THE APOLOGETIC FRONT

1st rebuttal in my debate with Letusreason1234

2012-01-27T23:13:00.001-05:00

See Letusreason1234's opening statement HERE.

This is my first rebuttal in our debate:

From the brilliant atheistic mind of Mr. Loftus

2012-01-20T19:24:00.000-05:00

Mr. Loftus WRITES

Why is it Christians cannot agree to the point where they have condemned each other to hell and/or slaughtered each other because of doctrinal differences that other Christians don't think are essential for salvation? My answer is that Christianity is man made, and as such, doctrinal differences are due to different human ways of understanding the Bible. There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did. That's the major reason why there is no doctrinal Christian unity. These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power. Christian, what's your answer?

That does it. I'm giving up Christianity. Brilliant objection, Mr. Loftus...just brilliant.

But wait. Everyone disagrees with each other's worldview...so i'll give up my worldview! Or maybe just the concept of "worldview" altogether, since no one can agree. But then again, many disagree with each other's view of reality. Perhaps reality isn't real? So i'll give up epistemology too! And logic, who knows anything about that?

Mr. Loftus, the universe just got a little bit more intelligent because of your objection, and I applaud you for bringing the universe such honor and glory. Praise science, and praise atheism.

Debate with Letusreason1234: My opening statement

2012-01-14T18:58:00.001-05:00

As mentioned over a month ago, I will be debating a JW who goes by the nick, Letusreason1234. However, we couldn't seem to agree on the method by which we'd approach this debate so we decided to do this on YouTube via video responses. Assuming the full debate will be completed, i'll make an audio download as well as a full length video of the debate. Here is my opening:

Antitheism Presupposes Theism

2011-12-26T08:51:00.000-05:00

THIS is a very interesting post from JAMES ANDERSON which appears to be an elaboration from THIS PAPER, which was recently released for public viewing. Those interested in the Transcendental Argument for God's existence and possibly even the Ontological Argument will likely find this post as helpful as I did.

Review of the March 2012 Watchtower Study Edition

2011-12-24T14:21:00.000-05:00

In this review, I focus primarily on Romans 8 and a unique interpretation provided by the Watchtower as it relates to their "two class" theology. I also discuss some other elements of interest in the same article.

You can watch the review HERE

You can listen to the review HERE

You can download the March 2012 Watchtower Study Edition HERE

On a side note, i'm very much considering doing a podcast in the near future. The reason being, i'm realizing that far more people are out there who are just like me with little time to read and a lot of time to listen. I've got the necessary equipment to do it, but my audio acoustics (as you can tell) are pretty awful in my current living situation. But that is going to change soon, Lord willing (so long as my next place doesn't have hard wood floors and thin walls!).

Anyway, doing reviews of Watchtowers like this might make for a good podcast in addition to debates and dialogues. I'm just brainstorming out loud right now, so we'll see what happens.

Debate on "hell" now available!

2011-12-21T20:34:00.002-05:00

From the Theopologetics Blog:

Episode 70 and Episode 71 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The punishment of the damned will actually be torment forever and ever." Hiram Diaz, creator of the Involuted Speculations blog and contributor at Grassroots Apologetics, affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies. Moderated by Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front.

Strangely, I had only received audience questions from the annihilationist perspective. Therefore, I had to come up with the "audience questions" myself in challenging annihilationism. Anyway, I hope you all enjoy this interaction and feel free to leave your comments!

What do you believe about hell?

2011-12-15T20:36:00.001-05:00

In less than a week i'll be moderating a DEBATE on hell and I could really use some help from my readers. At the end of the debate, there will be a Q&A period where i'll be asking each participant questions "from the audience." That's you. If you object to the traditional understanding of hell (conscious torment, etc.) or the conditionalist perspective (annihilationism, conditional punishment, etc.), I need questions from both sides.

If you would, please EMAIL your questions to me and perhaps you'll hear them read and answered in the debate!

I'm very excited to have been selected to moderate and I will certainly be posting the debate here on the blog once its uploaded. Who knows, this may spark some interest on my part to delve deeper into this issue and refine my own views.

Are the Watchtower's predictions "hollow?"

2011-12-09T09:52:00.001-05:00

Sometimes I wonder if the Governing Body remembers their own history. But then again, i've come to expect them to be less than honest, which is quite unfortunate. Though there might be some who would love nothing more than to have a "gotcha" moment in pointing out yet another less-than-honest statement by the Governing Body, I would much rather them demonstrate some humility.

Given the recent false prediction by Harold Camping, I was actually hoping the Governing Body would leave this one alone. Otherwise, it would not be the first time they have applied a double standard in accusing others of making false predictions that didn't come to pass.

However, in the February 1, 2011 Watchtower on p. 25, the leaders in Brooklyn had this to say,

First of all, this statement is not completely accurate regarding Camping's prediction. Like the Watchtower's pre-1914 predictions, Camping's was based upon his faulty interpretation of the Scriptures. And as far as I know, Camping didn't claim any type of non-biblical divine revelation that God had personally given to him. In fact, any claims to authority Camping would have made could only pale in comparison to what the Watchtower had and continues to claim for themselves. The point is, the reader of the Watchtower may have gotten the impression that Camping just made up everything or had some type of inspired revelation from God.

Second, the prediction made by Camping is described as "hollow." I agree. The problem is, where did the Watchtower ever describe their own predictions in this manner? At the very least, did the Watchtower ever apologize for their false predictions which resulted in a severe disappointment for many? Consider only a few,

“The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked inthe Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914.” –The Watchtower July 15, 1924 p. 211

“Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark thereturn of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularlythose named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of humanperfection.” –Millions Now Living willNever Die 1920, p. 90

If you are a young person, you also need to face the factthat you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Becauseall the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corruptsystem is due to end in a few years. -Awake! 1969 5/22 p. 15

Shortly, within our twentieth century, the “battle in the dayof Jehovah” will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. -The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah p. 216

The purpose of Awake! is stated clearly on page 4 ofeach issue: “This magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of apeaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914passes away.” Certainly such a magazine deserves as wide a distribution aspossible in our house-to-house ministry! -Kingdom Ministry 10/93 p. 8

Could these false predictions be described as anything short of "hollow?" If so, then where were they ever appropriately described as such? If they weren't, then would such neglect be what one would expect from "God's organization?"

This is information that I would encourage some to share with their JW friends and family. Do so with caution, humility, and love. But never do so at the expense of the gospel and pointing to Christ as "the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) Remember, your goal is not to create an ex-JW, but a Christ follower.

Upcoming Debate with a Jehovah's Witness

2011-12-02T18:55:00.001-05:00

My JW friend Letusreason1234 has recently agreed to a formal debate with me. The debate will be formulated a bit differently than most but the outcome will be the same. That is, we will be exchanging our videos back and forth so that both sides can articulate the best possible arguments without being put on the spot. However, there will be live cross examination. But I think this style of debate will be a good example for those who don't think they can debate because they aren't good debaters. Hopefully, the full debate will be posted by the end of the month. It will be in both video and audio form. The proposition and format will go as follows:

Proposition: There is only one class of Christians with one eternal hope

Affirmative: Mike Felker

Negative: Letusreason1234

Opening Statements (20 minutes each)

Rebuttals (12 minutes each)

Rebuttals (8 minutes each)

Cross examination round 1 (7 minutes each)

Cross examination round 2 (7 minutes each)

Rebuttals (10 minutes each)

Closing Statements (7 minutes each)

2nd discussion with JW "Letusreason1234" on the eternal hope of Christians

2011-11-27T12:34:00.001-05:00

Like our FIRST DISCUSSION, this one will continue along the same lines in contrasting the Jehovah's Witness view with what I believe to be the biblical view of all Christians living forever on the new earth.

You can watch the discussion HERE

You can listen to the discussion HERE

What is the proper view of the Watchtower and its literature?

2011-11-24T08:24:00.001-05:00

In the following Watchtower article, two viewpoints are contrasted. The first is the improper view,

*** w64 9/15 p. 574 Experiencing Jehovah’s Love ***
APPRECIATION FOR THE TRUTH
Not all the persons I have known in the organization have maintained their appreciation for the truth. To illustrate this, I want to mention an experience I had while in the pilgrim service. I was in Philadelphia at the time, and, after I had given a talk, an elective elder who claimed to be a brother came up to me and said: “Brother Riemer, I got my Watchtower this morning. The only reason I read that Watchtower is to find out what you fellows in Brooklyn are trying to put over on us.” That was the spirit of some of the elective elders. They were causing splits in the congregations and in the work.

Contrast this improper view with what would be a proper view of the Watchtower in the very next paragraph,

*** w64 9/15 p. 574 Experiencing Jehovah’s Love ***
In contrast to the attitude of these elective elders was that of an elderly couple with whom I stayed on the outskirts of Richmond, Virginia. The brother went down to get the mail before breakfast, and when we had breakfast he said, “Brother Riemer, I got a new Watchtower this morning, and do you know the first thing that Ma and I do when we get that Tower? We kneel down before we take the wrapper off and ask Jehovah to make us worthy to see what the message is that Jehovah has for us. Now, before we take the wrapper off, will you kneel down and pray with us?” How different that elective elder was from this humble couple who appreciated Jehovah’s organization!

Is Watchtower literature simply "Bible study aids" or something more? What is your view of Watchtower literature? Does your attitude and behavior reflect the improper view or the proper view?

(ht: 21Crosscheck21)

Discussion with a JW on the eternal hope of Christians

2011-11-15T21:06:00.001-05:00

Recently, I had another discussion with a Jehovah's Witness on the eternal hope of Christians. The Watchtower teaches that there will be a literal group of 144,000 anointed Jehovah's Witnesses who rule with Christ in heaven over the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses who will live on a paradise earth. However, I believe in accordance with the Scriptures that all Christians will live forever on the new earth.

You can watch the interaction HERE

You can listen to the interaction HERE

Lord willing, we will be having more interactions like these in the near future.

Correcting a miscitation from my interaction with the JW

2011-10-23T14:04:00.000-04:00

I finally got around to listening to the INTERACTION I had with the JW from the other day and was overall pleased with how it went. I won't go into reviewing or offering much critique in this post as I would like the viewers to decide for themselves (at least for now anyway).

But I did notice a blunder I made at about 41:30 where I attempted a paraphrase of the following quote:

*** w57 5/1 p. 284 par. 14Trust Your Proved, Faithful Brothers ***

Showing respect for Jehovah’s organization really resolvesitself down to our attitude toward God’s visible channel and the trust that weplace in our proved, faithful brothers. If we have become thoroughlyconvinced that this is Jehovah’s organization, that he is guiding anddirecting his people, then we shall not be unsettled by anything thathappens. If something comes up that we do not understand we will waitpatiently until it is made thoroughly clear to us. If we feel suresomething is wrong we will ‘keep the commandment’ of our Father and takewhatever theocratic steps are open to us and then wait on Jehovah. We willnot ‘forsake our mother’s teaching’ by immediately beginning to criticize andfind fault. We will realize that Jehovah knows what is going on in hisorganization, and if he is willing to permit it, who are we to insist it shouldbe different? If we really have faith, we will know that if it is wrong he willstraighten it out eventually, and we are far safer inside his organization evenwith these minor difficulties than we would be on the outside where only chaosand destruction await us.

What I paraphrased went something as follows: "If we come to believe that something the Watchtower teaches is false, then we should just believe what they say anyway." Of course, the part in bold contradicts this and is consistent with what my JW friend said whereby one should keep quite about it and let Jehovah straighten it out. While I think that there are still some significant theological and psychological disagreements that I have with the above, I didn't represent it accurately.

However, i'm kicking myself now because there is a quote that appears to be consistent with what I paraphrased that I wish I would have used:

*** w52 2/1 pp. 79-80 pars. 11-12 Jehovah’sTheocratic Organization Today ***

We must show our understanding in these matters,appreciating our relationship to the visible theocratic organization,remembering the fate of those like Korah and Achan and Saul and Uzziah andothers who forgot the theocratic order. Are we assigned as individuals to bringforth the food for the spiritual table? No? Then let us not try to take overthe slave’s duties. We should eat and digest and assimilate what is setbefore us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suitthe fancy of our mental taste. The truths we are to publish are the onesprovided through the discreet-slave organization, not some personal opinionscontrary to what the slave has provided as timely food. Jehovah and Christdirect and correct the slave as needed, not we as individuals. If we do notsee a point at first we should keep trying to grasp it, rather thanopposing and rejecting it and presumptuously taking the position that we aremore likely to be right than the discreet slave. We should meekly go along withthe Lord’s theocratic organization and wait for further clarification, ratherthan balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us and proceed toquibble and mouth our criticisms and opinions as though they were worth morethan the slave’s provision of spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciatethe Lord’s visible organization and not be so foolish as to pit againstJehovah’s channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings.

12 Now some may ask, Should we accept as fromthe Lord and true the food provided through the discreet slave, or should wewithhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves? If we havegained our present understanding of the Bible by feeding at the table set bythe slave, if we have been thereby freed from false doctrines and built up inthe clean and undefiled worship of God and given a new world hope, we shouldhave some confidence in the slave’s provisions. After being nourished toour present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter thanour former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organizationthat mothered us? “Forsake not the law of thy mother.” (Prov. 6:20-23) And ifthe heavenly Father would not give a stone or serpent or scorpion to a childwho asked for bread or fish or an egg from him, are we to take the spiritualfood he provides through the slave into our hands as if we were going to bebruised by a stone or bitten by a serpent or stung by a scorpion? (Matt.7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13, NW) Are we to be doubtful and suspicious about each newprovision? “He who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind andblown about. In fact, let not that man suppose that he will receive anythingfrom Jehovah.” (Jas. 1:6, 7, NW) Even the Beroeans first received Paul’spreaching “with the greatest readiness of mind”, and then went to “carefullyexamining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so”. (Acts17:11, NW) This was the first real contact the Beroeans had with Paul’spreaching, yet they received it readily and then studied the Scripturalsupport for themselves. How much more readily we can receive the slave’sprovisions with confidence, since, unlike the Beroeans, we have much pastexperience with the precious provisions from the slave. After receiving thesefood supplies we prove their Scripturalness for ourselves to make the messageour own, in a spirit of meekness and trustfulness and not combativeness.

Its difficult not to underline nearly every sentence in this quotation because I think this well illustrates the point I was trying to make. If a JW comes to question the correctness of something the WT teaches, what is he expected to do as a faithful JW? Hold silently to what he firmly believes as true? No. Instead, this one should "have some confidence in the slave's provisions," because we are not, "more likely to be right than the discreet slave." Therefore, "we should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification."

Unless i'm missing something, the faithful JW is expected to go along with what the WT teaches, even if it questionable or something we feel is incorrect. After all, they're smarter than us, right?

Discussion with a Jehovah's Witness "WorldHistory2011" on Independent Thinking

2011-10-23T00:30:00.000-04:00

Just last evening I had a most interesting encounter with a JW. But this wasn't just any encounter; it was recorded. It all started with the following comment on THIS VIDEO:

But was it a "complete lie?" Though my comment in 2:25 of that video was made in passing (the subject of the video was something different), I backed up my claim by referencing the following Watchtower quotation:

*** km 9/07 p. 3 Question Box ***

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorseindependent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scripturalresearch or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.
No, it does not. And yet, in various parts of the world, afew associates of our organization have formed groups to do independentresearch on Bible-related subjects. Some have pursued an independent groupstudy of Biblical Hebrew and Greek so as to analyze the accuracy of the NewWorld Translation. Others explore scientific subjects related to the Bible.They have created Web sites and chat rooms for the purpose of exchanging anddebating their views. They have also held conferences and produced publicationsto present their findings and to supplement what is provided at our Christianmeetings and through our literature... Thus, “the faithful and discreet slave” does not endorse anyliterature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under itsoversight.

What transpired was a 45 minute discussion with WorldHistory2011.

Go HERE to watch the encounter.

Go HERE to listen to the encounter.

The 144,000 rule over..."the Bible does not say," says the Watchtower

2011-10-21T21:20:00.002-04:00

In the January 15, 2012 Watchtower Study Edition, p. 30 par. 18, the following is stated,

18 Thereafter, how will Jehovah use these highly privileged associates of Christ? According to Revelation 22:5, “they will rule as kings forever and ever.” Over whom? The Bible does not say. But the quality of life that they possess and their experience in helping a world of imperfect people will equip them to hold a regal position in Jehovah’s purposes forever.

I found this to be an noteworthy admission for several reasons. But first, it must be emphasized that the above quote is not necessarily new, for the Watchtower has previously articulated a similar point,

*** re chap. 43 p. 313 par. 30 The Resplendent City ***

³⁰ John closes out this magnificent vision by saying of these slaves of God: “And they will rule as kings forever and ever.” (Revelation 22:5b) True, at the end of the thousand years, the benefits of the ransom will have been applied to completion, and Jesus will present a perfected human race to his Father. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28) What Jehovah has in mind for Jesus and the 144,000 after that, we do not know. But Revelation assures us that their privileged sacred service to Jehovah will continue into all eternity.

The reason I have found this to be noteworthy is because of a commonly used argument by Jehovah's Witnesses in defending the "two-class theology." For example,

*** rs p. 79 Born Again ***

If Someone Says—

‘I’ve been born again’
You might reply: ‘That means that you expect someday to be with Christ in heaven, doesn’t it? . . . Have you ever wondered what those who go to heaven will do there?’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘They will be kings and priests, ruling with Christ. (Rev. 20:6; 5:9, 10) Jesus said that these would be just a “little flock.” (Luke 12:32)’ (2) ‘If they are kings, there must also be subjects over whom they will rule. Who will these be? . . . Here are some points that I found to be very interesting when they were drawn to my attention. (Ps. 37:11, 29; Prov. 2:21, 22)’

In other words, if there are rulers then there must be subjects. Who are the rulers and who are the subjects?

*** w75 1/1 p. 21 par. 7 Appreciating the Things of God ***

The Scriptures show that those who would be joint heirs with Christ in his kingdom and who would rule with him for a thousand years would be 144,000 in number, and that on earth there would be an unnumbered “great crowd” that would prove themselves loyal subjects of that kingdom.—Rev. 7:4-10; 14:3-5; 20:6.

But is this "great crowd" meant to be subject to the 144,000 for all eternity? The above quote from the January 15, 2012 issue as well as the "Revelation book" (abbreviated "re" above) indicate that the Watchtower is not sure because "the Bible does not say."

So what effect does the rulers/subject argument really have if the Bible doesn't tell us who these kings rule over? Does this mean that non-JW apologists are no longer obliged to answer this argument?

Some might be interested to read how some JW's have responded to this HERE.

Watchtower issue: to join or not to join an organization?

2011-09-11T14:53:00.000-04:00

*** w53 3/1 p. 143 par. 12 Integrity Leads to Life ***

We must seek to be genuine Christians in every sense of the word. Does that mean we have to join a church organization in Christendom? Ask yourself now, Did Christ Jesus, who set our example and told us to follow his example to gain life, join any church organization in his day? No, God does not require us to do that; but he requires us to worship him, to preach the good news of the Kingdom, to be Christians, to follow the example Jesus set, living in unalterable devotion to Jehovah God; to praise God and respect his supremacy, to resist all efforts to turn us from decency and to endure in faith. We have the Bible to show us the right way. Certainly it is not necessary for a person to become a member of a church to gain everlasting life.—John 3:16-18; 17:3.

But this is just talking about joining a "church" right? Certainly, to be a true Christian one must join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, right?

Consider the April 22, 1957 Awake! magazine (published by the Watchtower) on p. 12:

This would seem to be consistent with the 1953 Watchtower quoted above. But what about one's dedication to the organization?

*** bh chap. 18 p. 183 par. 24 Baptism and Your Relationship With God ***
Remember, too, that you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization. Your dedication and baptism are the beginning of a very close friendship with God—an intimate relationship with him.—Psalm 25:14.

But when one becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses, where must his dedication and loyalty be?

*** w65 7/1 p. 412 Faithful and Loyal to God’s Organization ***

Jehovah God being The loyal One, it is but fitting that he should require loyalty of us. (Rev. 15:4) However, we cannot be loyal to God without being loyal to his visible earthly organization, the “faithful and discreet slave,” and the local Christian congregation which represents that “slave.”

If one isn't loyal to the Governing Body, then one isn't being loyal to God. And just in case this isn't clear, the Governing Body teaches that one's loyalty to them must be absolute and unquestionable.

*** w10 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 “Your Leader Is One, the Christ” ***

The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize that by following the lead of the modern-day Governing Body, they are in fact following their Leader, Christ.

There you have it. If you aren't following the Governing Body, you aren't following Christ. Would anyone agree that there appears to be some dissonance between the quotes above? Perhaps some bait-and-switch for those newly "joining" the organization?

(ht: Marvin Shilmer)

What was expected to happen in 1914?

2011-09-05T18:45:00.000-04:00

*** w89 4/15 pp. 6-7 par. 8 The Infamous Harlot—Her Fall ***
⁸ For some 40 years the Bible Students boldly proclaimed that the year 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times. As expected, that year brought world-shaking events, not the least of these being the first world war.

One has to wonder how the Watchtower can portray their own history in this light. But then again, many JW's and non-JW's reading the literature may be unaware of its history of failed predictions. Therefore, such ones would see no reason to question these commendations.

However, when one considers the nature of the actual predictions made pre-1914, it would be difficult to deny that such words are not an accurate portrayal. Some may even conclude that such a misrepresentation of pre-1914 predictions are nothing short of dishonest.

Compare the above quotation to what was really said about 1914:

“The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely markedin Scripture as October, 1914. It isalready in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874.” –Zion’s Watch Tower Jan. 15, 1892 p. 22

“We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could wechange them if we would. They are, webelieve, God’s dates, not ours. But bearin mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the endof the time of trouble. We see no reasonfor changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WatchTower of Jan. 15, ’92. We advise that itbe read again.” –Zion’s Watch Tower,July 15, 1894 p. 226

“True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, thatwithin the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrownand dissolved…In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of theGentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of thekingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, willbe accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914.” –TheTime is at Hand (1908 ed.) p. 99

“Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters wepresent proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, thatit is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D.1878, and that due ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14),which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s presentrulership, is already commenced.” –Timeis at Hand (1911 ed.) p. 101

It should be readily obvious to anyone that there was more going on than predictions merely about "world shaking events" and the "end of the gentile times." Thus, what happened in 1914 was not expected, contrary to what the Watchtower would have us believe according to the above quotation. On the contrary, what was expected was "the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership."

Another evangelical apologist advocating belief in the new earth.

2011-08-21T08:35:00.001-04:00

Hat tip to Jay Hess for advocating the biblical doctrine of the new earth. I hope more apologists will stop defending the idea that Christians will spend eternity in heaven, as this is not only unbiblical, but unproductive. I was also very surprised to see that Charles Stanley, one of the most prominent figures in evangelical circles, defend the doctrine of the new earth. So much for the belief of many JW's that they are the only ones believe in the new earth.

Who does John 6:68 apply to?

2011-08-19T21:55:00.003-04:00

One Watchtower apologist thinks this applies to a non-profit printing organization located in Brooklyn, NY. This is consistent with what the Watchtower themselves have stated:

*** w92 11/15 p. 21 Serve Jehovah Loyally ***

Nowhere Else to Go

¹² We will be impelled to serve Jehovah loyally with his organization if we remember that there is nowhere else to go for life eternal. When Jesus’ statements caused ‘many disciples to go off to the things behind,’ he asked his apostles: “You do not want to go also, do you?” Peter replied: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life; and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”—John 6:66-69.

However, the Scriptures are very clear on who this text is applied to if context means anything:

(John 6:66-71) ⁶⁶ Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. ⁶⁷ Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: “YOU do not want to go also, do YOU?” ⁶⁸ Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life; ⁶⁹ and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” ⁷⁰ Jesus answered them: “I chose YOU twelve, did I not? Yet one of YOU is a slanderer.” ⁷¹ He was, in fact, speaking of Judas [the son] of Simon Is·car′i·ot; for this one was going to betray him, although one of the twelve.

Who did Peter have in mind when he uttered the question, "whom shall we go away to?" A printing organization that would not arise for another 2,000 years, or Jesus Himself?

Watchtower apologists, such as StandFirm, want to divert the issue by arguing issues related to ecclesiology and whether Christians should worship God in opposition to those whom Christ Himself appointed as apostles in the first century. But even if the Governing Body are who they claim to be, John 6:68 is contextually applicable only to Jesus. To apply it to seven fallible and error-prone men in Brooklyn, NY is nothing short of blasphemous. So why do Watchtower apologists defend the Watchtower such embarrassingly poor arguments like these? Because they must have absolute unquestionable submission to whatever is put in print by the Watchtower.

But I didn't write this blog necessarily to refute one of the extremely few Watchtower apologists who write and dialogue on the internet; its to offer an argument that could prove useful for anyone who wishes to witness to a JW. Consider using John 6:68 in asking a JW who this text is applied to in context. This question alone could prove effecting in getting JW's to "examine the Scriptures to see if these things are so." (Acts 17:11)

My second appearance on the Theopologetics podcast discussing the JW's "two-class" theology.

2011-07-31T14:41:00.000-04:00

From the Theopologetics website:

Episode 50 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Mike Felker from The Apologetic Front joins me once again to discuss the Jehovah's Witnesses, this time focusing in particular on their "two-class" doctrine of life in the eternal state. This episode contains part 1 of the interview; see episode 51, "144,000," for part 2.

Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber on Yahweh or Myweh

2011-07-17T08:37:00.002-04:00

Recently, Sye appeared on Justin's podcast to discuss presuppositional apologetics. It appeared that this particular episode was arranged in order to discuss Justin's lecture on presuppositional apologetics. However, while some of this was discussed, the two spent more time debating the issues in general.

I must say that this is one of the best encounters i've heard on this topic; probably as good, if not better, than Sye's first interaction with Paul Baird on unbelievable. This was a fast paced contrasting of positions in a near hour of non-stop cross examination from both sides. While I thought that Sye kept his demeanor at a very patient level, I was a bit disappointed with Justin's performance as he seemed annoyed and frustrated throughout the exchange.

Sye has also informed me that Justin's recording was edited. I have yet to listen to the unedited version, but will make it available once Sye grants permission or posts in publicly. At the least, there is supposed to be a transcript of the unedited recording forthcoming.

To listen to the "edited" version of the exchange, go HERE.

Two JW elders confronted

2011-06-19T09:12:00.000-04:00

In this video, an atheist confronts two JW elders regarding the so-called "secret elder's manual." If you want to know the background about this manual (the newest was recently released), a simple google search of "Watchtower elder's manual" should bring up some hits, as well as the option to download (do so at your own risk). Or you could ask a JW in your local area, but you may get a blank stare.

I'm not advocating the atheist's approach, nor am I drawing a conclusion from this video. I post it here for two reasons:

1. A video confrontation like this is extremely rare and i'm surprised these elders agreed to it.

2. For educational purposes. Watch the full video and draw your own conclusions in the matter.

However you look at it, this was a very interesting encounter to say the least. If these elders agreed to do an interview regarding this issue, I would very much enjoy the same 15 minutes to confront them about the Watchtower's "two-class theology." If anyone has any ideas as to how I could approach some JW's regarding such an opportunity, please share your ideas. I have no intention of embarrassing any JW, but to video-tape an interview whereby the viewer can listen to both sides interact and come to their own conclusions on the matter.

Busy...really busy.

2011-06-14T21:44:00.000-04:00

After having to turn down an invitation to a formal debate and get overly behind on my email and comment responses (i'm terribly worry I haven't responded to you yet), I may as well spill the beans. I'm really busy. Due to personal reasons, i've felt responsibly obligated to take on two jobs for the time being. Of course, this leaves me with very little time to do much of anything apologetics oriented. This bums me out a little, but I know God is sovereign and has a purpose in all of this.

Of course, i'll blog when I can but it probably won't be more than once a week. As far as responding to emails and comments, I really have no idea when I can get to those. Even rebuttal-blogs and videos are going to be difficult for me to get to. Right now, I have several things I must prioritize in order for me to make the most of my time:

1. Sleep

2. Spending time with the Lord in prayer and Scripture.

3. Working out.

4. Studying Greek (I can't lose my momentum with this. Too much invested in this to quit)

5. Reading.

If all of these are fulfilled, then i'll use whatever time I have to blog, respond to emails, or whatever. I don't know how long things will be like this, but i'm just thankful for the opportunity to be employed.

I appreciate all of my readers, whether you agree with my theology/beliefs or not, and I hope you'll stick around.

"What is your evidence for God?" A response to WitchHunter93

2011-06-10T08:55:00.002-04:00

A YouTube user by the name of Witchhunter93 left a comment on my Video, to which I respond to below. I think this sort of approach could prove to be more useful than seeking to respond to all the comments, which I don't have time for anyway.

Response to a Jehovah's Witness

2011-06-08T22:41:00.000-04:00

Below is my video response to THIS VIDEO from a JW on YouTube. If anyone is interested in aspects relating to the Watchtower's two-class theology, I think you'll enjoy this:

New Podcast Recommendation: Yahweh or Myweh

2011-06-08T10:00:00.003-04:00

I feel strange offering a recommendation for an atheist's podcast, but this one seems like it could be useful. I've spoken to the podcast's AUTHOR before and he seems to be very reasonable, fair, and kind.

Though the podcast is fairly new, the few episodes i've listened to included an INTERVIEW WITH GREG KOUKL, a DEBATE ON THE RESURRECTION, and a THOUGHTFUL CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS. The latter is what turned me on to the podcast in the first place, since its not every day you'll hear an atheist taking presuppositional apologetics seriously enough to lecture on it. If I can ever find time, i'd like to offer a review on it; though some others might beat me to it.

Anyway, as long as Justin Shieber continues to offer thoughtful and fair arguments and seeks to promote open dialogue and debate on his show, it may be a podcast that i'll continue to listen to and recommend.

Go HERE for the podcast feeds and go HERE to subscribe in iTunes.

Revelational Epistemology Defined and Defended: an Introduction to Revelational Epistemology

2011-05-31T15:13:00.000-04:00

This is the last video in my series on revelational epistemology. It is recommended that you watch PART 1 and PART 2 before you view this one.

Revelational Epistemology Illustrated: an Introduction to Revelational Epistemology

2011-05-27T09:10:00.001-04:00

This is the second video in a three part series i'm doing on Revelational Epistemology. Though this information is semi-technical, i'm hoping it will be effective in presenting Christians and non-Christians with a solid basis as to how we can know that Scripture is true. I would recommend watching the FIRST VIDEO in this series before this one.

The information presented here must have its full credit given to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen in his book, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended.

Silly me...it was a "spiritual" meaning!

2011-05-24T09:08:00.001-04:00

According to THIS, Camping has now explained what really happened on May 21. But just in case you don't want to give Camping any more attention than he deserves by reading the report, allow me to translate his excuse:

When your doomsday end-of-the-world prediction doesn't come to pass; give it a "spiritual" meaning instead.

Where have we heard THAT EXCUSE before?

(ht: EYE ON APOLOGETICS)

My Interview with Apologetics315 on Jehovah's Witnesses

2011-05-23T08:55:00.000-04:00

Thank you, Brian, for the opportunity for this interview! Here's the description from APOLOGETICS315:

Today's interview is with Mike Felker. Mike blogs on apologetics at TheApologeticFront, with an emphasis on interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses. He talks about his background, the overall belief system of JWs, The Watchtower Society, their various teachings regarding salvation, the afterlife, Jesus, the trinity, etc. He also discusses strategies for interaction including what to focus on and what to avoid. You might also enjoy Mike's interview on the Theopologetics podcast at this link. Mike's video channels on Youtube are here and here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (1hr)

Enjoy.

Books recommended by Mike for dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses:

Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

A very useful debate on Oneness Christology

2011-05-21T20:42:00.000-04:00

Recently, on the THEOPOLOGETICS PODCAST, Michael Burgos (Trinitarian) debated James Anderson (Oneness) on the topic: "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father." I must say, this is probably the most useful debate i've heard on this topic. As a matter of fact, I don't think i've ever heard a Christological debate with a topic this focused. Usually, its just "Trinity vs. Oneness" or something along those lines.

Of course, some of my readers will disagree with the theological perspectives of both proponents. However, I think this is a debate that anyone can learn a great deal from. Both men were very well prepared and debated in a cordial fashion. Therefore, I feel that both positions were more than adequately contrasted.

You can download PART 1 and PART 2.

You can listen to some post-debate discussion between Chris Date (the host) and Michael Burgos HERE and HERE

Not measurable and numbered...yet measurable and numbered

2011-05-08T22:02:00.000-04:00

(Revelation 7:4) 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:

According to the Watchtower, the 144,000 are a literal group of "anointed" Christians who will go to heaven to rule and reign with Christ. They believe that the rest of the true Christians are described as follows:

(Revelation 7:9) 9 After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.

In addition, the Watchtower believes this "great crowd" is so large that its not able to be numbered. And they do so on the basis of what the text actually says: "which no man was able to number."

Since the Watchtower holds to the innumerable nature of the great crowd on the basis of such descriptive terms, it is interesting how another text uses similar language:

(Hosea 1:10) 10 “And the number of the sons of Israel must become like the grains of the sand of the sea that cannot be measured or numbered. And it must occur that in the place in which it used to be said to them, ‘YOU men are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘The sons of the living God.’

It is beyond dispute that though the Watchtower views an historical fulfillment of this text in 537 B.C.E. in the exile from Babylon, they also view an additional fulfillment in the establishment of the "anointed class" of 144,000. The reason we know this is because this text is quoted and applied in 1 Peter 2:10 and Romans 9:26; two texts interpreted by the Watchtower in reference to the "anointed class."

*** w10 3/15 p. 24 pars. 3-4 One Flock, One Shepherd ***
³ The apostle Peter clearly identified this new nation. He wrote the following to his fellow Christians: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Pet. 2:9) As foretold, natural Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah were the first members of that new nation. (Dan. 9:27a; Matt. 10:6) Later, many non-Israelites were also included in this nation, for Peter went on to say: “You were once not a people, but are now God’s people.”—1 Pet. 2:10.
⁴ To whom was Peter here speaking? In the beginning of his letter, he says: “[God] gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you.” (1 Pet. 1:3, 4) So this new nation is made up of anointed Christians, who have the heavenly hope. They are “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) In a vision, the apostle John saw that these spiritual Israelites number 144,000

Consider the dilemma for the Watchtower. Revelation 7:9 is interpreted as an innumerable group on the basis of the words, "which no man was able to number." Yet, Hosea 1:10 is also in reference to a group "that cannot be measured or numbered." Yet, the Watchtower believes that this group is numbered and quite small compared to the "great crowd."

This problem can be summarized as follows:

The "anointed" class in literal and numbered (Rev. 7:4), yet they are so large that they cannot be numbered (Hos. 1:10).

The "great crowd" is not numbered since they are "not able to be numbered." (Rev. 7:9)

A "religious delusion" double standard

2011-05-07T22:41:00.000-04:00

According to the popular atheist blogger, John Loftus,

Osama Bin Laden was probably a good man; sincere, devout and God fearing. But all it takes to make good people do evil is religion. Keep that in mind. That is the lesson of his life. He was deluded in the same way as other believers. Some delusions cause more harm than others though, and he caused a great deal of it. The problem is he will never know he was deluded. Neither will any of the rest of them. What a waste of a life.

Obviously, Loftus and other atheists think they are correct when positing such claims. The problem is, they fail to consider the probability of their own delusion. Consider if such words were applied to an atheist, such as Stalin:

Stalin was probably a good man; sincere and devout. But all it takes to make good people do evil is atheism. Keep that in mind. That is the lesson of his life. He was deluded in the same way as other atheists. Some delusions cause more harm than others though, and he caused a great deal of it. The problem is he will never know he was deluded. Neither will any of the rest of them. What a waste of life.

The point of the parallel is not to get into a debacle over Stalin's motives, whether they be ideological, political or whatever. In fact, let's just grant for the sake of argument that Stalin's naturalistic worldview did not necessarily, in and of itself, motivate him to do what he did. However, let's keep one thing in mind: was Stalin doing anything that was inconsistent with his professed worldview? In other words, if our universe is nothing short of raw power with particles clashing against one another with no purpose or goal, then why would it matter if a glob of protoplasm (also known as, "humans") chooses to eliminate millions of other globs of protoplasm in accordance with the firing of neurons in that one's brain? Where does one drawn conclusions of "right, wrong, disgusting, delusional, or inconsistent" from such actions?

This is why such judgments of others is completely non-sensical in atheistic worldviews. Why does "delusional" and "worldview/religion" even matter in such a universe? Loftus may claim that such a life is "wasted," but Osama would have probably begged to differ. But again, how does a "wasted life" even make sense in a purely physical, materialistic universe? Nothing is "wasted." Instead, things just are what they are. Atoms react when they clash against other atoms. And in the same way, globs of protoplasm react when large flying objects (i.e. airplanes) fly into large cement structures (i.e. buildings) that are filled with other globs of protoplasm (i.e. humans). Yet, the atheist concedes that one set of reactions is non-moral (i.e. atoms clashing against one another) and the other is immoral (i.e. flying planes into buildings).

It is readily obvious that the atheist finds such action appalling because they are made in God's image. Furthermore, when they react to such tragedies, they are essentially cracking open their Bible's all the while denying it. As the late Van Til once said, "Anti-theism presupposes theism."

Meaningless Exhortation?

2011-05-06T09:52:00.000-04:00

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”(John 6:44)

While Jesus' words indicate an expressed inability on the part of the unbeliever to come to Him without being "drawn," some may wonder why unbelievers should be called to repentance? In other words, if they can't come (unless they are drawn), why tell them to come?

Something to keep in mind is what is meant by "ability" as it relates to Jesus' words. In what way can't unbelievers come to Christ without being drawn? In thinking about this question, it might be easy to suggest that they can't come to Christ even if they wanted to. But such thinking doesn't correlate to how Scripture defines this "inability."

“Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7–8)

While this text doesn't express the full scope of the unbeliever's depravity, it does show us what is meant by "inability." The "not even able to do so" has everything to do with desire. That is, they can't please God because they don't want to please God. Why don't they want to please God? Because its in their nature as fallen sons of Adam. And as long as God refrains from extending grace to unbelievers (i.e. drawing them), they will never come to Him. After all, Christ says, "Without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

To illustrate this further, i'd like to provide some parallel examples. With regards to John 15:5, why would anyone rebuke others for doing evil if they aren't in Christ? Wouldn't they need to be in Christ to live righteously?

“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”(Romans 9:16)

If it depends on God and not on man, then why would Paul rebuke man for their sinning against God? Even with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, why would he be rebuked for something that God is doing?

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Yet, the Scriptures declare that men are only capable of this when God has done a work in their hearts:

“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” (Ezekiel 36:26–27)

So why rebuke man for things they are "unable" to overcome? Because rebuke is the means by which salvation is accomplished. Men will not come because they don't want to come. But they will want to come when God gives them a new heart and draws them through the preaching of the gospel. For that reason, we should be faithful to share the gospel with everyone since we don't know who's heart is being made new by the Spirit.

Daniel 4:34-35 and the Sovereignty of God

2011-05-02T13:50:00.000-04:00

“But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (Daniel 4:34–35)

I want to get in the habit of more regularly blogging my thoughts and arguments. The reason I haven't always done so is because of, a) lack of time or b) nothing super-profound to say. Of course, my primary focus of this blog is to bring God glory through the proclamation of the truth, assist those who are searching, and to engage in intelligent, respectful dialogue. In addition, i'd like to hold myself accountable for what I believe. And sometimes the best way to do this is to be vulnerable to public correction; something that having a blog with open comments can certainly do. Sometimes your critics can be your best friend in helping one to sharpen, refine, or completely abandon held beliefs.

With that said, if anyone would like to see something addressed, please don't hesitate to EMAIL ME or leave a question in the comments.

Daniel 4:34-35 is a text which has always provoked some thought with regards to the sovereignty of God. Is God in control or is He not? That is, do some things happen in this world that God possibly allowed but had no involvement with? Sometimes, we think that when bad things happen, God had nothing to do with it. Again, He might have permitted it to take place, but certainly didn't decree it. Perhaps I can put it very plainly: God only decrees good things; but man and the natural world cause bad things.

"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing" is the utterance of praise from the pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar. This doesn't mean that God has no concern for the earth and its inhabitants, for the next part of this verse states, "but He does according to His will in the host of heaven." That is, all the inhabitants are accounted as nothing in that they cannot thwart God's will.

This raises some interesting questions for consideration. Is God's sovereign decree, as stated in Daniel 4:34-35, related only to some things that happen in this world or all things? If its only related some things, then would this not suggest that God is not in full control of all that happens in this world? If God merely allows some things to happen, what would be His purpose in doing so? Why "allow" some things to happen while at the same time "decreeing" other things to happen?

Depending on where you stand, your answers to these questions could profoundly affect how you view the world that you live in as well as the one you worship and declare as Sovereign.

The Self-Sufficient Knower: an introduction to revelational epistemology

2011-04-28T08:45:00.001-04:00

The argument i'm presenting was originally proposed by the late GREG BAHNSEN in his book, "PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: STATED AND DEFENDED". This video will hopefully be the beginning of a work in progress to provide some illustrations and defenses of revelational epistemology. Revelational epistemology, biblically speaking, is the idea that one cannot have knowledge without revelation. In other words, unless you begin with Scripture, you cannot know anything at all.

This video is semi-technical and may be difficult to follow (Try reading Bahnsen on this...oh my!). But if need be, I may make a simpler version of it depending on what others say in response. However, i'm hoping the future attempts of this "introduction to revelational epistemology" series will offer further clarity.

Distant Starlight in a Young Universe?

2011-04-27T08:49:00.000-04:00

"If the universe is only thousands of years old, how can light reach us from stars that are millions of light-years away?"

This is perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions relating to the Biblical account of creation and a young universe. Many solutions have been proposed, but none are without their difficulties and challenges. However, one astronomer by the name of JASON LISLE, has claimed to find the solution to the "problem." Personally, I have not researched his theory thoroughly enough to pose much of a defense, but I just thought i'd share it with those who are interested.

For those unfamiliar with the arguments that have been proposed as a solution as well as the background information concerning starlight and time, I would recommend watching Dr. Lisle's PRESENTATION.

To read about his theory in more detail, he has written an lay-friendly article HERE and a more technical article HERE.

If you'd like to read some of Dr. Lisle's responses to his critics, go HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Richard Dawkins Interviews/Debates Wendy Wright

2011-04-16T20:34:00.000-04:00

This is one of the few times I will admit a clear win for Richard Dawkins. While I appreciate Wendy Wright's stance and can sympathize with many of her concerns, she just didn't know her position well enough (nor Dr. Dawkins') to get into the technicalities of evolution. In my opinion, Dawkins was overall polite and reasonable with his questions and objections. And while Miss Wright was polite, she not only refused to admit that her understanding of evolution was quite limited; but she regularly dodged direct questions.

For example, Miss Wright asked a number of times, "Where's the evidence?" And Dawkins would politely reply with several examples of so-called "transitional fossils." It was obvious that Miss Wright knew little to nothing about these fossils. Instead of admitting her ignorance and agreeing to look into these further, she pridefully dismissed Dawkins' attempt.

This does make me wonder why Dawkins would agree to interview someone like this who has no credentials in science. Wouldn't this had made for a much more useful exchange had he interviewed a creationist or ID proponent with a Ph.D in his or her respective field? Otherwise, what do interviews like these really accomplish except for an excessive number of facepalms to those viewing?

If you're going to discuss the technicalities of evolution with someone, here's a tip: know what you are talking about and/or be willing to look into something for which you are unfamiliar. Otherwise, you are causing more harm than good.

Love Wins chapter 3

2011-04-12T23:41:00.001-04:00

Chapter 3 is simply titled, "hell." This chapter is certainly the most theologically "meaty" so far. Though I am regularly annoyed by Bell's neglecting of verse references (he only lists chapter numbers), I was surprised at some of the depth for which Bell was willing to go in his analysis of hell. While Love Wins is far from a scholarly work, Bell at least provides some knowledge of concordance use.

Since the doctrine of hell is a difficult and complex subject of debate, it is not my intention to delve into any major disputes with Bell's views on whether punishment is conditional or unending. However, I will say that Bell's analysis is naive at best. And its not so much what Bell says is incorrect, but what he doesn't say.

While Bell isn't incorrect in how he defines the relevant biblical words (i.e. hell, sheol, etc.), I think he misses some important points in various contexts. Luke 16 is one of these places. While he says a few interesting things about this passage, his primary point is flawed:

"In their previous life, the rich man saw himself as better than Lazarus, and now, in hell, the rich man still sees himself as above Lazarus. It's no wonder Abraham says there's a chasm that can't be crossed. The chasm is the rich man's heart! It hasn't changed, even in death and torment and agony." (p. 75)

While its quite true that the ethical aspects of this parable are there in how we should treat our neighbors; it is not the case that this is the chasm that Bell seems to imply. Moreover, the parable goes against one of Bell's key points in this book; that there are second chances after death. How Bell misses this aspect of the parable is beyond me. But it is quite clear that the parable emphasizes one important thing: the rich man's request for mercy is refused. Therefore, it is of eternal importance that we embrace the gospel and love our neighbors right now, or else it might be too late.

"Jesus did not use hell to try to compel 'heathens' and 'pagans' to believe in God, so they wouldn't burn when they die." (p. 82)

Bell couldn't be more wrong in this admission because Jesus did this very thing in Luke 12:4-8,

“I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!“Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.“Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God;”

Notice that Jesus, after providing the warnings of hell, compels His audience to confess Him before men. While Bell does admit that Jesus provided stern warnings of judgment, it is not the case that the judgments are not a means by which Jesus compelled his audience to repent.

One thing seems to be clear thus far; Bell holds to some form of conditional punishment. However, he not only seems to set himself against the traditional view of hell, but against the annihilationist who believes that the judgment of the wicked is final.

Do all faithful Christians go to heaven? Review of the June 2011 Watchtower Public Edition

2011-04-08T13:13:00.002-04:00

In this review, I would like to address an article written by the Watchtower titled, "Do all faithful Christians go to heaven?" While it is common for the organization to mention their so-called "two-class system," whereby Christians will be eternally separated into a class in heaven (consisting of 144,000 anointed Jehovah's Witnesses) and a class on earth (the rest of faithful Jehovah's Witnesses); it is not all that common for a full article to be written on the subject.

While there is nothing new here, it is important that these issues be addressed. As I mentioned in this REVIEW, there are some profound implications in holding to this doctrine that goes far beyond one's eternal location. Another reason for addressing this is to equip those interested in reaching JW's on an issue that is often overlooked in so-called "counter-cult apologetics." Lord willing, this review will provide something insightful for both JW's and non-JW's.

Many have read Jesus’ comforting words: “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) Did Jesus mean that all faithful worshippers of his Father, Jehovah God, would go to heaven to enjoy everlasting life in true happiness?

Note Jesus’ thought- provoking statement: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3: 13) This implies that faithful worshippers in the past, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, had not gone to heaven. (Acts 2:34) Where, then, did they all go? In brief: The faithful of old are in the grave, sleeping in death, un- conscious, awaiting resurrection.—Ecclesiastes
9:5, 6; Acts 24:15.

For the sake of avoiding an issue that could potentially cloud the discussion, I would like to assume the Watchtower is correct on these points. However, one thing they say is correct; Jesus' statement does not say or imply that Christians will go to heaven for eternity.

The Bible’s first reference to heavenly life after death was also by Jesus. He told his apostles that he would prepare a place for them in heaven. (John 14:2, 3) This was something new for God’s people.

While it is true that life in heaven would be a new concept to any Jew, it is not true that John 14:2-3 has something to do with this.

“In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.“If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.”
(John 14:2–3)

A quick glance at this verse may reveal that what the Watchtower says is true. But a closer look may reveal otherwise. Notice what Jesus will do after the "preparation"; he will "come again." Where will he come to? Could it be that Christ comes to earth, since "heaven must receive [him] until the period of restoration (Acts 3:21)?" If Christ comes to earth, where will the "receiving" take place? It seems that this will take place on earth since Christ is said to, "descend from heaven...then we...will...meet the Lord in the air." (1 Thess. 4:16-17)

But what are the "dwelling places...prepared for you?" Whatever it is, could it be the same city that is being prepared for Abraham and others for whom the Watchtower claims an "earthly hope?"

“But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.”
(Hebrews 11:16)

There are also several texts which speak of a "place prepared" that is specifically referring to the preparation of believers.

“For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house — whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.”
(Hebrews 3:3–6)

“you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
(1 Peter 2:5)

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
(Ephesians 2:19–22 NAS95)

If one is to insist that Jesus is preparing and building a literal place, then cross references should be provided as have been done above. However, there is nothing inconsistent in the view that the preparing is actually the body of believers and the kingdom itself.

The apostle Paul later explained that after Jesus’ death and resurrection to heaven, Jesus ‘inaugurated for his disciples a new and living way’—a way no other human had traveled before.—Hebrews 10:19, 20.

While it is true that these verses are speaking of a "new way," it is not the case that it is referring to "going to heaven." In fact, the very next 2 verses explicitly assert what v. 19-20 are speaking of.

“and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
(Hebrews 10:21–22)

The "new way" is the privilege of believers to now "draw near" to God through Christ as their high priest. If one has this privilege in this life, why would one think that they must go to heaven to do so? Also consider Revelation 21:3, where God draws near to us by "dwelling among" us. This happens after the "holy city" (Hebrews 11:16, 12:22) comes "down out of heaven from God" onto the new earth.

Does this mean that from then on all faithful ones would go to heaven? No, for resurrection to heaven is closely related to an assignment given only to some humans. On their last evening together, Jesus told his apostles that they would “sit on thrones to judge” in his heavenly Kingdom. Thus, ruling with Jesus in heaven was to be their assignment.—Luke 22:28-30.

This interpretation assumes two things:

Jesus' eschatological kingdom will be in heaven.
The judgment thrones will be in heaven.

Contrary to what the Watchtower says, Luke 22:28-30 specifies neither of these. However, it is interesting that Jesus mentions "eating and drinking" in the kingdom (also mentioned in Luke 14:15; Matthew 26:29). Will there really be eating and drinking in heaven? Furthermore, it is interesting that Luke 13:28-29 mentions, "Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God...reclining at the table"; a group of people the Watchtower claims will not be in heaven.

Besides the apostles, other humans would also be given this marvelous commission. In a vision, the apostle John saw Jesus with a group of resurrected ones in heaven described as ‘a kingdom and priests to rule over the earth.’ (Revelation 3:21; 5:10)

Again, neither of these texts mention heaven. Furthermore, the Watchtower takes it for granted that "over" can just as easily be translated as "upon," which is how many translations render it. In fact, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower, renders it as such (see the left column):

But regardless of what epi can be translated as; what is important is what it means in the context. One lexicon defines epi in the context of Revelation 5:10 as,

⑨ marker of power, authority, control of or over someone or someth., over
ⓐ w. gen. (Hdt. 5, 109 al.; Mitt-Wilck. I/1, 124, 1=BGU 1120, 1 [5 b.c.] πρωτάρχῳ ἐ. τοῦ κριτηρίου; 287, 1; LXX; AscIs 2:5 τοῦ ἐ. τῶν πραγματε[ι] ῶν=Denis p. 109) βασιλεύειν ἐ. τινος (Judg 9:8, 10; 1 Km 8:7) Rv 5:10
-William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 365.

In the context of Revelation 5:10, it is not location that is in view, but authority.

How many of them were there? As in every government, only a limited number govern. So, too, with this heavenly Kingdom. Jesus, the Lamb of God, rules with 144,000 corulers “bought from among mankind.”—Revelation 14:1, 4, 5.

There is an interesting contrast between what John "saw" and what he "heard."

John saw, "the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand..."
John heard, "a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters..."

What John saw must have been relative to his location, which would have been earth since this is contrasted to what he heard from heaven. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that v. 1 depicts an earthly scene rather than one in heaven.

True, 144,000 is a small number compared with the number of all faithful ones, past and present.

What the Watchtower fails to mention is that the "anointed" class must be a group larger than a literal 144,000 in light of the following,

“But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, “REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.””
(Galatians 4:26–27)

According to the Watchtower, the "children of the desolate" are the anointed class of 144,000 whereas the "one who has a husband" is in reference to natural Israel. However, it is doubtful that the Watchtower is prepared to argue that natural Israel was smaller in number than 144,000.

But this is understandable because the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven for a specific sacred assignment of work. If you were to build a house, would you contract all the skilled builders in your area? No. You would need only as many as were required for the job. Similarly, not all faithful ones are chosen by God for the unique privilege of ruling with Christ in heaven.
This heavenly government will accomplish God’s original purpose for mankind. Jesus and his 144,000 corulers will oversee the transformation of the earth into a global paradise, where an untold number of faithful ones will live forever in happiness. (Isaiah 45:18; Revelation 21: 3, 4) This will include those in God’s memory, who will be resurrected.—John 5:28, 29.
Every faithful worshipper of Jehovah—past or present—can receive the marvelous gift of everlasting life. (Romans 6:23) A few will receive life in heaven for a special assignment, and the great majority will receive life on earth in a global paradise.

While is true that the earth will one day be restored to a paradise (Revelation 21:1), it is not the case that there will be a "heavenly government" whereby a literal 144,000 will rule in heaven with Christ over the rest of faithful Christians living on the earth. Instead, the eternal dwelling for all Christians on the new earth is far more consistent with the Scriptures.

If you would like to read this issue of the Watchtower in its entirety, you can download the PDF HERE

Love Wins chapter 2

2011-04-04T22:19:00.000-04:00

Chapter 2 is dealing with questions relating to heaven and what it means. Aside from Bell's "twitter-esque" writing style, I found this chapter to be relatively enjoyable. This is probably because I can relate to many of Bell's thoughts as it relates to heaven. As he correctly observes, many Christians hold to the misconception that eternal life means going somewhere else. With that, we are left with a fuzzy, spacey, cloudy, and floaty picture of what the "where" in eternal life is.

However popular this notion might be in Christian circles, this is not the Scriptural position (again, as Bell correctly observes). Instead, eternal life for believers starts right here, right now; on earth. Unfortunately, Bell says very little, if anything, about the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and its connection to the kingdom. If the kingdom of God is coming to this earth (Matthew 6:10), then we should live in accordance with this reality; not in terms of living out a so-called "social gospel," but actively proclaiming the good news of eternal life and what one's must do to enter (Matthew 7:21).

Though it may be premature for me to say at this point, I anticipate a reason for which Bell will not speak too much about the exclusive nature of the kingdom; that is, if he believes it is exclusive at all. The next chapter is on "hell." I'm very curious to see how Bell views this difficult subject.

Atheist Role Play

2011-04-01T13:02:00.000-04:00

This atheist role play by Brett Kunkle was quite an interesting experience. Though i'm not completely sure about the "lying vs. deceiving" distinction that he made, I can imagine how effective this demonstration was for the students. If I have no ethical convictions on the matter as I think more about this, I may consider doing something like this in the future on various venues; whether youth groups or classrooms. However, the important thing will be for me to spend some time refuting myself after having dismantled their faith. Since I'm more experienced in my dealings with Jehovah's Witnesses, I could imagine role playing that part much better.

Anyway, I hope some of you will take some time to watch this and especially the reaction in the end where Brett reveals his identity.

Women doing theology and apologetics? What?

2011-03-29T19:20:00.002-04:00

Recently, my friend Chris Date interviewed someone on a very interesting topic: women and apologetics. I must admit I was quite taken back when I started listening to this podcast. I wasn't surprised because Chris was interviewing an apologist who happens to be a female; I was surprised because he was interviewing her on what seems to be a "no no" topic these days.

I say this because i've always wondered why it is that women are rarely interested in theology and apologetics. When I ask this question to others, I seem to get responses such as, "well, women just aren't academically inclined like men are." What? I find this hard to swallow. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but I would imagine the number of women college students in the U.S. is pretty high.

At any rate, Chris Date was brave enough to ask Mary Jo Sharp the tough questions as it relates to why women aren't normally inclined to thinking biblically on an intellectual level. To be more specific (just in case any female readers are outraged by such a statement), you don't see too many women digging into systematic theology textbooks and the like. Its not that they can't; they just don't.

Mary Jo Sharp is quite the exception. Not only has she studied apologetics, but she teaches and debates as well. Of course, no one is saying that all women should be like this (just as not all men should be like this). But she is saying that all men and women are called to study the word and be prepared to "make a defense." (1 Peter 3:15)

Most likely, if you are a man or woman reading this, you are already interested in theology and apologetics to some extent. Otherwise, I couldn't imagine why you'd be reading my blog! Anyway, I hope you all will spread the word about Mary Jo Sharp and what she is doing to get women involved in theology and apologetics. I think the fact that Mary is a women will help other women to relate, as she explains in the interview. So if you are a women and are hesitant to get involved in theology and apologetics, or simply don't know where to start; here's a perfect opportunity!

To listen to the interview between Chris Date and Mary Jo Sharp, go HERE

To check out Mary Jo Sharp's website (where she has her own podcast), go HERE

To check out Mary Jo Sharp's podcast, go HERE

Love Wins chapter 1

2011-03-22T22:23:00.000-04:00

Assuming you're not living under a rock, most Christians are somewhat aware of the "firestorm" that ROB BELL'S new book, LOVE WINS, has stirred in Christian circles on the internet and elsewhere. Even before the release of the book, many were weighing in because of the provocative TRAILER VIDEO. Though some were critical of the critics, it is beyond dispute that Bell's video was questionable.

Though my review will pale in significance to many well known reviewers and bloggers, I figured it would be beneficial for me to have some familiarity with these important issues as they relate to Rob Bell. That is, I have no intention of adding anything to the fire. Instead, I hope to have the opportunity to provide clarity to those who might feel lost after reading Bell's book. In addition, I would hope to offer warning and correction to my friends, co-workers, family, etc. who might buy into some of Bell's ideas.

In a way, this review is more for me than anything. If I can write about it, then it is likely that I will be able to explain it to others. And if i didn't take the time to read this book, why should others listen to me when I seek to offer correction?

With that said, i'd like to review one chapter at a time.

As I anticipated, Bell offered his fair share of skeptical and provocative questions as they relate to heaven, hell, and salvation. One can only assume that Bell felt he covered all the bases. However sincere Bell was in his efforts, I found them to be severely lacking. Though Bell was only "asking questions," I didn't think he offered anything short of a strawman in his representations of various beliefs. What's worse is, I never found my view to be questioned or mentioned. Putting hell aside for a moment, I saw no attempt on Bell's part to even attempt to ask accurate questions concerning Reformed Soteriology. I don't want to assume too much as Bell might have purposefully avoided this perspective.

I say all this because I felt like Bell's questions could have been far more smart than they were. If Bell had offered more sophistication and accurate representation in his questions, I would have been far more provoked. Instead, I read through this chapter thinking, "these questions are easy!" If I had to guess, Bell's book seemed to be geared towards ones who are not quite as theologically astute as they could be. Perhaps these are ones that grew up in a back-woods southern baptist church and heard "fire and brimstone" sermons all the time. Or these could be persons who grew up in a "seeker-sensitive" church where the gospel was reduced to, "believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven." Whatever the case, there are many who could easily relate to Bell but I am not one of them.

At this point it is difficult to know where Bell is going in all of this. After all, he is just "asking questions," even though its obvious that his questions are, in a sense, meant to be objections. However, as obvious as they are, these questions can only provide impressions though I will be hoping for clear thoughts and little ambiguity as I continue reading.

Review of the June 15, 2011 Watchtower Study Edition

2011-03-18T15:38:00.001-04:00

You can download this issue of the Watchtower HERE

The most noteworthy quotations are found on p. 15,

19 The fact that the God of love counted Abraham as righteous should be heartening for true Christians today. Jehovah did not declare him righteous in the sense that he does those whom he anoints with spirit to be “joint heirs with Christ.” The limited number of that group are “called to be holy ones” and are accepted as “God’s sons.” (Rom. 1:7; 8:14, 17, 33) In contrast, Abraham came to be “Jehovah’s friend”—and that before the ransom sacrifice was offered. (Jas. 2: 23; Isa. 41:8) What, then, about true Christians who hope to live in the restored earthly Paradise?

20 These have not received “the free gift of righteousness” with heavenly life in view “through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 3:24; 5:15, 17) Nevertheless, they exercise deep faith in God and his provisions, and they manifest their faith by good works. One such work is that of “preaching the kingdom of God . . . and teaching the things concerning the Lord Je- sus Christ.” (Acts 28:31) Thus, Jehovah can view these as righteous in the sense that he did Abraham. The gift such ones receive —friendship with God—differs from “the free gift” the anointed receive. Yet, it certainly is a gift that they accept with deep gratitude.

Do I really want free will?

2011-03-14T21:26:00.002-04:00

While the term "free will" is not found in the Bible (other than "free will offerings," which is not relevant to this), different theological persuasions have contrasting ideas as to what this means. Whatever the case, I don't think I want this "free will" that so many speak of. Instead, I desire to have a will that is shaped by my Creator. Consider the following passages and how they relate to the idea of "free will" as you see it. Do these biblical authors really believe that their will is free?

“and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.” (Jeremiah 32:39–40)

“May YHWH our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us, that He may incline our hearts to Himself, to walk in all His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances, which He commanded our fathers.” (1 Kings 8:57–58)

“Incline my heart to Your testimonies And not to dishonest gain.” (Psalms 119:36)

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation And sustain me with a willing spirit.” (Psalms 51:10–12)

“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:4–5)

“for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)

“There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.” (1 Corinthians 12:6)

“Teach me Your way, O YHWH; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name.”(Psalms 86:11)

I do wonder how it is possible to live the Christian life while believing in free will, much less coming to embrace Christ in the first place?

Proving the authority of God

2011-03-08T20:57:00.000-05:00

Is it true that Scripture posits God as the absolute and ultimate authority? And would it not follow that, if such is the case, God is the authority over all forms of human reasoning? The answer to both is obviously, yes. However, the unbeliever agrees with none of this. Instead, he asserts that God's very existence needs to be proven, let alone His authority.

Let's say the unbeliever decides to go on an "unbiased" investigation of the existence of God. In this investigation, he looks at the arguments from both sides and decides that God is real and His revelation is true. However, something interesting happened along the way. He went from viewing God as non-existent and non-authoritative to existent and authoritative. But how can this be? At some point, this unbeliever had to decide that God was the absolute authority over his reasoning process. That is, he had to agree that all knowledge is dependent upon God and His revelation (Proverbs 1:7); including the knowledge of unbelievers. And from this point forward, this former unbeliever will (if he wants to be consistent with Scripture) now present his message to unbelievers as follows: "Since God is the ultimate authority over all things, including man's reasoning, you must repent of your unbelief and give God the glory for your ability to reason; because without God, you couldn't reason at all."

When unbelievers ask for evidence for God, what "god" are they asking about? The biblical God? If so, then they are asking about a God who is the ultimate authority. That is, no evidence or human reasoning is higher than this God. According to the God of the Bible, He is the foundation of all knowledge and reasoning (Colossians 2:3). If the unbeliever admits that this is the God he is asking about, then he has to consider two options:

1. Believe in this God

2. Assert that such a God is impossible

Most unbelievers would be very hesitant to take option 2 because the burden of proof would be on them to substantiate their view. To assert that such a God can't exist would be to claim omniscience. Similarly, most unbelievers will not agree with option 1 either. The likely response from the unbeliever will be, "Why can't there be a third option; one that asserts that such a God must be proven by evidence and reason?"

If the unbeliever desires to go this route, he needs to understand a condition; he must believe that God's revelation is false from the outset. Why? Because this God is the ultimate authority and says things like, "he who is not with Me is against Me." (Matthew 12:30) Thus, if the unbeliever isn't in a position to accept that he is with Christ, then he is against Him even before his investigation. Bahnsen says it best:

Thus, the very thing that most unbelievers demand--a neutral and autonomous investigation of the facts to see whether God's word can be recognized as true and authoritative--already precludes the kind of God of which Scripture speaks. Apologists need to come to grips with this, lest their method of defending the faith betrays the object of their faith (Van Til's Apologetic, p. 97 fn. 23)

Unbelievers must submit their reasoning to the God of Scripture. Otherwise, they are left in an epistemological bind whereby all knowledge ceases to be knowledge. Yet, the unbeliever will continue to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18) and deny the God that he knows exists.

Does Evolution select false beliefs?

2011-03-07T07:01:00.003-05:00

Though I can't cite a specific example, I have heard atheists and evolutionists suggest that religion is a product of evolution. That is, somewhere in the past, men invented religion as a source of comfort in "having something to believe in." As I understand it, the evolutionist would contend that such a view could produce survival value. A number of reasons might be implemented to support this. Perhaps religious persons had less stress and depression than non-religious, since they had characteristics such as hope, peace, and joy; traits that could possibly lead to older age. Furthermore, since such beliefs would flourish throughout different cultures, the following generations would likely hold to these beliefs.

One thing that makes this interesting is that those subsequent generations sincerely hold to these beliefs without believing they are false. But let's say for the sake of argument that all these religious beliefs are false. The conclusion; because of survival value, evolution selects false beliefs over true ones. Some might argue that such beliefs are not a product of evolution, but of human invention. But this is not necessarily so. Why could it have not been the case that a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain produced a sudden need for a "higher power" without the recipient's knowledge of such an event? Perhaps the recipient interprets this chemical reaction as a calling from a god?

Again, the outcome remains the same: evolution produces false beliefs and passes them down to subsequent generations by means of natural selection.

Here is the problem; if evolution produces false beliefs that the recipients are convinced of and likewise interprets as truth, then on what basis can anyone trust the reliability of their reasoning faculties? Even the belief of evolution could, in turn, be a false belief. That is, if evolution is true, no one could know it given that evolution can and does produce false belief.

You could say this is very similar to Plantinga's EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT AGAINST NATURALISM, but with a slight modification. The point is to show a significant defeater within the evolutionist's own epistemology. That is, evolution is self-defeating in that one cannot know it, even if it is true.

I've never attempted this and will gladly accept any criticisms which may contribute to modification or abandonment of the argument.

Would any Jehovah's Witnesses care to explain this?

2011-03-06T07:55:00.002-05:00

Jehovah's Witnesses: are you the only ones who hold to Paradise Earth?

2011-03-05T07:52:00.000-05:00

This is a video I made in promoting the fact that not only JW's believe in Paradise Earth as the eternal hope for Christians. The clips are from a round-table eschatology discussion between John Piper, Doug Wilson, Sam Storms, and Jim Hamilton. If you are interested in eschatology, i'd recommend watching/listening to the full 2 hour discussion whereby the various eschatological views are discussed and debated. You can watch it HERE.

Gene Cook Interviews an Atheist

2011-03-03T20:38:00.000-05:00

Today I listened to a podcast that took place in early February where Gene Cook interviewed/debated an atheist by the name of Justin Shieber. If my memory serves me correctly, I recommended that Justin contact Gene to appear on his show after learning that he's sharp, articulate, and knows how to defend his position.

When I spoke to Justin, I had learned of a moral theory called DESIRE UTILITARIANISM, which he was happy to explain to me. Since this is a unique and non-popular moral theory (as far as I can tell), I was happy to learn that Justin had arranged to appear on Gene's show.

Anyone interested in atheism and Christianity will find this one hour cross examination intriguing. Moral theory and epistemology are discussed and defended from both positions.

You can listen to the full dialogue HERE

Acts Bible study this Sunday for JW's, Ex-JW's, Christians, or whoever

2011-03-02T21:02:00.001-05:00

I will be there with the nick, "TheApologeticfront"

Video description:

To participate, go to paltalk.com for the free download. We will be using audio only so there is no need to pay for an upgrade. If you wish you will have the opportunity to share your thoughts in two ways, either by speaking through a microphone or using the text section.

The name of the room is: Jehovahs Witness Christian Bible Discussion (no apostrophe in Jehovah)

Please note that this is not meant to be a forum for hostile debate or insults. This is an opportunity to come and reason together in a way reflects Christian principles. I understand that we will not all agree on all things but when we disagree we will do it with "gentleness and respect."

The room will open at 2:30 pm central time every Sunday. At 3:00 pm a short talk will start and then the discussion will begin.

Interview with Greg Stafford

2011-02-27T08:24:00.000-05:00

Greg Stafford is a Jehovah's Witness who is no longer associated with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. He has written SEVERAL BOOKS which both defend and criticize particular elements of the Watchtower Society. The fact that Stafford is so critical of the organization, yet holds to many of its core doctrines, make him quite an interesting and unique apologist.

Recently, Stafford was interviewed by the SIX SCREENS OF THE WATCHTOWER TELENETWORK with regards to his stance on many issues. Regardless of what you think of Stafford, if you are interested in Jehovah's Witnesses, you should find this interview interesting. And yes, you'll hear his arguments against the Trinity and other doctrines held by "Christendom." But you'll also hear his criticisms against the Watchtower Society and why he left. On that end, any faithful JW in association with the Watchtower will be obliged to view him as an apostate and treated accordingly. But I do hope that those same JW's will give this interview a chance and perhaps learn something new.

The interview was very disorganized and distracting, as it was held in a conference call format with many honing in to ask questions. The interview starts at about 20 minutes in, but the full mp3 file is almost 6 hours long. I haven't gotten through the whole thing, but I doubt Stafford was on the whole time.

If anyone has any thoughts, i'd be very interested in hearing them. You can download or listen to the mp3 HERE.

Governing Body self-promotion in the May 15, 2011 Watchtower Study Edition

2011-02-19T12:30:00.001-05:00

I'm always wondering why the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses; those 7 men residing in Brooklyn, NY, seem to keen on reminding their followers who is really in charge. To those who are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, consider what it would be like if your pastor reminded all in the congregation that they are to submit to his counsel and exhortations. But to make this more comparative to Jehovah's Witnesses, consider if your pastor did this every other Sunday. What would your congregation think of such a person?

Such is not far from the truth when it comes to the Governing Body. Why do these men so regularly promote their authority? Is it because their followers are regularly out of line? Are Jehovah's Witnesses regularly questioning whether these men are who they claim to be (i.e. chosen by Christ in 1919)? Anyone who has spent much time with JW's should know that most JW's have absolute unquestionable submission to the Governing Body. Therefore, it seems odd that they need to stress these points as much as they do.

Consider the recent statements made in the MAY 15, 2011 WATCHTOWER STUDY EDITION:

We do well to examine how we respond to timely Scriptural counsel presented in our Bible-based publications. By studying the Scriptures and attending congregation meetings, we are reminded of the sayings of Christ. (2 Pet. 3:1, 2) We show our heartfelt appreciation for this supply of spiritual food by regularly partaking of it. What, though, should be our reaction if certain counsel is repeated occasionally? For example, God’s Word counsels Christians to marry “only in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:39) For over a century, this subject has periodically been discussed in The Watchtower. Christ’s brothers surely demonstrate their loving concern for our spiritual welfare by publishing articles on this and other inspired counsel. Paying attention to these reminders is one way to show that we are following our perfect Leader, Jesus Christ. (p. 27, par. 1)

It is interesting that the Watchtower mentions the "occasional" repetition of various topics. This may be in answer to those who wonder why the Governing Body needs to so regularly remind their followers who are in charge. The answer is: "out of concern." But what is the Governing Body so concerned with? Are they concerned with the spiritual well being of followers of Christ, or whether followers of Christ will be followers of them with absolute unquestionable submission?

The last question in the paragraph is indirectly one of the key elements of control the Governing Body has on their followers: if you don't accept their "reminders," you are not a true follower of Christ. This is a restatement of one of the most controlling and self-promoting statements ever made by the Governing Body:

***w10 9/15 p. 23 ‘Your leader is one, the Christ’***

The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize that by following the lead of the modern-day Governing Body, they are in fact following their Leader, Christ.

There is little more that can be said to stress the type of submission one is to have towards the Governing Body, even when offering "refinements" on teachings that are no longer held:

“The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established,” states Proverbs 4:18. Yes, Jesus’ leadership is progressive, not stagnant. Another way to cooperate with Christ’s “brothers” is to have a positive attitude toward any refinements in our understanding of Scriptural truths as published by “the faithful and discreet slave.”—Matt. 24:45. (p. 27 par. 2)

Though Proverbs 4:18 has nothing to do with doctrine or Bible teachings, the JW is obligated to accept the interpretation of the Governing Body without question. But what happens when a teaching is abandoned in favor of a new teaching? For instance, when organ transplants were once forbidden, how many faithful JW's risked their health for the Watchtower? When the teaching was abandoned, did the Watchtower offer an apology? According to the above quote, none would be needed. Why? Because JW's are to have a "positive attitude" towards these refinements, even if loved ones were needlessly lost in the process.

But what if the Governing Body is clearly teaching something that you know to be false and unbiblical?

*** w57 5/1 p. 284 par. 14 Trust Your Proved, Faithful Brothers ***

Showing respect for Jehovah’s organization really resolves itself down to our attitude toward God’s visible channel and the trust that we place in our proved, faithful brothers. If we have become thoroughly convinced that this is Jehovah’s organization, that he is guiding and directing his people, then we shall not be unsettled by anything that happens. If something comes up that we do not understand we will wait patiently until it is made thoroughly clear to us. If we feel sure something is wrong we will ‘keep the commandment’ of our Father and take whatever theocratic steps are open to us and then wait on Jehovah. We will not ‘forsake our mother’s teaching’ by immediately beginning to criticize and find fault. We will realize that Jehovah knows what is going on in his organization, and if he is willing to permit it, who are we to insist it should be different? If we really have faith, we will know that if it is wrong he will straighten it out eventually, and we are far safer inside his organization even with these minor difficulties than we would be on the outside where only chaos and destruction await us.

Some may feel that this is speaking of those who have haughty attitudes towards the teachings of the Governing Body. But such is not the case. The faithful JW is to have unquestionable acceptance of anything that is put in print by the Watchtower. If they choose not to, they are rejecting or questioning God Himself:

*** w57 6/15 p. 370 par. 7 Overseers of Jehovah’s People ***

Yes, particularly since 1919 has it been true that he has appointed the collective body of the anointed remnant over all the visible interests of the Kingdom. The “slave” then became responsible not only for ministering to the needs of the anointed body members but also for taking on the responsibility of preaching the good news of the established Kingdom to people of all nations. (Matt. 24:14) Such is true not by their determination of it, but because God himself has so directed. “God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased,” is the way it is pictured in 1 Corinthians 12:18 (NW). It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.

*** w59 5/1 p. 269 pars. 6-7 Attain Completeness in the New World Society ***

7 To hold to the headship of Christ, it is therefore necessary to obey the organization that he is personally directing. Doing what the organization says is to do what he says. Resisting the organization is to resist him

Therefore, one is not to just have a "positive attitude" towards the Governing Body and what they teach; they are to have absolute unquestionable acceptance of even those teachings they know to be false. To resist these teachings is to resist God (yes, even if they are false teachings).

I hope all Jehovah's Witnesses reading this will consider who their allegiance is really to: God or men? Biblically, the only one we should have absolute unquestionable devotion to is Jesus Christ Himself; not seven men in Brooklyn, NY. After all, Scripture never says of a Governing Body,

“in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.”
(Colossians 2:3–4)

***UPDATE***

Mark wrote an excellent article (far better than mine) on the same topic that can be found HERE

James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism

2011-02-07T10:29:00.000-05:00

This debate was not nearly as long as it should have been. But this debate is one of the few of its kind, given that King James Onlyist by and large are not willing to engage in public moderated debate. However, I think this debate clearly distinguishes between the positions and will prove to be very helpful to anyone interested in the transmission of the text and questions concerning Bible translation.

Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"

2011-02-03T01:11:00.000-05:00

A picture is worth a thousand words...but added interpretations can be helpful

2011-01-29T21:24:00.001-05:00

For those unfamiliar with the significance of this, allow me to briefly summarize. The prediction made by the Watchtower was this:

*** w84 5/15 pp. 6-7 1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away ***
From a purely human viewpoint, it could appear that these developments could hardly take place before the generation of 1914 disappears from the scene. But fulfillment of all the foretold events affecting the generation of 1914 does not depend on comparatively slow human action. Jehovah’s prophetic word through Christ Jesus is: “This generation [of 1914] will by no means pass away until all things occur.” (Luke 21:32) And Jehovah, who is the source of inspired and unfailing prophecy, will bring about the fulfillment of his Son’s words in a relatively short time.—Isaiah 46:9, 10; 55:10, 11.

Are these just words of men; mere opinions or interpretations of Scripture? Are we obliged to believe them?

***w31 11/1 p. 327 Taught of God***

The Watchtower recognizes the truth as belonging to Jehovah, and not to any creature. The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man’s opinion is expressed in The Watchtower.

*** w10 9/15 p. 13 par. 8 Unity Identifies True Worship ***
⁸ Similarly today, a Governing Body composed of spirit-anointed Christians contributes to the unity of the worldwide congregation. The Governing Body publishes spiritually encouraging literature in many languages. This spiritual food is based on God’s Word. Thus, what is taught is not from men but from Jehovah.—Isa. 54:13.

*** w10 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 “Your Leader Is One, the Christ” ***
In this time of the end, Christ has committed “all his belongings”—all the earthly interests of the Kingdom—to his “faithful and discreet slave” and its representative Governing Body, a group of anointed Christian men. (Matt. 24:45-47) The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize that by following the lead of the modern-day Governing Body, they are in fact following their Leader, Christ.

Did the prediction come to pass? To see for yourself, read the column on the right side of the magazine cover. If you claim to be a follower of Christ, would you view the organization responsible for publishing this magazine worthy of the above claims? Or should they be regarded as follows;

(Matthew 7:15) ¹⁵ “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.

(ht: FREE MINDS)

Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology

2011-01-27T13:10:00.000-05:00

You can view the video I am responding to HERE, but the full video is played in the video I did below:

A Presuppositional approach to theistic evidences

2011-01-26T15:19:00.000-05:00

Many critics of presuppositional apologetics allege that presuppositionalists do not use evidences. And though it is true that they don't use evidences in the same way as an evidentialist apologist might, it is not true that they are avoided altogether. Evidences certainly have their place but can only be appropriated within a biblical framework. I'd like to see more presuppositionalists use evidences, but at the same time, not compromise their commitment to the Lordship of Christ in the process. That is, one's theology should drive how they view evidence as opposed to the other way around.

Below, Chris Bolt of CHOOSING HATS provides an excellent SUMMARY of some of the theistic arguments as they could be used in a biblical framework:

By C.L. Bolt

There are many arguments that Christian tenets are true. For example, we believe that everything that begins to exist has a reason for its coming into being. Intuitively we believe that something cannot come from nothing, and so everything that comes about must have a cause for its coming into being. If there were no conditions to be met through a cause before something could start existing, then it seems that things would pop into being right away and saturate the entire universe with entities of all shapes and sizes. We are impressed by performing arts magicians because they seem to make things come into existence all by themselves and seemingly without cause or at least without their usual causes. We would not be so mystified if it was part of our normal everyday experience to see things popping into being uncaused. The Bible even gives us an indication that things begin to exist because they are caused, as this is God’s world and is an orderly place that He wants us to know in order to come to know Him better.

The Bible also teaches that the universe began to exist. It seems strange to think of a universe that has existed an infinitely long time, since we might wonder how, if there were an infinite number of points in time prior to this point in time, we ever reached this point of time. How long would it take you to count to infinity? Could you do so before tomorrow? Of course not. How long would it take the universe to count to infinity? Could it do so before to tomorrow? So one wonders how we reached this point in time if an infinite number of such points in time came before now. Scientists also tell us that the universe is expanding. Eventually the gravity between entities will weaken so much that orbits will deteriorate and entities will begin moving at higher speeds. Eventually the universe will expand outward so quickly that it reaches a heat death. At least, this is what scientists, theorizing, tell us may happen. But, if there was an infinite amount of time before now in which this heat death could have happened, then it would have already. Yet it has not happened, and so the universe must have had a beginning. Of course, much of this is speculation, and probably not very good argument, but we know that insofar as these things are true and are based upon good argumentation, they support what the Bible teaches, for the Bible teaches that the universe began to exist.

Now if everything which begins to come into being has a cause for its coming into being, and the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause! We know from the Bible that this cause is God. God is the Creator. God created the universe, and He did so at a finite point in the past. The universe has not always existed; it was created by all-powerful God out of nothing. In the case of this particular argument then, we not only have the Bible to tell us the truth about the universe being caused by God, but we have an argument that confirms our belief.

The same is true about design. When we look out around us in the world we see amazing examples of design in our world. The universe is so finely tuned that it permits life, like us, to not only exist, but flourish! The human body is fearfully and wonderfully made, as medical doctors are finding more and more to be the case all the time. There are numerous other instances of incredible design in the natural world; instances of design that indicate someone designed them. There are parts that tiny living things use to propel themselves that look like what humans have built to propel boats. There are parts in creatures like eyes which are completely useless if they are not formed in one fell swoop much like a mousetrap is useless if all of its parts are not together at the same time. However, when there is design that means that there must be a designer, and again we know from the Bible that God not only created the world but designed what He created. So we know that the designer of the world is God, and we can know Him through the evidence of the argument from design in nature.

Even thinking of God leads us to believe that God exists. If God is the most perfect being as it appears that the Bible indicates, then there is nothing greater than God! But if we think of a god in this way who also exists when our God does not, then our God is no longer the greatest possible being or most perfect being, the other being is. Think through it again; it is greater for something to exist than not to exist. For example, a unicorn in our minds can be very nice, but the unicorn that only exists in our minds is not more real than the unicorn which actually exists. The unicorn which actually exists is greater than or more perfect than the unicorn that does not exist.

If we think of God as the most perfect being, He is only the most perfect being if He exists. If another perfect being is thought of but thought of as not existing, then there is a more perfect being, namely, the one that might exist. So then the perfect being, by definition, must exist. The unicorn does not exist because it is not a most perfect being. A unicorn can be the most perfect unicorn ever in our thoughts, but that is very different from thinking about a completely perfect being. So God exists.

Finally, we know that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We have historical testimonies outside of the Bible that tell us this. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman official Tacitus both tell us this, for example. We infer from the accounts of crucifixion in those days that Jesus was really and truly put to death. We know that He was then buried. He was buried in the tomb of a prominent figure whom people would have known about. Yet, the body of Jesus was found missing from the tomb. The Jewish authorities who were opposed to Jesus wanted people to go around and say that the body of Jesus had been stolen. But the only reason for them to make this story up is if they needed to try and explain why there was no body there! We know that there was no body in the tomb of Jesus, because the Jews were making up stories to cover up the fact that the body of Jesus was not there in the tomb. The body and tomb would have been right there in Jerusalem for anyone to go check out to see whether or not the body was really still there or was really gone, but no one ever turned up information that the body was still in the tomb. There is also a testimony concerning three women who were some of the first to find the empty tomb. Women in that society were much less trusted as witnesses by society. The authors of the Gospels would not have included this testimony of the empty tomb of Jesus had they of not actually told of their experience. Not only were there reports and evidence of a death and empty tomb, but there were appearances of the Lord Jesus to the disciples and many others as well. The Bible tells us plainly what happened; Jesus was crucified for our sins, buried, and raised again on the third day in accordance with the Word of God.

There are many more arguments like these for the truth of the Christian worldview, but we should not expect others to accept them, especially since they do not share our presuppositions which make these proofs so appealing and seemingly obviously sound.

Logic and Child Development: a response to Paul Baird

2011-01-25T11:10:00.000-05:00

After my initial RESPONSE to Paul's criticism of my VIDEO, I was expecting something equally thoughtful to what he first WROTE. But I must say I was quite disappointed with his NON-RESPONSE, which could be summed up as, "You're stupid and i'm smarter than you." And if you think i'm exaggerating, read it for yourself.

I suppose it was that "made in the image of God" thing (which Paul directly denies but indirectly affirms) that made Paul realize that such a response was disrespectful. Therefore, Paul decided to not "give up" on what did not "warrant a response" (per his own words) by taking a STAB at my rebuttal. Though Paul didn't respond to all of what I said, he at least provided some insights on his "expertise" in the matter since he's, "been a single father, taking a two year sabbatical, raising children from under 5 into their teens, so I know just a little bit about child development, and Mike's analysis is so naive as to not warrant a response."

I'm going to ignore some of his insulting words and respond only to what he said of substance. But feel free to read his response for YOURSELF to get the full context.

First Paul cites from a PAPER to highlight the following:

Deductive reasoning involves making inferences on the basis of some given premises. Making logical inferences is one of the key components of advanced thinking in humans. In fact, it could be argued that the ability to make inferences whose truth value depends entirely on the supposed truth of given, and possibly arbitrary, premises is one of the clearest examples of a cognitive capacity that differentiates human from nonhuman species. The distinctiveness of the processes involved in logical reasoning is sufficiently striking to have prompted some researchers to suppose that inference rules may have been biologically built into the human cognitive architecture (Braine, 1978; Cohen, 1981; MacNamara, 1986). However, while human reasoners often show the ability to make logical deductions in the classic sense, studies on reasoning also clearly show that inferential performance can also be highly variable and subject to a variety of influences. One of the major challenges of any theory of reasoning is to account for both the capacity to make inferences that are logically valid and at the same time to explain variation in reasoning performance due to both developmental and situational variables. While many forms of reasoning exist, one in particular, conditional reasoning, has been studied enough both in adults and developmentally to provide a set of empirical results substantial enough to provide a serious test for any theory of reasoning.

Paul cites this portion in order to ask the following:

"How does Presuppositional Apologetics deal with that variation?"

If I understand the cited portion correctly, the author is asking why some people reason in an underdeveloped manner verses one who is mature in their reasoning capabilities? The first problem is that of sin and how it darkens the mind to think sinfully and irrationally:

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

While it is true that humans who come into this world are made in the image of God and able to think as God thinks, their minds are darkened by sin because they are a son of Adam. So only in this sense is there a need for child development. When Adam and Eve came into the world, they weren't provided with courses in philosophy and formal logic. Instead, they were without sin and held the fullest potential in thinking rationally.

But how do Christians deal with variation? We, "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4) by teaching them that in Christ, "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and, "YHWH gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding." (Proverbs 2:6) Thus, the Christian has a reason for expecting his or her children to reason logically:

1. They are made in God's image

2. Having trustworthy reasoning faculties requires the truth of God's Word.

Can Paul provide a basis by which children should be expected to reason logically? On what basis could Paul tell his kids, "Let me show you why X is logical and Y is not." Is it because Paul says so? What if his kids ask, "Daddy, how do I know that your reasoning process is right? Why can't I just come up with my own reasoning process?" Would Paul answer, "Well, its because this is what your daddy learned in school and its what my dad taught me to do as well, just as I am teaching you." But this assumes that Paul's Father as well as his school system reasons logically. The regress could be pushed as far back as one could go, to the very first humans who began to reason about reality.

If proper reasoning is dependent upon what one's father or school system has taught them, then it would have to assume the proper reasoning abilities of the one who first decided to reason and impart his knowledge to others.

Another problem would be in the development of logic itself. Were those first humans able to develop a perfectly valid logical system from the outset? Or did logic develop? And how does Paul know that the logic he uses is in the correct stage of development? If Paul thinks that such is absurd to suggest, would not the first proponents of reason think that their stage of logical development is the correct and final stage? And this is the problem; every human who reasoned assumed the reliability of his reasoning faculties. But they did so without basis, just as Paul does and teaches his kids to do the same.

One could go on and on with the problems in Paul's child development epistemology, but the conclusion is this: neither Paul or his kids know that their reasoning faculties are truthful and produce reliable results about reality. Instead, they arbitrarily assume these things. Even Paul's children; though Paul may think that they are ignorant about all things philosophical in early stages of development, they have to assume their own reasoning faculties in order to interpret their Father's epistemological conclusions about reality. And the question I have for Paul is this: how and why do children assume their reasoning faculties from the outset?

My point was that reasoning does have situational and developmental influences, as well as logic, and to move on from there to state that this shows that the absence of logic from some decision making and reasoning processes highlighted an issue with the Presuppositional Apologetic in that if logic was evidence of, or a gift from, God then why did humans not use it all of the time?

I've already answered this, and Paul should know better anyway if he has had so many discussions with Sye. Humans do not use logic all the time because of their sinful state, as the Bible clearly articulates. As I highlighted above, the idea of developmental logic is an epistemological mess for the atheist.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development also undermines the Presuppositional Apologetic in that it confirms the sceptics view of the justification for the basis of logic in humans.

But what is it that is actually justified? That humans will reason in accordance with what their parents teach them as well as their schools? Such says absolutely nothing as to whether one's reasoning is truthful. In addition, such is arbitrary in that Paul would have no basis in disagreeing with the system of learning that one would have in being raised and educated in a Christian home. After all, its what their parents have taught. And if what parents and educated determines truth, then why would Paul be disagreeing with it? Its as if Paul thinks that this developmental theory actually determines the truthfulness of one's reasoning process.

Logic is not a God given set of laws that a human intuitively knows because they were created in God's image.

And Paul knows this how? Again, i'm amazed at the closed-mindedness and assurance of a self-proclaimed "free thinker." I'd like to ask Paul the following: is it possible that, if God exists, he can enable man to reason like Him in virtue of being created in His image? If its not possible, then i'd like to hear how Paul knows this.

Logic and reasoning are learned as the baby grows into a child and then an adult. Indeed there are recognised developmental stages.

This is certainly true as far as it goes (since man is sinful and must be pointed to Christ to have a trustworthy epistemology), but it doesn't answer the question: how does Paul know that the logic and reasoning he has learned is correct and trustworthy? And how can Paul explain the phenomena that children all around the world, even in societies separated from modern philosophical thought, able to reason like everyone else? Why is it that those in a secluded country like North Korea reason like those in the U.S.? And if they did live consistently with a hopelessly irrational worldview, then on what basis could Paul call their reasoning process right or wrong? At the most, he could only describe them as "different." They would simply be the product of a particular stage of evolutionary development.

I'd recommend anyone advocating that logic and reasoning is not developed in this fashion goes and spends some prolonged time at any pre-school parent and toddler groups and tries to guess the age of the child by their reasoning ability through play and social interaction.

Has the pre-school toddler had a revelation from God to justify their logic and reasoning? Really?

I'd suggest not, and I'd also suggest that the absence of such a revelation does not mean that the worldview of the toddler is absurd. I'd like to see the Presuppositional Apologetic arguments about Child Development that suggest otherwise.

Yes, really. And in the absence of revelation, its not that one could say with certainty that their worldview is "absurd." Only the Christian can do that. I can call another's worldview absurd on the objective basis of God's Word. The atheist would have no grounds to refer to another as "absurd" or "perfectly logical." They could only do so with an objective standard. The most Paul could say is, "I don't know whether this child is absurd or perfectly rational. All I can say is that I reason like X and he reasons like Y. To each his own."

Responding to Paul Baird

2011-01-20T21:39:00.000-05:00

I meant to respond to THIS a few days ago but my busy schedule got the best of me. In this post, Paul offers a critique of my video, ARE ATHEISTS ARBITRARY IN THEIR REASONING?. I don't know how far i'll want to go with this, but i'll at least provide an initial response to offer some clarification.

Mike has also posted this on Youtube and I wanted to record the transcript because Mike meanders in his commentary.

I listened to it it several times, mainly to proof the transcript and I was surprised that someone was actually advocating worse line for Presuppositional Apologetics than Sye.
.
So, what is the underlying proposition - without God how can a non-Theist (Mike, like Sye interchanges a generic God and the specific Christian God) 'justify' their use of logic.

It's such a stupid line of argument that I'm genuinely surprised to see it being advanced.

When a child is born it is not given a bottle, a nappy (a diaper to our US cousins) and primer in logic. Reason and logic are things that a child discovers as part of growing up in his or her interactions with the world.

And why is that? Why would one expect a child to come into the world and begin to reason correctly as he/she "figures out" the world? In other words, how can the atheist account for such a phenomenon? Is there anything prescriptive within Paul's worldview whereby this should be expected by all humans who come into the world (i.e. a raw material universe producing rational beings)? Why couldn't it be the case that humans come into this world with an irrational mind that continues to function as such?

You see, the Christian can account for this. All humans come into this world as being made in God's image and thus can be expected to think as God thinks. That is, logic is hard-wired. In Paul's worldview, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of this; unless he resorts to arbitrary reasoning.

If the 'reason' being employed fails in it's purpose then it is discarded.
How does it fail it's purpose ?
When it is tested and we do that every minute of every hour everyday and it does not produce the expected result.

I'd like to know how Paul has such confidence in such "testing." What test did Paul implement in order to know that such a test is the manner in which one determines the reliability of their reasoning faculties? But there is a much bigger problem at hand; it begs the question. What the Christian is trying to figure out is how the unbeliever can account for the reliability of his reasoning process. But when they resort to such "testing," they have to assume their reasoning faculties in order to interpret the results of the test; whether that be repeatability, external feedback, etc.

We are not passive actors in our own lives. We do not accept that how things are is how things will be, but what we do do is to make calculated assumptions based on past experience and accept that sometimes we can get it wrong. We use our experience to calculate risk and then act accordingly.

I see. So based on probability calculations, how would you determine the future based upon past experience concerning, let's say, your immortality? As far as I know, you haven't died. So it would seem that you should have a one hundred percent probability that, based upon past experience, you will not die. The reality is, calculating probabilities on the past can only tell you one thing: the past happened in the way that it did. This serves as no guarantee for future uniformity. And as you well know, the Christian can account for the future operating like the past:

““While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.””
(Genesis 8:22)

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”
(Hebrews 1:3)

We do not need a God (generic or specific) to justify our use of reason.

If this God is the only precondition for the intelligibility, then yes, you do. But i'd like to know how Paul knows that "we don't need a God to justify our use of reason?" Is Paul discounting even the possibility of the necessity of revelatory epistemology? I must admit that I appreciate such admissions by unbelievers because it further confirms the following:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
(Romans 1:18–22)

Finally, Mike has the same problem as Sye in claiming that revelation is the source of his justification.

@Kwinnky yes, I learned about God through my senses. But through God and His revelation, I can now account for the reliability of my reasoning faculties. And since you cannot even begin to account for the reliability of your senses, you are actually borrowing from my worldview in postulating such.

I find it interesting that you can't "prove it either way." This shows that your trusting in your senses is a completely arbitrary claim; something that is believed without any basis.
theapologeticfront 1 day ago

How can Mike be sure that the source of his 'revelation' is the Christian God and not another God (Loki would be a good candidate), Satan, or a mental aberration caused by disease, injury, drink or drugs ?

He can't. Therefore, at best, he has no better 'justification' for trusting his reason and logic than anyone else.

I can't? Again, Paul's confidence is noteworthy; especially for a self-professing "free thinker." I'm sure Paul will get a kick out of the following question: is it possible, if God exists, that He could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain? If Paul answers "no," i'd like to know how he can know for certain that I can't know for certain that God's revelation is His own?

Furthermore, my justification is not just better than that of others; its the only justification. How do I know its not from Satan? Because God has told me that its His own and He can't lie (Hebrews 6:18). I'm sure Paul will be quick to dismiss this, but it goes back to the question of Paul's certainty and how he knows that revelational epistemology is impossible.

Nonetheless Mike demonstrates the line of argument that Sye will no doubt be taking again in our next debate, so I'm looking forward to hearing it again, although no doubt better articulated.

No doubt, Sye is far more articulate and experienced in his apologetic than me. I'm not sure if this was a personal shot at me, but I know Sye and myself could both care less who is presenting the sharpest arguments. I can probably speak for Sye in that what we care about is our Lord and Savior being glorified through the proclamation of His Word.

Who's being rational? Atheists or Christians?

2011-01-19T08:25:00.000-05:00

I agree with Moroni 8:18

2011-01-18T06:06:00.001-05:00

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

There was a time when Mormons agreed with Moroni 8:18. As Mormon historian Thomas G. Alexander writes, "Much of the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was similar to contemporary Protestant churches."¹ In what was originally read to Church membership as the "Articles and Covenants of the Church", D&C 20:17 spoke of the God who was always the same unchangeable God:

"By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God..."

D&C 76:4 spoke of this same God:

.From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail..

In what was originally a part of Mormon scripture, Lecture 3 of the Lectures on Faith taught, "A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes" is "necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation." It goes on to quote the word of God, Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." The lecture then goes on to say that "he changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday to-day and forever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation."

This echoes Moroni 7:22, which speaks of "God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting..."

A chapter later we learn in Moroni 8:18 that "God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

The Book of Mormon was published in March of 1830. Fourteen years, Mormon theology had dramatically changed. On April 7, 1844, Joseph Smith preached his famous King Follett Discourse. In it he taught,

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...

"... it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple...

"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..."²

Lorenzo Snow summarized the big idea that further developed as follows: "As man is God once was, and as God is man may be."

Since then, Mormonism has never been the same. Mormons now radically re-interpret verses like Moroni 8:18 and essentially reject the original teaching that God was unchangeably God from all eternity to all eternity. Mormons are now even in disarray and confusion over whether God the Father was once a sinner.³

Mormonism has apostatized from its own Book of Mormon, and now Christians who don.t even believe in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon agree with Moroni 8:18 more than Mormons do. It is a verse that we Christians profoundly wish Mormons would embrace. It is far more important than the right amount to tithe, or the correct mode of baptism, or whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. It concerns an eternal truth of the fundamental nature of God.

Won't you please join us in agreeing with Moroni 8:18? Truly God is .unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity..

1. Thomas G. Alexander, .The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology.. Sunstone 5:4 (July-August 1980). Available online here.
2. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345. Available online here. On June 16, 1844, Smith went on to teach that Heavenly Father has his own Heavenly Father (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479). Available online here.
3. GodNeverSinned.com

(ht: weagreewith818.com)

You can watch a video presentation of this HERE

Did God ever Sin? Yes...no...maybe...probably?

2011-01-14T16:24:00.000-05:00

This is proof positive that Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Truly amazing. Can you imagine God the Father ever having sang, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me?" Mormons can. These people need to experience the holiness of God and the gospel, and I pray that all believers reading this will equip themselves to share these glorious truths with Mormons at the next opportunity.

What Podcasts do I listen to?

2011-01-11T21:24:00.000-05:00

Some may be surprised to find that I do more listening than I do reading. This is because it takes me a very long time to get through a book, given that I want to digest as much as I can get as possible. This means that I take notes on what I read and make sure I get the information down before proceeding.

But I would say the bulk of my learning comes from listening to podcasts. In fact, I would say at least 80 percent of what I know in the realm of theology and apologetics has come from podcasts. So, if you're like me and in your car a lot, why not listen to a podcast and get as much out of your ride as you can? Here's the listing of what i'm currently listening to:

THE DIVIDING LINE This is my favorite podcast and the first one that I ever subscribed to. It is run by James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. White is an avid debater on a wide range of topics and is quite the expert in defending the Christian faith. One things I really like about his show is his interactions with the other side; a lot of playing their recordings and interacting with it. Topics regularly discussed: Reformed Theology (Calvinism, predestination, etc.), Roman Catholicism, Islam, presuppositional apologetics, and liberal theology. Occasionally he will delve into Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and atheism which was once the focal point of his ministry.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE FUTURE This is a podcast whereby I can keep up with what is going on in the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Lots of interesting interviews and news as it relates to ID. Most of the podcasts are less than 15 minutes in length, which I really appreciate since this issue is far from my expertise.

KING AND SERVANT This is a bit less on the apologetic side and more on the theological/devotional side of things. Eschatology (The study of "last things"), covenant theology, and the "two kingdom" model are regularly discussed. I like this podcast because Jonathan discusses topics that i'm interested in but never have the time to read up on.

THE NARROW MIND This is definitely the most entertaining apologetics podcast around. Its a shame that there are rarely any shows any more. Gene Cook is pretty much a lay version of James White. He is very good at explaining complex issues in a practical way in addition to interacting with your everyday skeptic. I've learned a great deal from Gene and couldn't recommend his podcast more. Gene focuses a lot on Reformed Theology, Presuppositional apologetics, Atheism, Covenant theology, eschatology, and basically everything under the sun.

THE PRETERIST PODCAST Another one of those topics that I don't have as much time to read up on. Dee Dee is pretty much an expert in all things eschatology; in particular, preterism. If you hold to any form of "end times are here" eschatology, prepare to be challenged!

PROVIDENCE BIBLE CHURCH This is my pastor's sunday sermons, so I have to plug it :-)

REAL APOLOGETICS Its hard to say exactly what Jamin's podcast is devoted to. Its more inclined towards theology and apologetics broadly speaking. Its a fairly new podcast, but I really do enjoy listening to what it has covered thus far. I guess you could say its in a "trial run" for me.

SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND The podcast of philosopher Glenn Peoples. If you want some deep philosophical stuff, this is it.

STAND TO REASON Greg is one of the sharpest apologists out there. Extremely keen on philosophy, theology, and apologetics; Greg can give a sharp answer to almost anything. If you're looking to be well rounded in all areas of apologetics, listen to this podcast. Greg is also one of the most level headed, gentle, and respectful apologists around. His approach has made such an impact for me in learning how to approach unbelievers in everyday conversation.

A PIECE OF MY MIND Another podcast by Greg. Nothing fancy; just a few words from Greg here and there.

THEOPOLOGETICS The podcast of my friend, Chris Date. This podcast has a lot of very helpful interviews and discussions on a very wide range of issues. Chris is very articulate and good at breaking things down in an understandable manner. Heck, I like the show so much that I even joined him for a discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses.

UNBELIEVABLE This show is truly one of a kind. Every show is a debate between Christians and non-Christians. Sometimes, two Christians will participate in an "internal" debate. If you want a "listen to both sides and come to your own conclusion" show, this is it. There have been some truly classic debates on this show, as I have referenced several times on this blog. Though the participants are sometimes too "politically correct" for my taste (they're British, what do you expect?), this podcast is an absolute joy to listen to.

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG DEBATE FEED Though I don't always agree with Craig, I have always enjoyed his debates. Craig debates the best of the best when it comes to the other side. So this is very valuable for me to hear, as I like to listen to these debates in seeing how I would respond to the same challenges.

Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?

2011-01-10T00:49:00.002-05:00

Atheist Michael Shermer discusses creation with AIG biologist Georgia Purdom

2011-01-05T19:20:00.000-05:00

What a great discussion! Georgia Purdom, who is a Ph.D molecular biologist working for ANSWERS IN GENESIS engaged popular atheist/skeptic Michael Shermer on issues relating to Science, the Bible, evolution, and the age of the earth. One of my reasons for posting this is because of the way the conversation was conducted. Shermer was more than respectful in pressing Purdom on these issues and she was gracious to respond accordingly. Actually, Shermer was the one asking questions the whole time as it seemed to be some kind of interview.

But what I found so great about this is not so much the fact that Purdom provided a biblically sound apologetic (though she certainly did!), but that both parties never let their emotions get involved. That is, Shermer never asked anything like, "Why is your organization lying to children? Why is your organization so dishonest? Are you people really this stupid?" Instead, he treated Dr. Purdom like an adult. Both non-believers and Christians can very well learn from this conversation that is so commonly accompanied by heated argument.

Also, if you are one who is interested in seeing how a Creation scientist responds to questions relating to evolution and the age of the earth, I think you'll find this conversation very helpful.

My Year End Book Reviews

2011-01-01T20:40:00.000-05:00

Are the Creation days 24 hours?

2010-12-31T11:00:00.001-05:00

According to some lexical sources:

1. day, i.e., a unit of time reckoned from sunset to the next sunset, including two or more segments (morning and evening) about 24 hours (Ge 1:5), cf. also 3429; 2. LN 67.163–67.200 day, i.e., the period of time which has light (Ge 1:5)

-James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

2. day of twenty-four hours: Gn 1:5

-Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 399.

I've consulted many sources, but was unable to find even one that defined "day" in Genesis 1 to refer to anything other than a 24 hour day. If anyone has any lexical sources which site to the contrary, i'd be interested to look at it.

Did Jesus Return invisibly in 1914?

2010-12-29T09:37:00.000-05:00

The following is a paper I wrote that is based on the Watchtower publication, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH; specifically, the APPENDIX where 1914 is discussed. This paper is short in length in hopes that it will provide a simple understanding of the problems related to 1914. This date is a key issue for any Jehovah's Witnesses. It is recommended not only for Jehovah's Witnesses themselves to read, but especially for those who are studying to become a witness or seeking to reach them.

This paper can be downloaded and distributed freely. Click HERE to download.

Also, I made a 3 part video series which presents the same material:

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Atheism and the preconditions of intelligibility

2010-12-28T05:58:00.000-05:00

Richard Dawkins on the Flood

2010-12-25T19:52:00.000-05:00

You can watch the whole thing, but the noteworthy statements begin around 4:30 on the video below.

Here, Richard Dawkins explains the complete tragedy of those 40 percent of Americans who believe the Bible. And i'm still completely and totally baffled at Dr. Dawkins for doing so. You can really tell that he is genuinely concerned for these people and wishes that they would jump on board with the rest of the world. But i'm sorry Dr. Dawkins, you are going about it the wrong way. You may convince some, but you are not going to reach the masses with your approach. And here's why.

The moment you publish a book or make an argument, you completely plug your ears and blindfold yourself so that there is no possible way you can listen to or read what the Creationists would have to say in response. As i've enunciated many times before, it is not all that impressive when the other side will write books about Creationists, fly around the world giving lectures about them, appear on major TV and radio outlets talking about them, but refuse to interact with them. In addition, Dr. Dawkins has given absolutely no indication that he has really taken the time to read what Creationists have to say.

Again, this isn't too impressive to us. So as long as this continues with Dr. Dawkins, we will continue to believe what we believe and be willing to interact with Dr. Dawkins when he is ready. I mean, we even write books in response to his. How many times has he acknowledged or spent some time attempting to refute them?

Not the best way to look confident in your position, Dr. Dawkins. And it sure isn't the best way to reach that 40 percent you are talking about. But keep trying. I'm sure you'll continue to earn the support of loyal atheists, as I know you love the praise of men. After all, since the Universe is nothing more than matter-in-motion, what will it matter in the end anyway?

From a very generous donor...

2010-12-23T16:46:00.000-05:00

Thank you so very much! You know who you are!

This person was kind enough to purchase a book from my AMAZON WISH LIST which totally made my day!

Atheists are not neutral

2010-12-20T00:58:00.002-05:00

Finally. I've begun making videos in dealing with atheism and unbelief. Here's the first of what I hope turns into many:

Were Jehovah's Witnesses chosen by Jesus Christ in 1919?

2010-12-16T05:54:00.000-05:00

*** w08 5/15 p. 26 Pursue “Holiness in God’s Fear” ***

For his modern-day servants on earth, Jehovah opened “the Way of Holiness” leading away from Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion. In 1919 he freed anointed Christians from spiritual bondage to false religion, and they progressively cleansed their worship of all false teachings. As Jehovah’s worshippers today, we enjoy a clean, tranquil spiritual environment in which we can worship Jehovah and have a peaceful relationship with him and with our fellow man.

1. Can you prove from the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses were exclusively appointed by Jesus Christ in 1919?

2. Can you prove from the Bible that Jesus Christ did an inspection of all religions in the world in that year?

3. Can you prove that Jehovah's Witnesses had been freed from the practices of false religion in that year?

What has Mormonism become?

2010-12-15T05:54:00.000-05:00

One thing I can truly respect about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they have not become what Mormonism has; a religion without conviction. Though i've only been exposed to Mormons no earlier than 5 years ago, I have good reason to believe that the Mormonism of yesterday has made a huge shift in its approach and its standing as "Christians." That is, there was once a day when Mormons stood with conviction as they distanced themselves from the so-called abominable and corrupt beliefs of all other religions. More importantly, they weren't afraid to tell others.

Now, it seems that Mormons are losing their conviction of exclusivity and trying to fit themselves into mainstream Christianity. What you will listen to in the video below will make this very evident. In the discussion, you have two Mormons expressing their disagreement with a Christian who is presenting arguments against Mormonism at their place of worship. Even though the biblical apostles and Jesus appeared in the synagogues and spoke judgment upon those who were there, these Mormons find such actions to be abhorrent. But what is even more telling is the fact that their own prophet was clear in his denunciation of all false religion; specifically, the mainstream Christianity of his day. Though i'm not aware of any instances where Smith appeared on church property to preach his message, these Mormons seemed to be uncomfortable with any negative convictions that one would express towards another religions, whether coming from Mormons or mainstream Christians.

I think anyone who listens to this interaction will find it extremely interesting. But more importantly, we need to be aware of this shift in Mormonism in order to be more effective in our presentation of the gospel.

"Keep on the Watch!"....by proclaiming false dates?

2010-12-13T18:05:00.001-05:00

In this blog, i'd like to offer some commentary on a Watchtower article that explains their self-proclaimed "overeagerness" as it relates to the predicting of "the time of the end." But more importantly, i'd like to display a balanced view of how followers of Christ should seek God's Kingdom as it relates to Christ parousia.

*** w84 12/1 p. 17 par. 12 Keep Ready! ***
When the enthroned Lord Jesus inspected his household in 1919, he found the group of Christians associated with the Watchtower magazine loyally striving to “keep on the watch” with the help of spiritual “food at the proper time.” Until this very day, that “slave” class has faithfully continued to provide spiritual food to enable the Master’s “domestics” and their companions to “keep looking, keep awake.”—Mark 13:33.

Here we have the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim to "faithfulness" to the exclusion of all other religious groups per Jesus' inspection in 1919. This matter cannot be overstated given the fact that it is Jesus Christ himself who made the appointment, rather than a self-proclaimed appointment. Though it is not my intent to be a "faultfinder," no one can be blamed for seeking to test this organization in light of its claims; especially when it is the claim of Jesus Christ himself! The question is, has the Watchtower been faithful in producing "spiritual food" that passes the inspection of Jesus Christ? I can only imagine the standards that the Son of God would implement in inspecting a particular religious group for faithfulness and dispensing "spiritual food at the proper time"; surely a stricter set of standards than what I could come up with!

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 13 Keep Ready! ***
It is easy for the established churches of Christendom and other people to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses because their publications have, at times, stated that certain things could take place on certain dates. But is not such line of action in harmony with Christ’s injunction to “keep on the watch”? (Mark 13:37)

This is an interesting claim, given the statements made just one sentence prior. On one hand, they have the highest possible standard set for themselves with the divine approval of Jesus Christ. But on the other hand, they can be excused for setting false dates? While it is true that Jesus commanded His followers in the first century to "keep on the watch," is it also true that they set specific dates for "the time of the end?" This is quite confusing because The Watchtower has, on several occasions, criticized others for doing precisely what they have commended themselves for doing:

*** g93 3/22 p. 3 Why So Many False Alarms? ***
THE story is told of a boy who watched the sheep of the villagers. To stir up a bit of excitement, one day he cried out, “Wolf! Wolf!” when there was no wolf. The villagers rushed out with clubs to drive off the wolf, only to find that there was none. It was such great fun that later on the boy repeated his cry. Again the villagers rushed out with their clubs, only to discover that it was another false alarm. After that a wolf did come, and the boy sounded the warning, “Wolf! Wolf!” but the villagers dismissed his cry as another false alarm. They had been fooled too often.
So it has become with those who proclaim the end of the world. Down through the centuries since Jesus’ day, so many unfulfilled predictions have been made that many no longer take them seriously.

***g68 10/8 p. 23 ‘A Time to ‘Lift up your head’ in confident hope”***

True, there have been those in times past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The “end” did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?

Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.

Is this a double standard that the Watchtower has set for themselves? It would seem that when they proclaim a false date, it is to be commended for "keeping on the watch" in harmony with Christ's words. But when someone else does it, they are "false prophets" that "no one should take seriously."

Since it is Jesus' words that should hold the most value to us as followers of Him, what does He say about those who predict things that don't come to pass?

“See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them.”(Luke 21:8)

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

If Jesus warns against those who claim that "the time is near," then how could it be that He appointed and approved of a group who not only presents a double standard, but has emphatically predicted the time to be near (with an exact date in mind) on more than one occasion?

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 13 Keep Ready! ***
On the other hand, have Christendom’s churches encouraged Christian watchfulness by teaching that the Kingdom is “the ruling of God in our hearts”? Have they not, rather, encouraged spiritual sluggishness by considering expectation of “the end” to be “meaningless” or “an insignificant myth”? Have apostates who claim that “the last days” began at Pentecost and cover the entire Christian Era promoted Christian alertness? Have they not, rather, induced spiritual sleepiness?

Actually, a large portion of "Christendom" has held a much louder and more prominent voice in proclaiming "the end is near" than what Jehovah's Witnesses have done. A sales count on books like The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey and The Left Behind Series by Tim LaHaye proves just how widespread this is amongst Christendom. Even in 1984 when this article was published, "Christendom" had already bought into the "end times" hysteria. So who exactly is The Watchtower criticizing here?

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 14 Keep Ready! ***
¹⁴ True, some expectations that appeared to be backed up by Bible chronology did not materialize at the anticipated time. But is it not far preferable to make some mistakes because of overeagerness to see God’s purposes accomplished than to be spiritually asleep as to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy?

I'm not so sure about that. The last time I checked, the Bible had some very stern words towards those who make false predictions in God's name that aren't said of those who are "spiritually asleep":

“‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ “You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which YHWH has not spoken?’ “When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”(Deuteronomy 18:20–22)

And just to clear up any doubt as to who these words could be qualified to:

*** rs p. 132 False Prophets ***

False Prophets

Definition: Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.

***w/30 5/15 p. 155***

The difference between a true and false prophet is that the one is speaking the word of the Lord and the other is speaking his own dreams and guesses…The true prophet of God today will be telling forth what the Bible teaches, and those things that the Bible tells us are soon to come to pass. He will not be sounding forth man-made theories or guesses, either his own or those of others…This text proves again that those men who foretell things out of harmony with the Bible statements are false prophets.

In light of these claims, is the Watchtower being inconsistent when they claim the following:

1. Making false prediction where "certain things happened on certain dates" is "in line with Christ's injunction to 'keep on the watch'"

2. Those who "announce a specific date" of "the end of the world" that "did not come...are guilty of false prophecying."

To back up these claims, the Watchtower provides some biblical examples that are to serve as parallels to their setting dates:

*** w84 12/1 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 Keep Ready! ***
Did not Moses make a 40-year miscalculation in trying to act ahead of time to remove Israel’s affliction? (Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6, 17, 23, 25, 30, 34) Were not Christ’s apostles overanxious to see the Kingdom established, not to speak of their complete misunderstanding as to what the Kingdom really is? (Acts 1:6; compare Luke 19:11; 24:21.) Were not the anointed Christians in Thessalonica impatient to see “the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the day of Jehovah”?—2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2.
¹⁵ There is nothing basically unscriptural in using chronology in efforts to learn “the appointed time” for the fulfillment of God’s purposes. (Habakkuk 2:3) Daniel calculated when Jerusalem’s devastation was due to end. (Daniel 9:1, 2) The first-century faithful Jewish remnant were in expectation of the coming of the Messiah because they calculated the end of a time, based on prophecy. (Daniel 9:25; Luke 3:15) Late 19th-century and early 20th-century Christians were enabled to live in expectation of God’s Kingdom rule well before 1914 because they calculated when “the appointed times of the nations” were due to end. (Luke 21:24; Daniel 4:16, 17) It was, therefore, understandable why efforts were made to use other Biblical time indications to try to find out when the long-awaited hopes might become a reality. Faithful servants of Jehovah in the past cried out: “How long, O Jehovah?”—Isaiah 6:11; Psalm 74:10; 94:3.

One is encouraged to look up each one of these biblical references and consider whether these are an accurate parallel to the "end of the world" predictions that the Watchtower has made as "God's channel of communication":

“We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the Watch Tower of Jan. 15, ’92. We advise that it be read again.” –Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p. 226

“Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church member by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of “Christianity.” –The Boiling Caldron p. 485

“Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection.” –Millions Now Living will Never Die 1920, p. 90

Hopefully one can see that there is a vast difference between the miscalculation of a chronology and predicting something in God's name that doesn't come to pass (Deut. 18:20-22). Even the Watchtower's own writings reveal this. But their statement, "There is nothing basically unscriptural in using chronology in efforts to learn 'the appointed time' for the fulfillment of God’s purposes" reveals ignorance on their part or an unwillingness to apply their own standards to themselves.

*** w84 12/1 p. 19 pars. 16-18 Keep Ready! ***
¹⁶ Since Jesus clearly stated that no man could know “that day” or “the hour” when the Father will order his son to ‘come’ against Satan’s wicked system of things, some may ask: ‘Why is it so urgent to live in expectation of the end?’ It is urgent because practically in the same breath, Jesus added: “Keep looking, keep awake . . . keep on the watch.” (Mark 13:32-35) The “sign” of Jesus’ parousia has been in evidence since 1914. We now await “the sign of the Son of man,” when he ‘comes’ as Jehovah’s Executioner.
¹⁷ When Jesus gave the first-century Judean Christians a sign whereby they would know that the time had come to flee from Jerusalem, he insisted on the need to act immediately. (Luke 21:20-23) Why all the urgency, since nearly four years elapsed from the appearing of the sign in 66 C.E. and the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? Because Jesus knew that if they delayed, they would keep putting off their flight and eventually be caught by the Roman armies.
¹⁸ Similarly today, it would be highly dangerous for Christians to rationalize about the urgency of our times and adopt a “cruising speed” attitude that reflects doubt about the nearness of the end.

Of course it would be unbiblical for Christians to adopt a "cruising speed" attitude towards the day when Christ will return. The problem with the Watchtower is that they have adopted a completely unbalanced mindset towards end times chronologies and predictions to the point of rationalization, whereas the true follower of Christ lives each day with the realization that the end could come; not in overeagerness, but with balance. Such swaying could lead to some very serious consequences that the Watchtower has yet to take responsibility of. The word of the Lord Jesus are quite clear towards those who cause such stumbling:

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

One who associates themselves with such an organization would do well to ask themselves who their loyalty is with; God or man? I pray that if this question is something you are contemplating, then you will find what can only be found in the person of Jesus Christ:

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.” (Matthew 11:28–29)

Evolutionist Keith Fox debates ID proponent Michael Behe

2010-12-11T13:05:00.000-05:00

For some reason, discussions like these are rare. And I can't say that's the fault of Intelligent Design advocates in their willingness to debate these issues openly in public forums. It seems to be the evolutionists who are either insecure in their defense or not wanting to give "creationists a platform" that keeps them from debating. Imagine if ID'rs and Creationists ruled the scientific establishment and evolutionists were in the minority (this probably was the case in the not-so-distant-past). If ID'rs and Creationists refused to "debate" and "give evolutionists a platform," what would you conclude about them? Especially if all these closed-minded creationists published books, appeared on TV, traveled around the world giving lectures, but refused to interact with those they criticized; what would any reasonable-minded person conclude about such persons? Yeah...I was thinking the same thing.

While he is not an atheist, KEITH FOX strongly opposes ID in such a way that you really couldn't tell the difference. And thankfully, Dr. Fox is one of the brave few (perhaps because he's a professing Christian) who chooses not to avoid ID'rs as if they're lepers. And to be even more thankful, JUSTIN BRIERLEY is brave enough to regularly host such interactions. In this discussion, Fox and Behe engage one another in a fast-paced hour long dialogue on the feasibility of ID and irreducible complexity. Both sides were respectful to one another and really covered some ground. This is one of the few ID discussions (perhaps because they are so few) that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.

You can find the mp3 HERE and the itunes podcast feed HERE.

Dialogue/Debate on the Watchtower's "two class" theology

2010-12-08T12:15:00.000-05:00

Recenly, I engaged an apologists named STANDFIRM on the Watchtower's "two class" theology on the TOPIX discussion forum. Also joining me was an apologist by the name of "TruthSeeker," who holds a very similar position to me on this issue. Of course, some others chimed in on the discussion, but it was primarily the three of us. As far as I could tell, we covered most aspects of this issue, focusing on many of the "heaven texts," in which me and TruthSeeker argued that all Christians have an eternal hope on a restored earth rather than the WT's view of 144,000 in heaven and the rest living on earth.

Admittedly, I do not hold to the traditional view amongst many of those who oppose JW's, where they argue that Christians will not spend eternity on earth; instead, they will all go to heaven. The reason being, I've found this view (i.e. restored earth) to be more consistent and theologically defensible. Anyway, you can read the entire discussion titled, "Debate on the Eternal Destiny of Christians" HERE.

This also led me to the idea of doing more of a formal debate on this issue, whether audio/video or written. However, getting a JW to do any sort of debate like this is practically a shot in the dark and has no better chance of happening than a snowball in a blast furnace. But hey, I thought i'd give it a shot.

A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

2010-12-02T06:02:00.000-05:00

In about 13 minutes (with as much detail as possible all packed in), this video contains a summary of the preterist understanding of Matthew 24. This theological persuasion holds that all of the events in Matthew 24 find their fulfillment in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, this may sound absurd to those who have never been exposed to such theology, as it did to me. But I would ask that you at least watch this video and consider some of the arguments that are made. I can't say that i'm one hundred percent on board or able to provide a thorough defense of this view, but so far its a position that i'm leaning towards:

Jehovah's Witnesses: How does your preaching work compare with this?

2010-11-30T10:28:00.001-05:00

Before I delve into this question, i'd like to display The Watchtower's own thoughts concerning their preaching work and how it compares to the rest of so-called "Christendom":

*** w55 10/15 p. 624 par. 9 The Triumphant Message of “The Kingdom” ***

The missionaries of Christendom throughout the earth number into the thousands. Despite all these, it is not too much to say that Jehovah’s witnesses are the only ones preaching “this good news of the kingdom.” Why? Because they are the only ones that see the established kingdom in the light of modern events interpreted by Bible prophecy, and they are the only ones with the faith and courage from God to preach it.

There cannot be a more exclusive claim than this. Indeed, Jehovah's Witnesses (over 6 million worldwide in a concerted effort) are preaching "The Kingdom" and "Bible prophecy." Of course, many in "Christendom" would proclaim a similar message. But The Watchtower is very clear in their exclusive distinction:

*** w81 5/1 p. 17 par. 3 If God Has an Organization, What Is It? ***

Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah’s Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,” or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914. (Luke 21:24)

Though the Society will admit that there are missionaries in Christendom that "preach," they place themselves in stark contrast by the fact that they are the only ones preaching 1914 as Christ's enthronement. In light of this, they emphatically proclaim the nearness of God's judgment on babylon the great (i.e. "Christendom") and the rest of wicked mankind.

But is there even the possibility that non-Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching the gospel? According to The Watchtower:

*** w95 9/1 p. 18 par. 18 Christian Witnesses for Divine Sovereignty ***

¹⁸ The worldwide preaching of the good news helps to prove that Jesus’ royal presence has begun. (Matthew 24:3) Further, it is the main means by which “the harvest of the earth” is being reaped, as it points people to the only true hope for mankind, Jehovah’s Kingdom. (Revelation 14:15, 16) Since only genuine Christians share in the preaching of the good news, this important work helps to distinguish the true Christians from the false. (Malachi 3:18)

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones proclaiming "the gospel of 1914," then all non-Jehovah's Witnesses are false Christians. They are nothing more than sincere messengers proclaiming a false gospel that will ultimately incur the judgment of God upon themselves and the rest who were deceived by their false gospel.

At this point, i'd like any Jehovah's Witnesses watching this to give consideration to the following video, whereby one of "Christendom's" missionaries preaches what he believes to be the "gospel" to two individuals. In doing so, please think about the following:

1. Is this a false gospel?

2. Is this a false gospel because he neglected to mention 1914?

3. Was it a false gospel because he neglected to mention how "close we are to the end?"

4. Is it a false gospel because he failed to mention that salvation can only be found in being in association with his organization?

5. Is it a false gospel because he never mentioned "Jehovah?"

6. Should he have left out all the stuff about repentance and placing faith in Jesus' atoning work in favor of proclaiming 1914 and "how close we are to the end?"

7. In one encounter, could you as a Jehovah's Witness provide the necessary information whereby one could avoid the impending judgment that could come on that very day?

8. What other approaches did this man use that were wrong and worthy of being called a "false gospel?"

If you would, please watch the following video and provide some commentary on how "Christendom" needs to abandon this message and proclaim the true gospel:

Review of the February 15, 2011 Watchtower Study Edition

2010-11-21T21:25:00.001-05:00

You can download the full issue HERE.

Since my REVIEW of the September 2010 Watchtower Study Edition, I haven't found any of the subsequent magazines to contain noteworthy information. Perhaps the Governing Body is giving JW's a break from their self-promoting statements made in that issue? Its difficult to know for sure. But whatever the case, recent releases have had little to do with doctrine and more to do with morality and JW living. However, I found a few quotes in this newly released magazine worth mentioning:

Acting in harmony with his Father’s will, Jesus Christ gave “his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (Matt. 20:28) Soon the full benefits of that ransom payment will accrue to those who gain God’s approval. -p. 14 par. 6

While it is true that no Christian is living within the full benefits of the atonement (Creation is still "groaning." Rom. 8:22), this quote has it backwards. It is unbiblical to suggest that the ransom is applied to those who gain God's approval. Instead, the Bible teaches that the atonement itself results in God's approval to those whom it is applied:

“Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:18–21)

Does this passage make any suggestion similar to the WT's appeal? That is, is the atonement applied to those who have previously gained God's approval? Or does the atonement result in our being approved by God? Notice further that it is not our actions that reconcile us to God; it is Christ's atoning work. This is yet another instance where the WT has missed the sufficiency of Christ's death apart from human actions.

8 Gaining God’s approval involves the proper exercise of our free will. This is because Jehovah does not coerce anyone into serving him. In Isaiah’s time, He asked: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” By recognizing the prophet’s right to decide, Jehovah dignified him. Imagine Isaiah’s satisfaction in responding: “Here I am! Send me.”—Isa. 6:8. -p. 14 par. 8

Its all about us isn't it? The focus is so completely man-centered that it neglects the very basis by which someone like Isaiah could obey God at all. Why is it that Scripture declares, "there is none who seeks after God?" (Rom. 3:11) Could it be that God desires all the glory, even when it pertains to man's ability to love and obey Him? While it is true that God does not coerce men in the way that the WT describes here, it is not true that men gain God's approval by "proper exercise of our free will." Scripture has something else in mind:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” (Ezekiel 36:25–27)

God is the primary cause when it comes to offering approval to those who were previously hostile towards Him (Rom. 8:7). Do we see coercion here? No. We see God causing the ungodly to obey Him by removing their hostile, flesh-focused nature and making them, "alive together with Christ." (Eph. 2:5) Where can man take such credit in this scenario? Where is "free will" mentioned?

Gaining God’s approval requires that a person keep his body acceptable to God. If he were to defile himself with tobacco, betel nut, illicit drugs, or alcohol abuse, that offering would have no value. (2 Cor. 7:1) -p. 15 par. 12

In no way am I endorsing any of the mentioned "defilements." However, I do find it interesting that the WT mentions these disfellowshipping-resulting actions to the exclusion of others. Why is eating at McDonald's not mentioned? Is the Watchtower prepared to defend the idea that smoking a cigarette is more harmful than a few meals at McDonald's? Or how about prescription drugs? Are JW's threatened with disfellowshipping by taking drugs that lead a high risk of side effects? Of course not. These are the legalistic "pet sins" that the WT has come up with that have no cut-and-dry prohibition in the Bible (specifically, tobacco use).

By preaching with zeal, we give evidence of our love for Jehovah and our desire for his approval. -p. 16 par. 14

While it is true that we must demonstrate the true nature of our faith by good works (James 2:18), this is different from saying that our works gain approval from God. A more biblical approach to such an issue would be to say, "by preaching with zeal, we give evidence of our love for Jehovah and our desire to do what is pleasing to Him." The reason this qualification is so important is because true Christians have already been fully approved. That is, there is no further approval to be made. After all, we have the righteousness of Christ imputed or reckoned to our account (Rom. 4:5). How much more approval would one need?

Instead, we should be seeking to do what is pleasing to God because we have already been approved. And no amount of zeal or hours on your time cards can change that.

Andre ́ , who had served Jehovah for years, had the bitter experience of being led astray by apostate thinking. He felt that having a quick look at an apostate Web site would not be dangerous. He recalls: “Initially, I was attracted to the so-called truths that the apostates spoke of. The more I examined what they said, the more I came to think that I was justified in leaving Jehovah’s organization. But later, as I did some research on the apostates’ arguments against Jehovah’s Witnesses, I became aware of how crafty the false teachers were. Information taken out of context was their ‘strong evidence’ against us. Thus, I decided to start reading our publications again and to attend the meetings. Soon I realized how much I had missed.” Happily, Andre ́ returned to the congregation. -p. 19

This is very interesting. Remember what the WT has previously said about so-called "apostate literature":

*** w86 3/15 p. 13 pars. 10-12 ‘Do Not Be Quickly Shaken From Your Reason’ ***

When a fellow human tells us, ‘Do not read this’ or, ‘Do not listen to that,’ we may be tempted to ignore his advice. But remember, in this case Jehovah is the One who tells us in his Word what to do. And what does he say about apostates? “Avoid them” (Romans 16:17, 18); “quit mixing in company with” them (1 Corinthians 5:11); and “never receive [them] into your homes or say a greeting to [them]” (2 John 9, 10). These are emphatic words, clear directions. If, out of curiosity, we were to read the literature of a known apostate, would that not be the same as inviting this enemy of true worship right into our home to sit down with us and relate his apostate ideas?

¹¹ Let us illustrate matters in this way: Suppose your teenage son received some pornographic material in the mail. What would you do? If he was inclined to read it out of curiosity, would you say: ‘Yes, son, go ahead and read it. It won’t hurt you. From infancy we’ve taught you that immorality is bad. Besides, you need to know what’s going on in the world in order to see that it’s truly bad’? Would you reason that way? Absolutely not! Rather, you would surely point out the dangers of reading pornographic literature and would require that it be destroyed. Why? Because no matter how strong a person may be in the truth, if he feeds his mind on the perverted ideas found in such literature, his mind and heart will be affected. A lingering wrong desire planted in the recesses of the heart can eventually create a perverted sexual appetite. The result? James says that when wrong desire becomes fertile, it gives birth to sin, and sin leads to death. (James 1:15) So why start the chain reaction?

¹² Well, if we would act so decisively to protect our children from exposure to pornography, should we not expect that our loving heavenly Father would similarly warn us and protect us from spiritual fornication, including apostasy? He says, Keep away from it!

As can be observed, "apostate literature" is equated with pornography. Let's see how Andre's story would read with such an equation inserted:

Andre ́ , who had served Jehovah for years, had the bitter experience of being led astray by [pornography]. He felt that having a quick look at [pornography] would not be dangerous. He recalls: “Initially, I was attracted to the so-called truths that the [porn industry] spoke of. The more I examined what they said, the more I came to think that I was justified in leaving Jehovah’s organization. But later, as I did some research on [pornography], I became aware of how crafty the false teachers were. Information taken out of context was their ‘strong evidence’ against us. Thus, I decided to start reading our publications again and to attend the meetings. Soon I realized how much I had missed.” Happily, Andre ́ returned to the congregation. -p. 19

Most should be able to see how silly such an equation really is. But if apostate literature is as bad as pornography, then why even "do the research?" No one has to research pornography to know that is is grossly unbiblical. Moreover, many secularists are aware of the harmful effects of pornography as well. However, if apostate literature is what the Society claims, then there is no need to investigate. It should be dismissed out of hand without a single glance.

What I can't seem to figure out is why the Society continues to suppress any attempt to deal with this so-called "apostate literature." Here, it seems as though the WT is commending Andre for checking the facts. Are they seriously suggesting that by researching WT literature, such an honest investigation will lead to finding answers to apostate claims? It would seem so. But one will be hard-pressed to find answers to the claims made by former Governing Body member Ray Franz in his book, CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE or that of Carl O. Jonsson's in his book, THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED by researching WT literature.

One of the reasons why so many JW's leave the organization is because of books like these; books that the WT has failed to make mention of or dealt with the arguments therein. Instead, they have told JW's to avoid these books as if they were pornography, yet they are to examine its claims on their own when they find themselves trapped in "apostate thinking." Yes, please do your own research, like Andre, and examine the claims made by Franz and Jonsson.

The Watchtower and bloodguilt

2010-11-09T17:39:00.001-05:00

THE WATCHTOWER has a lot to say about bloodguilt. In their publications, a lot has been said about others who are guilty of shedding innocent blood. But what are the standards by which we can judge other organizations as bloodguilty? And if one organization refers to another as bloodguilty, would it not be fair to use the same standard against the one making the charge?

*** w67 8/15 p. 500 par. 7 The Way to Security ***
⁷ The fact that religious leaders in all the world gave their blessing and support to such organized, mass spilling of human blood has led many persons to believe that it was indeed God’s will and even compatible with Christianity. So it can be presumed that many have done wrong while believing their course was right. The support of organized shedding of blood by the numerous churches and religions inside and outside Christendom reveals one thing very clearly: the immense bloodguilt that attaches to false religion throughout the entire world.

As we can see, if one sheds blood (directly or indirectly), even if they believe it was God's will, they are bloodguilty. This article goes so far as to say that if one supports the bloodguilty organization, they themselves are bloodguilty.

*** w95 11/15 p. 16 par. 5 Stay in the “City of Refuge” and Live! ***
⁵ Some people have caused human death willfully or through carelessness. Others have taken part in collective killing, perhaps persuaded by religious leaders that this was God’s will. Still others have persecuted and killed servants of God. Even if we have not done such things, though, we share community responsibility for the loss of human life because we did not know God’s law and will. We are like the unintentional manslayer ‘who killed his fellowman without knowing it and who did not hate him formerly.’ (Deuteronomy 19:4) Such individuals ought to implore God for mercy and should run into the antitypical city of refuge. Otherwise they will have a fatal meeting with the Avenger of blood.

What if an organization persuades their dedicated followers to take the lives of others (or even their own for that matter)? Would this make the organization bloodguilty? According to this quote, it would seem so. This is why some law systems have differing degrees of murder.

*** g85 6/22 p. 27 Female Circumcision—Why? ***
According to the Bible, when we deliberately put someone’s life unnecessarily in danger, we could become bloodguilty. (Compare 1 Chronicles 11:17-19.)

In this article (please EMAIL ME if you'd like the article in full), the Watchtower explains how a dangerous procedure (female circumcision) can result in bloodguilt for the one influencing the practice. But what if the one performing or influencing is convinced that the practice is a biblical command from God? Would such an excuse make one innocent? Not according to this article, for the practice is condemned as unbiblical and results in bloodguilt,

*** g85 6/22 p. 26 Female Circumcision—Why? ***
Parents must weigh all these views when determining their own feelings about female circumcision. For Christian parents, there is another question: Is female circumcision in harmony with Bible principles?
According to Scripture, every male Israelite had to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the children of Abraham. (Genesis 17:10-14; Leviticus 12:2, 3) However, the sons of Christian parents are not required to be circumcised. (Galatians 5:6) Hence, daughters of Christians are certainly not required to undergo either excision or infibulation. Is female circumcision, then, merely a matter of conscience?

Because the practice is unbiblical (regardless of the sincerity of the believer), this would lend accusation to the one who influenced the "unnecessary death" as bloodguilty.

What if an organization, who demands uncritical acceptance of everything they teach, is responsible for the death of their followers per the Watchtower's standards? What should the remaining followers do?

*** w78 6/15 p. 25 Firmly Resolved About Life And Blood ***
Avoid Bloodguilt from (1) eating blood, (2) sharing in bloodguilty organizations

*** uw chap. 20 p. 155 par. 4 Life and Blood—Do You Treat Them as Sacred? ***
⁴ As regards human blood, we cannot assume that simply refraining from murder keeps us guiltless. The Scriptures show that if we are part of any organization that is bloodguilty before God, we must sever our ties with it if we do not want to share in its sins. (Rev. 18:4, 24; Mic. 4:3) Such action deserves urgent attention.

The articles where these quotes are found make no qualifications for those organizations that are bloodguilty. That is, regardless of how highly you view the organization, you should leave. It wouldn't matter if you had previously viewed this organization as God's only true organization on earth; at this point, it would be loyalty to God vs. loyalty to man.

The last issue under consideration is the Watchtower themselves. Do they qualify as "bloodguilty" according to the standards set forth thus far? Decide for yourself,

*** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers ***
When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.

New Book on the Resurrection of Jesus

2010-11-04T12:57:00.000-04:00

Mike Licona, research professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary, has just released a monumental new book: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. From the publisher:

Could there be any new and promising approach to the question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection? Yes, answers Michael Licona. And he convincingly points us to a significant deficiency in approaching this question: our historiographical orientation and practice. He then carefully and effectively applies his principles and methods to the question of Jesus' resurrection.

This book is sure to become required reading for anyone exploring this field, as Michael Licona has made an extremely significant contribution to scholarship in this area. Pick it up today.

Reviews and endorsements HERE

Get it HERE

(ht: Apologetics 315)

Answering a question by "free thinker" Paul Baird

2010-11-02T15:35:00.000-04:00

Paul Baird WRITES:

Every once in a while someone posts a comment on a forum that encapsulates a viewpoint brilliantly, and in this post 'emr' says
I have asked many Christians, including people on this website, whether they believe Hitler would go to heaven if he had regretted all that he'd done and given his life to Jesus a week before his death - and whether the six million Jews he killed would go to hell for rejecting Jesus. A large number respond in the affirmative - the ones that don't tend to go around the houses a bit, or invoke a re-interpretation of scripture.

My point is that if that is the theistic concept of a loving god, one that punishes for eternity people who do not believe in him, and rewards for eternity people who commit the most terrible atrocities, then the whole concept falls flat on its face. Whatever your personal standards of love, justice, morality and goodness are, none of those standards would or could include torturing someone for eternity. If a god exists who can torture someone for eternity and still be considered 'good' then that god must be operating by completely separate standards from our own - and given that from our perspective we can have no idea what that standard is, statements like god is good, god is loving, god is just, god is moral become completely redundant and meaningless.

Well, I'd like to hear a Christian rebutt that.

The question/objection is based upon a faulty premise and interpretation of Scripture:

Crime #1: Person kills millions of people

Crime #2: Person doesn't believe in Jesus

According to the objection, the second of the two crimes is less serious. And in some sense, i'd agree, which is why I said that the question is built upon a faulty premise. The questioner seems to think that because a Jew is a good, morally upright person, then they are not deserving of God's wrath. But this is not what the Scriptures teach:

“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”; “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”; “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.” “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”” (Romans 3:9–18)

Here we see that, Scripturally speaking, Jews do not incur God's wrath simply because they rejected Jesus. Instead, they incur God's wrath because they are sinners. Of course, the Bible is not arguing that all sinners will be equally punished, as some will receive a greater judgment (Matt. 10:15). But it must be understood that both Hitler and the unbelieving Jew will receive their just punishment unless they repent and accept the only one who can save them from God's wrath, Jesus Christ (John 3:36).

As Paul would probably anticipate, I must raise a question: in a naturalistic worldview, why would it matter if a Jew receives a greater punishment than Hitler? In the natural world, both "good" and "bad" people suffer. Do you shake your fist at the universe when good people needlessly suffer? Of course not, because the universe doesn't care. Yes, you may object, "But I care!" And that's the thing. I have my worldview that is based upon God's judicial reckoning and you have your worldview that says, "Paul Baird is the judge of all things." And if this is not the case, then who are you to say that my theological persuasion "isn't fair?" I am one bag of cells uttering one thing and you are another bag of cells uttering something else. Who judges who is right?

The God of the Bible isn't simply a loving God; He is a just God and can only judge in accordance with His Holy and Righteous character. But there is a reason why the Bible calls the gospel "foolishness" to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). The following should illustrate:

“And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.“The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’“But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9–14)