Archive for the ‘Biblical inerrancy’ Category

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly Helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 21]:

Greetings Soldier,

Yes, your suspicions are well founded! We angels do find it very strange, indeed, that anyone would ever willfully deny the existence of God. Remember, we behold His very face in heaven, and there is no shortage of glorious revelation of Himself for those living upon the earth. As one of your great preachers of the past, C.H. Spurgeon, so eloquently stated:

“Atheism is a strange thing. Even the devils never fell into that vice, for the devils believe and tremble.”

Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 20]:

Greetings Soldier,

I am sorry to see that Mr. Reardon did not attempt a reasoned response to the challenges you put forth to his position but, rather, has chosen to ignore the questions and respond with an argument against the Trinity. As a positive, this is confirmation that he has no good reasons or answers for the inconsistencies and discrepancies that have been brought to his attention regarding the Jehovah’s Witness organization/cult. Despite his unwillingness to respond to you, it is important for you as a Christian to exercise a higher standard and make every attempt to provide a reasoned response to intellectually honest inquiries and objections with meekness and fear, per the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, here is my recommended response to his arguments provided in a point-by-point fashion for clarity:

~Mr. Reardon,

Thank you for your comments. Though you have not yet addressed my previous challenges to your position, as a born again Christian who holds to the doctrine of the Trinity as an essential part of true theology, I am commanded to provide a reasoned defense of the Faith whenever possible. With that said, I would like to address some of the fundamental problems in the arguments that you have presented against the doctrine of the Trinity and why they are based upon flawed premises. If I may elaborate:

1st) You said:  “I am a father, a son and a husband. But, none of these TITLES is my name, and I am NOT three different people! These are separate and distinct positions, roles or offices that I occupy and function in, as ONE PERSON! At times I speak and function as a father. At times I speak and function as a son. And at times I speak and function as a husband.”

Your analogy here is a false one, though, as at no time are you your OWN father, son, or husband. Jesus claimed that God was HIS father many times while on earth and even AFTER He was glorified in heaven (which means He was no longer in the flesh–Rev. 3:5, 12). Likewise, God Himself announced openly that Jesus Christ was HIS son numerous times, and this is confirmed over and over again in the Scriptures . Unless you are arguing that Jesus was His own father and God was his own son (which is absurd and un-Biblical), this argument has no merit. Besides, Jesus Himself stated that if you are married, then you and your wife are ‘one flesh’. Surely, you don’t take that to mean that you and her are the same person do you? Rather, you understand Jesus to mean simply that the both of you are ‘one’ in unity. The same type of consistency must be applied to our understanding of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (the term ‘Trinity’ literally means Tri-unity or ‘Three in unity’).

2nd) You said:  “Many Christians are always bringing up ‘the Trinity this’ or ‘the Trinity that’. I defy you to show me where the word ‘Trinity’ is found anywhere in the Bible. Here’s a hint for you:  It isn’t there!!”

With respect, you seem to be arguing that since the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible, then it therefore does not/cannot exist. Using that same logic, one could argue that automobiles, cell phones, grandfathers, and even the Bible itself cannot exist either, since none of those words is found in the Bible. Surely, you would agree that such a conclusion is absurd, no? Likewise, hopefully you can clearly see the problem with your own argument as well. Although the word ‘Trinity’ is not mentioned in the Bible, the concept of ‘three in one’ is (1 John 5:7; Eph. 4:4-6; ). Not to mention the litany of times that Jesus used the terms ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘our’ to describe Himself in relation to the Father along with the crystal clear instances at Jesus’ baptism and Stephen’s martyrdom/stoning where all 3 members of the Godhead are present and are individually recognized and described.

3rd) You said:  “Unauthorized changes were made in 325 A.D. when Emperor Constantine and his “scholars” introduced the doctrine of the “trinity” to the world, and established it as the official doctrine of the church of Rome … with the emperor being its head.”

I would say that this is the most troubling argument of all. Here, you are asserting that, at some point in time, the Bible was changed and is therefore not accurate in its description of the Triune nature of God. If that’s the case, how do you know that ANY of what the Bible says is reliable? How do you know that Jesus really was the Son of God who was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead on the third day if the Bible isn’t reliable and doesn’t really mean what it says? Frankly, Mr. Reardon, it seems all too easy for those who disagree with what the Bible says to somehow try to undermine its authority in order to validate their own doctrines and beliefs. This is but one of the distinguishing marks of a Christian counterfeit and/or cult.

As a born again Christian, I hold the Bible to be the infallible, inspired Word of God. It is my ultimate authority and the foundation of my reasoning. The Bible is the lens through which every Christian should interpret the world around us, and not vice versa. I’m sure you would agree that, never should we try to make the Bible ‘fit’ our individual beliefs, but rather we should adjust our beliefs to fit the truth of the Bible. I do not deny that there are some difficult doctrines in Christianity, but the doctrine of the Trinity is undeniable IF we study Bible in a consistent, straightforward manner and interpret Scripture in light of other Scripture. One God existing in 3 persons is not in any way unfathomable, as even water exists in 3 totally distinct, different forms at certain temperatures, yet it still remains H2O at all times and one egg can be separated into three distinct parts, yet it remains ‘one egg’.  I hope that this has provided you with some more food for thought (pardon the pun) and some items to consider with regards to this crucial topic. Consider the very sobering forewarnings penned by the Apostle Paul regarding the satanic deception of the times in which we live:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;    ~1 Timothy 4: 1-2

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
~2 Timothy 4: 2-4

I pray that you will give this some serious thought and am here to help you think through these issues should you need me. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hopefully this will aid in helping him come to see the error of what he is doing and repent of it. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 19]:

Greetings Soldier,

I am very pleased to hear about your face-to-face witnessing encounter with Mr. Reardon, the Jehovah’s Witness who came to your door today. As you have rightly guessed, this type of opportunity is never an accident, but is ordained and overseen directly by God the Father. No doubt you knew that something was amiss with Mr. Reardon’s point of view when your casual discussion about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ became a means for him to insert strange ideas about Jesus being Michael the Archangel, the Bible being unreliable, and there being no such thing as eternal punishment, etc. As you know by now, these heresies are but a few of those taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses–a counterfeit Christian cult very much like the Mormons.

You did the right thing by clearly stating and defending the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is, in fact, God (the Son) and showing him where this is plainly stated in John 1:1. Of course, the JW organization has altered this Scripture in their New World Translation (NWT) version of the Bible to read ‘the Word was a God’ instead of ‘the Word was God’ as plainly stated in the Biblical text (as confirmed by the thousands upon thousands of early New Testament manuscripts still in existence today). You also did the right thing in asking for his manuscript evidence for the changes made in the NWT and the many discrepancies between it and the early Biblical manuscripts. Of course, this is devastating to the JW position and teaching, since they have no manuscript evidence for their alterations of the orginal Biblical texts (demonstrating that these changes were made arbitrarily in order to support the corrupt teachings of the JW organization). The fact that the discussion ended in a friendly, amicable way is definitely a positive, as is the fact that you two have exchanged phone numbers.  This will keep the door open for future conversations and will hopefully provide the means for Mr. Reardon to at least be exposed to Biblical truth, which will challenge his current beliefs and, as a result, will hopefully bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Indeed, there is much at stake here since the difference between the JW position and the Christian position is more than just a trifle, since this fundamental flaw in their view of who Jesus Christ is actually results in them preaching ‘another Jesus’ than the one revealed in the Bible and, subsequently, ‘another gospel‘. Needless to say, both of these heresies are expressly forbidden in Scripture and carry the severest penalty of rendering those who engage in them ‘accursed’ from God the Father. In light of the fact that Mr. Reardon has already texted you some Scriptures which he erroneously believes supports the JW doctrine that  Jesus is Michael the Archangel, here is my suggestion for a response to him:

~Mr. Reardon,

I reviewed the Scriptures you texted to me and they definitely confirm the existence of angels and even the archangel Michael, but none of them even so much as hints that Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel are one and the same. In fact, almost all of Hebrews Chapter 1 is devoted to making a clear, unmistakable distinction between Christ and the angels, telling us in v. 4 that He is ‘better’ than them and then in v. 5-6 it is revealed that He is far superior to them since none of the angels are the Son and ALL of them worship Him (this would necessarily include worship from the archangels, such as Michael, as well). Other Scriptures such as Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17-19 provide us with crystal clear instances of both God the Father (Jehovah) and Jesus Christ describing themselves as ‘the first and the last’ (a title that is only ascribed to God and no one else), clearly demonstrating that Christ is indeed God the Son and one person in the Holy Trinity.

The one Scripture that keeps coming to mind, though, is John 1:1. If that verse is not altered to include the indefinite article ‘a’ before the word ‘God’, then none of the doctrine of Jesus being Michael can be true (since that verse would be plainly stating that He is God as also confirmed in Isaiah 9:6, 1 John 5:7, Hebrews 1:3, John 10:30, John 20:28, Matthew 2:11, and Matthew 28:9). Therefore, my question to you, again, would be simply to ask what the manuscript evidence is for the inserstion of the indefinite article ‘a’ into John 1:1, as well as the other textual alterations made in the NWT? I know you would agree that folks should not arbitrarily alter God’s divinely revealed Truth–however, as it stands, one can make a rock-solid case against the NWT and the JW’s that these changes were made for the sole purpose of attempting to make the Bible support the specific theology of the JW organization rather than relying on the Biblical text alone as the basis for arriving at correct theology (via a natural, straightforward reading and understanding of it). Also, given that the NWT is a subsequent work produced by adding new information to the Bible (much the same as the Book of Mormon and the Muslim Koran), how does a JW explain the discrepencies between the Bible and the NWT given the presence of over 40,000 pre-NWT manuscripts of the Bible in existence today which do not contain the alterations found in the NWT? Thank you in advance for your consideration of these very important questions.

I think this adequately sums up the main objections to the JW viewpoint and also demonstrates that it is ultimately founded upon a non-Biblical foundation. As such, the JW’s are not relying upon God and His Word as their Ultimate Authority but, rather, they are holding their own ideas and reasoning above that of God and the Bible. In the end, this worldview has the same rational defects (and the same eternal consequences) as all other non-Christian ones. Pray earnestly for Mr. Reardon to come to his senses and repent before it is too late. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 15]:

Greetings Soldier,

It seems the hornet’s nest has been stirred. In fact, the comments you’ve fielded thus far in your online endeavors include remarks from professing atheists, agnostics, theists, Hindus, Buddhists, and the list goes on. What you will find, though, is that each of these positions ultimately contains the same fundamental logical flaws and destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, logic, or morality–rendering them all rationally indefensible and absurd. Consider one of the first responses you received from the atheist who asserted that ‘it is not possible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty’. Did you catch the contradiction here? Essentially, he is claiming to know with 100% certainty that it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything. Of course, this is a self-defeating argument, which makes it false. On the other hand, if he wants to argue that he is not 100% certain that it is impossible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty, then he is forced to admit that, since he is uncertain of his argument (that 100% certainty is NOT possible), then it IS possible to know things to be true with 100% certainty. Either way, he ends up demonstrating that it is possible to know things for certain to be true and that he has no rational answer as to why that is in his worldview. As such, it is exposed that he must accept the existence of knowledge and truth solely on blind faith alone, whereas the Christian can (and does) justify their ability to know some things with certainty by appealing to God’s Divine Revelation of Himself (via both direct and indirect means) to all mankind. I trust I don’t have to remind you that blind faith is but a form of irrationality (and, not to mention, the basis of all superstition as well). Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

~P.S. It should also be pointed out that, once someone professes that they can’t know anything for certain, then they have forfeited any logical basis or justification for all of the things they may claim to be true (since knowledge (i.e. ‘justified true belief’) is certain by definition, as one cannot know something to be true which could also be false at the same time and in the same way). You should keep this in mind as you address future comments. Nothing wrong with holding the unbeliever to his professed beliefs in order to show the irrational conclusions they ultimately lead to.

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 13:  A Word of Encouragement]

Greetings Soldier,

Don’t worry about feeling overwhelmed right now, as these concepts can take some time to wrap your brain around. Remember, though, always doggedly stick to your guns and keep challenging and exposing the internal inconsistencies of the unbelievers’ worldview, as they would like nothing more than for you to stop this line of argumentation and engage them on ‘neutral’ ground. However, ‘neutral’ ground does not exist with regards to this issue, as one either submits to God as their Ultimate Authority and the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, or they do not. I remind you of the very words of Jesus in Matthew [12:30] and Luke [11:23] when He stated that someone is either for Him or they are against Him, but certainly never ‘in between’. After all, when one even argues that there is neutral ground to be held here, they are necessarily disagreeing with the words of Jesus in the Bible and are, therefore, adopting a non-neutral position in relation to Biblical Authority and the truth of Christianity. Do not fall for this tactic! The unbeliever is NOT neutral in their presuppositions about God and the Bible and you SHOULD NOT be either. In the paraphrased words of Peter [1 Peter 3:15], ‘sanctify Christ in your heart and be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you of the reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear’. The foundation provided by God and His Word is indeed a sure one, and nothing overcomes and exposes that which is false like absolute Truth from THE absolute Authority. Stand upon that firm foundation, and you will always prevail. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 10]:

Greetings Soldier,

You do not disappoint! I thought that you might ask for some practical examples of how to put this information into use when dealing with objections and/or arguments against, God, the Bible, or Christianity in general. Well, here you go! Let’s look at some scenarios you likely have or will encounter in your evangelistic endeavors:

First, suppose the unbeliever’s argument against God is presented in the form of a moral objection (e.g. claiming that He is evil, that certain acts in the Bible are immoral, etc.).  Now, you could spend a lot of time and energy providing evidence as to why that is not the case (only to likely have your evidence discarded or dismissed due the presuppositional bias of the unbeliever), or you could (and should) simply challenge their foundational assumption here and ask them how they arrive at absolute, objective standards of behavior in a universe without God in the first place.  After all, if God does not exist, there could be no absolute moral Authority and, therefore, no binding standard of behavior by which anyone (least of all, God) SHOULD conduct themselves.  If moral standards are arbitrarily stipulated, then the unbeliever loses any rational foundation for their complaint against God, since anyone is free to stipulate their own standard of morality in such a universe and no behavior could ever be truly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’–just ‘different’ from someone else’s personal preference.  The very argument itself reveals the internal inconsistency and contradictory nature of the unbeliever’s position and, as a result, makes this objection AGAINST God’s existence a valid proof FOR His existence!

Now, let’s suppose the argument comes in the form of a ‘logical’ complaint against God (e.g. the Bible is illogical, Christianity is nonsense, etc.).  Again, much time and energy could be spent providing ample, solid evidence to the contrary, only to likely be told “well that doesn’t prove anything.”  Instead of putting God on trial before the unbeliever, the more effective (and Biblical) approach would be to expose the self-defeating nature of such an argument by simply asking how there can exist any meaningful, objective, universal standard of logic and reasoning in a world without God.  Obviously, if there is no true Ultimate Authority, then there can be no absolute standard by which human beings should conduct their thinking and reasoning.  Therefore, no thinking or reasoning could ever truly be said to be ‘incorrect’ or ‘illogical’—just ‘different’ from the thinking and reasoning of someone else.  This internal inconsistency in the unbeliever’s position yet again testifies to the inescapable, self-evident truth of God’s existence and Authority. It also adequately demonstrates that, like the air, one must assume His existence to even begin to argue against it (which makes that position the very epitome of ‘foolishness’). That is why when the Bible refers to those who deny the existence of God as ‘fools’ (Psalms 14:1), it is not merely engaging in name calling.  This is the proper term for someone who willfully refuses to acknowledge that which has been so plainly and openly revealed. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’