman Charles H. Spurgeon spoke these words to the then-largest congregation in all Christendom:

I believe that it is anti-Christian and unholy for any Christian to live with the object of accumulating wealth. You will say, “Are we not to strive all we can to get all the money we can?” You may do so. I cannot doubt but what, in so doing, you may do service to the cause of God. But what I said was that to live with the object of accumulating wealth is anti-Christian.1

Over the years, however, the message being preached in some of the largest churches in the world has changed. Due, in part, to the rise of several ungodly philosophies and movements,2 a new gospel is being taught today. This gospel has been ascribed many names, such as the “name it and claim it” gospel, the “blab it and grab it” gospel, the “health and wealth” gospel, the “word of faith” movement, the “gospel of success,” the “prosperity gospel,” and “positive confession theology.”3

No matter what name is used, though, the teaching is the same. Simply put, this egocentric gospel teaches that God wants believers to be materially wealthy. Listen to the words of Robert Tilton, one of the prosperity gospel’s most well-known spokesmen: “I believe that it is the will of God for all to prosper because I see it in the Word [of God], not because it has worked mightily for someone else. I do not put my eyes on men, but on God who gives me the power to get wealth.”4

Teachers of the prosperity gospel encourage their followers to pray, and even demand, of God “everything from modes of transportation (cars, vans, trucks, even two-seat planes), [to] homes, furniture, and large bank accounts.”5 By closely examining the faulty theology and errant biblical interpretation of the teachers of this movement, this study will prove that the prosperity gospel teachings regarding the acquisition and accumulation of wealth are ethically incorrect.

The Theology of the Prosperity Gospel

“Theology is important,” wrote scholar Millard J. Erickson, “because correct doctrinal beliefs are essential to the relationship between the believer and God.”6 A corollary to this statement is that an incorrect theology will lead to incorrect beliefs about God, His Word, and His dealings with men. The thesis of this paper is that the prosperity gospel is constructed upon a faulty theology. Consequently, many of its doctrines, including the teachings concerning wealth, are erroneous. While it is beyond the scope of this study to examine in detail all of the specific doctrines of prosperity theology, there are four crucial areas of error relating to their teachings on wealth that may be isolated and examined. These areas are the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, and faith.

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY AND THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

The theological basis of the prosperity gospel is the Abrahamic covenant.7 While this is good in that prosperity theologians recognize that much of Scripture is the record of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, it is bad in that they do not maintain an orthodox view of this covenant. Prosperity theologians hold an incorrect view of the inception of the Abrahamic covenant; what is more germane to the present study, however, they hold to an erroneous view concerning the application of the covenant.8

Researcher Edward Pousson best stated the prosperity view on the application of the Abrahamic covenant when he wrote, “Christians are Abraham’s spiritual children and heirs to the blessings of faith.... This Abrahamic inheritance is unpacked primarily in terms of material entitlements.”9 In other words, according to the prosperity gospel, the primary purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was for God to bless Abraham materially. Since believers are now “Abraham’s spiritual children,” they consequently have inherited these financial blessings of the covenant.

Prosperity teacher Kenneth Copeland wrote, “Since God’s Covenant has been established and prosperity is a provision of this covenant, you need to realize that prosperity belongs to you now!”10 Referring to the prosperity theology of Kenneth Hagin, author Harvey Cox wrote, “Through the crucifixion of Christ, Christians have inherited all the promises made to Abraham, and these include both spiritual and material well-being.”11 To support this claim, prosperity teachers such as Copeland and Hagin appeal to Gal. 3:14, which says “that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. . . .”12 While it is not an understatement to say that the problems with this argument are legion, two glaring problems need to be addressed. First, in their appeal to Gal. 3:14, prosperity teachers ignore the second half of the verse, which reads, “That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”13 In this verse Paul clearly was reminding the Galatians of the spiritual blessing of salvation, not the material blessing of wealth.

Second, prosperity teachers claim that the conduit through which believers receive Abraham’s blessings is faith. This completely ignores the orthodox understanding that the Abrahamic covenant was an unconditional covenant.14 That is, the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant were not contingent upon one man’s obedience. Therefore, even if the Abrahamic covenant did apply to Christians, all believers would already be experiencing the material blessings regardless of prosperity theology.

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY AND THE ATONEMENT

A second cracked pillar upon which prosperity theology stands is that of a faulty view of the Atonement. Theologian Ken Sarles wrote that “the prosperity gospel claims that both physical healing and financial prosperity have been provided for in the Atonement.”15 This seems to be an accurate observation in light of teacher Kenneth Copeland’s comment that “the basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary.”16 This misunderstanding of the Atonement stems from two errors that proponents of the prosperity gospel make.

First, many who hold to prosperity theology have a fundamental misconception of the life of Christ. For example, teacher John Avanzini proclaimed that “Jesus had a nice house, a big house,”17 “Jesus was handling big money,”18 and He even “wore designer clothes.”19 It is easy to see how such a warped view of the life of Christ could lead to an equally warped misconception of the death of Christ.

A second error of prosperity theology, which also leads to a faulty view of the Atonement, is the misinterpretation of 2 Cor. 8:9. Without exception, this is the verse to which prosperity teachers appeal in order to support their view of the Atonement. The verse reads, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.”20 This problem with this interpretation is, of course, that in this verse Paul was in no way teaching that Christ died on the cross for the purpose of increasing anyone’s net worth materially. In fact, Paul was actually teaching the exact opposite principle.

Contextually, it is clear that Paul was teaching the Corinthians that since Christ accomplished so much for them through the Atonement, then how much more ought they empty themselves of their riches in service of the Savior. This is why just five short verses later Paul would urge the Corinthians to give their wealth away to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack.”21 Commentator Philip E. Hughes wrote of 2 Cor. 8:9, “The logic implicit in the statement of this great truth is too obvious for anyone to miss it.”22 Apparently, however, the champions of the prosperity gospel have indeed missed it.

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY AND GIVING

One of the most striking characteristics of the prosperity theologians is their seeming fixation with the act of giving. Students of the prosperity gospel are urged to give generously and are confronted with such pious statements as, “True prosperity is the ability to use God’s power to meet the needs of mankind in any realm of life,”23 and, “We have been called to finance the gospel to the world.”24 While at face value these statements do indeed appear to be praiseworthy, a closer examination of the theology behind them reveals that the prosperity gospel’s emphasis on giving is built on anything but philanthropic motives. The driving force behind this emphasis on giving is what teacher Robert Tilton referred to as the “Law of Compensation.”25 According to this law, which is supposedly based on Mark 10:30,26 Christians need to give generously to others because when they do, God gives back more in return. This, in turn, leads to a cycle of ever-increasing prosperity.

As Gloria Copeland put it, “Give $10 and receive $1,000; give $1,000 and receive $100,000;... in short, Mark 10:30 is a very good deal.”27 It is evident, then, that the prosperity gospel’s doctrine of giving is built upon faulty motives. Whereas Jesus taught His disciples to “give, hoping for nothing in return,”28 prosperity theologians teach their disciples to give because they will get a great return. One cannot help but agree with author Edward Pousson’s observation that the stewardship of “the prosperity message is in captivity to the American dream.”29

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY AND FAITH

A final area of prosperity theology that merits investigation is that of the doctrine of faith. Whereas orthodox Christianity understands faith to be “trust in the person of Jesus Christ, the truth of His teaching, and the redemptive work He accomplished at Calvary,”30 prosperity teachers espouse quite a different doctrine. In his book, The Laws of Prosperity, Kenneth Copeland wrote that “faith is a spiritual force, a spiritual energy, a spiritual power. It is this force of faith which makes the laws of the spirit world function. . . . There are certain laws governing prosperity revealed in God’s Word. Faith causes them to function.”31 This is obviously a faulty, if not heretical, understanding of faith. Later in the same book Copeland wrote that “if you make up your mind . . . that you are willing to live in divine prosperity and abundance, . . . divine prosperity will come to pass in your life. You have exercised your faith.”32 According to prosperity theology, faith is not a theocentric act of the will, or simply trust in God; rather it is an anthropocentric spiritual force, directed at God. Indeed, any theology that views faith solely as a means to material gain rather than the acceptance of heavenly justification must be judged as faulty and inadequate.

The Biblical Interpretation of the Prosperity Gospel

As has already been demonstrated in this paper, the hermeneutics of the prosperity movement leaves much to be desired. Author Ken Sarles wrote of the prosperity teachers that their “method of interpreting the biblical text is highly subjective and arbitrary. Bible verses are quoted in abundance without attention to grammatical indicators, semantic nuances, or literary and historical context. The result is a set of ideas and principles based on distortion of textual meaning.”33 Indeed, a survey of the volumes of literature produced by the prosperity teachers yields numerous examples of such misinterpretations. As was the case in the theological study of this movement, an analysis of all such examples of misinterpreted texts would fall beyond the scope of this study. However, it is possible to choose one verse as an example and to examine both the prosperity gospel and orthodox interpretations of the text.

A suitable verse for this study is 3 John 2.34 In this verse, the Apostle John wrote, “Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.”35 This verse is interpreted by prosperity teachers to mean that God wants all believers to “prosper in all things.” Furthermore, their interpretation of this verse makes clear their claim that material prosperity is inseparably linked to spiritual growth. Oral Roberts, regarded by many to be the father of the prosperity gospel movement, claimed at the beginning of his ministry, during a time of search for direction, that God miraculously led him to 3 John 2, which he understood as a revelation of the prosperity gospel.36

Another faith teacher who has built his ministry around this faulty interpretation of 3 John 2 is Kenneth Copeland. Author Kenneth Kantzer noted that “Copeland misinterprets this [verse] as a universal promise,”37 and writer Bruce Barron remarked that “the Copelands use these words so often that they appear to be the key verse of their ministry.”38 A careful study of 3 John 2, however, reveals that this verse is not a carte blanche approval of prosperity gospel teachings.

Those who use 3 John 2 to support the prosperity gospel are committing two crucial errors, the first contextual and the second grammatical. First, con-textually, one is wise to note that John’s purpose in writing 3 John 2 was not to teach doctrine; it was simply to open his letter with a greeting. This is not to say that doctrine cannot be derived from a nondoctrinal passage, for all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, but it is to say that one must be sensitive to the original author’s intent. Therefore, the claim that 3 John 2 teaches the doctrine of prosperity ought to be regarded as suspect at best. Second, one is wise to note the meaning of the word “prosperity” as it occurs in this verse. The term translated “prosperity” is a form of the Greek word eujodovw. This word, which is used only four times in Scripture, does not mean to prosper in the sense of “gaining material possessions,” but rather means “to grant a prosperous expedition and expeditious journey,” or “to lead by a direct and easy way.”39 The wording of modern translations such as the New International Version even reflect this nuance of the word.40 Therefore it is evident that teachers who understand 3 John 2 to teach prosperity theology are misinterpreting the text.

Conclusion

Through this study of the theology and the biblical interpretation of the prosperity gospel, one may discern five clear reasons why this movement’s teachings concerning wealth are incorrect:

1. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Atonement.

3. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical tachings on giving.

4. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical teachings on faith.

5. The prosperity gospel, in general, has been constructed upon faulty biblical interpretation.

Aside from these five specific theological and biblical arguments against the prosperity gospel, and without even considering the practical implications of this movement,41 there is perhaps one general, summary reason why the prosperity gospel is a wayward gospel: its faulty view of the relationship between God and man. Simply put, if the prosperity gospel is correct, grace becomes obsolete, God becomes irrelevant, and man is the measure of all things. Whether it is the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, faith, or the biblical interpretation of any given verse, the prosperity teacher seeks to turn the relationship between God and man into a financial quid pro quo transaction. As scholar James R. Goff noted, God is “reduced to a kind of ‘cosmic bellhop’ attending to the needs and desires of his creation.”42 This is a wholly inadequate and unbiblical view of the relationship between God and man and the stewardship of wealth.

Note: This article was originally published in Faith and Mission Vol 16, p. 79ff. Published with permission.

"If God is so Good Why does He Let Me Hurt?"

This is probably the biggest question, and the biggest obstacle to trusting God, in Christianity. It's a legitimate question, and it deserves a thoughtful answer that honors the amount of pain attached to it. Disclosure: I am writing this while beset by the most physical pain I've experienced since post-polio syndrome started attacking my body with the "unholy trinity" of pain, weakness and fatigue. It hurts to stand, it hurts to walk. Every single step.

Why does God allow it? And my pain is nothing compared to the horrific suffering of millions around the world. Doesn't He care? Why doesn't He stop it—surely He can. He could stop it all with a single word. So why does He let innocent people—especially children, for heaven's sake—suffer?

We need to put evil and suffering into perspective, and that means the Really Big Picture. Starting before the beginning of time. When all there was, was God: Father, Son and Spirit, engaged in a three-Personed "holy hug" that had no beginning and has no end. A continual celebration of love, adoration, respect, and delight in each other. At some point Father God decided to create mankind and draw us into His circle of love, adopting us as sons (Eph. 1:4-5) and creating a Bride for His eternal Son (Rev. 19:7), a fit companion who would reign with the Lamb (Rev. 22:5).

But God knew that all of human history would unfold between the bookends of the creation of mankind and the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. The God of light and life, of love and truth, knew that all those things are found only in Him; He knew that to reject Him meant choosing darkness and death, isolation and deception. He knew that Adam would rebel, that His perfect creation would crash and burn in the Fall, and that everything would be infected and corrupted by sin. He knew that every human being would be born with a compulsion to reject Him, to live disconnected from Him, independent from Him—something like spiritual HIV+, insuring a death sentence. And sure enough, the mortality rate is still 100%.

God knew all this, and He created us anyway. Because He knew the end result was worth it.

Because God is love, He created people to love, and He created people to love Him back. In order for us to choose to return His love, we needed to be free to choose NOT to love Him. God made us with the very real option to say no to Him, so that our yes would mean something. The alternative would be the equivalent to making a phone say, "Good morning, I love you." The words might be there but there is no heart and no choice behind them—they are nothing more than the result of a programming code. God wanted real and actual love, and that meant that some people He made and dearly loved, could and would say no.

When people say no to God, they not only cut themselves off from relationship with Him, they open the door to all kinds of evil. Some of it comes from sinful human hearts; some of it comes from the demonic realm, angels who also said no to God and became devils. Evil was unleashed by Adam when he disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3) and it has been causing havoc, pain and suffering ever since. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that this world plagued by pain and disease, deliberate meanness and selfishness, is not God's original perfect creation. If it were, God would indeed be a horrible monster. He knew Adam would open the door to all kinds of evil and suffering, and He allowed Adam to do it anyway. Because He knew the end result was worth it.

Why does God let people suffer?

God uses suffering to cleanse us, to mature us, to burn up shallowness. (Please see my article The Value of Suffering.) He uses pain as His instrument to shape us into the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28-29). God has no magic wand that instantly transforms us from something broken and dirty (and we are far more broken and dirty than we have any idea) into something whole and beautiful. There is no divine "Bibbity-Bobbity-Boo."

Instead, the Son left heaven, wrapped Himself in human flesh, and came to earth where He lived a perfect, sinless life. Every day of His earthly life, He suffered as a human, limiting Himself to a body that would get tired, hungry, thirsty and dirty. What the first Adam messed up, Jesus the Second Adam corrected. Where Adam disobeyed the Father, Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb. 5:8). Jesus suffered throughout His incarnation simply because of His limitations as a human, then suffered an unimaginably horrible death through crucifixion, made even worse because He absorbed all the sin of every human being who had ever lived, was living on the earth at that time, and would ever exist in the future. He took our sin into Himself, actually becoming our sin (2 Cor. 5:21), so that when He died, our sin died with Him. But the Father raised Him from the dead, and He is alive at His Father's right hand right now in heaven.

This means that God knows what it means to suffer. There is no pain, no suffering we can endure, that God Himself did not experience even more during Jesus' time on earth. This same suffering God promised, "Behold, I am making all things new" (Rev. 21:5). The Father knew He would send the Son to suffer, and the Son knew that's what He would leave heaven for.

He did it anyway. Because He knew the end result was worth it.

God allows pain and suffering and evil because He has a plan, and He's working His plan. The end result is that He is redeeming and restoring all the evil, pain and suffering of this sin-sick world. He will set all things right in the end. The last chapter of the Bible makes it clear that there is a happy ending to what is NOT a fairy tale. What started out as a Three-Personed holy hug of the Father, Son and Spirit loving each other while still remaining one God, will be a hugely enlarged circle of love that includes millions, possibly billions of people God made in His image, marked "Mine," and drew into the divine circle to love and be loved forever.

At that point I believe we will agree, as we look back on evil, pain and suffering on earth, that it was so, so worth it.


This blog post originally appeared at If God Is So Good, Why Does He Let Me Hurt?

About the Author

Sue BohlinSue Bohlin is an associate speaker with Probe Ministries. She attended the University of Illinois, and has been a Bible teacher and conference speaker for over 35 years. She is a frequent speaker for MOPS (Mothers of Pre-Schoolers) and Stonecroft Ministries (Christian Women's Connections), and serves on the board and as a small group leader of Living Hope Ministries, a Christ-centered outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality. Sue is on the Bible.org Women's Leadership Team and is a regular contributor to Bible.org's Tapestry Blog. She is also a professional calligrapher and the webmistress for Probe Ministries; but most importantly, she is the wife of Dr. Ray Bohlin and the mother of their two grown sons. Her personal website is suebohlin.com.

When did Jesus know that he was God?

When did Jesus know that he was God?
by Matt Slick

The Bible does not tell us if or when Jesus realized he was God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9). We do not know if he always knew he was divine, even in the womb, or if he realized it later on. But each position has its explanatory difficulties. After all, Jesus was made under the Law (Galatians 4:4) and he cooperated with the limitations of being a man (Philippians 2:5-8). Does this require that he also did not know who he was at birth? Not at all. Did the divine nature go "dormant" when Jesus was a baby? If so, what would that even mean? But then again, the divine nature requires that he know all things. However, we see in the Gospels that Jesus, for example, did not know the day nor the hour of his return. It seems in this case he is cooperating with limitations of being a man since he was made under the law. But this does not mean he did not know who he was in his divinity.

Nevertheless, the earliest hint we have of Jesus being aware of who he was as found in Luke 2:41-52 where he and his parents were going to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. It says in verse 42 that he was 12 years old. On their return trip he remained in Jerusalem while his parents in the large caravan returned home. They probably presume she was with other extended family members. When he discovered he was not with them they returned to Jerusalem and when they found him, "And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?" (Luke 2:49). So, we can say that he knew who he was by the age of 12 since he was calling God's own father.

But again, since the Scriptures do not give us enough information to answer the question, we cannot say if and when Jesus came to know that he was God in flesh. So, we should not try and answer the question unless we end up in error.

“What is God’s will for my life?”

When people ask, “What is God’s will for my life?”, or “Am I doing God’s will?”, we should ask, “To which will are you referring?”.

A common challenge for many Christians is determining what the will of God is. At some point in time within our walk with God we’ve all been faced with this challenge of trying to figure out if we’re making the right decisions in life. Decisions such as choosing a college, the right spouse, a job, a car, having children or something such as going on a mission trip. Now these are just a few examples of the types of decisions we can exhaust ourselves with in trying to determine if they’re in fact part of God’s will. I’ve learned that this issue exists for the Christian because we tend to first, misunderstand the will(s) of God, and then, we attempt to apply this sort of misunderstanding to our lives. We then spend an extreme amount of time and energy fretting over it which is something we should not be doing.

So how do we rid ourselves of this dilemma in a practical fashion? I believe we must first understand the will(s) of God and also our place as God’s creation. Let’s start with the latter.

Our Place

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the creation account.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. – Genesis 1:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
We need to remember that God is in control. He is the creator of all that exists. We are not. At one point or another as believers, this slips our mind. It is important to seed this truth deep into our being, reminding ourselves of this daily. This is where we start.

Next we look at what God says about fretting over matters that are beyond our control.

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” – Matthew 6:25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” – Matthew 6:34Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
Here Christ tells us to not be anxious about our lives. He in fact, between verses 25 and 34, reinforces the truth that nothing is out of the view of God. He knows precisely what we need and what is most important as it pertains to our lives. This is important to get because at times we worry that one decision could be the death of us. We could lose our job, our home, all of our income, a scholarship, etc., and with that our whole world could come crumbling down. We would be finished, out on the streets with no job, no home, no income and no future. However Christ tells us that God is completely aware and He will not let us slip through the cracks. This, along with the creation account is foundational to the Christian’s belief system.

Now, let’s look at the will(s) of God. In doing so I believe we will begin to see the intertwining of God’s will and our place in being part of the fulfillment.

Sovereign Will

God has a will that is His sovereign will. This simply means God is in complete and total control of everything and that nothing happens without His acknowledgment, guidance and permission. God is in full and total control. God is not surprised or caught off guard by anything that happens at any point in time. The bible makes this clear.

“Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” – Psalms 115:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.” – Proverbs 16:9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” – Ephesians 1:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
The bible in fact is littered with verses speaking to the sovereignty of God. 1 Chronicles 29:11–12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) is another great example. These verses and the many more that exist within scripture affirm God’s complete control over His creation.
It is actually to the folly of man to think he controls anything as it relates to the divine operation of creation.

Divine Providence

Providential will is another “will” of God. It is essentially the means God uses in order for His sovereign will to be fulfilled. It is the how God goes about affirming that He in fact is in complete and total control of everything stemming from the universe to the very affairs of men. It speaks against the idea of deism, the belief that God is not involved in the very universe He created. Scripture displays God’s providential will at work.

“who rules by his might forever, whose eyes keep watch on the nations— let not the rebellious exalt themselves.”
Selah – Psalms 66:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“who has kept our soul among the living and has not let our feet slip.” – Psalms 66:9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,” – Galatians 1:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” – Genesis 50:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
We can even see God working in the life of Pharoah who was against God’s people.

“But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, 4 Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.” – Exodus 7:3–4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
Also in the life of Joseph where he was sold into slavery by his brothers.

“And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.” – Genesis 45:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
What we see in scripture is that God intervenes in our lives and even directs our decision making. There is nothing we do that is outside of God’s will. This is an important point to understand because if we were able to operate outside or external to God’s sovereign will, then we would essentially be God. It is also important to note that God intervenes in our lives without violating our own moral responsibilties. A good example of that is in the case of Pharaoh who enslaved the people of Israel. Scripture tells us God hardened his heart (Exodus 7:3–4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) however Pharaoh was already an enemy of God, obvious by the fact he enslaved God’s people. So it isn’t like God changed the heart of a morally good, God loving man, into an evil hard hearted one. God simply directed an already rebellious heart for His purposes which led to the freeing of His people. The point is, we are all still culpable for the choices we make and we have the ability to make choices. However in the grand scheme of it all, there is no such thing as true free will. Why? Because God is sovereignly in control.

Permissive Will

God’s permissive will can be defined as God’s allowance or permission of acts to happen which will still ultimately lead to His ordained purposes. They are acts that He does not actually decree to come to past. Sin is the idea here. God allows sin to take place and for man to rebel against Him. However, God is still in control as nothing is outside of His sovereign will. God is not surprised by any of our actions.

“Now a large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, and they begged him to let them enter these. So he gave them permission.” – Luke 8:32Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind” — Jeremiah 19:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
Something that is also important to note is the fact that God does not reveal everything to us as it pertains to His will. When He does, it is by way of His Preceptive Will.

Preceptive Will

God’s preceptive will relates to what God desires for man in accordance to His precepts (moral instructions on how we should follow Him). This is the revealed will of God that is made known through the word of God. It reveals how man should live, what God expects of man, how this leads to God’s glorification and the salvation of man. We can see examples of this in scripture.

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,” – 1 Thessalonians 4:3–4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“not by the way of eye- service, as people- pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,” – Ephesians 6:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” – Romans 12:2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
The bible, throughout the old and new testament, reveals to us what God’s will is for all mankind. God desires and calls men to Christ for the purposes of salvation, for the glorification of God and so that we may enjoy God for all eternity. That is the point of everything. It is the reason why Christ was sent and crucified.

We can see that there are different wills to God and depending on what part of the bible we read the context of God’s will can change. When people ask, “What is God’s will for my life?”, or “Am I doing God’s will?”, we should ask, “To which will are you referring?”. You see, there isn’t just one will. This shouldn’t cause us to fret though for discerning God’s will is not as difficult as it seems.

Recapping we know a few things:

God is the creator of all there is to include mankind.
It is a sin to fret over things in life as if God lacks the ability to care for or direct His children.
God is ultimately in complete and total control of all things in existence.
God is involved with His creation to include mankind’s decisions however mankind is still culpable for his sins.
God permits certain things to happen, namely sin, in order for His purposes to be fulfilled.
God reveals to mankind what He wants man to know and this is done through His holy word.
So our takeaway is that whatever decision you are making or have made, God is aware of it. In fact He knew what decision you were going to make before you made it. If God doesn’t want us in a certain place, He has the means and ability to prevent it. If he wants us in a certain place, He has the means and ability to move us there. We should not be fretting over God’s will. What He has made clear to us, in His word, is what He desires for us believers. That is to live holy, know Him more, enjoy Him forever and for God to be forever glorified in this truth. What God has revealed, His preceptive will, is what we should set our sights upon. We should ask God in prayer, to lead us in our decision making process so we live following these precepts while carrying out the Great Commission. Lastly, we are to completely trust our lives over to God, being faithful that He is in full and total control.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses
by Matt Slick

Jehovah's Witness doctrines
There is no Trinity (Let God be True, pp. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p. 386); The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force (The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 24); 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).
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, p. 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).
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, pp. 59, 60, 67); There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished (Let God be True, pp. 79, 80).
The soul ceases to exist after death (Let God be True, pp. 59, 60, 67); There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished (Let God be True, pp. 79, 80); Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses go to heaven (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121). Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses are born again (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 76.; The Watchtower Nov. 15, 1954, p. 681).
Salvation according to the Jehovah's Witnesses
According to the Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12, there are four requirements for salvation: "Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey God's laws, yes, to conform one's life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life. 1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Pet. 4:3, 4."
See quote in context
Ask the JW if he/she is doing what the Watchtower says to do. Are you keeping God's laws?
If the JW says he isn't, then why not? Is he disobeying the Watchtower?
The Watchtower says you have to obey God's laws. Which laws are those you have to obey? Which moral requirements must you obey?
"Yes, there are various things involved in getting saved. We must take in accurate knowledge of God's purposes and his way of salvation. Then we must exercise faith in the Chief Agent of salvation, Jesus Christ, and do God's will the rest of our lives" (John 3:16; Titus 2:14) (The Watchtower, Sept 15, 1989, p. 7).
See quote in context--at end of page
"When a person, on the basis of the Scriptural knowledge he has gained, has belief It would be a mistake for him [one who has belief in Christ] to think that he is now saved and cannot fall. He must show by his endurance in the Christian faith that he is worthy of salvation . . . Salvation from death is a gift from God to those that obey him, not to those that disobey" (The Watchtower, March 1, 1960, p. 134).
See quote in context
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
"It is evident from this [Rom. 10:9-10] that besides faith and baptism, public declaration to the effect that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised him up from the dead is a requirement for salvation" (The Watchtower, May 1, 1979, p. 15, Baptism, A Christian Requirement).
"These foregoing scriptures [Dt. 27:9, 10; 30:1-10] clearly show that obedience brings harmony and friendship with Jehovah, peace, salvation, testing for approval, release from oppression, and punishment upon the enemies of his own people . . . " (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1952, p. 559).
The Watchtower Organization is the Prophet of God.
"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, April 1, 1972, p. 197).
Link: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/jehovahs-witness-organization-prophet-god
If the Watchtower Organization is a prophet of God, why has it made false prophecies?
1897 "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, p. 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, 1908 ed., p. 101).
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, p. 89).
1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914" (The Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 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, April 1, 1923, p. 106).
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, January 1, 1925, p. 3).
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, p. 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, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 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, Oct. 8, 1968).
1968 "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" (The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494).
Watchtower's control over its people.
"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, p. 402).
Link: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/knowing-bible-possible-only-through-jehovahs-witness
"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).
Part A: "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 . . . " (The Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, pp. 79-80).
Part B: "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, Feb. 1, 1952, pp. 79-80).
"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).
"We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his word and channel of communication" (The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967, p. 591).
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, Oct. 1, 1994, p. 8).
"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).
Who is the Faithful and Wise Servant?
"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" (The Watchtower, Dec. 1, 1919, p. 357).
"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 . . . 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" (The Watchtower, January 15, 1969, p. 51).
Jesus is present since 1874.
"But now we are in the end of this Gospel age, and the Kingdom is being established or set up. Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874, A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear; and the formal inauguration of his kingly office dates from April 1878 A.D." (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, p. 621).
Link: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/jesus-present-1874
Jesus is Abaddon and Apollyon the Destroyer.
"When Jesus was on earth as a man, he was a Hebrew, and now in his capacity as Jehovah's royal Executioner he is called by the Hebrew name Abad'don, which means Destruction (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; 12:23; 14:19). In the Greek in which the inspired Christian Scriptures were written his similar title is Apollyon, which means Destroyer" (The Watchtower, Dec. 1, 1961, p. 719).
Link: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/jesus-abaddon-and-apollyon-destroyer
Jesus mediates only for the 144,000,
"Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members" (The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide, 1986, p. 10).
Link: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/jesus-mediates-only-144-000-jehovahs-witnesses
Does Jesus mediate for the average JW? Nope. " . . . Jesus Christ is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members" (The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide, 1986, p. 10).
If Jesus is the mediator only for the 144,000, then the average JW has no mediator before God. Without a mediator, they are damned.
Jesus' Resurrection
John 2:19-21, "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? 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
The JW's say Jesus was not raised physically even though Jesus Himself contradicts what they say. Note that John the apostle says Jesus was speaking of His body, the temple that would be raised. The JW's are wrong.
Bible Verses Examined
Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am the Lord [YHWH]; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them."
If God appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty (Ex. 6:2-3) yet Jesus says that no man as seen the Father at any time (John 6:46), then who were they seeing if it was God Almighty, but not the Father?
Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no savior besides Me."
If there is no savior besides God (Is. 43:11; 45:21), then how can Jesus, a created thing, be the savior?
In what sense is God alone the savior? Simple, only God forgives our sins, and only God provides the provision for our forgiveness through Christ. Yet, Jesus is the Savior who forgives sins and is Himself the provision. How can Jesus then be a created thing?
Matt. 24:36, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
Rev. 19:12-13, "And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God."
John 1:1--The JW's say that Jesus is "a" god.
If Jesus is "a" god, then isn't that polytheism?
If Jesus is "a" god, then how many gods are there in JW theology?
If Jesus is "a" god, then is he a true God or false god since the Bible says there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8)?
If Jesus is "a" god, then why does he tell people to come to him and not the Father (Matt. 11:28)?
John 5:18
If it was only the Jews who thought that Jesus was making Himself equal to God, then please point out in John's gospel what Jesus said and did that would cause the Jews to think this. If you cannot find the place in scripture, if it isn't there, then the only thing left to conclude is that the comment is John's and not that of the Jews.
If John is merely reporting the error of the Jews' thinking and Jesus was not really God, then why didn't John the apostle clarify the situation? After all, it is a perfect opportunity to do so, especially since John records corrections of the Jews in John 8:48-49 and 21:23.
John 8:58--JW's Bible says, "Before Abraham was, I have been," not "I AM."
If that is true, then why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? Later, in John 10:31 the Jews wanted to kill him because Jesus made himself out to be God.
The Jews who killed Jesus denied that Jesus was God. So, the JW's agree with the Jews that Jesus is not God.
John 14:28, "You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
The JW's say that when Jesus says the Father is greater than He, that it means Jesus isn't divine. But this is not logically true. Jesus was speaking of position--not nature. A husband is greater in authority than his wife, but they are equal in nature.
The JW's fail to understand that Jesus was in a humbled state (Heb. 2:9) and made under the Law (Gal. 4:4). Jesus was in a lower position because He was a man as well as divine. He has two natures: human and divine. The incarnation answers the JW's objections.
John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
If John 17:3 means that the Father is the only true God, then Jude 4 means that Jesus is our only Lord and Master because it says Jesus is our ONLY Lord and Master. Therefore, the Father is not our Lord.
You don't make doctrine out of one verse, especially since the Bible says that Jesus is God in Heb. 1:8 and John 20:28.
John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], My Lord and my God!
Why did Thomas call Jesus both Lord and God in John 20:28? Can you also call Jesus your Lord and your God? The true Jesus (of the Bible) is called Lord and God by His disciple. If you are a disciple of Jesus, can you also call Him your Lord and God? If not, why not?
1 Cor. 1:2, "to 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, "call upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]" is used in the OT only in reference to God (i.e., 116:4)--never anyone else. Yet, the Greek equivalent (LXX) of the phrase is applied to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2. It says that the church "calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus." Why is a phrase used ONLY of God in the OT applied to Jesus in the NT?
The LXX translates "call upon the name of YHWH" as "call upon the name of the Lord [kurios]." The phrase "call upon the name of the Lord" is applied to Jesus.
Col. 1:15--"And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation."
The JW's say that "firstborn" means first created. It doesn't. The following two verses demonstrate that "firstborn" is a title of pre-eminence 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." AND, Jer. 31:9, " . . . for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn."
Therefore, the JW fails to understand the complete meaning of "firstborn."
Heb. 1:3
If Jesus is the "the exact representation of his [God] very being" (Heb. 1:3, NWT), then how is Jesus (who is only a man) God's exact representation? It makes no sense. But, if Jesus is both God and man (Col. 2:9), then Jesus can be the exact representation of God's nature because He HAS A DIVINE nature.
If the JW Jesus was first an angel and became a man, then the angel stopped being angelic in nature, changed natures, became a man, and he yet was the "exact representation" (Heb. 1:3, NWT) of God? How is that so?
COMMENTS:
The JW's agree with the Pharisees who condemned Jesus--that Jesus is not God in flesh. They accused Jesus of claiming to be God (John 10:33). But, of course they denied that Jesus was God--just the same as the JW's do.
Does the term SON OF GOD mean that Jesus is not God? If so, then does the term SON OF MAN mean that Jesus is not a man?
If the term SON OF GOD means that Jesus is a man, then what does the term SON OF MAN mean?
If the term SON OF MAN means that Jesus is a man, then what does the term SON OF GOD mean?
John 1:1 is dealing with God's nature since it says the Word was God. Dealing with the nature of God we understand that there is only one God (Is. 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5). To say that the Word was "a" god is far too close to polytheism in the context.
Jesus said that the greatest act of love is to die for another (John 15:13). The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:8). In the the Trinity God performs the greatest act of love by dying for those whom, he saves in the person of Jesus. But in the JW's, God can't do it, and God is outdone by a creature. This is an incongruity the JW's cannot resolve.
What is the greatest act of love?
Jesus said it was to lay one's life down for his friends. In John 15:13 Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
Can Allah perform the greatest act of love? No.
QUESTIONS
Death and ceasing to exist: In Luke 8:55 the verse speaks about a girl who was dead and how Jesus raised her. It says, "And her spirit returned, and she rose immediately; and He gave orders for something to be given her to eat." If the soul and the body are one and the same and if when the body dies the spirit dies (ceases to be), then how can her spirit return to her dead body? Wouldn't it have ceased to exist?
God doesn't want any to perish: I've always wondered why Jesus spoke in parables so people will not be saved, (Mark 4:10-12) and yet also God desires that all be saved (2 Pet. 3:9). Can you explain how these two verses go together?
Does the term "Son of God" mean that Jesus is not God? If so, then what does the term "Son of Man" mean . . . that he is not man? Could someone clarify that? I'm curious. Thanks.