Category Archives: Theology

Comedian Steve Harvey: The Exclusivist

2 Replies

On January 23, 2021, the internationally recognized comedian Steve Harvey posted a video on his YouTube page which created quite a stir among Christians and a sense of delight among religious and spiritual inclusivists. Steve Harvey, recording his video from United Arab Emirates, a majority Muslim Persian Gulf nation where Islam is the official religion, made the bold claim that “There’s no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise.” Steve Harvey went even further, comparing the so-called multiple pathways to heaven with a television with 800 channels:

“It’s like television; now there’s [sic] over 800 channels on cable, and they’re all pretty entertaining. So I’m pretty sure that to get to Heaven, there’s got to be more than one route. Because somebody watching another channel or taking another channel than you, they’re still getting entertained, and they’re probably still getting to Heaven.” (YouTube)

While I sincerely do not see the parallel between a television with 800 entertaining channels and their being multiple pathways to God, what is clear is that Steve Harvey is ‘pretty sure’ there are many roads to what one calls god. 

As rightly expected, many Christians bum rushed social media to refute Steve Harvey’s claim by quoting such biblical passages such as John 14:6 where Jesus told his disciples in unabashed fashion, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (NKJV)  Orthodox Christians strongly believe this because it came from the mouth of God incarnate (God in the flesh), so there is no reason to doubt what Jesus boldly said. Steve Harvey’s assertion, however, necessitates a deeper inquiry. 

 Universalism and Inclusivism

What Steve Harvey is ascribing to is none other than the age-old heresy of Universalism. Universalism, according to Britannica, is “the belief in the salvation of all souls.”  This means that no matter what religion you are (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), you will go to heaven when you die. Universalists reject the idea of a god who would exclude any human being from going to heaven, and they especially and rigorously reject the biblical teaching that those who reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will spend eternity separated from God in the terrible torments of hell. Universalists cannot (or will not) reconcile the idea of a loving God and the existence of hell. The justice of God seems to be absent from Universalist thinking. Universalism solely focuses on the unconditional love of God. 

Inclusivism, on the other hand, according to Lexico, is “The practice of trying to incorporate diverse or unreconciled elements into a single system.” In the case of religion, inclusivists seek to unite religions together under one religious umbrella, in spite of irreconcilable differences theologically and philosophically. This approach to religious diversity inescapably leads to Universalism.    

Now that we have a working knowledge of Universalism/Inclusivism, a deeper inquiry into Steve Harvey’s assertion that there are many pathways to God can begin. I will set out to show first that Universalism/Inclusivism is logically and practically impossible and exclusivism is the Modus Operandi of every known religion with no exceptions. Secondly, that in reality, Universalism/Inclusivism is in fact exclusivist in nature, and finally, that while Steve Harvey talks good inclusion rhetoric; he is actually an exclusivist himself. 

Universalism/Inclusivism: Logically and Practically Impossible

While the thought of Inclusivism seems noble and the thought of the possibility of such unity among religions as emotionally moving and heartfelt, sadly this is logically and practically impossible; here’s why. Every religion known to humanity is philosophically and theologically exclusive. Furthermore, they contradict each other in such areas as God, sin and humanity, and the afterlife. Contradictory statements cannot be true. For instance, certain religions believe that God is a Uni-personal Being. That is to say that God is one person. This is true of both Islam and Judaism. On the other hand, there are religions which are polytheistic in their view of god. In this case, polytheists believe in the existence of many gods. This includes Hinduism and Mormonism. In the case of the majority in Buddhism, they do not believe in the existence of any kind of gods. They’re atheist! In the case of Christianity, however, God is viewed as a Triune/ Tri-personal Being; one God who exists as three co-eternal and co-existing persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The contradictory ideas about God are glaring! 

In the case of sin, humanity and salvation, every religion–with the exception of Christianity–holds to the idea that humanity is basically good by nature. In Christianity, humanity is born with a sin nature due to the moral and spiritual fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3; Romans 5:12). Due to this reality, Jesus Christ came to die on the cross and by His blood atoned for our sins (John 3:16; Col. 1:14, 19-20; I Peter 1:18-19). In other religions, such as Islam and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they teach that doing good works and following their respective religion’s teachings will hopefully (not certainly) grant entrance into paradise with God. Again, we see contradictions in the understanding of sin and humanity. 

Even the idea of an afterlife has contradictory responses from every religion. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe in the existence of heaven and hell. Buddhism, however, believes in rebirths or what is commonly called reincarnation. The goal of Indian religions such as Buddhism is to attain Moksha, which is the liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. Thus, when a person dies, they die and cease to exist. Once more we see clear contradictions among different religions concerning the afterlife. 

Overall, one can see that it is logically impossible for all roads to lead to heaven when the various roads actually lead us in various and contradictory directions and those roads will not ultimately get us to the same place. Especially in the case of Buddhism where there is no heaven or afterlife existence to look forward to. Furthermore, Universalism/Inclusivism is practically impossible because each religion has contradictory answers about who God is, sin, humanity and salvation, and what the afterlife will be like. This is so because each religion by nature is exclusive. Each religion believes they have the correct answers about reality (existence), the nature of humanity (anthropology), The Divine (God), and what happens after death (afterlife), and they believe that those religions whose answers are contrary to theirs is wrong. It’s that simple. Yes, it is true there is common ground religions share concerning what’s morally right and what’s morally wrong (ethics), but this alone is not enough to conclude that all roads lead to heaven. Subjects such as God, existence, sin, humanity, and salvation, and the afterlife are crucial topics of discussion and there is clearly no consensus shared among the various religions of the world about these subjects of vital significance. 

Thus, this means that either one of the religions is the one true religion and the other religions are false or in the most perplexing case, all the religions of the world are wrong and we are left with either Agnosticism or Atheism; which neither one will lead us to any kind of an afterlife since one worldview is not sure if there is such a thing (Agnosticism) and the other outright denies such a thing (Atheism). Nevertheless, no matter from what angle a person approaches this, in the end all roads do not lead to heaven since they all theologically and philosophically contradict each other. Furthermore, each religion theologically and logically is exclusive because they believe that they alone hold the truth in the palm of their hands and the others don’t. Exclusivism is the Modus Operandi of the religions of the world. 

Universalists/Inclusivists are actually Exclusivists

Universalism/Inclusivism as we have already seen makes the theological claim that everyone will be saved; regardless of one’s religious and philosophical convictions. Thus, they call on everyone from all the religions of the world to come together under the banner of religious unity. It is a call to inclusion. Inclusion, according to Dictionary.com, means “the act of including.” In other words, inclusivism seeks to include all and to exclude none. Religious inclusivism seeks to include all religions under the banner of religious unity, and excluding none; for to do so would be the opposite of inclusivism. 

In light of this understanding of religious inclusivism, an important question must be asked: Do inclusivists include or exclude exclusivists from their call to inclusivism? Logically speaking, religious inclusivists, like the Universalists, and exclusivists, like Christians, cannot co-exist harmoniously because religious inclusivists include all religious roads to heaven while Christians claim that the Jesus of the Christian faith is the only way to heaven (John 14:6). So since the goal of religious inclusivism and is to unite like-minded inclusivists, it is only logical to conclude that religious inclusivists must exclude exclusivists like Christians who do not share in their inclusion agenda. For religious inclusivists to invite religious exclusivists to join their cause would be a recipe for disaster. Therefore, religious inclusivists are not really religious inclusivists, but rather they are actually religious exclusivists, since they must exclude religious exclusivists from their cause. So since religious inclusivists are religiously exclusivists about religious exclusivists, then religious inclusivists can no longer be considered religious inclusivists. 

Steve Harvey the Exclusivist

Now that the factual realization has been established that there is actually no such thing as a religious inclusivist or a Universalist for that matter, then we must rightfully conclude that comedian Steve Harvey is not a Universalist/Inclusivist, but is himself an exclusivist. Wow! Isn’t that funny?! In his own words, Steve Harvey excludes the possibility of there being only one way to heaven. Remember, Steve Harvey said, “There’s no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise.” That is an exclusive claim. He is excluding the belief of there being only one way to heaven. Thus, Steve Harvey is an exclusivist who excludes anyone who is not on board with religious inclusivism and Universalism. 

Final Thoughts

It is sad that comedian Steve Harvey has chosen to embrace Universalism/Inclusivism. It is sad because I believe Steve Harvey knows better than this. Why? Because his mother was a devoted Christian woman. According to Steve Harvey, his mother instilled godly principles in him and his siblings. I think I can rightly assume that from the lips of his mother Steve Harvey heard the wondrous gospel of Jesus Christ who came from heaven to earth to die a criminal’s death on the cross for our sins; even though He committed no sin (II Corinthians 5:21). He heard from the lips of his mother that three days later after Jesus death on the cross, He rose triumphantly from the dead conquering sin and death. From those same precious lips Steve Harvey heard his mother tell him what he needed to do in order to be saved from sin and hell and that only Jesus could do so. 

Mr. Steve Harvey, only Jesus could dare to proclaim,  “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus backed up His exclusive claim by not only dying on the cross for the sins of humanity (which includes you), but by rising bodily from the dead and victoriously and boldly asking “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”(I Corinthians 15:55)  Mr. Steve Harvey, Jesus Christ now has the undeniable right to make that claim; both as the risen Savior of all humanity and as God Himself in human flesh. Jesus Himself said in John 5:22-23, “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” 

Do you claim to honor God the Father? If you do, you must also honor God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Otherwise you do not honor the God who has committed all judgment to His Son. One day, Jesus will be your judge on Judgement Day. Are you ready to meet your God? I and every Christian are praying that you will turn from your sins and make Jesus the Lord and Savior of your life before death takes you from this earth to a Christless eternity in the torments of hell. 

 “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24, as spoken by Jesus Himself)

The Holy Spirit: Person or Force?

1 Reply

Those who are well acquainted with the kingdom of the cults are very much aware that every cult organization contradicts one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. The essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are most often and intentionally under attack are: the deity of Jesus, the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the triune nature of God, justification by faith, and the authority of the Bible. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses this would also include the personhood of the Holy Spirit. 

According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Holy Spirit is not a person, as historic Christianity has always taught, but a force. The online glossary of the Jehovah’s Witnesses website defines the Holy Spirit as: 

“The invisible energizing force that God puts into action to accomplish his will. It is holy because it comes from Jehovah, who is clean and righteous to the highest degree, and because it is God’s means to accomplish what is holy.”1  

In other words, the Holy Spirit is simply “God’s active force.”2 But is this true? Does the Bible and reason lead to a belief in the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit?  This article will investigate the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim of the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit and see if it can biblically and logically hold its ground. Better yet, let’s also see if their claim can hold its ground in the face of their own Bible translation: The New World Translation. If the New World Translation, alongside our Holy Bible, affirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine of the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit collapses under its own weight. 

Argument  #1

 Jehovah’s Witnesses’ first argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, which they would also consider to be their strongest argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit “is spoken of as ‘filling people’, they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be ‘anointed’ with it. None of these expressions would be appropriate if the Holy Spirit were a person” 3 Unfortunately, this anonymous writer failed to explain why the use of these expressions are inappropriate if the Holy Spirit is a person. We are expected to assume the writer has made a rational case against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, however, that will not suffice. Further elaboration is required in order to establish a sound case against the personal nature of the Holy Spirit. 

Why isn’t it possible for the Holy Spirit, as a person, to perform acts such as filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers with Himself? In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent (everywhere present) due to His very nature being God. God is omnipresent, and since the Holy Spirit is by nature God, then the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. It is therefore not a problem for the Holy Spirit, as a person, to perform acts of filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers with Himself since the Holy Spirit is not spatially limited (i.e. a physical body). 

Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not seem to take in consideration that even Jehovah (God) also fills all things, but yet is Himself a person. In Ephesians 4:6b God is …”who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (NKJV Bible) In this verse we are told by the apostle Paul that God is in all believers in Jesus Christ. How? Through the Holy Spirit who is by very nature God. Even the New World Translation attests to this, “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (NWT) How is it possible for Jehovah God to be in all (believers) and yet be a person? Could it be because Jehovah God is simultaneously a person and omnipresent?  Of course it is.  Thus, the Holy Spirit, who can perform the acts of filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers is also simultaneously a person and omnipresent. 

Argument  #2 

Another argument Jehovah’s Witnesses use against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the personification argument. This argument posited by the Jehovah’s Witnesses states that when we read in the Bible of the Holy Spirit “speaking”, “hearing”, “bearing witness”, “teaching” or being called our “helper”, these are mere personifications; not to be taken literally. 4 Granted, it is true that the Bible does use personifications in certain instances. For example, Luke 7:35 speaks of wisdom having children, “But wisdom is justified by all her children.” Obviously, wisdom cannot bear children because wisdom is just a word, not a person. Another example is Romans 5:14, 21 which speaks of sin, death, and grace reigning. Again, it is obvious that sin, death, and grace are not personal entities, only words. Can this argument, therefore, rationally stand its ground? Three traits that can be ascribed to persons are the ability to: speak, teach, and bear witness.

Speaking

In Acts 13:2 we read, “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Jehovah’s Witnesses will argue that in cases where the Holy Spirit is said to be speaking, this “was done through angels or humans.”5 In this verse, however, it is not the case. The subject is the Holy Spirit and the action performed by the subject is the action of speaking. Nothing in this verse tells us the act of speaking was done through either an angel or human. The Holy Spirit spoke to certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (verse 1). After the time of prayer and fasting, these prophets and teachers obeyed the Holy Spirit’s command and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul), prayed for them and sent them on their way (verse 3). Therefore, since there was no mediator to convey the message to set aside Paul and Barnabas for the assigned mission work, we can rationally conclude that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to the prophets and teachers. This is only possible if the Holy Spirit is a person. 

Teaching

In John 14:26 it states, “ But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” In the New World Translation it basically says the same thing, “But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.” (NWT) 

So what comes with being able to teach? To be able to teach, one must:  a. have a mind; b. have knowledge which require a mind; and c. have the ability to intelligently communicate knowledge. Can an impersonal entity, such as a force, possess mind, knowledge, and communication skills? No, absolutely not, but a person can.  In the New World Translation, Jesus states, “….that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.” demonstrating that human persons have minds. In order to be able to bring any teaching of knowledge back to one’s remembrance, one must have a mind in order to do so. Hence, only persons have minds which can and do possess knowledge and thus can teach. The Holy Spirit is able to teach–which requires a mind and knowledge–therefore, the Holy Spirit must be a person. 


Bearing Witness

Lastly, in the New World Translation, John 15:26 states, “ When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me” What is it to bear witness of someone? To bear witness is to affirm or ascribe to a person’s character or philosophy of life as is the case of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus here in John 15:26. Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit will bear witness to His (Jesus) character and teachings. 

Can a force bear witness of anyone? No, but a person can. In Exodus 20:16 of the Ten Commandments, it says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Who is being commanded not to bear false witness against their neighbor? Human persons. Human persons are commanded not to bear false witness against their fellow human person. Only persons have the ability to either bear true or false witness against their neighbor; which indicates that a person can be either moral or immoral. To bear true witness is moral and to bear false witness is immoral. What kind of witness does the Holy Spirit bears about Jesus? The Holy Spirit bears true witness to the person and teachings of Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. (John 16:13) Since the Holy Spirit truthfully bears witness to the person and teachings of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not only a person, but a moral person, and not just a moral person, but a perfectly moral person because the Holy Spirit is God and God is the only one who is morally perfect.   

Argument  #3

The final argument that Jehovah’s Witnesses use in opposition to the personhood of the Holy Spirit is that since the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name, then the Holy Spirit is not a person. They indirectly imply this argument by saying, “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.” 6 First off, a much needed correction is to be made: Jesus Christ is not His personal name. Jesus is His personal name and Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah”.  Thus, the personal name of the Son of God is Jesus, who is the Messiah. With that said, let us continue. 

Is this argument set forth by the Jehovah’s Witnesses rational and thus, valid? No, this argument is actually irrational because it implies that personhood does not exist unless one has a personal name and that is just not the case. In actuality, this form of reasoning runs into a lot of problems and absurdities. Think about it. How many people do you know have given personal names to things like animals and cars? Clara may call her dog Rex and Bill may call his car Betsy, but is Rex the dog and Betsy the car now considered persons because they possess personal names? Of course not. That would be absurd! 

Being a person entails more than just having a personal name. Descriptively, a person is one who has mind, will, and emotions. The Holy Spirit has a mind (Romans 8:27), will (I Corinth. 12:11), and emotions (Eph. 4:30). An impersonal force– whether active or not–does not and cannot possess the personal qualities of mind, will, and emotions. These personal qualities are only reserved and possessed by personal beings. 

Furthermore, this line of reasoning also creates an unpleasant moral conflict for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses are ardently pro-life and thus opposes abortion; which is a wonderful thing. The moral conflict for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, comes into play when applying their line of reasoning concerning personal name equaling personhood to the issue of abortion. The problem is as follows:

If one is not a person unless they have a personal name, then abortion becomes perfectly justifiable. Why?  because an unborn baby does not possess a legal personal name. This personal name is not legalized until the baby is born and the personal name is printed on the birth certificate. Parents can and do name their unborn babies in advance all the time, but that personal name is useless and therefore meaningless until the baby is born and the personal name is printed on the birth certificate. Abortion would be perfectly justifiable until the baby is born and named, if we were to apply the Jehovah’s Witnesses line of reasoning concerning personal name equaling personhood. This would of course be morally horrific and I’m sure Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree. So if we cannot apply this line of reasoning to abortion (and we shouldn’t), then there is no rational reason to apply this line of reasoning when it applies to the argument opposing the personhood of the Holy Spirit. It is not a rational or realistic argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit and it therefore should be undoubtedly rejected.   

The Holy Spirit is a Person

We can conclude that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person. Through the testimony of the Bible and sound reason, there should be no doubt that the Holy Spirit consists of the traits and attributes of personhood. Unlike a force, the Holy Spirit–like any other person–has a mind, which gives Him the ability to speak and teach. He (the Holy Spirit) has a will, which gives Him the ability to willfully choose to set aside people for ministry work. The  Holy Spirit has emotions and can be grieved, which only a person can express. 

Despite the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim of the Bible using personified language, when it comes to the Holy Spirit speaking, teaching, and bearing witness, we have seen this to be an irrational position to take. Both our Bible and the Jehovah’s Witness bible–the New World Translation–along with the tools of logic and rationality shows that this is not and cannot be personified language, but literal language which articulates that the Holy Spirit is in fact a person, and not a force. 

We have seen that even though the Holy Spirit fills, baptize, and anoint believers of Jesus Christ, He (the Holy Spirit) can still be a person because God, as a person, also fills believers with Himself. This is affirmed both in our Bible and the New World Translation. Unfortunately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to give an explanation of why these expressions of actions by the Holy Spirit are deemed inappropriate. They seem to assume we will just mindlessly accept their presupposition without question; but thinking individuals like us cannot allow these claims to go unquestioned. We require them to clarify their claim in order to better understand the argument they are setting forth. 

Finally, we have seen that it is logically absurd and even morally dangerous to argue that the Holy Spirit is not a person due to Him lacking a personal name. We saw how absurd it was because no one would say a dog named Rex or a car named Betsy is a person due to it having a personal name. Further, we saw how this line of reasoning puts the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a moral dilemma. If reasoned that one is not a person until they have a personal name, then abortion becomes justifiable since a baby does not legally receive their personal name until the baby is born. Thus, termination of the baby in the mother’s womb would not be wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses would find this to be horrific since they are pro-life. 

The Holy Spirit is a person. He is by very nature God Himself as the third person of the Holy Trinity. He is, as God is, omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the bible and because of Him we have the blessing of reading about the person and ways of God. He seals us as Christians for the day of redemption. (Eph. 4:30) He gives us spiritual gifts as He wills for service in the church; locally and worldwide (I Corinth. 12:4-11) and so much more. This is the person: The Holy Spirit of God. 

Works cited

(1) Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Holy Spirit. Glossary,  https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-glossary/holy-spirit/ Accessed 3 December 2020.  

(2) Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.), p. 380.

(3) Ibid., p. 380.

(4) Ibid., p. 380.

(5) Ibid., p. 380.

(6) Ibid., p. 407. 

Evil Put in its Proper Place

Leave a reply

Let us remember that every worldview-not just Christianity’s-must give an explanation or an answer for evil and suffering…this is not just a problem distinctive to Christianity. It will not do for the challenger just to raise the question. This problem of evil is one to which we all must offer an answer, regardless of the belief system to which we subscribe—Ravi Zacharias1

 Evil has been a subject matter long discussed and debated. Dialogues and deliberations concerning evil have ranged across all academic and non-academic platforms. Various explanations of the origin, function, and even the reality of evil has formulated many religious, philosophical, and theological ideas. Of course, not all of these explanations about the problem of evil are in agreement, but in fact contradict one another; yet they each vie for your mind. As human beings we know (at least we should know) contradictory truth claims cannot all be equally true. Either all of the truth claims are false, or one of the truth claims is in fact true. Never have and never will contradictory truth claims be equally true. 

As we are bombarded daily with a smorgasbord of ideas about what evil is (and isn’t), how do we decide which view of evil is in fact true? Remember in my last blog The Necessity of Truth, truth was defined as that which corresponds with reality. Using this working definition of truth, what view or understanding of evil best fits everyday reality? This question must be approached objectively in order to arrive at an accurate answer. It is my hope one will do so in order to accurately interpret the immoral behaviors of the world in which we live. 

Evil in a Maze of Definitions

Normally when a person thinks of the word evil, one’s mind think of an act which is considered evil; whether it be murder, rape, theft, etc. How many, however, actually think about what evil itself actually is apart from any act of evil? To be absolutely honest, most don’t think that deeply about evil. We simply condemn an act of evil and keep it moving, but this way of approaching the topic of evil is not good enough. Anybody with a sound mind from any worldview can condemn an evil act, but how do those of differing worldviews interpret those evil acts? These various interpretations of an evil act are grounded in how that particular worldview defines evil.  Let’s look at some definitions for evil. 

Islam

According to the second largest religion in the world, Islam teaches “that whatever takes a person away from God, and thus incurs His anger is evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) So evil is that which incurs the anger of Allah (God), but how can we know what actions incurs the anger of Allah? The answer is that we can’t know because “The Qur’an clearly states that God is the only authority in defining good and evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) Hence, Sura 2: 216 says, 

“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. 

Yes, it is true that people can hate something that is good for their all-around well-being (God) and love something that is bad for their all-around well-being (drugs), but is it true we cannot know what those good and evil behaviors are apart from Allah? No, this is not true and any non-Muslim would reject this claim; whether they are religious or not. If, according to the Islamic definition of evil, only Allah knows what is evil and one can’t know for themselves what behaviors incur the anger of Allah apart from Allah, then one cannot truly know what evil is. Thus, the Islamic definition of evil is insufficient.

Buddhism

At first glance, the topic of Buddhism and the problem of evil can seem pretty complex, but the deeper one studies this topic, the clearer things begin to get. The Buddha, Gautama Buddha, is quoted as saying the following about what evil is, 

“What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil, envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil.”

First, the Buddha answers the question of what is evil by giving us a list of behaviors which one would agree are in fact evil: killing, lying, slandering, abuse, gossip, envy, hatred, and false doctrine. Then the Buddha asks a follow-up question: What is the root of evil? Gautama Buddha’s answer: Desire and illusion. The Buddha gives us this answer because according to Buddhist ethics, desire and illusion are what brings about suffering. Deep within our minds we crave or desire things which we think will satisfy us and “…this thirst or craving takes different forms: craving for the objects of the senses, for existence and non-existence.”2 

Consequently, our desire for these things and more give us the illusion that they can bring about our satisfaction, but in actuality “It is the cause of suffering because it can never be finally satisfied.”3  In other words, according to Buddhism, desire is evil because it leaves us with the illusion that obtaining our desire for things like objects of the senses will bring about satisfaction when in reality it won’t. It’s just an illusion and is therefore evil since such satisfaction is not obtainable. Thus, we are left with a “… mind that is unhealthy, harmful, based on ignorance, and resulting in suffering.”  (Good, Evil, and Beyond)  

So is desire the root of evil? No, it is not. There are plenty of desires which are not evil. Even in Buddhism there are desires which Buddhists have, though they wouldn’t dare admit it. For example, is not becoming a monk a desire? Otherwise, what would motivate a Buddhist to become one? The logical answer is desire. One other example: Why should a Buddhist be concerned about reaching nirvana? Is it not because a Buddhist desires to break free from the continuous cycles of rebirths (reincarnation)? Of course it is. So then, the Buddhist understanding of evil is not only insufficient, but unlivable as well.

New Age Movement   

Perhaps one unexpected addition to this discussion about evil is the New Age Movement, but like any other worldview, the New Age Movement has its own view about what evil is. In New Age thought, good and evil are relative. This means that New Agers do not believe that there is such a thing as moral principles or moral laws which humans must abide by. There are no moral absolutes. There is no clear cut category of which behaviors are good and which behaviors are evil. This is known as moral relativism. 

At the core of New Age ethics is love. Love, according to New Age thought “is something like a Force in that it is basically neither good nor evil.  By love they do not mean a voluntary act of compassion for another individual.”4 Love instead is an impersonal binding force which brings all people and things together.5 Thus, love is “…the energy which makes humanity one.”6 It is only on a lower level of existence where there is a distinction between good and evil, yet still there are no moral absolutes, but only voluntary acts.  

Famous actress and high profile New Age representative Shirely MacLaine was clear about her moral relativism. She stated unabashedly in her book Dancing in the Light that “We are not under the Law of God. We are the Law of God. We are God.”7 In other words, since we are God, we are a law unto ourselves and “until mankind realizes there is, in truth, no good, and there is, in truth, no evil, there will be no peace.”8 My question here is: Is it true that there is no good and there is no evil? Is MacLaine making an absolute truth statement about the non-existence of good and evil? If not, her statement is relative, and therefore meaningless. 

As we have seen, the New Age Movement is in no position to give us a definition for evil, since they reject the existence of evil, as well as good. Morality is relative. New Agers like Shirely MacLaine, however, contradict their own moral relativism. Is it good not to be under the Law of God? Is it good to be God ourselves? Instead, could it be evil to claim to be God? Is it true that there is no good and evil? To answer either yes or no to any of these questions will affirm the reality of absolute truth. The only way for a New Ager to avoid this problem and maintain relativism is to remain speechless and letter-less for a lifetime.  

Christianity  

So can Christianity give us a solid definition and understanding of evil?  Christianity’s definition and understanding of evil is given and explained both philosophically and theologically. Let’s start with the philosophical definition of evil. Christian philosophers and apologists define evil as the absence of good. They argue that evil is not a stand-alone substance or entity in the same way good is. An illustration of this argument is found in the nature of light and darkness. Light is a stand-alone substance. Light cannot be diminished by anything; especially as it pertains to light from the sun. A cloudy day does not diminish the light from the sun and plunges us into total darkness; we may not see the sun rays from the sun, but we still continue to experience the light coming from the sun.  

On the other hand, however, darkness like what we experience at night does not remain regardless of atmospheric changes. When the sun appears in the morning, does the darkness of the night remain? No, it doesn’t remain. The darkness is diminished by the light of the sun. When the sun goes down in the evening, the darkness appears again. The existence of and non-existence of darkness is determined by the presence or lack of presence of the sun. 

In a similar way, like darkness, evil does not stand alone in the way good stands alone. Just like darkness indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of light, so evil indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of good. Darkness is not a deprivation of light, for to say that it is to imply that darkness is a stand-alone substance, which clearly isn’t the case. Evil is not a stand-alone entity either like good is. This is so because good and goodness flows from the very nature of God. Good is a stand-alone substance since its existence is contingent upon God. Evil on the other hand does not flow from the nature of God for “… in Him is no darkness at all.” (I John 1:5) Hence, evil is not a stand-alone substance since it has no object of contingency. 

Medieval Christian philosopher Augustine in his classic work Confessions spoke in depth about evil not being a stand-alone substance like good is a stand-alone substance. Augustine said, 

“So then, if they are deprived of all good, they will be nothing at all. Therefore, as long as they exist, they are good. Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good.”9   

In other words, any existing thing or substance is good for it comes from God; for good flows from His nature. Evil has no substance and is the deprivation of good, thus it is nothing at all. Augustine’s own pronouncement on evil, “For you evil does not exist at all…”10  Evil then, according to Christian philosophy, is the deprivation of good. Now we must attempt to link this philosophical definition of evil with the biblical/theological definition of evil. If done, then Christianity has the proper definition of evil which accurately corresponds with everyday reality. 

According to the Bible in I John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” “Wait a minute!” one may say, “this verse is talking about sin, not evil.” True, but interestingly, sin is a synonym for evil. Since this is so, the verse can be read as following “…for evil is the transgression [breaking] of the law.” [Emphasis mine]  The Greek word here for sin is parabasis. Parabasis, according to the Moody Handbook of Theology, means “overstepping, transgression.”11 Therefore, sin (evil) is the overstepping of God’s Law. We overstep or break God’s Law by failing to do what is good according to what God’s standard of good is. 

God’s Law says, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) To murder is to bring about the death of a human being, which results in the deprivation of life. Life is good, but the deprivation of life is evil. God’s Law also said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16) To lie to someone is to deprive them of the truth. Truth is good, but the deprivation of truth is evil. 

Do you see the connection between the philosophical definition of evil as presented by Christian philosophers like Augustine and the biblical/theological definition of evil? Furthermore, the definition of evil given by Christianity does in fact correspond with reality. In light of the acts of racial injustices that are taking place in the United States, we know from this that justice is good, but its deprivation (injustice) is evil. Racial equality is good, but its deprivation (racism) is evil. Therefore, Christianity has the precise definition of evil for it perfectly corresponds with the reality we experience daily. 

Who Puts Evil in its Proper Place

In conclusion, we have examined some definitions for evil as given by Islam, Buddhism, the New Age Movement, and Christianity. Islam told us evil is that which incurs Allah’s anger, but then tells us we cannot know what is good and evil apart from the knowledge of Allah. Humans, however, can and do know what behaviors are good and evil apart from a divine being. 

Buddhism teaches that desire and craving are evil for they bring about the illusion that we’ll obtain satisfaction from those things we desire and crave, when in actuality they won’t and that is evil. The problem is, however, Buddhist do express desires such as being monks and/or reaching nirvana. Otherwise why pursue these things? 

In the New Age Movement, we are taught that good and evil are relative, for there are no objective moral values. Is it good to not be under the Law of God as Shirely MacLaine said? Is it good or evil to say we are gods? As we have come to realize, objective and absolute moral truth claims cannot be avoided.   

Finally, in Christianity we learn that evil by definition is the deprivation of good. Also, evil is the transgression of the Law of God, which is the deprivation of keeping and honoring God’s Law. It is with Christianity that we find the precise definition of evil for it corresponds with our everyday experience of evil; both from without and from within. Through the Christian worldview we can know what evil is and there is no need to look any further than Christianity. Through the lenses of the Christian faith evil is put in its proper place.   

Works Cited

(1) Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007),  p.182.

(2) Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998),  p.70.

(3) Ibid., p. 70.

(4) J. Yutaka Amano & Norman Geisler, The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1989),  p. 137.

(5) Ibid., p. 137.

(6) Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (North Hollywood, Calif.: Tara Center, 1980), 123. 

(7) Shirley MacLaine, Dancing in the Light (New York: Bantam, 1985), p. 247.

(8) Ibid., p. 342. 

(9) Augustine, Confessions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 124-25. 

(10) Ibid., p. 125. 

(11) Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 310.

The Necessity of Truth

Leave a reply

Peace if possible, truth at all cost–Martin Luther

Since the beginning of creation, truth has been under attack by ardent opposition.  God (the Creator of all things) has no equal and shares His glory with no one (Isaiah 40:25; 42:8), yet Lucifer, In Isaiah 14:12-14, egotistically sought equality with God his Creator and was evicted out of heaven.  Even after being evicted from heaven, Lucifer (Satan) continued his attacks against truth in the Garden of Eden. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:15-17, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or else he would surely die. Satan however, (the Father of lies-John 8:44) sowed seeds of doubt in the mind of Eve by telling Eve, “…You surely will not die.  For God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5) Adam and Eve believed the lie of Satan and partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Just as Lucifer (Satan) was evicted from heaven for coveting equality with God, even so, God also evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for falsely believing the same thing and, as a result, sin permeates all of humanity.

The necessity of truth is paramount especially in our day and age. During a time in our society where subjectivism and relativism have gained prominence, more than ever before, the Christian church must rise to the challenge of proclaiming the truth, which emanates from the very essence and nature of the Triune God. Tragically however, while the truth is proclaimed and taught within the Christian community amongst one another, there are not nearly enough Believers proclaiming and teaching the truth outside the Church community. Do we fear the objections we may receive if we proclaim the truth to those of different worldviews? We as Christians must not fear, but speak the truth in love to those across religious and philosophical landscapes. The question is: How much do we as Christian value truth? Do we really know what truth is and its impact on us and the Christian worldview? This article seeks to answer these questions for the purpose of cultivating a renewed love for truth and the Author of truth. If achieved, we can, with confidence, rise up with boldness and counter any truth claim that raises its ugly head against the knowledge of God. (II Corinthians 10:4-5)   

What is Truth?

The question of “What is truth?” has been asked throughout history. During the trial of Jesus before Pontus Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus if He was a king. Jesus answered him, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37) “Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Too often this response to Jesus’ claim is overlooked by the average Christian, but warrants our undivided attention. Unfortunately Pilate failed to stick around to hear the answer.

What exactly is truth? Jesus answers this in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” According to Jesus, God’s word is truth and since Jesus bears witness to God’s truth (John 18:37), we can be certain that God’s word is truth. “Wait!” says the Skeptic, “Just because Jesus said so, doesn’t necessarily mean it is so. What about the truth claims of other worldviews and religions? What makes your worldview and religion so exclusive?” In order to answer these objections raised by Skeptics, we must dig deeper in further defining what truth is.

Most philosophers define truth as, “That which corresponds to or adequately expresses what is real.”1   In other words, truth is that which corresponds with reality. For example: All single people are unmarried. This is a true statement about single people which corresponds with reality. There isn’t any such thing as a single married person. There may be married individuals who live like they’re single, but in reality he/she is still married. A biblical example of the definition of truth is as follows:

“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. (II Timothy 3:3-4)

Is it not true that all these sinful character traits correspond with reality? Do you know of anyone who holds grudges easily? Do you know someone who goes into a fit of rage easily? Or do you know someone at work who constantly speaks negatively of their co-worker or boss? If we are honest with ourselves, we all know individuals who fit several of these traits. Since there are people who have one or more of these sinful character traits, then the truth claim of II Timothy 3:3-4 is in fact true. It corresponds to reality we can observe; even within ourselves.

As Christians, we can answer with confidence the objections of skeptic friends that the reason Jesus could declare that God’s word is truth is because His truth in fact corresponds with the everyday reality in which we live. When the Bible speaks concerning the moral depravity of humanity as well as many other claims, they are found to be true because they correspond with reality. In a nutshell: If a truth claim corresponds to the reality in which we live, it is true and is therefore the truth. If a truth claim does not correspond to the reality in which we live, it is false and is therefore not the truth.

Truth or Consequences

The Christian church has failed to see the necessity of truth and the consequences of that failure (upholding and defending the truth of God’s word) have been visible for all to see. While there has been a small remnant of Christians throughout history who have upheld and defended the historic truths of the Christian faith, the majority has failed to see the urgency to do so. As a result,  Postmodernism, Religious Pluralism, and a vast sea of world religions, cult organizations, etc. which comes against Christianity has emerged with their own truths in an attempt to pull people away from the truth of God’s word; especially the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many within the Christian church today, sadly, are still silent to oppose opposing worldviews vie for the heart, mind, and soul of non-Christians as well as those within the church.

As a person who has spent much time dedicated to apologetics and evangelism among those in world religions and cult organizations, I’m troubled and grieved to see so little missionary work done among those in these groups. As a result, many within the church fall away and enjoin themselves to religions like Islam and Buddhism or cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science or the Heath, Wealth, and Prosperity movement (Word of Faith movement). Even worse, pastors and leaders have allowed false doctrines (false truth claims) to infiltrate their local churches.

One example of this infiltration is the false doctrine of the Heath, Wealth, and Prosperity movement (Word of Faith movement) into the Church of God in Christ. COGIC leaders from the top on down have embraced and taught its members that they can create reality with their words. The Bible states, “Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it? (Lamentations 3:37)  This truth claim of creating reality with your words originated from the New Age Movement, not in the Bible, yet the presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ, Charles E. Blake has embraced such WOF teachers such as Fredrick K.C. Price, whose truth claim concerning Christ’s atonement is blasphemous!  Concerning Christ’s atonement for sin, Fred Price stated:

“Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God . . . Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound. And they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence.” (Ever Increasing Faith Messenger [June 1980]) yet he was a guest speaker at Bishop Charles Blake’s Inaugural Celebration Banquet in Memphis 2009.

Why would the presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ have a preacher who teaches a doctrine of atonement that clearly contradicts the very words of Jesus Himself: “So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (John 19:30) There is no scriptural evidence of Jesus going to hell to atone for the sins of humanity.

In addition to the above mentioned, Joel Osteen was also invited by Blake to speak at the 2017 COGIC 110th Holy Convocation. According to Osteen, “We have to conceive it on the inside before we’re ever going to receive it on the outside.” (Your Best Life Now, chapter 1) This truth claim also stems from the New Age movement, not from the Bible. Tragically, the epistemic fall of the Church of God in Christ is a grim example of what Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis calls Truth Decay.  Truth decay, whether purposeful or nonpurposeful, is where truth is exchanged for falsity. Truth decay is the consequence the Christian church faces for not recognizing the extreme seriousness for the necessity of truth. Such a turn from or neglect of the necessity of truth can cause the fall of an entire denomination like that of the Church of God in Christ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the necessity to proclaim and defend the truth is of crucial importance for the Christian church. There are numerous opposing worldviews and truth claims which seek to draw converts to themselves. We cannot afford to continue to sit idly by allowing opposing truth claims to go unchallenged. The apostle Paul exhorted us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good”. (I Thess. 5:21) The truth of God’s word is good and it must be used to counter-attack the false truths of our time. In order to proclaim and defend God’s truth, we must diligently seek to study and know it. Laziness is not an option in the pursuit of truth. Let us therefore pursue the truth of God and “Study to shew thyself (oneself) approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)

Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it–Blaise Pascal

[1] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p.118-19

Positive Confession and the Sovereignty of God

Leave a reply










In the 1980’s and 1990’s, positive confession began to flood into churches throughout the United States. Well known charismatic preachers such as Kenneth Hagin Sr., Kenneth Copeland, Fredrick K.C. Price, Benny Hinn, and many others began to teach that you can create negative or positive realities with your spoken words . These preachers taught that one should not confess that they’ are sick with a cold (even while symptoms are clearly present), but rather confess health and healing by quoting Isaiah 53:5 which states ” by His stripes you are healed” (even though your nose is running and you’re coughing up your guts). In a nutshell, they profess that a person should deny the reality they are seeing and experiencing (such as having a cold) and confess the reality they think is rightfully theirs via what they believe the Bible says about their situation. However, if what one positively confesses fails to come to past, then it is the fault of that person because they did not have enough faith to bring it to past.


This doctrine has derailed the faith of many people and in turn wrecked their lives and faith in Jesus Christ. At the height of the positive confession/Word of Faith Movement, many books and articles were written to refute this movement such as Dr. Walter Martin’s book The Kingdom of the Cults, Hank Haneagraff’s book Christianity in Crisis, and D.R. McConnell’s book A Different Gospel. These books and others effectively helped many who fell prey to this movement and its doctrines to realize that they had been deceived and that positive confession, as taught by those in the Word of Faith Movement, is in no way biblical. If anything, positive confession has its origins in the New Age Movement.


Sadly, however, it seems that once again the positive confession movement is under the radar of the Christian church and Christian apologist. With the exception of Justin Peters and his seminar Clouds without Water, their doesn’t seem to be very much work or ministry dealing with this dangerous doctrine. Dangerous doctrine? How is positive confession a dangerous doctrine? In this blog I will attempt to demonstrate how this doctrine denies the sovereignty of God; which is in fact dangerous, how preachers in this positive confession movement attempt to ground their doctrine in the Bible, how they teach their followers to use Scripture to create their own reality, and lastly, how these faith teachers (as they are usually called and will be called for the duration of this blog) say that God cannot do anything apart from what we say via quoting Bible passages.


Scripture and Doctrine 


If a teacher who claims to be a Christian teacher is going to teach a doctrine that they want others to believe, they must attempt to find grounds for it in the Bible. Preachers and teachers in the positive confession movement use a number of Bible verses in an attempt to solidify their doctrine of positive confession, but for now we will only examine the Bible verses they most often use when attempting to substantiate their doctrine of positive confession. After presenting each verse and how they (mis) interpret them, I will attempt to properly interpret them as they are usually interpreted by preachers and teachers of the Bible.


Romans 4:17


One of the most, if not the most used passage of Scripture by those in the positive confession movement is Romans 4:17, “(as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did…’ Faith teachers will point particularly to the latter half of this verse and tell their listeners that they, by their very words, can call things into existence. Joseph Prince in his devotional entitledCall it Forth, teaches his readers that they should call things that be not as though they were because that is what God does and since they are created in the image of God, they, according to Prince, are able do the same thing. Prince attempts to substantiate his point by teaching that the changing of Abram’s name to Abraham in Genesis 17:5 caused Abraham to confess that he is
Father of Many Nations via the meaning of his name:


“When God wanted to make Abraham a father of many nations, what did He do? He changed the way Abraham talked…God changed the way he talked. How? By changing his name from Abram to Abraham, which means “father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5)…. But God changed the way Abraham talked so that he called forth what God saw him already blessed with.”


In others words then, in order for God’s promise for Abram to come to pass, God had to change Abram’s name to Abraham so that through the calling forth of his name by himself and others, the promise would come to pass. In the conclusion of his devotional, Joseph Prince states, “My friend, despite the pain, call forth your healing. It is pointless to state the obvious. So change the way you talk. See the way God meant it to be, and start calling forth your healing and wholeness! (Call it Forth) In order words, your healing or any other “promise” of God is not dependent upon God, but dependent upon you based on what you say (confess).


Who Truly Calls it Forth?


Joseph Prince’s attempt to substantiate his interpretation of Romans 4:17 and its acceptability by his readers, is predicated on two things: 1) An understanding of being created in the image of God means you have the same power as God to call things into existence. 2) That one neglects closely examining Romans 4:17 for one’s self, but rather mindlessly accept his interpretation of the passage of Scripture. Once the reader has done these two things, Joseph Prince has won their mind. The Bible, however, in 2nd Timothy 2:15 instructs to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV) So let’s do that right now as I further elaborate upon the two points stated above.


What exactly does it mean for human beings to be created in the image of God? One answer that can be immediately eliminated from consideration is that we are created in the exact image of God. Faith teacher Creflo Dollar in his book The Image of Righteousness says, “When God made Adam, He made an exact duplicate of Himself. (Image of Righteousness, 83) According to Creflo Dollar, …we are super-human beings, possessing supernatural, creative power.” (Image of Righteousness, 81) Since there is no biblical evidence of Adam calling anything into existence, this cannot be true The only thing Adam brought into existence is the reality of sin via his disobedience to God! (Romans 5:12)


What does it mean then to be created in the image of God? Created in the image of God is to be created as a moral and spiritual being with a mind, will, and emotions. Just as the Triune God knows right and wrong, so do we. God is a spiritual Being. We also are spiritual beings since we are comprised of spirit as well as soul and body. (I Thess. 5:23) God has a mind, a will, and emotions. So do we as well. It is in these ways that we as human beings are created in the image of God.


Now elaborating upon by second point, Romans 4:17 in itself does not state that Abraham called anything into existence. Let’s examine this verse a little more closely to see who is doing the calling of things into existence. The Apostle Paul in Romans 4:17 begins with “(as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed… Who did Abraham believe in? The One who made the declaration that Abraham has been made the father of many nations. Who made the declaration? God. So then, it is God who Abraham believed would make him a father of many nations. The Apostle Paul does not stop there, but continues on, “…God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did… Who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did? God. Not Abraham. Within this verse there isn’t anything that says Abraham called God’s promise of making him a father of many nations into existence. Abraham instead believed God (the One who made the promise) who gives life to the dead and calls those things that be not as though they are. Therefore, it was not Abraham or others calling out his name that brought God’s promise to pass, it was God Himself who, in due season, brought His own promise to Abraham to pass.


Proverbs 18:21


Another passage that faith teachers regularly appeal to in an attempt to substantiate the doctrine of positive confession is Proverbs 18:21 which states, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.” Faith teachers interpret this verse also to mean that with our words we can bring about negative and positive realities. The emphasis is placed on in the power of the tongue. Long time faith teacher Kenneth Copeland has always emphasized how powerful our spoken words are; whether for better or for worst. Copeland and other faith teachers–both past and present–teach that our words are “power containers”. Copeland in one of his daily devotionals entitled Power Containers attempts to connect his claim of words being power containers with Proverbs 18:21.


Words, according to Kenneth Copeland “…actually serve as containers for spiritual power.” (Power Containers) Copeland further states, “According to Proverbs 18:21, they have the ability to carry faith or fear, blessing or cursing, life or death.” (Power Containers) In other words, words are the containers and faith, fear, blessing, cursing, life, and death are substances which the containers (words) carry. According to faith teachers, faith is a tangible substance like water. Copeland and other faith teachers appeal to the King James rendering of Hebrews 11:1 which says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” to arrive at their idea that words are power containers which hold substances like faith, fear, etc.


Copeland continues by stating that God speaks these words (power containers) and that His words, not Himself, brings things to pass, “Every word He has ever spoken has been filled with faith, power and life. In fact, God’s Word actually contains within it the power to bring itself to pass.“(Power Containers) So it appears that what Copeland is teaching here is that life and power are in the words which He(God) speaks, not in the nature of God Himself. So then, according to Copeland, when we believe and verbally speak the Word of God we have that same power to bring our confession into our reality, “So when you believe that Word, and your faith comes together with His faith, the power of that Word is released, the Holy Spirit goes into action, and the Word explodes into this natural realm and becomes a reality in your life!” (Power Containers) This means then, according to Copeland and other faith teachers, that when your faith (the substance) connects with God’s faith (the substance), then nothing can keep you from getting what you want such as health, prosperity, riches, etc. Why? Copeland closes his devotional by making it overtly clear, “…you have the power to affect change in your life by speaking, because your words are containers of power.” (Power Containers) From what has been said here by Kenneth Copeland, whatever happens to you and I, whether for better or worse, the praise or blame lies squarely on our shoulders.


The True Function of the Tongue


Kenneth Copeland and other faith teachers interpret Proverbs 18:21 to mean that our spoken word, whether positive or negative, brings about our experienced reality. This, however, is not the truth. But before delving into the proper interpretation and understanding of Proverbs 18:21, let’s examine the foundation from which Copeland and other faith teachers base their interpretation to determine if their (doctrinal) foundation is that of rock or a foundation of sand. Whether their interpretation of proverbs 18:21 stands will solely depend on their understanding of what faith is.


An Examination of Faith


Earlier it was pointed out that Kenneth Copeland and other faith teachers understood faith to be a tangible substance. This idea of what faith is was derived from the King James rendering of Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The crucial question is: is faith really a tangible substance as the King James version says? The answer is no. The Greek for substance in Hebrews 11:1 is hupostasis. While it is true that hupostasis can mean substance, it does not mean a tangible substance like water. Hupostasis actually means confidence or assurance. For example, in the English Standard Bible Hebrews 11:1 reads, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” In the New International Version it reads, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” In the Evangelical Heritage version it simply reads, “Faith is being sure about what we hope for, being convinced about things we do not see.” So faith by definition is having confidence or assurance in something or in someone. Faith is not this tangible substance which goes into some metaphysical power container called words.


Biblically, faith has an object and the object of faith is God. To better put it, God is the object or target of our faith. We have faith or trust in God for whatever it is we need; whether it be for healing or a job. In Hebrews 11:6 it says, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” In other words, without trust it is impossible to please God and we are to believe in who God is. To not do so is displeasing to Him. Even Jesus could not do many miracles in His hometown of Nazareth due to the unbelief of many of the people there (Mark 6:5-6). This was due to a lack of trust and belief in who He was. Therefore faith is not a tangible substance, but faith is belief, trust, confidence, and assurance in God and what He is capable of doing.


The Tongue and Natural Consequences


How then are we to properly interpret Proverbs 18:21? The common interpretation and understanding of the verse is that there are natural consequences for what we say; whether it be good or bad. Indeed, words have power, but not in the supernatural sense of the word power. For example, if a cop pulls me over and I call him a bunch of expletives, he will forcefully drag me out of the car and arrest me. Another example would be if I told my wife how beautiful she looks in a certain dress, she will smile with happiness. Proverbs 18:21 teaches that ne should watch what they say to others because a response to what one says always follow. Life experiences itself testifies to this being true. Furthermore Proverbs 15:1 testifies to this being true when it says, “A soft answer turns away wrath,
But a harsh word stirs up anger.” In a nutshell: What we say has an undeniable effect on our listeners.


The Understated Message


Throughout this examination of positive confession and the two primary Scripture verses used in an attempt to substantiate this doctrine, there has been an understated message bellowing forth. This understated message which, as been presented over and over again, is that you have the power via the words(confessions) that you speak. Kenneth Copeland makes it unequivocally clear that “…you have the power to affect change in your life by speaking… (Power Containers) The question needing to be asked here is where is God in the mist of all this confessing and speaking things into existence? Well God is in the mist of it, but is seeking permission to act on the believer’s behalf via positive confession. Yes, you read that correctly. God cannot do anything in the life of a believer unless the believer through positive confession, give God permission to operate in our lives. I know this sounds insulting since most of us reading this believe that God is sovereign; that God does all that He pleases. The faith teachers, however, do not believe this and, as seen in our examination of positive confession, has becomes blatantly clear. You don’t have to take my word for it, examine here for yourself the faith teacher’s saying it themselves.


Kenneth E. Hagin in his devotional Why Pray? makes it clear and simple that God does not have dominion in the world or in the Earth, “God is not ruling in this world. He is not ruling on the earth. Thank God, He will one day! But right now His will is not being carried out on the earth—except in the lives of those who surrender to Him.” (Why Pray?) So according to Hagin, God is not ruling the world or the Earth, but one day He will. For now though, God can only execute His will in the Earth through Christians. Well if God is not ruling in either the world or on Earth, who is? According to Hagin, God gave all of His dominion to Adam, “He said, “I give you dominion over all the work of my hands.” Therefore Adam had dominion upon this earth and in this world. He was originally, in a sense, the god (small “g”) of this world.” (Why Pray?) So we see here that Adam had dominion over the world and the Earth and was, in a sense, according to Hagin, a little god.


Little gods Doctrine


Before moving forward, know that this teaching of believers being little gods is not only taught by Kenneth E. Hagin, but other faith teachers also teach this little gods doctrine as well. Here is a video link on YouTube where you can see and hear it for yourselves (Note: Benny Hinn has said that he no longer teaches the little gods doctrine). The Scripture which faith teachers allude to in an attempt to support their little gods doctrine is John 10:34 which reads, “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?” At first glance the faith teachers seem to have made their case, but let’s dig a little deeper into the text. First, this statement by Jesus is also found in Psalm 82. In this chapter we have a scene set before us of the judges of Israel. In verse 1 we are told that God stands in the congregation and judges amongst the gods (judges). Then in verses 2-5 the writer, Asaph, rails accusations of partiality against the “gods”. In verse 6-7 it goes on to say, “ I said, “You aregods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” If these “gods” can die like mere men, then they must in fact be mere men. Elohim, which is used in these passages of Scripture can refer to God Himself or to earthly judges. In this context it means judges due to other passages of Scripture which tell us there is only one God (Deut. 6:4) and from Isaiah 40-46 God repeatly says that there is no other God, but Him (Isaiah 40:18, 43:10, 44:6, 45:5-6, 45:18, 46:5, 46:9). So since there is no other God but Himself, then in no way was Adam the god of the world and the Earth. God does not contradict Himself.


Returning to Hagin’s devotion, we see, according to Hagin, that Adam received full dominion from God and apparently God had no dominion Himself over anything in the Earth. Something tragic happened, however, according to Hagin, “But Satan came and lied to Adam. Adam committed high treason and sold out to Satan. When that happened, Satan became the god of this world.” (Why Pray?) So when Adam disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not only did sin come into the world, but Adam lost his dominion and supposed godhood to Satan and Satan became the god of this world. Now if you truly take the time to read all of Genesis 3, you will not read anything about this transfer of dominion to Satan. While it is true in a sense that Satan is the “god” of this world, that is this ungodly world system, still Satan is not an actual god/divinity like the Lord God is, but it refers to Satan’s rulership over the ungodly world system. This has to be so because Psalm 24:1 says, ” The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein.” Take the time to notice that Satan is called the ruler or god of this world, not the ruler or god of this Earth. (2nd Corinth. 4:3-4) Even Hagin says this in his devotion several times which contradicts his own claim that Adam lost his dominion over the Earth to Satan.


Consequently, according to Hagin, if God gave all His dominion in the world and in the Earth to Adam and Adam through sin lost his God-given dominion to Satan, then God must be locked out and unable to do anything in the Earth because God no longer has dominion in the Earth. If this was true, then it would logically flow from this that, “God cannot legally and justly move in and take away that dominion from the devil. The devil has dominion here. He has a legal right because he has Adam’s lease. And God cannot do anything unless somebody down here asks Him.” (Why Pray?) Kenneth E. Hagin, Fred Price Sr., the late Myles Munroe, and many other faith teachers have taught the exact same doctrine and none of them (as far as I know of) have yet to recant this doctrine. According to the faith teachers, it is prayer (actually positive confession) that gives God access into the Earth to execute His will; otherwise God is helpless until you and I help Him via positive confession. If this is the case then the God presented to us by the faith teachers is not sovereign, and is dependent upon His own creation; human beings. I attest to you that this is not the case according to the Bible.


“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure…” (Isaiah 46-9-10)


“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Psalms 24:1)


“And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.” (Isaiah 44:7)


These Scriptures as well as several others exalt, declare, and attest to the glorious sovereignty of God Almighty. Such a teaching as God needing our permission to operate in the Earth via positive confession demotes God authoritatively and exalts humans and Satan authoritatively. Such a doctrine paints a disturbing and unbiblical picture of what and who God is: A god who is not sovereign, not infinite nor omnipotent (all-powerful) for that matter. How can God be omnipotent if God needs us via positive confession in order to do His will in the Earth and in our lives? Is this the god you want to worship and praise or would you rather worship and praise the infinite, omnipotent sovereign God of the biblical and historical Christian faith? If you are following the teachings of the faith teachers, I hope after you read this that you will shun such teachings and embrace and love the sovereign God of Heaven and Earth.


 

Who Holds the Key to Salvation?

Leave a reply

Who holds the key to salvation? Hope, as the picture above rightly shows, is tied to this key called salvation; for there is no hope without salvation. The Greek word for salvation is sōtēria which means to deliver or rescue. In the Bible, salvation is presented in two ways: physical and spiritual. The Old Testament is filled with examples of physical salvation/deliverance; one such example is God’s deliverance of Noah, his family, and some selected animals from the great flood that God brought upon the Earth (Genesis 6-8). Another classic example is of Moses who, by the power and command of God, delivered the children of Israel from the land of Eygpt (Exodus) However, the most overarching message of salvation in the entire Bible is the spiritual salvation of people. Jesus came from Heaven to Earth, born of a virgin to die and atone for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2). In this blog we will critique both how this key to salvation can be obtained according to the Baha’i Faith and according to the Christian faith and whether the Baha’i Faith or the Christian faith as presented in the Bible is a realistic way of obtaining it.

Baha’is and the Work of Who?

As I presented in my blog Christology of the Baha’i Faith and Christianity: A Comparative Overview, the Baha’i Faith does not believe that the work of Christ–His death on the cross–was satisfactory in accomplishing the work of atoning for the sins of the whole world and making salvation avaliable to all who repent of their sins and believe in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, according to Baha’u’llah, was not an adequate enough solution to the problem of the depravity and sinfulness of humanity. There was yet a need for additional manifestions of God which is ultimately found in the person and teachings of Baha’u’llah. What exactly is the way to salvation according to Baha’u’llah and the Baha’is? It is to obey the Word of God. Maya Bohnhoff, who is a New York Times best selling author and Baha’i disciple attempts to make this point from the Bible using I Peter 1:22-25 & 2:1-3 to teach that obedience to the Word of God is what is necessary to obtain salvation. You read that correctly: salvation is obtained through following the teachings in the Word of God, but which Word of God? The teachings of Baha’u’llah of course since, according to the Baha’is, he is the final manifestion and revelation of God and His teachings .

If you believe that I’m misunderstanding what Bohnhoff is teaching, let’s dig a little deeper into this. In Bohnhoff article Sacrifice and Resurrection, she recalled a Bible study entitled “Cult Night” where her pastor by the name of Dan asked the question, “Wasn’t the message the disciples delivered to their audiences about the blood atonement and the resurrection?” (Sacrifice and Resurrection) Bohnhoff answers this question with a no by saying that the disciples actually taught new disciples according to Matthew 28:20a, “…teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” Bohnhoff goes further in her elaborations,
“The Gospel says simply that the new believers must love God, believe in the One He sent, and observe His commandments — a message so simple a child could understand it.” (Sacrifice and Resurrection) So we see here that observing the commandments of God are a part of the Gospel message according to Bohnhoff.

Furthermore, Bohnhoff acknowleges that the disciples of Jesus would have told their listening audience about the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, but it would be linked to obedence to the Word of God. (Sacrifice and Resurrection) In concluding her article, Bohnhoff says, “While the disciples spoke of Christ’s sacrifice and the shedding of His precious blood, it was not His blood, but the “pure milk” of His word that they offered to those they taught.” (Sacrifice and Resurrection) Bohnhoff reiterates this point in another article about the same subject where she appeals to John 15:3-17, and afterwards says,
“One of the first things Christ Jesus affirms in this passage is that: “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.” What is especially significant about this passage is the context: He is in Gethsemane, preparing His disciples for His arrest. He does not speak to them of His sacrifice, His resurrection, or His blood. He doesn’t mention atonement. He doesn’t remind them about baptism or mention the Trinity. Instead, Christ simply lays out clearly and unambiguously what they must do to be His “friends”, to stay connected to Him, to abide in God’s love, and to bear fruit.” (Agent of Salvation) So according to Bohnhoff, Jesus didn’t speak to His disciples about His impending sacrifice, shed blood, or resurrection, but Jesus does teach them that in order to remain His disciples, they must simply abide in Him through the Word of God He taught them. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that belief in God plus keeping the commandments of God equals the key to salvation.

A critique of the Gospel of the Baha’i Faith

In this section we will do a step by step critique of the Gospel of the Baha’i Faith of how a person can obtain salvation. Bohnhoff, in her article Sacrifice and Resurrection, attempted to answer her pastor’s question of “Wasn’t the message the disciples delivered to their audiences about the blood atonement and the resurrection” by quoting Scriptures from the Bible in order to show that the message which the disciples delivered to their audience was not the blood atonement and resurrection of Jesus, but rather to obey the commandments of God which are able and necessary in order to obtain and keep one’s salvation. Furthermore, according to Bohnhoff, Jesus Himself did not speak to His discipes about His impending sacrifice, shed blood, or resurrection. Instead, Jesus emphasised the need for the disciples to abide in His teachings which Bohnhoff referenced to in John 15:1-4. Is Bohnhoff right or is there a gross case of misinterpretation of Scripture passages going on here? Sadly this is a gross case of misinterpretation of Scripture passages. Let’s first revisit I Peter 1:22-25  and see if the primary message of the Apostle Peter in this chapter was in fact not the blood atonement and resurrection of Jesus from the dead, but keeping the commandments of God.

The proper and correct way for anyone to interpret any Scripture in the Bible is to interpret Scripture with other Scriptures which speak on the same topic. In this case we need to examine all of I Peter 1 in order to see if this claim which Bohnhoff makes is true or not, and not hang our theological claim(s) on just a few passages of Scripture that appear to teach a particular doctrine. To begin, let’s look at the opening verses in I Peter 1, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” Right out of the gate the Apostle Peter mentions to his believing audience the blood of Jesus Christ. Granted though, however, a Baha’i disciple my say “yes, but it also says for obedience as well as the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Indeed it says that, but the blood of Jesus is presented as a critical aspect of the believer’s identification as one of God’s elect, but let’s not stop here.

In I Peter 1:3 we read, ” Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, …” In verse 3 the Apostle Peter articulates to his audience that their salvific hope is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. So far we have seen the Apostle Peter emphasize the blood of Jesus and has articulated to his audience that their salvific hope is through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, not the necessity of keeping the comandments of God for and in order to keep one’s salvation. The Apostle Peter, however, is not yet quite finished.

In verses 18 and 19 the Apostle Peter says, ” knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” The Apostle Peter for the second and final time emphasizes the blood of Jesus Christ and this time focuses on how Jesus’ shed blood redeemes those who place their faith in Christ Jesus, but the Apostle Peter is still not quite done.

The Apostle Peter in verses 20-21 keeps the focus on Jesus (which he has done consistently thus far) and for the last time brings up…yes you guessed it..the resurrection of Jesus, ” He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” Here the Apostle Peter emphasized the truth of God the Father raising Jesus from the dead and because God raised Jesus from the dead we can have faith and salvific hope in Him.

Unlike Bohnhofff’s claim that disciples like the Apostle Peter primarily focused on the necessity of keeping the commandments of God in order to receive and keep their salvation, the truth is that Peter as well as the other disciples did in fact put the soteriological doctrine of the death, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus at the heart of their message to their audience. So in light of the passages that came before them, how should I Peter 1:22-25 be interpeted? What did the Apostle Peter mean when he said, “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth..?” What truth must a believer obey which has the power to purify the soul? The truth of the Gospel which is the truth about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Merely obeying a list of commandments themselves is not enough to purify anyone. Believing in the Gospel message and the One who is the centerpiece and foundation of that message, being born-again, and being indwelt with the Holy Spirit is what makes keeping any commandments possible, but even then one must understand that even after this, our salvation rest in our continual faith in Jesus Christ, not our works, such as keeping the commandments. As Jesus rightly said in John 15:5, ” I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.” We can only abide in Christ through His Gospel; not apart from it. Therefore obeying the Word of God and its teaching has no role in how we recieve and keep our salvation. Obeying and keeping the commandments of God and His Word is the result of already having salvation through Jesus Christ.

A Further Response to Bohnhoff

Before closing out this part of Bohnhoff false claim that the disciples of Christ primary message to their audience was to obey and keep the commandments of God, let’s see how the Apostles Paul, John, and the unknown writer of the book of Hebrews emphasized the sacrifice, shed blood, and resurrrection of Jesus. Let’s also examine Bohnhoff’s statement concerning Jesus not mentioning His sacrifice, shed blood, and resurrection to His disciples in the garden of Gethemane, but rathered emphasized what was required in order to be His “friends” and remain connected to Him.

The Apostle Paul to His Audience

Unlike Bohnhoff’s claims previously stated, one is hard pressed to miss the Apostle Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s shed blood, death, and resurrection. Throughout the book of Romans all three aspects of the Gospel are presented to his audience. In the first chapter the Apostle Paul mentions the Gospel as of grave importance. In Romans 1:9, Paul speaks of serving with his spirit “in the gospel of His Son..”. In Romans 1:16 Paul boldly proclaims that he is not ashame of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God to save. In Romans 3:21-26 Paul states that salvation/righteousness is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ and that He made redemption possible by His blood. In Romans 5:9 Paul teaches that Christ disciples are justified by the blood of Jesus and save from the wrath of God through Him. Other passages which the Apostle Paul emphasize the importance of the blood of Jesus include Ephesians 1:7 and 2:13. Regarding the Apostle Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus and it’s importance to followers of Jesus Christ, look no further than the entire 15th chapter of I Corinthians. Especially in verses 14-17 which, in a nutshell, teaches that without the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, our preaching of the Gospel and our own hopes for salvation are futile or in vain. Thus we can see that the death, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus from the dead was strongly emphasized to his audience.

The Apostle John to His Audience

The Apostle John, who is one of the closet followers of Jesus also emphasized the death, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus. I John 1:7 says, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” The Apostle John at the opening of his letter emphasizes the blood of Christ as that which cleanses us from all sin. In connection to this passage, John in the second chapter and the second verse says, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” In other words, Jesus is the atonement for our sins, done through His shed blood on the cross. This truth is further echoed by John in I John 4:10. Other passages of Scipture where the Apostle John emphasizes the blood of Jesus and its importance includes Revelation 1:5, 5:9, 7:14, and 12:11. Regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Apostle John in Revelation 1:17-18 recounts the words that Jesus Himself said to John as John bowed in dreadful fear of the sight of Jesus, “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.” The Apostle John highlights Jesus’ claim to His own resurrection from the dead. Prior to this, John himself declared that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead in verse 5. Thus, the Apostle John did in fact emphasize the resurrection of Jesus as well. Most of them as they came from the mouth of the resurrected Jesus Himself.

The book of Hebrews to its Audience

In the book of Hebrews from chapter 6 to chapter 10 the unknown author goes into great depth and detail about the sacrifice and shed blood of Jesus. Time will not permit us to go into every single detail, but it is unmistakable what and who the emphasis is on here. On your own, take the time to read these chapters for yourselves and you will further see why Bohnhoff is wrong in light of these chapters. Hebrews 2:14 teaches that Christ overcame the devil by His death on the cross. In Hebrews 9:14, we are taught that through the blood of Christ our conscience is cleansed from dead works in order to serve God. So much more could be said here, but in a nutshell, both covenants, old and new, are never initiated without the shedding of blood because “…according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” In other words, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. The good news now is that disciples of Jesus are now able to enter into the presence of God(the Holy of Holies) by the blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:19).

Jesus to His Audience

Finally, a look at Bohnhoff statement that in the garden of Gethsemane: “He does not speak to them of His sacrifice, His resurrection, or His blood. He doesn’t mention atonement.” But “Instead, Christ simply lays out clearly and unambiguously what they must do to be His “friends”, to stay connected to Him, to abide in God’s love, and to bear fruit.” I’m afraid there is a huge problem with Bohnhoff’s argument. While it is true that Jesus did not mention his sacrifice, shed blood, or resurrection in the garden, Jesus had been mentioning these very things throughout His three years of ministry and taught them to His disciples numerous times as seen in all four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In Matthew’s gospel Jesus first taught His disciples about His impending death, burial, and resurrection from the dead, “From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.” (Matthew 16:21) Jesus would repeat this same claim again in Matthew 17:22 as well. Mark repeats the same claim in his gospel, (Mark 8:31, and 10-32-33). Luke (9:21-22; 44, and 18:31-33) and John (12:27-34 and 2:19-22). Last, but not least, the theme of the Last Supper was about Jesus impending shed blood for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:26-28). Since Jesus over and over again taught His disciples the necessity of His sacrifice, shed blood, and resurrection throughout His three years of ministry, Jesus obviously did not see it necessary to mention it again in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Baha’is Gospel of Work Summarized

In order for a person to receive the key of salvation according to the gospel of the Baha’i Faith, a person must work for it through obeying the laws and commandments of God as dictated by their teacher Baha’u’llah. Baha’is belief that it is possible to obtain salvation through good works and in keeping commandments is due to the fact that they believe that a human being is basically good morally. According to Kenneth E. Bowers who currently serves as a member of the national governing body of the Bahá’ís of the United States, Baha’u’llah did not agree with the Christian church’s doctrine of original sin (Salvation, Miracles, and the Baha’i Teachings). Baha’u’llah, according to Bowers, did not believe that people were born in sin or, in other words, born with a sin nature due to the sin of Adam and Eve against God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) as explained by the Apostle Paul (Romans 5:12). Thus, if humans are born free of sin, then it is possible to keep the commands of God as dictated by Baha’u’llah. Is this true though? Since the Baha’is often appeal to the Bible in an atttempt to validate their doctrines, let’s see what it teaches about our moral condition.

Original Sin, Law, and the Gospel

While Baha’u’llah denies the doctrine of original sin, the reality of it is taught throughout the Bible. As mentioned earlier, the Apostle Paul explained to us that it is through Adam that sin came into the world and is passed on from person to person (Romans 5:12). The way to judge if this is in fact true is to see if it corresponds with our everyday reality. Everyday acts of immorality are before our eyes: murder, lying, adultery, etc. If we rightly acknowledge that there are acts of immorality that happen everyday, then we are acknowledging that morality exist: both good and bad. If we acknowledge the reality or existence of good and bad morality, then there must be a moral law to which to judge what acts are considered moral and which acts are considered immoral. If we acknowledge the existence of a moral law, then we must acknowledge the existence of a moral Law Giver who in essence is the Judge or what is moral and immoral. Not only that, but this Judge must be perfectly impartial in His judgment of what is moral and immoral, and this can only be possible if this Judge is Himself morally perfect. The description of such a Judge can fit none other than God.

Has this perfectly moral and impartial God given a moral law in order to tell us what is morally right and wrong? Yes. Where is it? In the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 and beyond. Do any of us keep the law perfectly? No, because “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”(Romans 3:23). So if we break a law(s), is it not true that punishment for breaking that law(s) should surely follow? If God is indeed a perfectly good and impartial Judge, then God is just to punish lawbreakers. The punishment, for breaking the moral law of God is Hell. If God simply pardoned a person just because they said they were sorry, God would be unjust for not upholding the moral law and applying the punishment required for violating the law. A morally imperfect earthly judge doesn’t even allow that, so why should we expect the perfectly moral Judge, God, to do so? We can and should expect God to only do what is right (Genesis 18:25).

Since original sin is a reality by evidence of the fact we do commit immoral acts all the time like lying, stealing, murder, adultery, and other sins, and justly deserve to be punish by God for our sins…what is the solution according to the Christian church? The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not come to teach us how to be morally good people (as the Baha’is teach) because we are by nature immoral (Romans 3:10). The key of salvation is found in the Person and work of Jesus. We can be forgiven of our sins and receive the key of salvation and hope through Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. We broke the law of God, but Jesus paid that fine in our place on the cross and it was finalize through His resurrection from the dead. The purpose of the law as explained by the Apostle Paul was to be a schoolmaster or tutor to point us to where salvation is truly found; in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:24). Now when a Christian does good works and seeks to obey God’s commandments, it is because they have salvation through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10). Good works and a desire to live godly and holy are the fruits/results of the salvation a Christian has from Christ (James 2:14-24).

The Key to Salvation and Hope belongs to Jesus

In conclusion, the keys to salvation and hope are only found in the Person and work (death, burial, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ. The Baha’i Faith is wrong in saying that we can obtain the keys of salvation through our own moral efforts. This works oriented gospel message at its surface is no different than the other works oriented gospel messages taught by all the other world religions. In Christianity alone one is taught that the only work necessary for one to receive salvation was done by Jesus Christ on the cross followed by His bodily resurrection from the dead. Salvation is the gift of God which God is ready to give to all who will turn from their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savor, the Son of God who is the only way to God (John 14:6). If you been reading this blog and you’re not a Christian, perhaps your a Baha’i disciple, then strongly consider all that has been said, especially about the Law and the Gospel. It is seriously a matter of Heaven or Hell for eternity.


But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. –Romans 10:8-10

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.