Category Archives: Apologetics

Young Earth, Old Earth, and Hair Splitting.

Recently the world witnessed the “Great debate” between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The debate was to focus on the origin of life and whether or not creationism is a viable option and model for how life began. I personally was not very impress with either side. I think, however, both men, Ken Ham and Bill Nye, brought out a few descent points. Ken Ham’s primary point focused on the fact that creationism is more than a viable option for the beginning of origins, but is the most logical view based on modern science. Bill Nye on the other hand, though not able to stay on the subject very well, did bring out an interesting point which does give many Christians a headache: How can one say the earth is only 6,000 years old in light of data of the opposite in science today? After this debate the ole debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism was refueled. Does the bible tell us how old the earth is? Does it really matter? Should Christians be splitting hairs over it? Let’s deal with these three questions in detail.

First question: Does the bible tell us how old the earth is? The answer: No. There is not a hint in the book of Genesis whatsoever that clearly tells us or even indicates to us how old the earth is. Young earth creationist would want us to believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Young earth creationists interpret creation to have taken place in six literal days over a literal twenty-four hour period of time. Also young earth creationist attempt to use the first genealogical records in Genesis to tell us we have been here for only 6,000 years. Lastly they pull the event of The Flood into play to attempt to further solidify their position. I find the reasons giving by young earth creationists to be lacking and begging many questions.

The first issue is how young earth creationists seem to automatically assume “Yom”, the Hebrew word for “day”, means a literal twenty-four hour day in Genesis chapter one. Yom can also mean “over a period of time” like it does in Joel 2:31 where the “Day of the LORD” will be longer than a twenty-four hour period. So to randomly pick Yom to mean a literal twenty-four period without further biblical reasons is unjustifiable.

The second issue is using the first genealogical records in Genesis to attempt to show that we have only been here for 6,000 years. There is only one huge problem with this: What does our length of time on earth have to do with the age of the earth? There seems to be a categorical mistake here. The issue of debate and discussion is not how long humanity have been here, but how long the earth have been here! This is about whether the earth is a young planet or a old planet, not whether or not humanity is young or old. Therefore attempting to prove how long humanity has been in existence is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

So then, is the earth a old earth according to the bible? As I stated earlier the answer would be no. An old earth creationist position primarily depends on the scientific data in geology. Geologists estimate the age of earth to be at 4.5 billion years old. Secular and many Christian scientists agree on this age estimate. Old earth creationists find their age estimate to be far most accurate and scientific than the young earth position which has little to no scientific evidence to support their age estimate of the earth. Ultimately the bible is silent on the age of the earth. Christians must therefore rely on science to give us the best estimate of the age of the earth. Please do remember that good science do in fact exist and has been a tremendous blessing to the Christian Church in the past in affirming the scientific truths which are in the bible such as the universe and earth having a beginning (Cosmology) and both being enriched in design (Teleology), just to name a few.

The second question: Does it really matter whether the earth is young or old? No it does not. We must first recognize that the debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism is a non-essential issue for the Christian Church. A Christian’s salvation does not depend upon believing in either view regarding the earth’s age. What is essential for the Church and the Christian individually is believing the biblical record in Genesis 1:1, ” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While such a debate can be intellectually healthy and stimulating, the debate is in no way a matter of spiritual life and spiritual death. Those who would treat the issue as such are part of the hair splitting problem which leads now to our final question.

The final question: Should Christians be splitting hairs over this issue? Absolutely not! Only immature Christians and Christians who are unnecessarily and unjustifiably dogmatic about this debatable issue split hairs and cause unwarranted divisions in the Christian Church. There is no biblical reason for dividing over the age of the earth. If the issue was whether or not God is the Creator of the earth and universe, then it would be a serious issue if a professing Christian denied God as the Author of creation and gave that title to macro-evolution. The bible is replete with verses which declare God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all which are in them (Gen.1:1, Ecc. 12:1, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 1:25, etc.). It is heart-breaking when Christians divide over such non-essential issues such as the age of the earth. I recently experienced that pain and hurt when a dear brother in Christ unlike this ministry page because of this issue. He strongly holds to the young earth view and I lean toward the old earth view. Just because I had sound reasons for not agreeing with young earth creationism, he unlike the ministry page. Even more sad was that his reasons for his position was word for word from a YouTube video making the case for young earth creationism. Little to none of his reasons for believing in young earth creationism was his own; which is a huge no no when doing apologetics. You must make the position your own and have YOUR own reasons why you hold to your view. Otherwise you become nothing more than a parrot apologist: Simply repeating what you heard from someone else.

In conclusion we must be mature Christians when we are dealing with this non-essential issue and any other non-essential issue which are regularly debated in Christian circles. In the debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism, the bible does not give us a definite answer or any indications as to if the earth is young or old. Instead of being dogmatic on this issue and splitting hairs, we must humbly choose to agree to disagree with the person we disagree with. We must be united in Christ in the one biblical proof we have on this subject: God is the Author and Creator of all which is in the heavens and in the earth. Let us unite with the Psalmist in saying, ” The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork (Psalm 19:1).” Let us grow up in maturity in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yeezianity and the Importance of Apologetics.

Leave a reply

This morning I read an article on how some youth are falling away from the Church and Christianity for what is called, “Yeezianity.” Yeezianity is derived from rapper Kanye West’s character “Yeezus.” These young people are not merely extreme groupies of the rapper. No. It runs deeper than that. These youths are gravitating to Yeezianity for more meaningful reasons and the Christian Church for most part has failed to address their questions and concerns. Even though there are a number of churches, pastors, evangelists, theologians, philosophers, and apologists dedicating their lives whole heartily to giving reasons for the Christian faith, yet still there are far too many Christians who are not doing so and as a result we see such tragedies as this happening every single day. Let us see a couple of the reasons why these youth are turning from Christianity to Yeezianity.

The first reason why these young people are turning from Christianity and the Church is because they think they are irrelevant. These youth say that the Church is too ancient and are turned off by church lingo or as I called it, “Christian-eeze”. Further as the article states it, ” Many feel the church is simply old-fashioned. The church has failed to address concerns young people are faced with today (Liberty Voice, www.guardianlv.com).” Here is where the problem lies. The Christian Church for most part is ill-equipped to answer the problems of life, doubt, and truth. Instead of Christians following the biblical command of I Peter 3:15 to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who ask for a reason for the hope that is in you”, many Christians silently sit on their bibles and act like fideists (those who reject the need for apologetics and just believe by faith) while the youth and others search and get answers from false religions, cults, the occult, and false philosophies. I submit to you then that it is not Christianity and the Church that is irrelevant, it is the uttermost failure of the Church to address the problems that face our youth today. It is no reason it is always the Church that the people hate and barely ever Jesus Himself. Jesus in His earthly ministry never shied away from the issues of His day so why are we doing the complete opposite? I think part of becoming like Jesus is dealing with the issues and giving answers to those who are genuinely seeking them. If we are not doing so, can we honestly say we are becoming more like Christ Jesus our Lord?

The second reason these youth are leaving the Church is due to a lack of understanding about the seriousness of sin and God’s justice. These young people are complaining that the Church “wastes too much time harping on sex.” (Liberty Voice, www.guardianlv.com) The youth feel that “whether it is a sin or not does not concern them as much as other issues which they feel the church overlooks such as education, hunger, homelessness and poverty.” (Liberty Voice, www.guardianlv.com) While it is important to be concerned about these issues raised by the youth, still this is not the main concern. The issue of sin is the main concern and it is articulated as so throughout the bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament. It seems to me that not only has the Church failed to give apologetic answers to the questions of these young people, but also the Church has failed to show why they need salvation by biblically demonstrating why sin is in fact a very serious matter and problem and the consequences which are attached to it. Nobody must have told them that sin is breaking God’s law (I John 3:4) and all a person has to do is sin just once and they are guilty of sin and are condemned by God and separated from Him plus the wrath of God is upon him/her. (James 2:10, Isaiah 64:6, John 3:36) As evangelist Ray Comfort as said time and time again, until a sinner see how serious sin is in God’s eyes, sinners will not see the need for a savior. This is exactly the case here. Until we as Christians begin to give a biblical apologia for the nature of sin, the seriousness of sin, and God’s justice, young people will continue to think just like these “Yeezus” followers do about sin.

In closing we should now see why apologetics is so important. Unlike in the days of DL Moody, Charles Spurgeon, and others who preached in a time when Christianity and the Bible was accepted at face value, we as Christians today are faced with questions about life and its many problems, the evil in our world, the existence of God, and many other critically important questions. We cannot afford to take a long leap into the dark by faith like the fidiests when God has giving us the answers we need; both for ourselves and for others. If the truth truly sets us free as Jesus said it would (John 8:32), why are we not seeking the truth and in turn giving that truth out to those who need it? If we agree with Jesus that God’s word, the Bible, is truth (John 17:17) then we are absolutely responsible to proclaim that truth in a world of lies and deception. May we go forth in the power of the Holy Spirit and fight the good fight of faith.

Cults, Religions, and Finite Godism.

3 Replies

In America we live in a melting pot of cultures, ideologies, philosophies, and theologies. As pertaining to religion, we live in an religious pluralistic melting pot. It is easy for us as Christians to learn about other faiths by the click of a mouse or by striking up a conversation with a person of another faith at work, school, on the street, or in your own neighborhood. It is because of this easy access to such knowledge through books, internet websites, and personal encounters about these faiths we as Christians get to see the diversity in theologies and philosophies and learn how to reach them more effectively both apologetically and evangelistically. We learn of their different gospels, Christology’s (teachings on Jesus), and theological ideas about the person and nature of God. We learn how all religions apart from Christianity rejects the orthodox and biblical doctrine of the Trinity: One God who exist as three eternal and distinct persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). They are the same in nature, substance, and essence, but different in person and office. This perhaps can be termed theologically and philosophically as Triune Monotheism. Judaism and World Islam are more of a strict singular Monotheism in which their god consist of no Godhead. In studying other faiths, whether they be cults (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Word of Faith movement, etc.) or other religions (Islam, Judaism, etc.) we find their various weaknesses and in turn we show them in love such weaknesses against the never-changing truths of Christianity which is God’s truth (Malachi 3:6, John 17:17). One such study that has caught my attention is how many, if not all cults and religions follow a finite god, which is better termed finite godism. In this blog we will see what finite godism is, then see how the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Word of Faith movement, and World Islam worship a finite god and finally conclude with the superiority of the Infinite God of Christianity.

The term finite godism may not be a very familiar term if you have little to no knowledge of philosophy. There is no reason to fear, however, because the definition is very easy to remember. Finite godism: a god with limitations in goodness or power or limited in both goodness and power. A finite god can be limited in power, for instance, a finite god is incapable of creating the world out of nothing, ex nihilo, so this finite god creates something from something else, ex materia. A Infinite God, such as the Christian God, created the universe and the earth and all that are in them by the Word of His power (Genesis 1:3-21, Hebrews 1:1-3 11:3).

An example of a god who is limited in his goodness is a god who is incapable of putting an end to evil in the world. If such a god cannot put an end to evil, such a god either: 1. Doesn’t exist. 2. Is a finite being. Therefore the only god who can ultimately put an end to evil is the Infinite God of Christianity (Ecclesiastes 12:14, Hebrews 9:27, Revelations 20). Now that we have the understanding of what finite godism is and a couple of examples have been giving in order to make the meaning unmistakably clear, we will move on beginning with certain members of the Kingdom of the Cults.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are no strangers to anyone. Their two-by-two evangelistic method, Watchtower and Awake magazines, and Sunday morning attire are among the hallmarks of identifying them. Ethically they reject blood transfusions by equating it with drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-11). Theologically they reject the deity of Jesus by claiming He is a lesser god, or as John 1:1 in the New World Translation states it, ” In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” There are so many points which we could make regarding the theological differences between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christianity, but that is a whole new blog all together! Where I wish for us to go here is to make the case why the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in and worship a finite god.

As I stated earlier, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is a lesser god, a god, according to their New World Translation. This Christological view they presently hold to was not always the Christological view they held to. In their 1901 American Standard Version bible, John 1:1 reads as follows, ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Wow! What a huge change Christologically! Here we see Jesus go from being God to being a lesser god. Is not the Bible the very Word of God, God-breathed? According to one of their main pieces of literature, ” What does the Bible really teach”, on page 18, they called the Bible, ” A book from God”. Furthermore on page 19 they say, ” the Bible ‘is inspired by God (2nd Timothy 3:16).'” In their other authoritative book, ” Reasoning from the Scriptures”, on page 58, when giving reasons for considering the Bible, they said, ” The Bible itself says it is from God, mankind’s Creator.” So since they claim that their Bible is from God and is His Word, then which is it? Is Jesus God or a lesser god? Obviously Jesus can’t be both. Either Jesus is the almighty God, creator of the heavens and the earth, or Jesus is a lesser god. Therefore since Jehovah God, the God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses changed his mind about the nature of his son Jesus, then this god must be a finite god because this god is finite in his ability to know. This god is untrustworthy when it comes to knowing truth.

The next cult on the discussion table is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or as they are better known as Mormons. Similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses they are known also for their two-by-two evangelistic method and Sunday morning attire. They are even more easily identified by their means of transportation: bicycles. Theologically the Mormons are known for their polytheism and henotheism, which means they believe in many gods (polytheism), but worship only one of them as the chief God (henotheism). Other beliefs include the doctrine of Mormons progressing to godhood. As Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism once taught, ” As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, pg. 59).” Other teachings from the Mormon Church include the pre-existence of the soul (Greek philosophy) and the controversial doctrine of the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer.

The beginning of the Mormon church hinges on the vision Joseph Smith, Jr. received in the Spring of 1820 of God the Father and Jesus. It is in this vision that they told Joseph that all the Christian churches was an abomination in His sight. It is from this point on that Joseph Smith, Jr. began the Mormon church and claimed it as the one true church. Such a claim as this begs the question: If all the churches of Christendom were corrupt and an abomination in his sight, why did the god of Mormonism wait until 1820 to correct the problem by reforming the Church through Joseph Smith, Jr.? Furthermore if this claim is true, then all the “Christians” from the death of the last Apostle on were actually false Christians. This brings the goodness and power of the god of Mormonism into question. Why would this god allow demonic deception to go on unchecked for so long? Why would this god fail to keep his truth in the earth? Was the god of Mormonism overpowered by Satan due his finitude or did he intentionally allow his truth to be eradicated by the devil until 1820? If Satan overpowered the god of Mormonism due to his finitude, then such a god can never overcome evil. If the god of Mormonism intentionally allowed his truth to be eradicated from the earth, then this god is unquestionably not good, but evil. Either way, this god is finite and is not worthy of worship.

The last cult group we will discuss is the Word of Faith movement. This group is well known for preaching the “Health, Wealth, and Prosperity” gospel. Faithful viewers of “Christian television” are more than familiar with names like Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyers, and other well known names within the movement. Theologically the Word of Faith movement teaches that Jesus went to hell to be tortured by Satan and his demons, atoned for our sins in hell, and was the first man born-again. Other doctrines include Christians being little gods, positive confession (New Age concept), and guaranteed healing for the believer in Christ.

The greatest proof I think for finite godism in the Word of Faith movement is its doctrine of prayer or as it should be clearly termed as positive confession. According to Word of Faith theology concerning prayer and positive confession, the answer to or the lack of answer to your prayer is not dependent upon God, but wholly depend upon you. The late Kenneth Hagin, Sr. taught the following, “Often you create your own negative situations yourself with wrong thinking, wrong believing, and wrong speaking. So start believing according to God’s Word. Then begin making positive confessions of faith and victory over your life. … You will never receive anything from God beyond the words you speak ( The Word of Faith, “You Can Have What You Say”). Kenneth Copeland taught the following, “What you are saying is exactly what you are getting now. If you are living in poverty and lack and want, change what you are saying…. The powerful force of the spiritual world that creates the circumstances around us is controlled by the words of the mouth.” (The Laws of Prosperity, Kenneth Copeland, Ft. Worth: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1974). If our words determine our circumstances and what we receive from God, then God’s actions are subject to our words; otherwise God cannot act in the earth and especially not in the life of one of His followers. The god of the Word of Faith movement then is a helpless being who cannot proceed to bless his children because his children through doubt and negative confessions handcuff him, preventing him from blessing them. Therefore this is a finite god because his power and ability to bless his children are regulated by his finite children’s words.

We now move from the Kingdom of the Cults to World Religions where we will discuss World Islam which is the second largest religion in the world behind Christianity according to statistics. It is a religion founded by the “prophet” Muhammad in about the six century A.D. The name of the god of World Islam is Allah, a purely monotheistic being. Theologically Islam strongly rejects the Trinity according to Sura 4:171 and confuses the biblical doctrine of the Trinity as Father, Mary, and Jesus according to Sura 5:116. Other Islamic doctrines include Jesus has only a prophet and nothing more and Muhammad as the last prophet of Allah.

The Islamic holy book, the Quran, interestingly teaches the doctrine of abrogation. In Sura 16:101 it says, ” When we substitute one revelation for another, and God knows best what he reveals (in stages), they say, ‘ Thou art a forger’ : but most of them understand not.” This is highly problematic in the same way it is for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For Allah to abrogate one revelation and replace it with another revelation which contradicts the previous revelation demonstrates how this god is subject to change his mind on any given subject matter. If this is so, as the Quranic text is teaching, then this god Allah is finite in knowledge. Therefore we cannot receive reliable knowledge and truth from such a god as Allah.

In conclusion we see finite godism in these selected cults and religion. Finite godism is found in other cults and religions as well, but these examples will suffice us. A finite god is a god who is doomed to fail. Such a god is limited in power and goodness and such a god is unrealistic in light of the present and future state of our world. A finite god is truly incompatible with reality and should be rejected. The biblical God of Christianity is perfect goodness, ” Far it be from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25) God is all-powerful and does all He pleases and is in need of no one’s assistance, ” Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying. ‘ My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.'” (Isaiah 46:9-10). Only an infinite God is compatible with our falling world that is self-destructing before our very eyes. The God of the Bible will in perfect goodness and omnipotence make all wrongs right again for He is infinite and Holy. The infinite God of the Christian faith is reliable and trustworthy in giving us truth, which is what we need. That truth is ultimately found in the person and work of Jesus Christ, ” Jesus said to him, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'” (John 14:6)

What is the Origin of Marriage Revisted.

Leave a reply

Many issues in the news these days have generated a myriad of discussions, such as the economy, gun control, and North Korea’s potential nuclear threat against South Korea and the United States. There is, however, a critical issue that is at the forefront both here in Illinois and the entire nation: Same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has been a fiercely debated topic for a number of years, particularly between the homosexual community and the religious community; but it has grown now into a social and political issue. As a matter of fact, it has now been labeled a civil rights issue by well-known homosexuals like Rosie O’ Donnell. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against because of the nature of their sexuality. The privileges that heterosexuals enjoy such as health care benefits and so forth are commonly withheld from them and, additionally, the very right to be legally and happily married to one another is also withheld from them. The fight, therefore, for equal martial rights is more intense now than ever before. There is a question, however, that has yet to be asked; one which I find to be critical as it pertains to marriage: What is the origin of marriage? Is there such an origin? Where did marriage originate and who was the originator? Does marriage have rules and regulations that we human beings must abide by? I must conclude that the answer to that question is an affirmative yes. In the following paragraphs a case will be made in an attempt to answer this all important question: What is the origin of marriage?

In order to discuss what the origin of marriage is, we must be intellectually honest and reasonable. The wise words of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche should be heeded as we begin:

“There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value. This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)

There are only two alternatives to explain the origin of marriage: the evolutionary process or God (the Divine). Marriage as an evolutionary process (whose origin is non-existence) is defined as a progression in intelligence where marriage is no longer limited to one sexual preference. Since the origin of marriage by evolutionary processes is nonexistence, same-sex marriages are neither moral nor immoral, and marriage itself is relative, progressive, and essentially defined as nonexistence. The other alternative to explain the origin of marriage is the Divine (God): By this we mean that God is the One who gave humanity the concept and institution of marriage. God is the one who originated marriage and furthermore, it is God who has defined what marriage is and what it is not. This view is established and rooted in the historical Holy Scriptures. It is in the Holy Scriptures that marriage is not only viewed objectively but also grounded in absolutes; particularly moral absolutes. Which of these two alternative views regarding the origin of marriage appears more plausible?

Linking the origin of marriage to evolutionary processes is not fitting because, as stated in the previous paragraph, to do so means to conclude that there is no origin for marriage at all. It is to say also that all forms of marriage are equally acceptable because within an evolutionary frame work moral absolutes are nonexistent and marriage for all those who desire it is relative. Why should the government forbid any form of marriage within this framework? To do so is to make a moral judgment they are not entitled to make, to deny one’s civil rights and their pursuit of happiness, and to totally undermine their freedom of expression. Therefore, marriage in evolutionary terms where an origin is nonexistence, is a subjective slippery slope.

Linking the origin of marriage to God, particularly the God of Holy Scripture, is the shoe that fits the foot perfectly. With God as the originator of marriage, the essence of the nature of marriage is more clearly seen. Marriage is personally rooted in commitment, love, intimacy and faithfulness. These attributes are all found in God because God is a personal Being. Since God is personal in nature and marriage is personal in nature, there is sound reason to believe that the origin of marriage is rooted in God.

If we conclude, based on sound reasoning, that the origin of marriage is rooted in God, then our next focus is when and where did it all begin? According to the first two chapters of the Old Testament book of Genesis, it all began in the Garden of Eden. God creates the first male, who is named Adam. Genesis 2:18 seems to indicate that, in the process of time, man was in need of companionship apart from the companionship he had with God: “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him.’” It is here that God puts Adam to sleep and takes one of his ribs and creates the first female. When Adam awakens from sleep and sees the woman God created he says, “’This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24). This is what Bible scholars and theologians describe as the first marriage vows. It is here we not only see the first marriage, but also the kind of marriage it was: heterosexual and monogamous. In Genesis 2:24 it is commanded of newly married men to leave their parent’s household and be joined to their wife. This command did not entail or pertain to any other kind of unions; same-sex or otherwise.

There isn’t any place in the entire Bible where same-sex marriages are sanctioned by God, nor do we see homosexuality viewed in a positive light. On the contrary, biblical text like Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, and 1^st Corinthians 6:9 presents homosexuality in a very negative light. If God is the origin of marriage then, based on scriptural evidence, it’s very clear that same-sex marriage is not God’s idea. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus affirms that marriage is heterosexual and monogamous when He refuted the pious leaders of his day view regarding divorce. Jesus states, “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Nowhere in the four gospels of the New Testament does Jesus affirm any other kind of marriage; nor do we read of Jesus ever saying that God approves of any other form of marriage. The Bible is filled with scriptures that speak of marriage in heterosexual language. One example is the entire book of Song of Solomon which captures the captivating love a wife has for her husband. Another example is Proverbs 5:18-19 which instructs the husband to enjoy the wife of his youth and to let her breast satisfy him. What you will not find in the Bible however, are examples such as those which pertains to same-sex couples or any other kind of relationships. These examples are expressed only in the context of heterosexual married couples; hence, God’s concept and design for marriage is both heterosexual and monogamous.

In this article, two alternative views for the origin for marriage was examined: evolutionary processes and divine intervention in the Being of God. It does not seem plausible, based on the examination, to link the origin of marriage to evolutionary processes due to its relativistic nature which results in a slippery slope of subjectivism that negatively affects how marriage is defined. It is far more reasonable, plausible and fitting to link the origin of marriage to God. As was presented, the very first marriage, recorded in the Holy Scriptures (Genesis 2:23-24), was heterosexual and monogamous. Furthermore, the entire Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament highly esteems heterosexual marriage but views same-sex relations in a negative light. This article shows God to be a personal Being and marriage to be a personal union between two personal human beings. Due to the personality of God and the institution of marriage, it only serves to demonstrate that the origin of marriage must have originated from a personal Being: God. Based on what has been presented here we need to truly be intellectually honest and search deeper into the origin of marriage and where it began. The arguments presented for God being the origin of marriage is not to be taken lightly at all. If God is the originator of marriage, then we should seek His view of marriage since He Himself is the owner of the institution. God is all-knowing, omniscience in technical terms, and is unchanging morally. If God is omniscience and morally unchangeable, then not only is His view of marriage unchanging, but also His view of homosexuality as it pertains to same-sex couples. Let us therefore look at the competing origins of evolutionary processes vs. God with an honest and open mind. Then, based on the arguments from both sides of the aisle, make a true intelligent decision regarding marriage. I now leave you with two great teachers beginning with the Greek philosopher Plato, then Jesus the Messiah:

“And isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are.” (Plato)

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jesus)

The Origin Of Marriage Question.

4 Replies

Today there is an ethical war going on before our very eyes. It’s a war which doesn’t just affect a certain people, or a certain nation, or a certain age group, or a certain gender. This ethical war is universal. It affects all people in all nations of all age groups among both genders: male and female. The final results of this ethical war can and will affect how we define the most important institution the world has ever had: The institution of marriage. We see a war being declared by the homosexual community against what has been the definition of marriage for centuries: Marriage is a heterosexual union between a man and a woman. In the United States of America we are now being fed the idea that marriage is a right, not a sacred institution created by the God of the Bible. We are being told by the homosexual community and by many politicians that marriage is a right to be given and enjoyed by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. As I listen to all of the debates and claims, I think we must ask the question: What is the origin of marriage? In this blog we will examine the importance of this question because the answer to this question can finally put to rest the whole debate as to whether or not homosexual marriage is a right and is it right.

At the outset, some reading this blog will ask the question: Who cares? My answer is that you should care! The institution of marriage is being redefined. It is being redefined as if it is perfectly alright to do so, but is it? Can humanity freely change the definition and perception of what marriage is? I think before we do any historic changes to what marriage is and between whom, we must first ask these questions: What is the origin of marriage? Where did this institution originate? Did anyone set the ground rules for who can and cannot get married? Are we authorized to make changes and revisions or are these ground rules unchangeable? Can the homosexual community, politicians and same-sex marriage advocates answer these questions?

If these questions are presented to them, they would not be able to answer the first question let alone answer the questions following. They don’t deal with the question of the origin of marriage because if they did, it would put same-sex marriage on hold or stop it all together. Who can the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates appeal to in order to justify same-sex marriage? It cannot be themselves or any finite human being because we finite human beings tend to be wrong or err in our convictions and ideas. Therefore the authority they appeal to must be an infinite Being who is changeless and absolutely perfect. The origin of marriage rests upon it coming from such a Being, otherwise no authority on marriage is absolutely trustworthy.

Do the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates have a changeless and absolutely perfect infinite Being who is the originator of marriage who has decreed that both heterosexual and homosexual marriage is good in His sight? No they do not. Otherwise there would be no opposition against homosexual marriage that could stand. The truth, however, is that homosexuals are in an ethical war for the right to be able to get married because they have no infinite Authority to appeal to; One who is the originator of marriage, who has laid down the ground rules for who can and who cannot get married. Without such a powerful infinite Authority the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates are left to play with a blank deck of cards.The fight for same-sex marriage becomes a political fight instead of an argument from infinite Authority. The homosexual argument for same-sex marriage becomes an argument from emotion and opinion and not from logic and facts. Therefore politicians should seek to find out what is the origin of marriage and who is its originator before legalizing same-sex marriage, otherwise government authorities may be violating the will and rules of the Creator of the institution of marriage.

On the other side of the ethical war, however, is the Christians who declares strongly that homosexual marriage is a sin. We declare that homosexuality is a sin, therefore, homosexual marriage is a sin. God is the Creator of the institution of marriage, so this answers the question: What is the origin of marriage? God is! Where did the institution of marriage originate? With God in the Garden of Eden when he performed the first marriage ceremony between the first man and the first woman, Adam and Eve. Adam quoted to us the first ever marriage vows in Genesis 2:23-24, “And Adam said: ‘ This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'” In these pair of verses we see the ground rules laid down as well which is for the man to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Did God lay down ground rules for who can and cannot get married? Yes He did. This is found in Adam’s marriage vows in Genesis 2:24 which clearly states that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and become one flesh. In the Bible you never see any homosexual couples who are followers of the Triune God nor do you see God’s endorsement of homosexual marriage period. Why? Because homosexuality is a sin against God (Lev.18:22, Romans 1:24-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9). So since homosexuality is a sin against God, how much more is homosexual marriage a sin against God? This therefore answers the question of whether or not we are authorized to revise and change the ground rules that God has established and laid down and the answer is a resounding no! God who is unchanging(Micah 3:6) and infinite has the final word on marriage and we have no authorization whatsoever to revise and change the definition of marriage.

In conclusion we have seen that the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates cannot answer the question about the origin of marriage. This is so because they have no infinite Authority regarding the issue of marriage. They simply have no originator of marriage who declares that homosexual marriage is good. Therefore they are left with arguments from emotion and opinion and the debate becomes one which is purely political and not factual. On the other hand the Christian community points humanity to God as the origin and originator of the institution of marriage. He is the One who lays down the ground rules for marriage both in the Old and New Testament. He is the infinite Authority on marriage and we as finite beings have no right to revise and change His design and definition of marriage. It would be good for us not to attempt to fix that which isn’t broken and to accept God’s design and definition of marriage. The U.S. Congress and our President who call on God to bless America after every speech should bless God in return by maintaining the Biblical definition of marriage as He authorized it.

Compromising Bible Study.

2 Replies

Today in our modern era as a church thus far we have more false teaching than ever before. Not only is it found outside the church in the form of false philosophies and false religions, but it is also found from close by in the form of cult groups masquerading as Christians (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, etc.). The greatest threat, however, is found lurking within the assembly of the elect of God. Oneness Pentecostals lay hold to the claim of being Christian, even though they deny the true nature of God–His Tri-unity. Plus they deny that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone apart from good works by imposing water baptism in Jesus name only and the necessity of speaking in tongues. Another threat which is far more fierce than Oneness Pentecostalism is the modern day Word of Faith movement(Creflo Dollar, Myles Monroe, Benny Hinn, etc.) which has swept the nation and the globe with its message of health, wealth, prosperity, and the ability to have these with the power of your words. Tragically it has crept its way into the assembly of the Church. It has made its way into our homes during the week through TV, radio, Internet, books, and even billboards along the freeway. Thankfully there are Christians who know that Islam, Mormonism, and Christian Science teach that which is in opposition to biblical truth. Thankfully we are highly bless by God who have such gifted men and women like Dr. Tony Evans, John MacArthur, Kay Arthur, and so forth. There is never a need for a student of God’s Word to ever learn biblical truth from the pen and lips of the likes of Myles Munroe, Joyce Myer, or T.D. Jakes, correct? Sadly this is exactly what is happening today. Sound doctrinal Christians are learning biblical truth from preachers and teachers who have denied the faith theologically and biblically from denying the nature of God to undermining or flat out denying the atoning work of the Lord Jesus on the cross. One may think I am being too extreme; a fundamentalist on the loose. Should we as Christians listen to a false teacher with a filter, attempting to glean out some truth? Is it a case of compromising bible study? Let me give you some reasons why it is and the dangers it entails.

We must ask, “Why should we listen to a false teacher who doctrinally and theologically denies the Christian faith regardless of what little speck of truth he or she teaches?” Many Christians listen to the sermons or read the books and devotionals of Joyce Myer even though she denies the doctrine of the atonement. She has taught without blushing that one cannot be saved unless the convert believes the work of atonement was done in hell, not on the cross(The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, page 43, 1996-Edition). Joyce Myer has taught this blasphemous doctrine time after time and has in no way (to my knowledge) renounce this teaching which is commonly taught within Word of Faith circles. Countless number of Christians learn Christian living and how to wage spiritual warfare through her radio show, “Enjoying Everyday Life”, and her most successful book to-date, “Battlefield of the Mind”. Why are so many Christians who know what she teaches continue to read her books, listen to her radio broadcast, and follow her devotionals? This truly is a case of compromising bible study if a Christian knows a teacher and preacher is a false teacher, prophet, or apostle and go on ahead anyway and follow their ministry claiming to be gleaning the little nuggets of truth that they do teach. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3 God taught the young nation of Israel not to follow a false prophet even if his prophesy comes to pass, so how much more should we as Christians not follow the false teachers of our day even if they teach some gleans of biblical truth?

After stating my case, some reading this will still think there is no harm in listening to a false teacher with a filter erected in their mind. Some reading this will still say that they are teaching some truth from the Bible so we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Very well, let me ask you this: Would you go to the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or to the Mormon church to get gleans of biblical truth? If you say no, why not? Both believe in living holy. Both believe in having a godly ethic and oppose such things as abortion and gay marriage. Why limit your bible study to the Oneness Pentecostals and the Word of Fath movement? What? They are teaching false doctrine you say? You’re right! They do and so do the Word of Faith teachers and Oneness Pentecostal teachers. What separates T.D. Jakes from Joseph Smith, Jr.? What separates Kenneth Copeland from Charles Taze Russel? Nothing! They all have some gleans of biblical truth in some way or another. Therefore, if you can collect gleans of biblical truth from such groups as Oneness Pentecostals and the Word of Faith movement, then surely there is no logical reason why you cannot do the same with cult groups like Mormonism and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Hopefully you are seeing the point now.

In closing, we as Christians have far too many sound orthodox preachers and teachers in the Body of Christ to teach us God’s truth to ever have any need for the devil’s false prophets, apostles, and teachers. There is absolutely no need to have to do bible study with a filter erected in our minds when we can listen to sound orthodox men and women of God without the need for a filter at all. We have all the teachers we need in order to learn and grow as born again believers in Jesus Christ. (Eph.4:11-14) We have no need for false teachers like Creflo Dollar, Fred K.C. Price, or Charles Ellis III. We are not to validate their ministries by buying their books, sermons, and other products. In doing so, you are supporting false doctrine and the false teachers as well, which both are opposed to the truth of God in every area; from the doctrine of God to the doctrine of Christ and salvation. We are told in 2nd Corinthians 6-14-18 to separate ourselves from sin and to not touch it for it is unclean. We are to draw near to God by worshiping Him in Spirit and in Truth. (John 4:24) This can only be done through knowing His Word for yourself (2nd Timothy 2:15-17) and being under pastors and teachers who teach sound biblical truth. (Titus 1:9) So in response to the saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water–I agree. Here is what I will do: I will hold tight to the baby–God’s Word–and I will throw out the bath water–false teachers and their false doctrines.

Slavery and Christianity: A Christian Response.

1 Reply

Today I read a CNN blog entitled, “How religion has been used to promote slavery”, written by John Blake. He opens up his article by asking the question, “which revered religious figure–Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad–spoke out boldly and ambiguously against slavery?” Blake answers, ” None of them.” From that answer forth, Blake attempts to show that since none of the religions directly opposed slavery, then there isn’t any reason that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had members in their respected religions who condoned slavery at some point in their history. The question, however, is this: is it true that Christianity is guilty of not condemning slavery? Better yet, is Jesus guilty of not openly condemning slavery? This article will answer these questions by responding to both Daniel C. Peterson, and John Dominic Crossan’s assertion that Christianity, both Old and New Testament, fails to condemn slavery.

When dealing with Jesus and the issue of slavery, one has to first admit that Jesus did not deal with slavery by condemning it. Jesus, however, never condoned it either. Even Crossan had to admit it, ” He[Jesus} doesn’t say anything for or against it.” Crossan believes that despite Jesus lack of judgement for or against slavery, Jesus would have opposed slavery. I most certainly agree with Crossan on this point. Jesus loved all people and didn’t show partiality toward anyone. He who commanded His followers to “love your neighbor as yourself” demonstrated it throughout His entire three and a half years of ministry. Slavery, as we are familiar with, is in complete opposition to the “second greatest commandment.” A person cannot abuse and love his neighbor at the same time.

While Jesus is given a pardon for not addressing the issue because He was a perfectly moral person, the Bible as a whole and the Apostle Paul are not as fortunate. It is regularly argued that the Apostle Paul was for slavery because of what he taught and commanded in Ephesians 6:5-8. Crossan called the Apostle Paul of this book to be a “Pseudo-Paul” which was created by early church leaders to appease Rome. The real Paul was the Paul who opposed slavery as indicated in 1st Timothy 1:10 where “men stealers” or “kidnapping” is against the law. Is there two different Paul’s in Scripture? The authentic Paul who opposed slavery and the “Pseudo-Paul, supporter of slavery? No there isn’t.

The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6:5-8 does not describe slavery in terms of forced labor and abuse. It couldn’t because of what this same Paul goes on to say in verse 9, ” And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatenings, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” The Apostle Paul here clearly warns slave masters to treat their slaves with respect and dignity, not threatening them and abusing them. Therefore this kind of slavery is not the type of slavery which is oppressive and demeaning. Both slave and master are commanded to respect each other. Both are given ethical guidelines on how to treat each other. There are no signs of unethical treatment being promoted against a slave. The slave is commanded to obey his master and the master is commanded not to threaten and abuse his slave. Both are to do so unto the Lord (v. 5, 9).

Another attack on the Christian faith regarding slavery is from the Old Testament where the Israelites had slaves. This also is an attack against Judaism since the Old Testament is their Holy Scriptures as well. Daniel C. Peterson attempts to undermine the morality of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by questioning why He and His people Israel would sanction slavery at all. Peterson says, ” But how could ancient Israel sanction any form of slavery given their exodus from Egyptian captivity? Didn’t their God explicitly condemn slavery when he ordered Moses to tell Pharaoh to ‘let my people go?'” So how could God sanction any form of slavery?

First of all, before we answer that question, we should ask, “Are all forms of slavery immoral? If yes, says who? On what moral grounds do one base that on? Biblically only one kind is condemned. In Deuteronomy 24:14-15 it says, ” You shall not oppress a hired servant [slave} who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the LORD, and it be sin to you.” Here we see God commanding slave masters in Israel to not oppress their slaves, but pay them their wages for working for them. Slavery here is the poor servant working for wages. The kind of slavery here is not the kind of slavery Israel experienced in Egypt. In Exodus 3:9, God says, ” Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel has come to me, and I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them.” God brought Israel out of Egypt not because of slavery itself, but because of the type of slavery: oppressive slavery. The type of slavery that caused Israel to cry out to God for deliverance.

The slavery described in Deuteronomy 15:12-18 is again a worker-employer type of slavery. The Hebrew slave works for six years and is released in the seventh year during the year of Jubilee when all debts are forgiven and released. In verse 18 Moses, by the Word of the Lord, sternly instruct masters to release their slaves in the seventh year; for in doing so that master will be blessed by God.

Therefore in no way is slavery condoned in either Judaism or Christianity. Clearly we have seen from both the Old and New Testament that the only form of slavery which is condemned time and time again is oppressive slavery. In the Bible a labor for wages type of slavery is presented in Scripture. Moreover, the protection of the slave from oppression is commanded in both Testaments. I would say this is far from the unethical slavery of times past which sadly has been practiced and preached by Muslims and so called “Christians”. Both Crossan and Peterson are guilty of selective interpretation; picking out only those passages in Scripture in order to interpret them to teach what the whole of Scripture does not teach. I would strongly encourage Blake, Crossan and Peterson to search all the Scriptures which speak on the issue. In doing so they would see how frail their arguments are. It is true, unfortunately, that religion has been used to promote and practice slavery. Christianity however, was used in this way due to either false brethren or by true brethren who did not know the whole counsel of God [the Bible} on this subject. Sadly to this day, Christianity still has the ethical black eye due to this. The good news is, however, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Christian Church has never and will never endorse oppressive slavery because God is a God who is morally perfect and stands for human value and dignity.

Lessons single Christians can learn from the life of Whitney Houston.

1 Reply

For the last couple of weeks we have seen news story after news story about the life and death of legendary singer Whitney Houston. We have seen and heard the good, the bad, and the ugly about Whitney Houston. We have seen and heard the good news regarding her singing career. We have seen and heard the bad news of her failed marriage to R&B singer Bobby Brown and all that was involved in it. We sadly have seen and heard the ugly news of Whitney Houston’s last days which included a lot of drinking, boisterous partying, and unseeming behavior. As I followed the news of Whitney Houston’s life and death, one thing particularly stood out to me which explains, at least in part, the reason for the downfall of Whitney Houston. This reason is connected, I think, to her marriage to Bobby Brown. If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, her downfall could have been avoided simply from heeding Scripture. If Whitney Houston was not in fact a Christian, then her downfall is only explainable as being due to sin and wrong choices. In this blog I will deal with the argument of if Whitney Houston was a Christian, then her downfall could have been avoided by simply heeding to the Bible she quoted from (especially in her last days of life).

On July 18, 1992 Whitney Houston married singer Bobby Brown. The wedding was conducted by Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit, Michigan. Now if you the reader are a discerning Bible believer you should already know where I am going with this; but if you are not, then let us go through this argument together.

If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, then this marriage should have never happened to begin with. The Bible itself tells us the reason why. In 2nd Corinthians 6:14a, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” This passage of Scripture applies to all types of relationships including dating and marriage. To my knowledge, I don’t know of a time when Bobby Brown ever claimed to be a Christian. By knowing how drinking and drugs was a regular part of the marriage, I believe it is safe to conclude that Bobby Brown was probably doing the same thing before and during his dating period with Whitney Houston. If this is the case, then by Whitney Houston dating and ultimately marrying Bobby Brown she failed to heed the command of 2nd Corinthians 6:14a. In disobeying any command of God found in the Bible, there are consequences and in this case it isn’t any different. The consequences that Whitney ended up facing goes with another passage of Scripture Whitney Houston failed to heed.

In 1st Corinthians 15:33 it reads, “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits.'” Prior to marrying Bobby Brown, I think most, if not all, would agree that Whitney Houston had a decent moral reputation. There were no reports of any sort of immorality whatsoever. After Whitney married Bobby, however, we soon began to hear and read the reports of her drug problem with crack and marijuana. We began to hear of her drinking problems. We began to see her behavior turn from the music industry’s sweetheart to a person of wild and immoral behavior. This change of behavior clearly began after her marriage to Bobby Brown. As Whitney openly admitted in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, she wouldn’t drink or do drugs without Bobby. Sadly after Whitney and Bobby divorced in 2007, Whitney never fully recovered and returned to the moral kind of woman she was before her marriage.

Many fans blame Bobby Brown for Whitney’s moral decline and downfall which eventually lead to her death. Whitney’s failure to heed these Scriptures plus Amos 3:3, however, plays a vital role as well. Whitney’s bad choices led her down an immoral and godless path of living which she was unable to recover from.

Consequently if Whitney Houston was a Christian, then single Christians need to take serious notes on what can happen if they date and marry an unbeliever by looking back at what happened to Whitney Houston. Marrying an unbeliever can cause good habits and moral godly behavior to die and decay while evil, immoral, and ungodly habits grow in its place. I haven’t read of Whitney Houston ever going to the Church for help after her divorce, but for the Christian who does fall into this situation, they must run to the Church for the spiritual help he/she needs in order to recover. It is far better, however, to heed the commands in God’s Word when it comes to marriage so that the single Christian can avoid unnecessary pain and spiritual entrapment due to a sinful marriage with an unrepentant sinful mate.

On a different but brief note, it is to bad Pastor Marvin L. Winans didn’t heed to the Scriptures himself as a suppose “Man of God”. For if he would have done so, he wouldn’t have approved of Whitney and Bobby getting married and would have refused to marry them. If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, then Pastor Marvin L. Winans is partly responsible for Whitney’s moral and possible spiritual downfall by willingly marrying them. I hope and pray he sees the tragic mistake he made by conducting and joining Whitney and Bobby in marriage and the tragic outcome that followed through the rest of Whitney Houston’s life.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Holy Spirit

Leave a reply

In the theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses there are many false teachings that are in conflict with biblical theology. These conflicts are not of a non-essential nature like pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-tribulation teachings on the Second Coming of Jesus, or whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation. Disagreements among Christians on these doctrinal issues does not determine whether or not one is in fact a Christian. A Christian’s salvation is not in jeopardy if they are wrong on such non-essential doctrinal areas like the one’s mentioned. The line is drawn, however, when an essential doctrine of the Christian faith is denied and attacked. Essential doctrines like the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit among others are doctrines that draws a clear distinction between true Christianity and false Christianity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are an excellent example of a group who do deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. In this blog we will look at what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about the Holy Spirit and attempt to show from the Bible how they are in error.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person, let alone God, third person of the Divine and Holy Trinity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is God’s “active force.” Their line of reasoning starts off deriving from the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. If God is not a Triune Being, then the Holy Spirit sure can’t be God and if the Holy Spirit isn’t God then He cannot be a person. The Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2), has a will (1st Corinthians 12:11), and has emotions (Ephesians 4:30), but these are just personifications like wisdom, sin, and water are in the Scriptures. Furthermore the Jehovah’s Witnesses will ask, “the Bible says, ‘They all became filled with holy spirit.(Acts 2:4) Were they “filled” with a person? No, but filled with God’s active force.”(You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 40) One last reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses give as to why the Holy Spirit is not a person, let alone God, is because He doesn’t have a personal name like the Father and Son have, “The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father–Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the Holy Spirit.”(Reasoning From The Scriptures, pg 407)

How do we as Christians answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses reasons for the Holy Spirit not being a person, let alone God? We need to first realize that the Bible in no way identifies the Holy Spirit as an active force. Even their New World Translation of the Bible doesn’t give such an identity to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is only identified as an active force because of their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. Being able to speak, exercise a will, and to express emotions are all personal attributes and expressions which only a person has. When the Holy Spirit said in Acts 13:2, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them…”, did the church send out Barnabas and Saul in obedience to a personification or to a person? I don’t know of anyone who listens to and obeys personifications, but I know I can listen and obey a person who communicates to me information and commands. Only personal beings can express such actions as speaking, willing to do an action, and express emotions. In no way can an active force do these things and to label such attributes which the Holy Spirit has to non-personal personifications is illogical and not biblical.

The second argument against the person of the Holy Spirit is because He filled over a hundred and twenty disciples and no person can do so. If the Holy Spirit is God, then the Holy Spirit is omnipresent–everywhere at the same time–which would mean that there is no place where the Holy Spirit cannot be, including in individual persons. Did you know that the Bible teaches that Jesus also fills all things? Yes it do. In Ephesians 4:8-10 we see that Jesus fills all things which demonstrates His ability to be omnipresent, which only God can do. Jesus is a person, is He? Yes He is and yet we see Jesus fill all things. Therefore the Holy Spirit can be a person and still fill a multiplicity of people. Even more, this demonstrates the divinity of the Holy Spirit for again, only God can be omnipresent.

Lastly, are the Jehovah’s Witnesses right in saying that the Holy Spirit is not a person because He doesn’t have a personal name? No. But if it is true a person is only a person if they have a personal name, then abortion is not immoral and pro-choice groups are justified in their stance. Remember: Jehovah’s Witnesses are pro-life. In Reasoning from the Scriptures, they say, “Deliberately induced abortion simply avoid the birth of an unwanted child is the willful taking of human life (pg 25).” With the same line of reasoning for why the Holy Spirit is not a person–no personal name–I can use the same line of reasoning in favor of abortion. An unborn child–a human fetus–doesn’t have a personal name. Therefore abortion isn’t wrong because it isn’t a personal being–a person. Of course no Jehovah’s Witness will agree with what I stated so they should disagree with their own reason here for why the Holy Spirit isn’t a person.

In conclusion we see the reasons why the Holy Spirit is in fact a person according to the Bible and plain reason. He has the attributes of a person: Mind, will, and emotion. God the Father and Jesus have these attributes of person-hood. Even Satan, demons, and angels have these attributes of person-hood. So we should agree with the Bible on the person-hood of the Holy Spirit. We should reject the teaching that the Holy Spirit is an active force. No Bible version nor the New World Translation itself teach this false doctrine. The denial of the person-hood of the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an attempt to debunk the doctrine of the Trinity which the Christian Church has believed and taught for almost two thousand years.

Free Will: Illusion or Reality?

2 Replies

I recently came across an intriguing column on the USA Today website entitled, ” Why you don’t really have free will”, written by Jerry A. Coyne. As you can probably predict, Coyne is making a case against the belief that humankind has free will. The denial of free will is part of the fabric of evolution. Theistic and atheistic philosophers have been debating this issue for ages. Philosophically it is the debate of Determinism vs. Free Will. Determinism by definition teaches us that all actions and events have been determined by preceding events or natural causes without the aid of free will or choice on humankind’s part. All actions and events have been determine to happen in a particular way and those actions or events could not happen in no other way. For instance, if Jim murders his entire family and then kills himself, it was determined that Jim would do so and he could not have done differently. Jim murdering his family, then killing himself, was not a choice on his part according to determinism. It was determined to happen that way either by God (theological determinism), biological effects (biological determinism), a product of Jim’s environment (sociological determinism) or psychological (psychological determinism). With the understanding of determinism laid out, let us proceed to Coyne’s case against free will in which he comes from the school of determinism called Biological determinism.

In Coyne’s column, after he has defined free will as when a person has two or more alternatives and that person freely chooses one of those alternatives, he presents two lines of evidence to suggest that free will is but an illusion. The first is that “we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics.” Coyne goes on to say, ” Science hasn’t shown any way we can do this (step outside of our brain’s structure and modify how it works) because ‘we’ are simply constructs of our brain.” What Coyne is basically saying is that what “appears” to be us exercising free will is nothing more than biological workings of the brain.

The second line of “evidence” Coyne presents to us is that our brains are “meat computers”. Coyne said, ” Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into predetermined output.” This means that our “choices” are a result of our genetic make-up and our environment.

Based on the studies of psychologist and neuroscientist, Coyne said the notion of free will “itself could be an illusion that evolution has given us to connect our thoughts, which stem from unconscious processes, and our actions, which also stem from unconscious processes.” Free will, therefore, is an illusion of evolution. Now let us see why these two lines of evidence are anything but evidence.

First, Coyne’s position that free will is an illusion assumes that the theory of evolution is true. He assumes that we are just biological creatures governed by the laws of physics. We must first ask for scientific evidence for the universe coming into existence from nothing and humans as products of the evolutionary process. Better yet, is the idea of evolution and determinism itself an illusion which some other thing or being gave to us to connect our thoughts? Could actions and events “appear” to be determined and can happen no other way, but in reality be the opposite? That free will is real and humans can choose or reject a certain course of action? By what standard can we judge by to determine whether free will or determinism is illusionary or not?

Lastly, if determinism is true, it is impossible to hold anyone morally responsible. If one’s immoral act is the result of biological workings of the brain and being influenced by his or her environment, then holding him or her morally accountable is meaningless. Furthermore, if evolution is true, by what moral standard or law does one judge a person by? What is evil and what is good? Without an absolute moral law from an absolute moral law-giver(God), morality is relative and therefore meaningless.

From a Christian worldview, God gives us free will. The first demonstration of that is found in the book of Genesis. God commands the first man and woman not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but ” Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” (Genesis 2:16-17) In Genesis chapter 3 Eve and Adam freely ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6) in complete disobedience to God. The serpent, Satan, tempted them, but they chose freely to give in to the temptation and partake of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Further evidence of God giving people choice is the nation of Israel. In Deuteronomy 30, God presents the blessings Israel would receive as a result of returning to God. Moses as he closes his discourse said, ” I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”(Deut. 30:19)

The greatest of all choices is the choice to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation or not. In John 3:16 Jesus said, ” For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” This is only possible if free will exist. God has bestowed on humankind the ability to choose freely as He has the ability to choose freely. Lucifer freely chose to reject God and become God’s enemy. God does not determine who will be His enemy or who will be His ally randomly. Free will is an attribute of His that He freely chose to give us creatures who are created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it is true that free will is a reality, not an illusion. Determinism and evolution is the illusion given to us by Satan Himself to keep us from God. Determinism vs. Free Will in reality is nothing more than another debate derived from the age-old debate: Does God exist? If God doesn’t exist, there can be no free will; but if God exist, free will is inevitable.