Category Archives: Theology

Jesus: Mirror of God or Incarnation of God?

Leave a reply

In my last blog “Christology of the Baha’i Faith and Christianity: A Comparative Overview”, I began a comparative view of Christianity and the Baha’i Faith teaching about who Jesus Christ is. A comparative view of the nature of Christ held by both faiths was previously done. It showed that Christianity affirms the deity of Christ, which is the teaching of the incarnation; Jesus as God in human flesh. In the Baha’i Faith, however, the Baha’is deny the deity of Christ and hold to the view that Jesus was no greater than any other religious leader. Jesus, in Baha’i Christology, is just a mirrored image of God, but not God Himself. Finally a comparitive view of the work of Christ was examined. Christianity teaches that Jesus came to die on the cross for the sins of humanity in order to meet and fulfill the righteous requirements of God. Three days after Jesus’ death on the cross, Jesus rose bodily from the dead and conquered death so that now Christians have the hope of their own physical resurrection on the Last Day. In Baha’i thought, however, Jesus’ death on the cross was only a temporary solution to the problem of sin. The ultimate solution is found in the person and teachings of Baha’u’llah. As far as the physical resurrection of Christ is concerned, they deny it and say that Jesus rose in a “figurative body.” What really rose from the dead was the faith of Jesus disciples (the Body of Christ), which died with the death of Jesus. In this blog though, we will look more deeply into the nature of Christ as taught by both the Baha’i Faith and Christianity and explain why the Baha’i view of the nature of Christ is problematic and inferior to the Christology of the Christian faith.

  Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall

According to Baha’i theology, as presented by Alex Gottdank, who is said to have both a Jewish and Christian background, Jesus merely mirrored the image of God during His time here on Earth. In his article “Is Christ God“, Gottdank attempts to reconcile what appears to be contradictions in the New Testament about the deity and humanity of Christ. Gottdank lays out some scriptural examples of this like the supposed contradiction between John 10:30, “I and the Father are one” and John 14:28, “…for the Father is greater than I.” One more example given by Gottdank is John 14:9, “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…”  and John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God… which seems also to contradict each other.

So how does Gottdank attempt to reconcile these supposed contradictions between Jesus being divine and human? Gottdank goes over to Colossians 1:15 which reads, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” It is here that Gottdank and the Baha’is present their argument that Jesus just merely reflected the image of God. According to Gottdank, “One simply has to consider how a physical mirror functions to understand Christ’s role as a spiritual mirror or image of God.” (Gottdank, Is Christ God) Gottdank then gives an illustration of how when we see the sun in a mirror, we know the sun is not actually in the mirror itself, but only the reflection of the sun that we see in the mirror. In the same way, according to Gottdank, when people looked at Jesus, they saw the image of God in the Person of Jesus, not God Himself. Gottdank concludes his argument by saying,

“Similarly, if one looks into the spiritual mirror of Christ, one would see God — but would know that God’s image, Christ, is not God Himself but God’s reflection, for God does not descend into the mirror. Instead, His attributes of love, power, omniscience, etc. reflect in the mirror.”(Gottdank, Is Christ God)

Therefore, according to Gottdank, it is impossible for God to be incarnate. God cannot come into the world as a human being just like the sun cannot come into a mirror. While Gottdank does not exactly say so, it is clearly implied by his illustration of the sun and the mirror. Just like it is not possible for the sun to descend into a mirror, it is also impossible for God to descend from Heaven to Earth via the virgin birth into human flesh. 

Denial of the Omnipotence of God

In order for the incarnation of God (Jesus Christ) to be impossible, we must completely deny the omnipotence of God; which is exactly what Gottdank and the Baha’i Faith must and is doing in order to hold firmly to their Christology of the nature of Christ. If God is not all-powerful, then Gottdank and the Baha’is have a valid argument against the incarnation of Jesus Christ. If God is all-powerful, however, then it is perfectly possible that God could have came in human flesh, while still remaining God, in the person of Jesus Christ: One Person with two natures simultaneously existing within Himself. In theological terms this is called the Hypostatic Union. 

Explanatory Power of the Hypostatic Union

A proper understanding of the Hypostatic Union helps in understanding the supposed contradictions presented by Gottdank. In John 14:9 and John 1:18 we see the Hypostatic Union in full view.  Yes, both statements by Jesus are equally true when we view these passages of Scripture through the lenses of the Hypostatic Union: Jesus is one Person with both a divine and a human nature within Himself. Jesus is telling us the truth in John 1:18 that no one has seen God, which is to not have seen God in His full glory. In the Amplified Bible it reads, “No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father].” So it is true that no human being has ever seen God and God made it known to Moses why in Exodus 33:20, “But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” No human being can behold the unveiled nature of God and live, but one could see God if God is in fact veiled. This was the case in the Person of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. Jesus is God veiled in human flesh and could therefore say in John 14:9,”…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” . Jesus throughout His ministry revealed who God was through His teachings, His perfect moral conduct, His miraculious works such as healing people and raising the dead. In light of understanding the Hypostatic union these two passages of Scripture harmonize together perfectly.

Explanatory Power of the Trinity

Finally, Gottdank’s failure to reconcile John 10:30 and John 14:28 must be addressed. There is a need to delve a little deeper here in order to explain these supposed contradictions. Once again, both of Jesus’ statements are equally true. Yes, Jesus and the Father are one and yes, the Father is greater than Jesus. As have already been shown earlier in this blog, the Father and the Son (Jesus) are by nature equally divine; they are both by nature God. The question that really needs to be answered is how is the Father greater than Jesus if in fact both are by nature God? It is here that the doctrine of the Trinity is brought into play. The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God who exist as three eternal person: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three persons are equally the same in nature and substance, but different in person and office (position). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God in nature, but in person and office they are different. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are their own person individually. Jesus is not the Father and vis versa and neither of them are the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is neither of them. An illustration of the Trinity can perhaps be summed up with an example of a family of three: Father, mother, and child. All three persons share one nature: human. Postionally, however, the Father as the head of the home is greater than his wife and child, and the wife positionally is greater than the child. Neither of the three persons are greater in nature to one another, which is human, but positionally they are in the order given. Likewise positionally the Father is greater than the Son (Jesus), but by no means is the Father greater than Jesus in nature. Both equally have the same exact divine nature. Without the explanatory power of the Trinity, these would be contradictory statements, but with such explanatory power Jesus statements harmonize perfectly. 

In conclusion we can confidently declare that Christ is indeed God. Jesus is far more than just a person who “mirrored” or reflected the image of God. Also in light of what has been said and the comparsions which have been made Christologically between Christianity and the Baha’i Faith concerning the nature of God, it is more than safe to say that the Jesus of Christianity is superior to the Jesus of the Baha’i Faith. While Gottdank and the Baha’is attempt to use Scripture to support their idea of Jesus merely being the “mirror” of who God is, they fail to acknowledge and use the whole entire counsel of God. Gottdank and the Baha’is need to study not just John 1:1;14, but also look at verses 2-3 as well. If they did they would see more clearly who the Word is and His equality with God the Father. Perhaps it would help them to read and consider Jesus claim to deity in John 8:58, Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Jesus declared Himself to be the I AM of Exodus 3:14 who is none other than YHWH Himself. Since Christ is God, it makes Jesus mission and work of upmost importance and, for better or worst, has an eternal impact on our lives and existence. In the next blog we will see exactly how true this is. 

Christology of the Baha’i Faith and Christianity: A Comparative Overview

Leave a reply

In the previous blog “The Baha’i Faith and the Delusion of Inclusivism” , I made a logical and theological case for why the Baha’i Faith is wrong when it claims that all religions are basically the same. This was done by looking at how certain doctrines of other religions were contradictory to one another, such as in regard to the nature of God and salvation. I also laid out the undeniable fact that all religions worldwide are exclusive by nature; including the Baha’i Faith. In the up and coming blogs a more indept look into the Christology of the Baha’i Faith will be done and compared to the Christology of the Christian faith to see how differently they really are from one another. While the Baha’i Faith pays lip service to Jesus Christ, the Baha’i Faith has a totally different understanding of who Jesus is. In this week’s blog, a simple comparative breakdown of the Christology of the Christian faith and the Baha’i Faith will be done in regards to the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Nature of Jesus Christ

Throughout the history of Christianity the Christian church has held, without equivocation,  to the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians hold that the Deity of Christ is firmly grounded in the Bible; both in the Old and New Testament. Also Christians, via the Nicene Creed, has expressed this Christology about the Deity of Christ as follows: 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
      the only Son of God,
      begotten from the Father before all ages,
           God from God,
           Light from Light,
           true God from true God,
      begotten, not made;
      of the same essence as the Father.
      Through him all things were made.

To sum it all up in the simplest way possible: Jesus is fully God and fully human in His Person. Jesus is one person with two natures; a human and divine nature. Biblical references to the Deity of Christ (though not exhaustive ) include: Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, John 1:1-3;14, John 8:58, Philppians 2:5-8. 

In the Baha’i Faith, however, Jesus is not the incarnation of God; in other words, Baha’i do not believe that Jesus is God in human flesh. Jesus by nature is no greater than all the other religious figures of human history (Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, etc.). According to the Baha’is, Jesus merely mirrored the image and attributes of God, but was not by nature God Himself. In fact, to the Baha’is, the incarnation is impossible! They quote this from Abdu’l-Baha, 
“If we claim that the sun is seen in the mirror, we do not mean that the sun itself has descended from the holy heights of his heaven and entered into the mirror! This is impossible. The Divine Nature is seen in the Manifestations and its Light and Splendor are visible in extreme glory“. In other words, it is impossible for God to enter into our world as a human being just like it is impossible for the sun to enter into a mirror. Again, according to the Baha’is, Jesus is like a mirror. Jesus merely reflects to humanity who God is. 

The Work of Christ

In Christianity the Church teaches from the Bible that Jesus’ primary purpose for coming into the world was to atone for the sins of humanity. This was accomplished on the cross at Calvery. Furthermore, the Bible teaches Christians that three days after Jesus died and was buried in a sealed up tomb, Jesus rose physically from the dead. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the heart and soul of the gospel message as presented to us by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,  by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” Jesus’ shed blood and death on the cross met the perfect righteous requirements of God and Jesus’ resurrection from the dead not only conquered death and gave Christians hope of forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and their own resurrection at the Last Day, but the resurrection of Jesus also put the stamp of authority on who He claimed to be: The Son of God, the Messiah, and God in human flesh.  

On the other hand, however, the Baha’is have a totally different view of what the earthly work of Christ was.                                                                                                                                                       
Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. . . the unchaste and wayward were healed. . . . the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified. . . . He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, p. 85.

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? At first glance, the words of Baha’u’llah appear as though he and his followers believed the same about the work of Christ on the cross as Christians, but the truth is that they are not actually speaking about Jesus death on the cross and what it accomplished in the same way as Christians do. While Baha’u’llah said that the atonement was “extraordinary” and that it “purified the world“, and that Christ “left nothing unfinished or incomplete”, still due to many people rejecting Jesus and His mission, His sacrifice was unsatisfactory: 
The sacrifice of Jesus: Bahá’u’lláh declared that the sacrifice of Jesus was indeed extraordinary, for it was through that sacrifice that Jesus “purified the world.” Bahá’u’lláh says that those who failed to accept Christ deprived themselves of “beholding the face of God.” The Bahá’í writings affirm that Christ “left nothing unfinished or incomplete.” But of course Jesus knew that humankind’s response to His mission and sacrifice would not be adequate and so He prophesied that He would return: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12).                                         In other words, the atonement of Christ Jesus was a temporary solution, and not the ultimate solution to the depravity and sinfulness of the human race. The ultimate solution would be found in the person and teachings of Baha’u’llah.

The Baha’is also reject the physcial resurrection of Jesus. Instead they hold that Jesus rose in a “figurative body.” What does that mean according to the Baha’is? The Baha’is equate “the body of Christ” with the Christian church which consist of believers: Christians. So then, when Jesus died on the cross, His teachings and life was buried in the broken and disdraughted hearts of His disciples who had come to believe in Him. The disciples lost faith, but on the third day after Christ’s death, they regained their faith. Therefore, according to  the Baha’is, the resurrection of Jesus is believed to be spiritual and figurative, not literal.

In conclusion, the Christology of the Baha’i Faith and that of Christianity are vastly different indeed. In the next blog a deeper look into these differences beginning with the Nature of Jesus Christ as understood by both faiths will be achieved. Following that blog, a deeper look into the Work of Christ as taught by both faiths. In both blogs I will aim to demonstrate that those differences are highly sufficent and have serious ramifications to those who hold dearly to the Christology and Soteriology of the Baha’i Faith. Ultimately this demonstration will hopefully cause some in the Baha’i Faith to reevaluate what they believe about Jesus and salvation and why.   

The Baha’i Faith and the Delusion of Inclusivism

Leave a reply

The Baha’i Faith prides itself as a religion that is inclusive. In other words, the Baha’i Faith does not claim to be the one true religion as other religions do such as Islam or Christianity. In the Baha’i Faith one can keep the religion of their choice and still be a member of the Baha’i religion. On the Baha’i’s website, visitors to their website are greeted with this:  


“Throughout history, God has sent to humanity a series of divine Educators—known as Manifestations of God—whose teachings have provided the basis for the advancement of civilization. These Manifestations have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, explained that the religions of the world come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.” (www.bahai.org)

So according to Baha’i these well known religious figures or “divine Educators” has been sent independently over the course of history to reveal to humanity God’s teachings “for the advancement of civilization”. It is in the person of Baha’i’s “prophet” Bahá’u’lláh that it is made known that all these previous messengers and religions are part of the “one religion of God”. Is that true though? Are religions like Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and especially Christianity, branches from the same tree which Baha’i call the “one religion of God?”  I will show theologically and comparatively how it is impossible for the religions of the world along with the Baha’i Faith, to be inclusive.

The Nature of God

In the Baha’i Faith’s theological understanding of God, God is completely unknowable and is a monothiestic Being. Even though Baha’i’s teaches that God is unknowable, yet this unknowable God has progressively revealed himself throughout history through individuals like Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, etc. Furthermore they teach that God is 
“the Creator of the universe, is all-knowing, all-loving and all-merciful.” (www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/revelation/)

On the surface it seems that Baha’i agree with the three monothiestic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Is that so though?  If the god of the Baha’i Faith is in fact all-knowing (omniscience), why do we see contradictions in the description of who God is in the religions of the world? Hindu theology  hold to polytheism, which is the belief in the existence of many gods. In some branches of Buddhism it can either be polytheistic or atheistic. Yet in Christianity, God is a triune Being: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the god of the Baha’i Faith is omniscient, then this god should surely know who he is nature wise. Is this god triune(Christianity)? Is this god polytheistic (Hinduism)? Is this god strictly monothiestic in nature(Islam, Judaism, Baha’i)? They all cannot be true. Either one is correct about the nature of God or none of them are. Two or more contradictory teachings about the nature of God cannot be equally true and therefore calls the god of the Baha’i Faith into question epistemically. 

  Soteriology (Doctrine of Salvation)

According to Bahá’u’lláh, the messenger of the Baha’i Faith,  
“[I]s not the object of every Revelation,” He asks, “to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself, both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions?” (Bahá’u’lláh,The Kitab-i-iqan) So salvation according to the Baha’i Faith is both an outer as well as an inner transformation of the entire person. In the Baha’i Faith salvation seems to be focus on an earthly universal transformation of all of humanity. Bahá’u’lláh says that religion is
“the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples.” (Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle of the Son of the Wolf) This is truly a universal and inclusivistic soteriology and is not shared by those of other faiths. 

At the heart of every religion on planet Earth is an exclusivistic worldview of itself. Every religion believes that they alone have the one true view about the world and ourselves and strongly believes that those of other faiths has it wrong. In Islam every person must submit themselves to the will of Allah. In Sura 40:67 it reads, “Say, ‘I have been forbidden to worship those whom you call upon beside Allah since there have come unto me clear proofs from my Lord; and I have been commanded to submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.’ This sura teaches that there is no god one should worship other than Allah and to submit to him. 

In both Judaism and Christianity, they share the same view on worshipping Yehwah alone. Both readily point to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3, “you shall not have any gods before me.” Such a command continues to be expounded throughout the entire Bible. Furthermore in Chrisitanity, it becomes even more exclusivistic in the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ boldly claimed to be the only way to God in John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Jesus death on the cross and His resurrection from the dead three days later backed His claim. Jesus did not shy away from letting people know that they cannot have a relationship with God or even know God until they believed in Him (John 5:23). The Apostle Peter in Acts 4:12 boldly proclaimed that salvation is alone in Jesus Christ, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” In I John 2:23 we read, “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Christian soteriology makes it clear that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.

Clearly the religions of the world are by nature exclusivistic, not inclusivistic. Interestly enough, even the Baha’i Faith itself is exclusivistic. According to the Baha’is, Bahá’u’lláh is the promised one supposedly foretold by Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh’s forerunner, the Bab, “”Bahá’u’lláh—the “Glory of God”—is the Promised One foretold by the Báb and all of the Divine Messengers of the past“. This is indeed an excusivistic claim that Bahá’u’lláh is superior to all the above mentioned. Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957) , who was an appointed guardian of the Baha’i Faith in his lifetime definitely gave superior status in his praises to Bahá’u’lláh, “Dominating the entire range of this fascinating spectacle towers the incomparable figure of Bahá’u’lláh, transcendental in His majesty, serene, awe-inspiring, unapproachably glorious.” (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh)  Furthermore Shoghi Effendi refers to Bahá’u’lláh as “the supreme Theophany which means that Bahá’u’lláh was the supreme manifestation of God on Earth. This also is an exclusivistic attitudinal claim as well since it makes Jesus (God incarnate) inferior to Bahá’u’lláh. If this is the case, then we can only conclude that Baha’i Faith is superior to all other religions which is the complete opposite of what it means to be inclusive.

Inclusivism is Impossible

In conclusion, it is completely impossible theologically and comparatively for there to be inclusive union among all religions of the world; including the Baha’i Faith. On theological doctrines like the nature of God and salvation, the religions of the world are obviously different; especially Christianity. Contradictory worldviews cannot all be equally true. Either one of them is right or all of them are wrong. Inclusivism is impossible with the existence of contradictory teaching on such doctrines as salvation, God, Jesus Christ, the afterlife, etc. The fact that the Baha’i Faith exalts Bahá’u’lláh and themselves above all other faiths and their beloved religious figures proves how intolerate and exclusivistic they actually are. Superiority cannot exist in an inclusivistic mindset. So who or what is this “one religion from God”, this tree, which all the branches or world religions stem from? It’s none other than the Baha’i Faith! 

Homosexuality, the Church, and Apostasy.

1 Reply

2218740

On June 19, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by a vote of 371-238 agreed to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. When I read about this historical and tragic decision I was greatly grieved, but in no way surprised by this decision. We who are Christians and know their Bible knew this was coming. Some, if not most of us, may have just never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It was inevitable and unavoidable. Despite the apologetics being waged against same-sex marriage and homosexuality overall, still this day arrived and now we as the Christian Church must deal it whether we like it or not. Not only must we deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from outside the Church, now we must deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from within the Church via the apostates. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church are clear examples of apostates. These “Christian” denominations departed from the faith when they failed to affirm the biblical teaching on marriage which is heterosexual union between a man and a woman. As Scripture says in I Timothy 4:1, ” Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…” Furthermore in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 it says, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition..” Apostasy must happen before the Lord Jesus returns to earth and right now the issue of same-sex marriage in the Church is creating perhaps the greatest amount of apostates we have seen so far. Whether you are a Christian who holds to the doctrine of Eternal Security and say these apostates were not saved in the first place or whether you are a Christian who believes you can lose your salvation (Reform or Wesleyan Arminianism) and say these were once Christians who have departed from the Christian faith, still the reality is that apostates are among us and are perverting the truth of God’s Word as it pertains to marriage. In the remainder of this blog we will revisit the biblical argument against homosexuality and lastly a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage by arguing from the origin of marriage.

It is both amazing and disturbing how groups like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can support same-sex marriage and have little to no biblical arguments for their position on the issue. The main argument for their position on same-sex marriage typically comes down to three words: God is love. While it is true that God is love (I John 4:16), these three words do not address the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in any way at all! Homosexuals and supporters of same-sex marriage will argue that if God loves us He will allow us to marry whoever we want for happiness sake. In a nutshell, If God is love, He wants us to be happy. A god who opposes our right to be happy via same-sex marriage is not a God of love. The problem here is just because something makes a person happy doesn’t means it’s morally good. Some people can be happy abusing a animal, but it doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Some people can be happy jumping from one sex partner to another sex partner, but it doesn’t make it morally good. God, the Moral Lawgiver, judges what is morally good and what is morally evil and His judgment on homosexuality is found in the Bible.

In Leviticus 18:22 it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Many will argue against this by saying this is Old Testament law and it does not apply to today. The problem with this argument is two-fold. First of all chapter 18 is God’s moral law dealing with forbidden sexuality. No part of God’s moral law, including those of sexuality is out-of-date and yes, sex is a moral issue according to God. Secondly, if we accept the argument that Leviticus 18:22 does not apply to today, then none of Leviticus 18 applies to us at all! That means it’s acceptable for a brother to have sex with his brother’s wife (v.16) and it’s acceptable to have sexual relations with your aunt (v. 13) and uncle (v. 14). Let’s not forget also that based on this argument it would be perfectly acceptable for a son or daughter to have sexual relations with either their mother or father (v.7) or to have sexual relations with animals (v. 23). No holds barred sex-o-rama! No human being has the authority to pick one sexual act and say “this is acceptable” and continue to say that all the other sexual acts are wrong and sinful. Either all of the sexual acts in Leviticus 18 are wrong or none of them are wrong. There is no middle ground to stand on.

In Romans 1:26-27 we read, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” For most of us as Christians this is quite clear; however for some it may not be as clear. In these verses we see both gay and lesbian sexual relationships labeled as unnatural. We see in verse 26 that women exchange or in other words trade in the natural sexual passions for men for unnatural passions with other women which is described here as “what is against nature.” In verse 27 we see men leaving the natural passions for women and trading it in for sexual relations with other men and it is described here as shameful. God defines these same-sex sexual passions and acts as vile. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the definition of vile is: 1. a: morally despicable or abhorrent. b: physically repulsive. So we see here God views homosexuality as morally despicable and abhorrent and homosexual sex acts as physically repulsive. Before leaving Romans 1:26-27 we find something else that God is telling us also about homosexuality: It is a personal choice. Two action verbs are used in verses 26 and 27: Exchanged and leaving. The women “exchanged” the natural sexual desire of men for women and the men are described as “leaving” the sexual desire of women for men. Both have the free will to choose to stay heterosexual or to become homosexual. It is a choice. It is well known that one of the main reasons why men and women become homosexual is because they were unsuccessful in finding the right mate of the opposite sex. Teens confess that truth on social sites like Facebook all the time. While it is true that some homosexuals claim that when they were heterosexuals they constantly felt homosexual tendencies, still they made the choice to cross that dividing line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Just because it feels right does not make it right. Feelings and emotions does not determine what is true and moral; God determines what is true and moral.

Lastly there is a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage. This one deals with the origin of marriage. Where did marriage come from? Who or what started this institution which we call marriage? If marriage has a originator, what is this originator’s view or rules of what is marriage and what is not marriage? If there is a originator of marriage, is this originator fallible or infallible? Sadly this has not been dealt with by those in the homosexual community or among it’s supporters. Why? Because they can not answer any of these questions. Because they can’t answer any of these questions, they make it out to be a civil rights issue and a constitutional issue. Marriage, however, is a universal institution, not an United States institution. Therefore, no country has the right to define marriage unless they are the originator of it. A country’s government should seek to know what or who is the originator of marriage (if there is one) and inquire into what the originator’s definition and purpose for marriage is before changing it’s definition. Of course, if the originator of marriage is a fallible being, then who’s to say this being’s definition of marriage is right?  If this being is infallible, however, then the definition of marriage and the purpose of marriage is unchangeable and non-negotiable. If a government goes on to redefine marriage and it’s purpose, then that government is a dishonest and self-seeking government looking to serve a dishonest and self-seeking people who demand the redefinition of marriage. The Christian on the other end do know where marriage originated from and knows who the originator is. This originator is none other than God. It’s the most logical explanation possible with or without the Bible! In the Bible we see the first wedding between a man and woman; Adam and Eve, ” Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 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 (Gen. 2:22-24).'” The origin of marriage goes back to God in the Garden of Eden with the marriage of Adam and Eve. There is no place in the Bible where same-sex marriage is condone by God. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality look at in a positive light by God. This we already saw earlier in this blog. The only question left now is whether God is a fallible Being or an infallible Being? According to Scripture and just plain logic, God is an infallible Being. If God was not infallible, God would not be God at all. Even philosophers know this to be true. Malachi 3:6 says, ““For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” Since God does not change, then His moral laws on sexuality and marriage has not and will not change. God’s definition of marriage is heterosexual only. God owns the institution of marriage and it’s definition no matter what anyone else thinks, feels, and does.

In conclusion, same-sex marriage is unwarranted biblically and philosophically. If a local church or denomination is honest with the Bible, then they should never reach the conclusion that it is alright to embrace homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To reach such a conclusion is not to know the heart of the God they claim to teach about and worship. As we have seen, the Bible is clearly against homosexuality and calls it what God intends for it to be called: sin. When a local church or denomination strays from the Bible, it is a matter of time before they begin to spiritually die and eventually become apostates and depart from the Christian faith. The Psalmist said, ” Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:105).” Let us as Christians walk in the light of God’s Word and not be engulfed in the doctrine of demons as we sadly see happening right now. Let us proclaim who the originator of marriage is and why it is important to know this originator of marriage who is God. Ultimately let us pray that it will lead us to share with them the life-saving gospel of Jesus Christ that they may be saved from their sins and God’s final judgment and eternal wrath.  

There is STILL a Dire need for Sound Doctrine.

Leave a reply

Image

Recently my lovely wife Joselyn was invited by a coworker to her church. It is always a pleasant feeling to a Christian to be invited to another house of worship; especially when it’s someone you know or have regular contact with. It is a completely different and troublesome feeling, however, when you go to this “church” only to find out that the teaching there is anything but Christian. Sadly the latter feeling was the case for my wife. She kindly and eagerly went to her coworker’s church only to find it teaching contrary doctrine to orthodox Christianity. Behind the pulpit the pastor openly denied and attempted to debunk such essential doctrines of the Christian faith such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and justification by faith alone in Christ. This group by the way is Iglesia ni Cristo which in English is translated “church of Christ.” This group is not affiliated with the Campbellite restoration movement,”Church of Christ”, even though they have the same doctrinal stances regarding water baptismal regeneration and the belief that they are the one true church. As me and Joselyn prayerfully prepare for our soon to come conversation with this coworker, I am reminded of the importance of sound doctrine as a Christian. Unlike the Trinity Broadcasting Network which can feature Trinitarians and Modalists having fellowship on the same platform, under the banner of Jesus, as if their opposing views are minor doctrinal issues, sound doctrine derived from the Bible is needed in order to join us unto Christian orthodoxy and protect us from heresy. In this blog we will see the Biblical emphasis put on the importance for having sound doctrine. In the next blog we will put it to work by examining Iglesia ni Cristo.

Doctrine or teaching is in no way foreign to the Bible. Both in the Old and New Testament we see the word doctrine mentioned many times: 51 times in 50 verses in the King James Bible. These numbers, however, fluctuate from translation to translation. Solomon spoke of teaching doctrine in Proverbs 4:2, “For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.” Solomon saw the need to give his son good doctrine and of course it is only good doctrine if it is in fact sound doctrine! We can also draw from this the importance for parents to have sound doctrine themselves in order to give sound doctrine to their children. The doctrine parents pass on to their children will shape their worldview either for better or for worst both now and for all eternity. God saw this need and gave instruction on when to begin teaching sound doctrine, “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts (Isaiah 28:9).” We see here that for parents teaching sound doctrine begins very early in a child’s life. Teaching sound doctrine to children is taught both in verbal and non-verbal ways. Verbal ways such as “don’t lie, tell the truth,” and non-verbal ways such as pulling a baby away from a electrical socket. 

In seeing the need for good doctrine as we saw in the Old Testament, it is only reasonable to beware of false doctrine. In the New Testament we see warnings about false doctrine. In Matthew 16:12 Jesus warns His disciples about the false doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducee’s, “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducee’s.” Jesus was no stranger to dealing with false doctrine. In Matthew 22 alone He dealt with two false doctrines: The Sadducee’s denial of the resurrection and the Pharisees doctrine of the Christ being the son of David. How much more then should we do the same in our day and age? This is only possible of course if we as Christians have sound doctrine ourselves. The Apostle Paul spoke of the need for being mature in Christian doctrine by giving us a descriptive picture of what a Christian without sound doctrine looks like, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph. 4:14).” A good example of this is the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo Felix Manalo. Felix came up in the Catholic church, then left them and studied the doctrines of various denominations and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. From this he formulated what is now the doctrines of the Iglesia ni Cristo which consist of Campbellite and Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is why the Apostle Paul saw the need for us as Christians to be nourished in sound doctrine (I Timothy 4:6).

Finally it is the responsibility of those of us who are teachers, preachers, and pastors to make sure sound doctrine is being taught to those whom God has giving to feed spiritually. Teaching the Word of God is a great responsibility to us who teach it to others. So much so that James tell us in James 3:1, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” Those of us who teach God’s Word are under God’s radar. God holds us accountable for how we teach His Word in every area from Christian living (Christian ethics) to doctrine (theology). This is why apologetics is so important. Apologetics is present because false doctrine is present: both theologically and philosophically. Sound doctrine exposes and corrects false doctrine. Sound doctrine exposes false doctrines such as Jesus being a created being and sound doctrine exposes and corrects false philosophical doctrines such as moral relativism. Where false doctrine exist, sound doctrine must be proclaimed in order to expose false doctrine for what it is. Those of us who are teachers of God’s Word are giving this sweet piece of instruction, “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1).” This is done both by teaching sound doctrine and exposing false doctrine, Every Christian teacher is more than happy to proclaim the glorious truths of God, but very few want to be Christ-like in exposing false doctrine like Jesus did. God hates false doctrine (Rev. 2:15), so it is critically important for us to have sound doctrine rooted deep within us and expose false doctrine.

In conclusion we see that there is STILL a dire need today for sound doctrine. It is our responsibility to pursue sound doctrine at all cost. Many Christians in the past have died because of false doctrine and their stance for sound doctrine while many more lost family, friends, jobs, and social status of other sorts in the name of sound doctrine. Reformer Martin Luther lost his social status with the Catholic church because of sound doctrine and exposing Catholicism’s many false doctrines such as indulgences. I’m pretty sure C.S. Lewis lost his social status in the world of atheism when he believed in the existence of God and received the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ and the gospel. I lost the vast majority of my friends in the Church of Christ when I left them due to embracing the sound doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To have sound doctrine is costly, but it’s worth it in knowing who God is and what God wants from us. A Christian cannot truly know God and have a relationship with Him on the basis of religious experience alone. It is this plus sound doctrine as well which will make a healthy and meaningful relationship with God possible. Sound doctrine is the sure and solid foundation which Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:24-27. Without this solid foundation called sound doctrine, we are destined to fall and be destroyed by Satan and his doctrine of demons.

Mormonism and the gods.

2 Replies

Image

Mormonism is known for its many doctrines which are contrary to Christian theology. Such doctrines include tritheism–the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate individual gods, not Triune where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are individually by nature the one and the same God. Other doctrines include God as a physical fleshly being with bones, the spiritual brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, water baptismal regeneration, and many other doctrines that run contrary to Christian theology. Here in this blog we will look into a doctrine of Mormonism which truly stands out and deviates from Christian orthodoxy: The plurality of gods. The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr. introduces the doctrine to us in the Journal of Discourses volume six, page 5, “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” Is it true that there is a multiplicity of gods in Heaven? What does the Bible say about this doctrine, if anything at all? Lastly is there any philosophical problems with this doctrine? Let us begin and find some answers.

The first question: Is it true that there is a multiplicity of gods in Heaven? The answer is a resounding no. Mormonism, however, do have a key passage in the Bible which they believe makes their case. In I Corinthians 8:5, “For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords)…” Joseph Smith appeals to this passage in a attempt to show us that there are actually many gods who exist other that the God of the Bible. In verse 4, however, we see the Apostle Paul state that there is actually one God, ” Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.” So is there only one God or many gods? Both cannot be true! It sure seems at this point that the multiplicity of gods doctrine is not fairing very well biblically so far.

Now we move on the second question: What does the Bible say about this doctrine, if anything at all? Well, as we have seen in the previous paragraph, there is really no scriptural proof at all. I Corinthians 8:5 was the closet thing to supporting the doctrine of many gods, but in light of verse 4 we see that there cannot possibly be many gods when the Apostle Paul clearly states to us that there is only one God. Even though something or someone may be called a god and lord, in actuality there is only one God according to the Bible. In Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Hebrew Shema, we read, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” This is the doctrinal declaration which Jews, Muslims, and Christians all agree and give their amen to. Other scriptural passages seem to dismiss this plurality of gods doctrine as well. For example, in the book of Isaiah from chapter 40 to chapter 47 it is full of declarations of their being only one God, such as we see in Isaiah 44:8b we read, “You are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.” This verse alone demolishes the existence of a plurality of gods, however, we cannot hang our theological position on this verse alone. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, “‘You are My witnesses’, says the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be after Me.” We read here from the very words of God Himself that there is no other gods but Him. This clearly debunks the teaching of a plurality of gods because according the God Himself there was no gods in existence before Him, which is impossible since God never had a moment when He didn’t exist which automatically disqualifies the idea of any gods existing before Him. Furthermore God makes it clear that there will be no gods formed after him, which means He will never create any other god(s) or promote anyone to Godhood. So we see God debunking two theological ideas in Mormonism:

1. The plurality of gods.

2. The teaching that Mormons can become gods themselves in the afterlife.

Therefore I think we can safely conclude that there is no plurality of gods in existence. Only the one true God exist and is forever praised, amen.

Last but not least we need to answer the question: Is there any philosophical problems with the Mormon doctrine of the plurality of gods? I definitely think there is. As Charles Darwin attempted (and failed) to explain the origin of species on purely evolutionary grounds, we must ask Mormons the question: In Mormonism what is the origin of the gods? Unfortunately I have yet to hear or read an answer to that question. Joseph Smith in Journal of Discourses suddenly introduces to us this plurality of gods, but does not tell us who is the First Cause of the chain of gods that exist. In Theism, particularly in Christian Theism, we know that the Cause of the existence of the universe, plant life, animal life, and human existence all are caused by God. The universe, plant, animal, and human life are contingent whereas God is a necessary being. The universe, plant, animal, and human existence are dependent upon God, otherwise none of these could exist for they cannot exist in and of themselves. God’s existence does not depend on anyone else for there is no god but Him. So who or what caused the chain of gods? Sadly in Mormonism there is no Uncaused First Cause like there is in Christianity. We seem to be left with an infinite regress of gods, which means that no matter how far back you go in the chain of gods you never arrive at the First Cause. This probably explains why Mormonism teaches Henotheism, which is the belief in many gods, but worship only one of the pantheon of gods. Mormonism chooses to worship God the Father, not all the plurality of gods because He is the Creator.

Thus in light of the Bible and philosophical reasoning we can conclude that there is no reason to believe in the existence of a plurality of gods in Mormonism. We have seen biblically that there is only one God. In the Hebrew Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 we see the proclamation and declaration of there being only one God. Throughout the book of Isaiah we read over and over again from chapter 40 through chapter 47 that there is one God and there is none like Him; neither was any God in existence before Him nor will there be any gods to come into existence after him. In I Corinthians 8:4 the Apostle Paul teaches that there is only one God, even though there may be other so-called deities that are called lords and gods. Philosophically we have seen that Mormonism has the daunting task to explain the origin of the plurality of the gods, but have failed to address this issue so far. Since Mormonism does not have an Uncaused First Cause to explain the origin of the gods, Mormonism is left with a infinite regress of gods. This is contrary to Christian theology and philosophical reasoning metaphysically. So we must judge the plurality of gods in Mormonism as false and heretical on both biblical and philosophical grounds.

Yeezianity and the Importance of Apologetics.

Leave a reply

Image

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

Image 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 1st 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

Image

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.