Monthly Archives: December 2016

The Trinity and the Reformation

Posted on by
Reply

The Significance of the Trinity Underpinning the Great Doctrines of the Reformation – Michael Reeves

Can we ever afford to be vague about the nature and identity of our God? Reformational thought is often portrayed as having little concern for the doctrine of God and for trinitarian theology. By looking at the challenges that the trinitarianism of the early Reformers presented to the Roman Catholic theology of their day, in the theology of Calvin and the Reformed tradition, the triune being of God came to constitute the shape of all Christian belief, this session will argue that the theology of the mainstream Reformers drew from – and could only have grown in – explicitly trinitarian soil.

On the Deity of Christ

Posted on by
Reply

How many times have you prepared ahead of time for a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness on certain key Bible verses only to get bogged down arguing over John 1:1, John 10:30, and other passages in which Jesus is called “God”? “Oh,” the Witness responds, “we do believe Jesus is a god. Isaiah 9:6 calls him a mighty god. But he is not the Almighty God.” Then you hear that men are sometimes called “gods” (John 10:34) and God made Moses to be a “god” to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). When the encounter is over, you feel about as frustrated as the Buffalo Bills after the Super Bowl.

To avoid this problem we must learn to compellingly communicate the biblical truth of the deity of Christ and the Trinity to the mind trained in Watchtower theology. There is a way around the natural “walls” that Watchtower indoctrination places in the minds of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is one way we can be instruments in the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jehovah Is God
Many Witnesses feel that no one outside of their own circles thinks anything about Jehovah1 God. They are surprised to encounter Christians who know the name Jehovah and use the name in hymns and songs. You can agree with the Witnesses that Jehovah is God. This statement opens the door to the Witness concerning the wonderful truth about Jesus Christ.

Witnesses argue that the term “god” can be used of men and angels, and so, when used of Jesus, it does not prove His deity. They cannot consistently use that tactic against the overwhelming evidence that in the New Testament Jesus Christ is identified as Jehovah God! The Witnesses must logically recognize that if Jesus is Jehovah, all their arguments about “lesser gods” are irrelevant. Jehovah is the only true God, and if the Bible says Jesus is Jehovah, the case is closed. We can engage the thinking process of the Witnesses to bring them to the realization of this truth. Once the identity of Jesus as Jehovah is established, then the passages that call Him “God” become meaningful and understandable to Witnesses.

Proving Your Case
I have often moved into this topic through a brief explanation of the Trinity. Most Witnesses do not have an accurate knowledge of the Trinity. (Sadly, neither do many Christians.) If I am asked why I believe in the Trinity, I normally respond,

I believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches the doctrine. It does so not by using the specific word “Trinity,” but by teaching the three pillars that make up the doctrine. First, that there is only one true God, Jehovah, Creator of all things. Surely you agree with me there. Next, that there are three divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I realize you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, but you do agree that the Father and the Son are not the same person, correct? Finally, the third pillar, the point on which we are in direct disagreement, is the Bible’s teaching of the full equality of these divine persons. This would include the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

It is important to short-circuit the natural tendency of Witnesses to misunderstand you. We are not asserting that there are three persons that are one person, nor that there are three beings that are one being. We are differentiating between the terms being and person.

The Bible teaches that all things have being, but only God, humans, and angels are personal. I as a human being am one person, James White. My being makes me human, my personality differentiates me from all other human beings. Since my being is finite and limited, only one person can properly subsist in it, namely, me. But since God’s being is infinite and unlimited, it can be, and is, shared by three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Once I have differentiated between being and person, I then ask if I can illustrate this from Scripture. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Trinity is a false doctrine derived from Greek philosophy, they often are willing to open the Bible, confident that you won’t be able to support your position. I say, “You and I both agree that the only true God is Jehovah. I believe the term ‘Jehovah’ refers to the very divine being, the eternal God, who created all things. You would agree with me that the Father is Jehovah, would you not? Where we disagree is this: I believe the Bible says that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and the Spirit is also Jehovah. Each of the three persons shares the one divine name, Jehovah. May I show you one of the places where the Bible teaches us that Jesus is Jehovah?”

Most Witnesses have never encountered this kind of approach. Make sure your friend has understood your meaning — you may need to clarify your position a few times before proceeding.

There is no one verse with which you should always begin. I personally favor using Hebrews 1. In any case, make sure you are thoroughly familiar not just with the verses themselves, but with the surrounding contexts. You don’t want your demonstration short-circuited by your own lack of knowledge of the text.

Using the Witnesses’ own translation, the New World Translation (NWT), I note some of the important verses in passing, such as Hebrews 1:3, which speaks of Christ as the “exact representation of his nature.”2 I follow the context down through verse 8, which begins, “But with reference to the Son….” I ask, “Now, who is being discussed all through this passage?” The answer is plainly the Son. The citation that begins in verse 8 finishes in verse 9, following which the NWT says, “And: ‘You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands.’”

By its use of quotation marks in the text, the NWT clearly indicates that we are dealing here with a citation of the Old Testament. I finish reading through verse 12, and immediately ask, “Now, who is being described here?” The only possible answer is “the Son.” The Witness may say something about how Jesus, as the first creation of Jehovah, was the one through whom all the rest of creation was made. I allow the Witness to say whatever he or she wishes, as long as we agree on the fact that Hebrews 1:10-12 is still making reference to the Son.3 Then I ask if my friend knows what passage the writer to the Hebrews is quoting. The passage being cited, according to the cross references found in NWT reference editions, is Psalm 102:25-27. It is very important that you get to Psalm 102 quickly to provide the proper context.

Invite the Witness to begin at verse 1 of Psalm 102 and to identify the individual being addressed in the passage. The NWT begins, “O Jehovah, do hear my prayer.” Skip down to verse 12 and show that Jehovah remains the subject of the psalm. Point out that Jehovah continues to appear in verses 19 and 20 . This is important because once you get to verse 25 the significance of the words will be manifest. Jehovah is addressed in the very same words that the writer to the Hebrews uses of the Son, Jesus Christ!

It is vital that you make it clear that there is no reason to think that anyone other than Jehovah is being addressed by the psalmist in Psalm 102:25-27.4 You have shown the first of many passages in which the New Testament writers take an Old Testament passage originally about Jehovah Himself and apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage is exceptionally strong, for the psalmist is speaking of the immutability, eternal nature, and creative power of Jehovah God, yet the writer to the Hebrews is willing to predicate all these things of Jesus Christ.

The Advantage of This Method
Don’t expect Witnesses to give in the first time you show this passage. Most will beat a hasty retreat for the door and try to find someone who can answer all these questions. When you show a Witness a divine truth from the pages of his own NWT, that truth follows him wherever he goes. He’s not going to throw his Bible out, so whenever he opens it up and encounters these passages, the Spirit of God will remind him of what he cannot answer. Witnesses won’t take literature from you, so turn their Bibles into tracts that will go with them when they walk out your door.

NOTES
1. The pronunciation “Jehovah,” while important to the Witnesses, is not the proper pronunciation. The Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was probably pronounced “Yahweh.” A good Bible dictionary will furnish the meaning and background of the term, information that is both enriching and useful in witnessing.
2. Don’t get bogged down. Press toward demonstrating that Jesus is Jehovah. If you get into a discussion of NWT passages specifically designed to hide the deity of Christ (Hebrews 1:6 and 1:8), you will never get around to what you are trying to accomplish.
3. Should the Witness attempt to say otherwise, note that the NWT begins verse 8 in the same way it begins verse 10, with a colon followed by a quotation. Verse 8 is about the Son. Verse 10 continues the citation of passages about the Son from the Old Testament. Even the NWT gives no indication of any kind of break between verses 9 and 10.
4. The close reader will recognize an inconsistency in the NWT at this point. It inserts the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament 237 times, even though the term appears in no Greek New Testament manuscripts at all. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint or LXX, used the Greek term “Lord” (Kurios) for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. The New Testament writers, when citing the Old Testament passages in which the name Jehovah appeared, likewise used the Greek term Kurios or “Lord.” The Watchtower reasons that when citing the Old Testament (and in many other instances) the name Jehovah should be retained. Hence, when they translate Hebrews 2:13, which contains a citation of Isaiah 8:18, they insert the name “Jehovah” in the translation. But they also often insert the name when there is no direct Old Testament reference at all, such as in Revelation 1:8. And most importantly for our use of Hebrews 1:10-12, in other passages they change the Greek Kurios to “Jehovah” in citations of the Old Testament that are about Jehovah, even if the name does not appear in the specifically cited text. Why didn’t the NWT translators remain consistent and render the Greek term Kurios as “Jehovah” in Hebrews 1:10? There is only one reason: it would make the passage teach a doctrine that is contrary to Watchtower theology. Hence their Bible translation is determined by their beliefs, not by the text.

The Importance of an Inquirer’s Class

Posted on by
Reply

inquirersArticle by Nick Batzig – original source I started one within the first six months. On average we have had two Inquirer classes a year (here is the audio of several installations–in no distinct order–of one such class). Our elders have determined that attending this class is a prerequisite for membership in our local church. I have taught approximately 10 inquirer’s classes over the years. We have vacillated as to the duration of the class. Depending on the current schedule and needs in our church, we either have a 12 week, 10 week or 8 week class. Additionally, we have held the class on either Sunday mornings or on Wednesday nights. One year, due to scheduling, we held the class on several Saturdays. I have progressively realized the importance of such a class. While there has been some changed regarding course material to accommodate our current situation, the content has largely stayed the same. What has happened over the years is that I have become more and more convinced of the benefits of having an Inquirer/New Member class. Consider the following rationale for such a class:

1. It serves the congregation. While it may not seem like the goal of an Inquirer/New Member Class, making it a prerequisite for local church membership can help protect the church from division by discouraging those who might be discontent or cause schismatic harm to the local church. One of the membership vows that men and women take in PCA churches is that they promise to “study the peace and purity of the church;” another has to do with their willingness to “submit to the government and discipline of the church.” When we work through our doctrinal positions in an Inquirer’s class, we hit on such things as “expectations of church members,” “the doctrines of grace” (i.e. Calvinism) and the basic “tenets of Presbyterianism.” I have typically found that those who are strongly opposed to any or all of these teachings (or who are simply divisively argumentative) often will not finish the Inquirer’s class once they hear them taught. This is sometimes a blessing in disguise to the church–as it may protect the congregation from divisive individuals and forseen schisms.

2. It serves those coming for membership. An Inquirer’s class can also serves as a protection for those who might not be a good fit for a particular local church in its current state. For instance, not everyone is cut out for membership in a church plant. I learned that the hard way in the early years of planting. While we must certainly discourage church hopping–and the idea that there is a perfect church situation–we must recognize that sometimes one local church might be better suited to the needs of an individual or family than another. An Inquirer’s class can help this process along in such a way as to benefit those who may–for any number of legitimate reasons–make the final decision not to go forward in joining a particular local church.

On the other hand, an Inquirer’s class can be an enormous benefit to those coming for membership. It can help them learn the various aspects of biblical and local church membership. When expectations of local church members are clearly articulated, those who might not have thought about the biblical requirements for regular Lord’s Day worship, giving and service may begin to do so for the first time in the life. Furthermore, it can serve as a rich time of instruction in the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrines of grace, the doctrine of the sacraments, the doctrine of church discipline, etc. An Inquirer’s class can be a great discipleship tool. How many have become convinced of the doctrines of grace by sitting through a careful consideration of them in an Inquirer’s class! We often forget that many who are coming for membership have never been taught these foundational truths.

Additionally, there is a very real sense in which the members of the church are being instructed to hold the leadership accountable to sound teaching. If an elder decides to teach something that is out of accord with Scripture or our doctrinal standards, members (together with elders) become part of the checks and balances appointed by God. The members of the local church are responsible to test what the minsters teach in the church against the doctrinal standards that they learn about in the Inquirer’s class.

3. It serves the leadership. One of the benefits of an Inquirer’s class is that it gives the leadership the opportunity to better get to know the ecclesiastical backgrounds of the men and women coming for membership. Even if I have had individuals or families into my home, when they come for an Inquirer’s class, they almost always share things that they have been taught by other ministers in other churches. Pastors can better assess where people are spiritually by what they share in an Inquirer’s class. The same is true with regard to the gifts of those coming for membership. I have on many occassions been informed by one of the people in the Inquirer’s class about their own gifts in music, service, etc.–as well as of the gifts of their spouses and children. For some reason, people are more apt to share that sort of information in that setting.

The other way in which an Inquirer’s class can benefit the leadership of the church is that the pastors/elders get the chance to clearly communicate expectations regarding worship attendance, giving, service and submission to discipline. This becomes exceedingly useful when an individual or family in the church begins to become delinquent in any of those areas. I have, on quite a number of occassions, had to remind those we sought to shepherd about what they were taught in these classes and about the vows that they willingly took after the class was through.

Calvinism Is…

Posted on by
Reply

calvinist02“Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible – the God-centered outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of his great preordained plan for his creatures and his church.”

– Excerpt from J.I. Packer’s Introduction to “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html

The Old Puritanic Faith

Posted on by
Reply

spurgeon_chair-e1379528080265“A certain vainglorious party of Pretenders to intellect and culture tell us now that the old Puritanic faith is nearly extinct; there are only a few of us ignorant people who now hold the same truths as John Owen, John Bunyan, Goodwin, and Charnock; but all the elite of the world, those who have all the “sweetness and light” to themselves, the thinkers, the mental gentility have all been sensible enough to give their votes for something more suitable to the times.

In the name of God, we shall show them the difference yet, and by his Spirit He will din their ears with the gospel ram’s horn till they and their Jericho come down in a common ruin. The evangelical doctrine which shook Europe will shake it yet again, and England shall yet know that the self-same truth, for which her martyrs died and for which her Puritans fought on many a well-contested field, shall break the rationalism and ritualism of this land in pieces yet, and all else that standeth in the way of the true gospel of the living God.

We are not afraid nor discouraged, but we cry mightily unto the King that we may once more lift up a shout because of his presence, for then human philosophy shall be ashamed, and old Rome shall know, and all the cubs of the beast of Rome shall know, that the Lord liveth, and his invincible truth shall win the day.”

– Charles Spurgeon