Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’

(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 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 18]:

Greetings Soldier,

Regarding your last correspondence; I assure you that you’re doing fine. No need to be concerned about the empty allegation that you are engaging in a double standard or being ‘unfair’ in your requests for the unbelievers to provide their worldview’s objective, consistent basis for the existence of preconditions of intelligibility (which must be appealed to and utilized in order to even begin to hold a rational discussion). Besides, as should be crystal clear by now, the unbeliever has no way of justifying such an allegation to begin with, since there can exist no objective standard of logical ‘fairness’ in a worldview without God. Not only that, it should also be pointed out that you have already provided the justification for how abstract, universal, invariants are justified in the Christian worldview, from the get go (as they are a reflection of the abstract, universal, invariant nature of the God of the Bible). Perhaps it would be helpful to remind those making the allegations of how discussions work: you provide your logically defensible argument, they provide theirs, and THEN they are compared and contrasted via internal critique to see whose is true.

Of course, because the unbeliever has no rationally defensible argument or justification to support their belief in abstract, universal, invariants (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.) there can really be no discussion at all, since they must borrow these concepts from the Christian worldview in order to even begin to levy any argument against the Christian worldview. Needless to say, in doing so, they are assuming the truth of the very thing they are trying to refute and, subsequently, destroying their own position. This only further substantiates the undeniable reality that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary (since the contrary position cannot be rationally defended and always ends in some form of absurdity). Don’t ever be shy about exposing this for the unbeliever’s own benefit. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

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

[Letter 17: The Impossibility of the Contrary]

Greetings Soldier,

Indeed, I did see the latest remarks from the unbeliever who continues to assert that you are engaging in fallacious reasoning (i.e. an argument from ignorance) by claiming that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary. It is important to remember two things when dealing with this type of objection from a professed unbeliever:

1.  The unbeliever has no basis whatsoever for attempting to impose any sort of meaningful logical standard upon your (or any) arguments, since he professes to believe in a universe in which abstract, invariant, universal standards could not possibly exist if his worldview were true (which, it isn’t). Therefore, when he makes such a claim, just simply ask him by what absolute standard he deems your argument fallacious, how he arrives at such standards in his worldview, and why that standard must necessarily apply to anyone or anything. Of course, he will not be able to sufficiently answer these questions, but it may be helpful for aiding him in honestly thinking through this issue (if he is willing to do so, of course).

2.  The argument is NOT that Christianity is true BECAUSE the unbeliever’s position is false (since all non-Christian worldviews ultimately undermine the existence of logic, knowledge, truth, etc.).  The argument IS that Christianity is true AND their position is false–big difference.

Remember, according to the professed unbeliever, ANY standard that they seek to impose on someone else would necessarily be a purely arbitrary one if their position were really true. This reduces their complaints against other people’s behaviors and/or reasoning to that of mere opinion and leaves them with no real objective, rational reasons for attempting to impose those standards upon anyone else. Feel free to gently make them aware of this fact and also point out that rational people have good reasons for the things they believe in and act upon. Therefore, the unbeliever is behaving irrationally when they behave the way they are behaving. In reality, they have no choice given what they profess to believe, as no one cannot possibly live consistently with the profession that God does not exist and the Bible is not true (since everyone lives in God’s universe and is inescapably forced to ultimately rely upon Him and abide by his rules, whether they want to or not). As such, the unbeliever plays the hypocrite since they professes to believe one thing, but do not (and cannot) really live according to their professed beliefs. You will do well to keep this is mind as you continue to evaluate the arguments/objections from them. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

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

[Letter 16]:

Greetings Soldier,

Yes, I can definitely see that your unbelieving opponents are not very happy with your challenges to their professed worldview (in fact, ‘unhappy’ would be quite the understatement to describe the nature of their most recent remarks). Remember, the unbeliever has much to lose in these types of discussions, once it is exposed what their worldview truly amounts to, since they often enjoy being viewed as ‘intellectuals’ on internet forums and loathe the idea that their position is really just one of blind, irrational faith. Therefore, you should expect open hostility such as the name calling being engaged in as of late, since it is no doubt very uncomfortable (think glass palace during an earthquake) to have one’s most fundamental beliefs challenged and then demonstrated to be undeniably false.

As a positive, this is one crystal clear way of demonstrating that the unbeliever is indeed engaging in suppression of the truth (just as the Bible states in Romans 1:18)—that is, they are not continuing to hold to their current professed position BECAUSE of rational reasons, but IN SPITE OF them–simply because they happen to dislike the alternative (i.e. bowing the knee to God). The purely emotional nature of the objections at this point are really exactly what one would expect from someone with simply a personal ‘ax to grind’ and nothing more. Sure, the unbeliever may not like the God of the Bible, but that is definitely not a rational basis for their rejection of Christianity and/or the truth of the Bible. At this point, you’ve done your job and it’s probably just best to politely thank them for sharing their opinions with you and invite them to return to the discussion when they have something rational to contribute. Oh, and do not cease to pray for these individuals–that they might come to their senses, cease their suppression of the Truth, and repent. 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.