Category Archives: Salvation

September 14, 2014 · 10:30

False Religion: Roman Catholicism

st-peters-basilica-night

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)

I took a brutal browbeating over my last article “False Religion: Protestantism” – not from unbelievers, but from Christian brothers and sisters. Granted, the title, on a cursory view, appears to be all-inclusive, but I wanted it to be provocative. The fact is that my focus was on “liberal” Protestantism and not Protestantism in general. But more than that, Jesus said, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). How can we honestly critique or criticize what others believe without first taking a hard look at the beam that is in our own eye?

I believe I did that with my last post, so now let us examine the false religion of Roman Catholicism from an objective perspective. If the reader has been following my previous articles on false religions, the reader will recall I am evaluating false religions based on four characteristics: (1) the denial of the God of the Bible, (2) the denial or rejection of the deity of Christ, (3) the rejection of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God and (4) the teaching of salvation through the works or efforts of the individual believer.

Superficially, one might say that the Roman Catholic Church does not deny the God of the Bible or the deity of Christ. As I pointed out in my last post, “False Religion: Protestantism,” it is not necessarily what a religion professes to believe that matters, but rather what their practice demonstrates that is the true indicator of what they believe. So it is with the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, I need to begin with the last two characteristics to demonstrate that in practice, the Roman Catholic Church denies the God of the Bible and the deity of Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) rejects the authority of the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God. The RCC discourages parishioners from studying the Scripture for themselves claiming that it is too difficult for them to understand. Parishioners are taught that only a priest can give Scripture its proper interpretation, when in fact, priests are generally trained in church dogma only and not in the study of Scripture. The end result is that the RCC has an army of “blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). The RCC teaches that Scripture along with tradition must be accepted and honored with equal reverence. In other words, the traditions of men are just as valid as God’s Word. In doing so, they supplant the authority of God with an authority of their own.[1] Up until the 16th century, the “Catholic” Bible contained only 66 books, but in the 16th century the Apocrypha was added to justify the doctrine of Purgatory.[2] In adding to Scripture, the RCC ignores God’s warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18).

Having stripped the Bible of its authority, the RCC has elevated the word of the Pope above the Word of God so that “by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, [he] has full supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power he can exercise unhindered.”[3] As such, the RCC teaches a different gospel of salvation. Since the RCC has assumed supreme authority over Scripture, it now dictates the requirements for salvation. Salvation can only be found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic believer is obligated to comply with the requirements or “sacraments” of the Church. There are seven: (1)Baptism (typically as an infant), (2) Confirmation, (3) Eucharist, (4) Confession and Penance, (5) Holy Unction (anointing of the sick and last rites), (6) Holy Orders, and (7) Matrimony. In addition, the good Catholic must practice church membership, obey the commandments, and do good works. The good Catholic lives with the constant threat of failing at any point and dying in that condition, at which point the poor soul ends up in purgatory and special masses must be held (at a price to surviving family members, of course) until the full atonement is satisfied and the soul can enter into heaven. How many masses will be required is anybody’s guess. “The pope [sic] claims to have the power to transfer the merits of one sinner to another to reduce their punishment for sin.”[4] The Bible teaches that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasis mine). But the RCC says, “If anyone says the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be anathema.”[5] Furthermore, the RCC “condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.”[6] “Rome also condemns anyone who believes they are assured of eternal life.”[7] The Bible says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). That word “accursed” is the same Greek word, anathema that the RCC uses.

The Mass brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew.

The Mass brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew.

When the word of man is made superior to the Word of God, and the Gospel of Grace is replaced with the gospel of works, the RCC has effectively set itself in the place of God to decide what is right and what is wrong at the whim of a mere mortal man – the Pope. In effect, then, the RCC has denied the God of the Bible, and by their continuing practice of the mass (which brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew), they have denied the deity of Christ “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10, emphasis mine). By offering prayers to the saints and confessing sins to a priest, the RCC has replaced Christ as the sole mediator between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). So, by the criteria I formerly laid out, Roman Catholicism is a false religion.

The highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat.

The highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat.

One final indictment that may not exactly fit the four characteristics of a false religion is the charge leveled by Jesus Himself in our beginning verse: “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:15). The word “Nicolaitans” is a transliteration of the Greek compound word Nikolaitēs. The first part comes from the Greek word nikaō meaning to subdue or to conquer, overcome, prevail, get the victory over. The second part comes from the Greek word laos from which we get our word “laity” meaning people. So, the Nicolaitans are those who subdue, overcome or conquer the people, and in this case, Jesus was referring to His Church. This is exactly what the RCC has done. They have set up a hierarchal system where the highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat. Such rule goes against Scripture and defies Christ, Who emphatically states that it is a thing He hates. That is a strong indictment from the One Whom the Pope claims to represent.

Is it possible for a Catholic to be saved? Yes, of course it is. Salvation, according to the Bible, is an individual matter that has nothing to do with religion, as I have stated in previous articles. My question is, why would someone who is saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) want to continue in bondage to the Church of Rome? Instead, the Word of God urges, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4).

Notes:

 

[1] Mike Gendron, “Roman Catholicism-Apostolic or Apostate?” http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/roman-catholicism-apostolic-or-apostate/, accessed September 12, 2014.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 882.

[4] Mike Gendron, “Roman Catholicism-Apostolic or Apostate?”

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 24, 2014 · 13:39

False Religion: Protestantism

The Reformers

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

How do I broach this topic delicately and objectively without coming off as if I am way out there in far, far left field? After all, I claim that “I Am A Christian.” “I Am A Baptist,” so I can rightfully disclaim Protestantism. In my articles “True Religion” and “False Religion” I offer four common characteristics of false religion namely: (1) Rejection or denial of the God of the Bible, (2) Rejection or denial of the deity of Christ, (3) Rejection or denial of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, and (4) Rejection or denial of salvation by means of Grace alone totally apart from any works of man.

The obvious question is: how does Protestantism fit any of these four characteristics? After all, Protestantism gave us the “Five Solae”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solius Chirstus, Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria. Furthermore, all Protestant denominations accept some form of the Apostle’s Creed which states:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

That pretty well establishes that Protestantism affirms the triune Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ. However, there is nothing there affirming the Word of God, and although it affirms “the forgiveness of sins,” it does not specify how that happens. Well, alright, these are not specifically stated in the creed, but generally speaking, Protestantism holds “The belief in the Bible as the supreme source of authority for the church”[1] and “The belief that believers are justified, or pardoned for sin, solely on condition of faith on Christ rather than a combination of faith and good works.”[2]

So, all seems well. But is it? If we look only on the stated beliefs of Protestantism,[3] my charge is baseless. I concede that, at least for the conservative variants of these denominations, these charges are unjustifiable, so I need to narrow my allegation to “liberal” Protestantism, and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

Liberal Protestantism has fallen away into an apostasy that, while it professes its creedal beliefs, in practice it denies the authority of Scripture, emphasizes salvation though works (mainly through baptism), and “spiritualizes” and/or minimizes the resurrection of Jesus Christ thereby denying His deity.

The fall of Protestantism (and from here forward, I am referring to liberal Protestantism) into apostasy began around the 19th century AD with the rise of “higher criticism” of the Scriptures.

[Higher criticism] generally takes a secular approach asking questions regarding the origin and composition of the text [of Scripture]…The principles of higher criticism are based on reason rather than revelation (emphasis mine) and are also speculative by nature…The higher critical methods…grew out of a German [Lutheran] school of Biblical studies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries…the origins of higher criticism are deeply intertwined with rationalism and naturalism (emphasis mine)…In later times, higher critical methods were deployed in conjunction with the contemporary philosophical trends to de-historicize Scripture (emphasis mine).[4]

Just a casual reading of the above statement leaves the impression that higher criticism elevates man’s reason above God’s Word, and this is the downfall of Protestantism. Strangely, in his autobiography, John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, Retired, talks about his love for the Bible from the time he received his first as a Christmas gift at the age of twelve. He recalls:

That Bible went on my bed stand and on that day a lifetime love affair with that book was first born in me. It has never yet departed. I began on that Christmas Day the habit of daily Bible reading. I have missed very few days from that one to this in which I did not spend some part of that day reading and studying the Scriptures. I suspect I have read the Bible through twenty-five time by now.[5]

Spong’s “love affair” with the Bible defies the normal understanding of that phrase. After becoming and ordained Episcopal priest he talks about holding Bible studies at his first church. Of his adult class he said:

A tradition of adult education had never been part of the life of this congregation. Their biblical knowledge was on a Sunday-school level. Christianity was, for the most of them, simply part of their culture and was exhibited by showing decency, good manners, and good citizenship.[6]

He describes his plan for “discipleship” as follows:

I would duck no issues, compromise no truth, and avoid no frontier to which my thought and study (emphasis mine) led me. I would resist no new insight out of some need to be defensive for God. I would adopt as my motto the words of my theology professor… “Any God who can be killed ought to be killed” (emphasis mine). I would allow every part of my faith system, its creeds, its Bible (emphasis mine), its sacred traditions, to be examined and questioned openly and honestly. If I discovered that any traditional belief could not stand the test of this challenge, I would abandon it publically. No protective barriers, no claim for inerrancy, infallibility, or divine revelation (emphasis mine) would be placed around any symbol of Christianity, including core doctrines like the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection (emphasis mine)…I would test in a parish church arena whether or not the total education a priest receives in the academy, including the questions it raises, can be made available to a congregation of pew sitters even if it reveals that the Christianity to which they are attached is not intellectually credible (emphasis mine)[7]

Besides Spong’s blatant arrogance, note how he elevates himself, his thoughts, and his intellect over and above Scripture so that he is willing to challenge the veracity of the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Resurrection. Eventually, Spong abandons all those things to the point where he advocates for the ordination of the first homosexual Episcopal priest and later for female priests. What the Bible has to say on these matters becomes irrelevant, and the reason of man becomes supreme.

Spong is just a small sample, but he is indicative of what has happened to Protestantism. Granted, there has been a lot of pushback from conservative Protestant groups, which is commendable; but by and large, Protestantism has jettisoned the Word of God, and fallen into a great apostasy where theism has been replaced by humanism so that only the empty hulk of the Reformation remains. Protestantism has become, in the words of Jesus, “whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness” (Matthew 23:27).

“Salvation” in these denominations is typically through baptism (usually as an infant) followed by some sort of catechism, confirmation and church membership. In other words, it is a “works-based” salvation. Although their confession affirms justification by Grace alone, through Faith alone, the definition of those terms degenerates into “works.” The shell is there, but the essence is gone.

Protestantism, the liberal kind, is a false religion. It gives lip service to God as a “figurehead” and elevates man above God in the form of humanism. It rejects the deity of Christ by questioning His bodily resurrection. It rejects the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, when it elevates man’s reason above the Word of God. It rejects the clear teachings of the Bible against such matters as homosexuality, or the ordination of female clergy, and it rejects the miracles of the Bible including creation and the resurrection of Christ. Finally, it teaches a works-based salvation.

 Notes:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism (accessed August 18, 2014).

[2] Ibid.

[3] FYI: There are many “flavors” of Protestantism. Protestant Denominations include, but are not limited to: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal (Anglican), and perhaps some others. All of these, with the exception of Methodist, are direct breakaways from the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican Church (the Church of England) broke away from the Roman Catholic Church so that Henry VIII could divorce Catherine, but it basically maintained Catholic practices. Methodists then broke away from the Anglican Church. Many Protestant Denominations maintain the liturgical form of the Roman Catholic Church without the Roman Catholic distinctive of the veneration of Saints.

[4] http://www.theopedia.com/Biblical_criticism (accessed August 19, 2014)

[5] John Shelby Spong, Here I Stand, (San Francisco, Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), 30.

[6] Ibid, 134.

[7] Ibid, 134-135.

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Evangelism, Gospel, Religion, Resurrection, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 17, 2014 · 10:30

False Religion: Islam

Muslim Eyes

Image Credit: Aleksandar Mijatovic http://www.123rf.com/.

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6)

Hijab shrouded women are no longer an uncommon sight in the United States, especially in heavily populated urban areas like here in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. What is really surprising, at least to me, is the number of white American women who have “submitted” (the meaning of “Islam”) to wearing Muslim garb. What is it about this oppressive eastern religion that would attract “independent,” freedom-loving American women to subject themselves to such humiliation? I know; they probably don’t see it that way.

Ever since the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, there has been a lot of propaganda going around trying to convince us that the Muslim god and the Christian God are the same – we all worship the same God. I deal with this in some detail in my article “God Is Not Allah.” In recent articles dealing with false religions, I contend that false religions share some common characteristics: (1) They deny or reject the God of the Bible, (2) They deny or reject the deity of Christ, (3) They reject the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, and (4) they teach salvation through the works or efforts of the believer. Since I covered the first characteristic in “God Is Not Allah,” and for the sake of brevity, I will dispense with that discussion here. Instead, I will begin with the second characteristic.

Islam, which means “submission,” was founded around 610 A.D. when Muhammad supposedly received the first series of revelations of the Qur’an (Koran). Muhammad, the founder of Islam is of highly questionable character. His foster mother suspected that he received these revelations under satanic influence. “At twenty-five, Muhammad married a wealthy forty-year-old widow, Khadija, after she proposed to him. After Khadija died…Muhammad married a widow of a disciple and a six-year-old (who moved in with him when she was nine), Ayisha [his favorite]. His seventh wife was his ex-daughter-in-law; by the time of his death he had twelve wives and two concubines … Interestingly, Sura 4:3 limits the number of wives to four, and in Sura 4:31, marriage to one’s daughter-in-law was prohibited. But in Sura 33:36-40 Muhammad was conveniently given a new revelation from God that ordered Zaid, Muhammad’s adopted son, to divorce his wife so Muhammad could marry her by God’s command. This is called abrogation, to be discussed later”[1] (emphasis and insertion mine).[2] Muslims get very defensive when Muhammad’s character is called into question, although honest Muslims will concede the historical accuracy while at the same time justifying his actions.

Muslims reject the deity of Christ. To the Muslim, Jesus is just another one of Allah’s prophets (Sura 4:171). While Islam (and the Qur’an) concedes that Jesus was virgin-born, it rejects the notion that He was the Son of God or part of the Trinity (Sura 5:17; 5:116; 19:35).[3] “We are told that He was nothing but a slave on whom God showed favor (Sura 43:59); yet elsewhere we are told that the Messiah is not a slave (Sura 4:172).[4] While Jesus did not atone for anyone’s sins, according to Islam, He Himself was sinless (Sura 3:46). Interestingly, “Muhammad sinned and needed forgiveness (Sura 40:55),”[5] and yet he supersedes Jesus as Allah’s prophet. The Qur’an attributes miracles to Jesus (Sura 3:49; 5:110), but none to Muhammad. Islam is a false religion because it rejects the deity of Christ.

Islam rejects the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. While it accepts the Bible as “a holy book,” and even encourages infidels to heed its words, Muslims charge that the Bible has been corrupted. “The Muslim may charge that Jews and Christians have mistranslated the Bible, but the Qur’an says that they only misinterpret and disbelieve it (Sura 3:70-71)”[6] For all of their claims against the Bible, it is really the Qur’an that should be called into question. “One of the prerogatives of the Qur’an is abrogation… This is taught in three separate places in the Qur’an. Sura 2:100/106 says, ‘And for whatever verse we abrogate or cast into oblivion, we bring one better or like it’; Sura 13:39 has, ‘Every term has a Book. God blots out, and he establishes whatsoever he will; and with him is the Mother of all Books’; and Sura 16:101 (A.J. Arberry’s translation) says, ‘And when we exchange a verse in the place of another verse—and God knows very well what He is sending down—they say, “Thou art a mere forger!” Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. Say, “The Holy Spirit [in Islam the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit] sent it down from the Lord in truth, and to confirm those who believe, and to be a guidance and good tidings to those who surrender.’”[7] The obvious question is, “If Allah is ‘all-knowing,’ why can’t he get it right the first time?” Walter Martin presents six theological problems resulting from this inconsistency:

  1. The Qur’an cannot be trusted because it contains “divinely inspired” contradictions. If God has a history of abrogating his own revelation, the “eternal speech of God,” how can one be certain that he will not abrogate it again in the future?
  2. It may be argued that it cannot be abrogated again in the future, since Muhammad was “the last prophet.” But how do we know that God will not abrogate that and send us more prophets?
  3. If God can abrogate his eternal speech, how can we trust him with our eternal soul?
  4. If God has done any abrogating…it does not indicate progressive revelation, which is additive. It indicates a contradiction and annulment, which subtracts from revelation, since at least some portion of past revelation has been cancelled. This would mean that God either did not know how future contingent events would turn out, or that he did but purposefully changed his mind. So the God of Islam is either not All-knowing or is a liar…
  5. If God can abrogate past divine revelation, it seems to indicate intellectual weakness at the very least. It not only causes problems for omniscience, since he did not have sufficient foreknowledge to avoid the need for abrogation, but also for omnipotence (because if he did have sufficient foreknowledge he apparently did not have the power to carry out effective preventative measures), as well as other attributes.
  6. If the Muslim God is not consistent, then his creatures have no foundation for morality and ethics…If God is not invariant, then the moral/ethical system derived from him would necessarily be inconsistent, and we would essentially be on our own…If each person had their own moral standard, there could be no legal basis for a society of any kind. This would seem to conflict with the Muslim concept of sharia.[8]

Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible has no abrogation, and it can be shown to be wholly consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Indeed, Jesus proclaimed, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). Such a statement allows no room for abrogation, but Islam rejects the Bible and prefers the Qur’an, which admits that it abrogates. That makes Islam a false religion.

Islam teaches salvation through the efforts of the individual. “Every Muslim who hopes to escape the judgment of Allah must fulfill the works of the Five Pillars of the Faith (Sura 10:109):”[9]

  1. Recitation of the Shahada (“There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah”);
  2. Five daily prescribed prayers (Salat or Namaz) in Arabic. These prayers include genuflection and prostration in the direction of the holy city, Mecca;
  3. Almsgiving (Zakat), which involves the duty to give a certain percentage of one’s total income to help others. This is not considered charity but an obligation arising out of the realities of a world where there is poverty, inequality, injustice, and suffering. Generally, performing zakat is to be done privately, unless there is a pressing reason for the giving to be made known publicly.
  4. Fasting (Saum or Ruzeh) during the entire month of Ramadan, when Muslims are supposed to fast from all food and drink from sunrise to sunset in atonement for their own sins over the previous year. Muslims are allowed to eat and drink after sunset and some get up before sunrise to eat before the fast begins again.
  5. A pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca, the holy city, at least once in a Muslim’s lifetime. The hajj takes place after Ramadan.

~Jihad is sometimes referred to as a sixth pillar of Islam. Since September 11, 2001, there has been constant debate about the meaning of the term. Many Muslims and some secular experts on Islam, have tried to say that jihad only refers to personal spiritual struggle. Jihad can and often does mean one’s individual efforts to be righteous, but it is often used by Muslims both past and present to refer to actual military struggle or “holy war.” Saying that jihad is simply spiritual struggle ignores Islamic history and the actions of contemporary Muslims, including militants like Osama bin Laden, who use it to refer to acts of killing in the name of Allah.~[10]

The Qur’an, like the Bible, teaches that all men are sinners (Sura 16:61; Sura 42:5), and all men are weak (Sura 4:28). As shown above, even Muhammad sinned (Sura 40:55; Sura 47:19; Sura 48:1-2), but Jesus was sinless (Sura 3:45-46). No one escapes Allah’s judgment, and even the most faithful Muslim cannot have the assurance of eternal life. While the Qur’an and the Bible agree on man’s sinful and lost condition, only the Bible offers the “free gift” of salvation apart from action on the part of man. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is all the work of God and not at all on the part of man except for the act of receiving the free gift: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 1:12; 3:16). A works-based salvation makes Islam a false religion.

Islam is a false religion in that it rejects the triune nature of the God of the Bible, it rejects the deity of Christ, it rejects the Bible as inerrant and infallible, and it bases salvation on the efforts of the individual. The Qur’an, while it is not the word of God by any stretch of the imagination, does contain some particles of truth that, if used wisely, can be used as a witness to Mulims.

 

NOTES:

[1] Martin, Walter, The Kingdom of the Cults, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 440.

[2] FYI: Unlike the Bible, the Qur’an does not have “books,” rather it is divided into long “chapters” called Suras. Passages in the Qur’an are identified by the Sura number followed by the number of the verse or passage, e.g., Sura 4:3 would be the fourth Sura, the third verse.

[3] FYI: these passages from the Qur’an are NOT taken out of context, because the Qur’an has no “context” to speak of. It is a collection of disjointed sayings that rarely have anything to do with one another, which explains why it can so easily be abrogated.

[4] Martin, 447.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid, 448.

[7] Ibid, 445.

[8] Ibid, 445-446.

[9] Ibid, 447.

[10] Ibid, 447-448

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Religion, Resurrection, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 20, 2014 · 10:30

True Religion

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Not long ago, a couple of Mormon missionaries knocked on my door and attempted to engage me in conversation. Now, I understand that these kinds of conversations seldom lead anywhere, but I am not one to turn away such opportunities, so I engage. On this particular occasion, these “elders” (I think it’s cute these young men, no more than 18 or 19, call themselves “Elder” so-and-so), brought up the question of “Why are there so many religions?” By that, of course, they meant “Christian” religions. They pointed out that Jesus wanted all His followers to be united (John 17:11, 21-23) as one. I agreed and jokingly said, “I think all Christians should be Baptist!” They were not sure how to respond to that. They naturally wanted to make a case for the LDS church. Had I been serious in my quip, I would have been just as guilty as they in giving allegiance to a “brand” rather than to the “person” of Jesus Christ.

All world religions, including all Christian “denominations” are man-made and therefore subject to the fallacies of men, granted some more than others. So what is true religion? According to Dictionary.com, “religion” is:

  1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
  3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
  4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
  5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith
  6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience (emphasis mine)

Notice the emphasis on “practice,” “conduct,” “adherence,” and “ritual observance.” All religions designed by man employ some kind of merit system to gain eternal rewards for the adherents, but none offer any security for the same. Instead the adherent gets “Do your best and perhaps your good will outweigh the bad.” Frankly, I would find little comfort in that.

Jesus does not offer religion; He offers a personal relationship with the Creator. In our beginning verse above, James seems to confirm the usual pattern for man-made religion – care for the widows and orphans and keep yourself unspotted from the world. In other words, do all of the right kind of stuff, and you will have “pure religion.” One must understand that James was speaking to Christians. His instruction was not for the purpose leading one to heaven, but rather to demonstrate the life conduct of a person that is heaven bound. The fact that one is “born again” should result in altered behavior that demonstrates a changed life. This change in life should not be rote ritualism as suggested in the dictionary definition above, but rather, because of a new nature (Galatians 2:20), such behavior should “come natural” for the genuine believer. It should not be a forced act.

Another characteristic of man-made religion is that the adherent constantly strives – works – to gain the favor of his god. (I plan to show specifics of how this is done in future posts.) True religion understands that God, the transcendent Creator, is infinitely offended by sin – man’s rebellion against God. True religion understands that man is incapable through his own efforts of being reconciled to God. True religion understands that only God can bridge the divide that separates God from man. To do so, God became man (Philippians 2:5-11), and did what man could not – pay restitution for the offense. Herein lies the difference between man-made religion and true religion. In man-made religion, man does all the work and gains nothing in return; in true religion, God does all of the redemptive work, and “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12).

The old saying that “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” applies here. God has done all of the work of redemption, and He freely offers reconciliation to everyone who will receive it; but it must be received, and He will not force it on anyone. The choice is yours.

Comments Off on True Religion

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Gospel, Heaven, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

July 13, 2014 · 10:30

Three Days, Three Nights

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. (Mark 9:41)

Bible critics often charge the Scripture with error pointing out that Jesus said He would be in the tomb three days and three nights, but the actual time from Friday evening to Sunday morning is less than 36 hours. That would give Him one full day and two full nights in the grave. That is not exactly what He prophesied. So, is the Bible wrong on this account?

First of all, we need to make one thing perfectly clear: Jesus was raised on the “third day” (Acts 10:40) which was the “first day” of the week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). So, Jesus was in the tomb three days; however, the problem comes up in how those days are reckoned.

Secondly, we need to remember that much of our Christian “practice” has come to us by way of almost 2000 years of “tradition.” The birth of Christ being celebrated on December 25 is one such tradition and “Good Friday” being another. Neither have biblical support. The important thing to remember is that Christ was born, He lived, He died and He rose again. Those events are well worthy of memorializing and celebrating even if our dates (and by that I mean the time of year) are in error. Of course, for those of us who really want to go deeper, those questions do matter, and they are important.

Now, the arguments for the crucifixion having occurred on Friday are weak ones, in my opinion. I arrive at that conclusion from what Jesus clearly said in Matthew 12:40 (at least it’s clear to me): “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (emphasis mine). To me that sounds like 72 hours, but bound by the tradition that Jesus was crucified on Friday, many commentators try to make it work by arguing that any part of a day is considered a day. Jesus was buried at the end of the day (before 6 PM) on Friday; that is one day. He was in the tomb all day on Saturday; that is two days. Finally He arose on Sunday morning (after 6 AM); that makes three days. However, even given partial days counting as a whole, there is no way to get three nights out of that.

In the book, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Intervarsity Press, 1996) the writers argue:

[We] know (emphasis mine) that Jesus was not in the tomb more than thirty-six to thirty-eight hours, since he was buried at evening (which began at about 6 p.m.) on Friday and rose by morning (about 6 a.m.) on Sunday. (p. 380)

Note that they “know.” How do they know? They concede that we understand the phrase “three days and three nights” to mean a 72-hour period, but:

[We] know (emphasis mine) that the phrase “three days and three nights” was not a problem for Matthew, for he can use both that and “on the third day” and include no explanation, which he does in other cases where he senses a problem. (pp. 380-381)

The problem with this argument is that the phrase “three days and three nights” and the phrase “on the third day” have different meanings and certainly different connotations. They go on:

In quoting the scriptural phase [Matthew 12:40] Jesus probably (emphasis mine) did not mean that he [sic] would be buried the exact length of time as Jonah was in the fish, but that he [sic] would like Jonah be “buried” for that approximate (emphasis mine) time and then be “raised.” (p. 381)

Now, I have a real problem with second guessing Jesus. Jesus spoke clearly, and even when He spoke in parables to hide His meaning from the Pharisees, He later clarified the meaning for His disciples. Even when He did not explain His sayings to His disciples, the Gospel writers would parenthetically interpret His meaning. For example, when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), John quickly explains, “But he spake of the temple of his body” (v. 21). There is no such clarification in Matthew 12:40 given by either Jesus or the Gospel writer, Matthew. That leads me to conclude that when Jesus said He would be in the earth “three days, and three nights,” that is exactly what He meant. A Friday burial does not allow for that even if one concedes partial days because this allows for only two nights, which contradicts Jesus’ words. As an aside, note how God defines His creation days in Genesis 1 by “the evening and the morning;” both are necessary to define a complete 24-hour day. Why would Jesus, the Creator (John 1:1-3), redefine His terms on such an important issue without clarifying His meaning, if He meant something other than what He said?

Some argue for Friday because Scripture tells us that Jesus had to be buried quickly because the following day (which started at 6 PM) was a Sabbath (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54-56; John 19:31). This error comes from the mistaken idea that the Sabbath means the seventh day of the week (Saturday). The fact is that all Jewish feast days are considered Sabbaths (a day of “rest” – the meaning of the word in Hebrew) regardless of the day of the week on which they fall. Christians do not normally pay attention to Jewish feast days, but if they did, they would find that Passover does not always fall on the same day of the week. Furthermore, the day following Passover is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and that too is considered a Sabbath regardless of the day of the week on which it falls (see Leviticus 23:4-7). So, the fact that they had to quickly bury Jesus because the following day was the Sabbath does not necessarily mean that the following day was Saturday; it could have been Thursday or Friday.

It might be apparent by now that I do not favor a Friday crucifixion and burial. I base my conclusion solely on the words of Jesus and that He meant exactly what He said, i.e., that He would be in the earth (the tomb) three days and three nights. Some reckon this to mean that He was buried on Wednesday and rose on Sunday morning, but this gives four nights and three days if one discounts any part of Wednesday afternoon (3 PM to 6 PM). This is more than 72 hours. However, this discrepancy is resolved when one considers that the first day of the week started after 6 PM on Saturday, so that eliminates Jesus having to spend an extra night in the tomb. I would also be comfortable with a Thursday crucifixion and burial counting the last three hours of Thursday (3 PM to 6 PM) as “a day” with the resurrection taking place on Sunday morning after 6 AM. This will render three days and three nights albeit not exactly 72 hours. Either of these two options are preferable to a Friday crucifixion and burial.

The Bible is not in error because the Bible never specifies the day of the week on which Jesus was crucified. We know that Jesus was crucified on Passover. We know that the following day was “the Day of Preparation” ( Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19: 42) otherwise known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread – a Sabbath. We also know that Jesus rose on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), and we know He was in the tomb three days. So, counting back three full days from Sunday takes us back to Thursday or Wednesday, but not Friday. So, the Bible is true and the traditions of men are false.

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Easter, Evangelism, Gospel, Religion, Resurrection, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,