Shared Words, Different Gods: Why Conscience Draws A Line

Posted on by

I cannot, in good conscience, attend certain religious services as an act of worship. This is not because I dislike the people involved or wish to be unkind. It is because I am persuaded, from Scripture, that Christian worship is never a neutral activity. To gather in a place of worship is to share in what that worship says about God, about Christ, and about the way of salvation. My conscience, as a Christian and a pastor, is bound to the Word of God, not to social expectations or invitations.

Let me use an analogy. Suppose a friend warmly invited me to a ceremony where a dead pig was hoisted on an elevated throne, incense was offered, and prayers were directed to this animal as a god. I might care deeply for my friend and wish them no harm. Yet I could not, in good conscience, attend that ceremony. To be present, to sing, to bow, or even to sit quietly among those acts of devotion would, in God’s sight, be to participate in idolatry. In the eyes of the living God, there is no difference in seriousness between worshiping an animal, a carved image, or a more sophisticated false deity. Crude idolatry and refined idolatry are both idolatry. That is why my conscience cannot join in any act of worship that is directed to someone other than the true God revealed in Scripture, whatever outward form it may take.

The Bible speaks with great clarity on this point. Israel was repeatedly warned not to “go after other gods” or to learn the ways of the nations in their worship (Deut. 12:29–32). Paul tells Christians to “flee from idolatry” and explains that when people share in pagan sacrifices, they become “participants with demons” (1 Cor. 10:14–22). He also insists that “there is no other God” and “no other Savior” besides the one true and living God (Isa. 43:10–11). Where there is a different god and a different gospel, there is a different religion altogether (Gal. 1:6–9; 2 Cor. 11:4). To join in the worship of another god or another Christ is not a light matter. It is a participation in something God Himself forbids.

It is important to make a careful distinction here. Within the broad household of biblical Christianity there are many congregations whose secondary doctrines and practices I might not share, yet whose worship I could still join, in good conscience. There are brothers and sisters who differ with me on questions such as baptism, church government, spiritual gifts, or the precise details of eschatology, and yet they confess the same triune God, the same Lord Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man, and the same gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. With such believers I can gladly stand, sing, and pray. We may not agree on every point, but we are worshiping the same God and the same Christ. This is why, in the public worship of our own congregation, the call to worship explicitly addresses the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the One to whom our praise is directed.

The line is crossed, however, when the “god” being named is not the God of Scripture, when the “Jesus” being preached is not the eternal Son who became man, or when the way of salvation that is proclaimed or enacted is no longer the gospel of grace, but something that denies or obscures it. At that point the issue is no longer Christian diversity on secondary matters. It is a different god, a different Christ, and a different gospel. That is where conscience must draw a firm line and say, “I cannot join this as worship,” even if I love the people involved and desire their good.

This is why it is not honest to say that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain. If you compare the major world religions side by side, you find radically different claims about the most basic questions. Some deny that there is any personal God at all and speak instead of an impersonal force or ultimate reality that has no face and no voice. Others affirm millions of gods and goddesses. Some, like Islam and Judaism, insist that God is one person only and explicitly reject the Christian confession that the one God eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Still others, such as various forms of modern spirituality and neo paganism, speak of a god and goddess, or invite devotion to a whole range of deities and spiritual powers. These are fundamentally different answers to the question “Who is God?”

The same is true when you ask what these religions say about Jesus and salvation. Some view Jesus merely as a wise teacher whose followers later invented stories about miracles and resurrection. Others say He was a prophet, but not the Son of God and not crucified for sinners. Some say salvation is found by escaping the cycle of rebirth through personal effort and spiritual discipline. Others place the weight on rituals, sacraments, pilgrimages, or keeping certain pillars and laws. The biblical gospel, by contrast, proclaims that Jesus is the eternal Son of God made flesh, that He truly died and rose again, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, apart from human merit. To speak as if all these views were simply different versions of the same faith is to empty words like “God,” “Christ,” and “salvation” of any real meaning.

This same concern comes into sharp focus when we move from world religions in general to specific settings closer to home. It is why I could not, for example, attend the Roman Catholic Mass as an act of worship. According to official Roman Catholic teaching, at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are changed in their substance into the very body and blood of Christ, so that Christ is present “in a true, real, and substantial manner.” The Mass is also defined as a sacrifice in which Christ is offered to God in an unbloody manner on behalf of the living and the dead, for their sins. I am convinced that this teaching stands in direct contradiction to the New Testament’s clear witness that Christ offered Himself once for all, that His sacrifice is finished, and that He “sat down at the right hand of God” because His priestly work is complete (Heb. 9:25–28; 10:10–14). To sit, as a Christian pastor, in the midst of a rite that presents itself as a repeated propitiatory sacrifice would, in my understanding, be to say by my presence that such teaching is acceptable, when Scripture convinces me it is not.

The same principle applies, with different details, to worship in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Classical Mormon teaching, reflected in the King Follett discourse and in official explanations by LDS leaders, holds that God Himself was once a man who became God, and that faithful humans may in turn become gods as He is. In this system there are many gods, and the god of our world has a tangible human body. Jesus is taught to be the firstborn spirit child of “Heavenly Father” and a heavenly mother, the elder brother of Lucifer and of all mankind. That is not a minor adjustment to historic Christianity. It is a different view of God and a different view of Christ from that confessed in the ancient creeds and Reformed confessions, and far more importantly, from what I am persuaded Scripture teaches: that the Son is the eternal Word who “was God” in the beginning and through whom “all things were made” (John 1:1–3), not a being who came into existence as one god among many.

The same is true for the meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the official teaching of the Watchtower Society, there is no triune God. Jehovah alone is God, and Jesus is a created being, the first and greatest creature of God, identified with Michael the archangel. In that system, Christ is not confessed as the eternal Son who shares the one divine nature with the Father and the Spirit, but as a lesser, created being through whom God does His work. The Holy Spirit is not worshiped as a divine person, but spoken of as an impersonal active force. Whatever sincerity may be present among individual Witnesses, this is a different God and a different Christ from the One revealed in Scripture and confessed by the historic Christian church. I could not, in good conscience, sit in a Kingdom Hall and join in songs, prayers, and teaching that deny the deity of Christ and the personhood of the Spirit. To do so would be to treat as Christian worship what Scripture identifies as something else.

If a Muslim, a Mormon, and a biblical Christian stand in a room and each says, “I believe in Jesus,” we have to ask what each one means by that name. The Muslim Jesus is not the Son of God and did not die on the cross. The Mormon Jesus is a created spirit child of Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother, the elder brother of Lucifer. The Jesus of Scripture is the eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, who was with God in the beginning and is Himself God, the Creator of all things. We are not talking about three slightly different portraits of the same person. We are talking about three fundamentally different Christs.

None of this means I do not respect or care for Roman Catholic, Latter-day Saint, and Jehovah’s Witness friends and neighbors, or for those from other religious traditions. On the contrary, I am grateful for every kindness shown, and I recognize that many within these communities are serious and sincere, and, by God’s common grace, often do much real good for their families, their neighbors, and the wider community. That does not make any of us less in need of the saving grace of Christ. My aim is not to attack anyone, but to remain loyal to the truth about God and His gospel. Because worship is an act of participation, not a matter of merely sitting in a room, I cannot attend certain services and behave as if we were honoring the same God, the same Christ, and the same way of salvation, when Scripture, together with the official teaching of that church or religion, shows that we are not. In my understanding, doing so would be to engage in false worship. A conscience held captive to the Word of God must refuse that.

How can we know God exists?

Posted on by

I am excited to launch a new series that tackles some of the most common and pressing questions people have about the Christian faith today. We will look at them honestly and carefully. We will not dodge the difficult ones.

If someone claims to own a rare and priceless jewel, the best way to prove it is simple: invite people to examine it closely, hold it to the light, test it, and ask tough questions. A real jewel can take the scrutiny. Christianity makes an even bolder claim. It says it is not just one religious option among many, but the actual truth about God, reality, and the human condition. If that claim is legitimate, honest questions, even the sharpest ones, are not a threat. They are an opportunity.

That is exactly what this “Got Questions?” series is about. We are putting the jewel on the table, turning on the lights, and examining it together. I hope you will discover the Christian faith does not shrink from investigation. It welcomes it, and it offers thoughtful, satisfying answers to those who are willing to listen with an open mind and weigh the evidence fairly.

Here is the first one: “How can we know God exists?”

This is not just a philosophical puzzle. It is a deeply personal question. If there is no God, then we are alone in a silent universe, left to invent our own meaning. If there is a God, everything changes. If you are asking this question, you are not alone, and the Bible does not tell you to shut off your mind. Scripture teaches that God has not left us in the dark about His existence. He has given clear pointers in the world around us, in our own hearts, and supremely in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The first thing to notice is this: the Bible does not begin with formal philosophical arguments for God’s existence. From the very first verse, “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1), His reality is simply assumed. There is no opening chapter of arguments, only the declaration that God is, and that He is the Creator of all things. The Bible also says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). Now, nobody likes being called a fool, and I’m not using this verse to insult anyone’s intelligence. The Bible’s point is that denying God isn’t a sign of superior thinking but of a heart condition all of us naturally share until God opens our eyes. In Scripture, “the fool” is not someone mentally slow, but someone who denies what is plain and obvious.

Romans 1 says that people “suppress the truth” about God. The idea is to hold down what keeps pushing up, like pressing a beach ball underwater. Paul writes that God’s eternal power and divine nature “have been clearly perceived … so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). In other words, not believing in God is not just one respectable option among many. It is a moral response to truth we know deep down, even as we push it away. Many honest atheists would say, “I’m not suppressing anything. I genuinely don’t see the evidence.” The Bible’s answer is that sin’s distorting effect runs deeper than we realize, affecting even what seems obvious to us. This isn’t about intelligence or sincerity, but about the spiritual condition we all share until God opens our eyes. That should not make Christians proud or harsh, but humble, because all of us by nature resist the God who has made Himself known to us.

First, we see evidence of God in creation itself. Whether you look through a telescope at the vastness of space or through a microscope at the intricate machinery of a single cell, you are not looking at an accident. Consider DNA: a four-letter information system that writes the instructions for every cell in your body. Even the fine balance of our own planet points to this. The sun is about 93 million miles away from the earth. If our planet were significantly closer, life would burn away. If it were much farther, the earth would freeze. Critics say we only think this is remarkable because we’re the ones who survived to notice it. But that doesn’t explain why the universe permits life at all, or why its fundamental constants are set with such precision that even tiny variations would make chemistry itself impossible. The odds against a life-permitting universe are staggeringly high.

Now, some will say, “But couldn’t evolution explain apparent design without a Designer?” Here’s the thing: even if evolution describes how life develops, it doesn’t explain why there’s a universe capable of evolution in the first place, or why it’s governed by rational laws our minds can understand. You still need a Lawgiver behind the laws of nature.

Many thoughtful scientists have been struck by this kind of design. Dr. Ming Wang, a Harvard and MIT trained eye surgeon, spent decades as an atheist. After performing over 55,000 eye surgeries, he concluded that the staggering complexity of the human eye could not be explained by blind chance. A professor’s simple question shattered his atheism: “If a pile of random metal cannot assemble itself into a car, how could the far more complex human eye arise by pure randomness?” Dr. Wang now tells young people they do not have to choose between science and faith, but can embrace both under the Lordship of Christ. The Bible says, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Just as a painting points to a painter, the finely tuned, intelligible world we live in points to an intelligent, powerful Creator. It is reasonable to believe that a personal God stands behind a world filled with design, order, and beauty.

Second, we sense God’s reality in our own consciences. Across cultures and throughout history, people have had an inner sense that some things are truly right and wrong, and that our choices matter. The Bible explains that God has written His law on our hearts (Romans 2:15). Even when we do something wrong in secret, we often feel that inner sting. That is more than social conditioning. It is God’s law pressing on our consciences. Our thirst for justice, our outrage at evil, and our longing for ultimate meaning are not random feelings. They are signposts that point beyond ourselves to a moral Lawgiver, One who cares about good and evil and will one day set all things right.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that when two people argue, they almost always appeal to some standard of fairness they expect the other person to recognize. We don’t just have different preferences. We act as if real moral truth exists that applies to both of us. That only makes sense if there’s a Moral Lawgiver beyond us both.

Here’s why this matters so urgently: that inner sense of right and wrong isn’t just informing you that God exists. It’s warning you that you’ll one day answer to Him. Every one of us has violated that law written on our hearts. The bad news is we’re accountable. The good news is that God has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ.

Third, God has made Himself known in history through Jesus Christ. The claim of Christianity is not that we discovered God by our own efforts, but that God came to us. Jesus did not only teach about God. He claimed to be God in human flesh and backed that claim with His sinless life, His public miracles, His sacrificial death, and His bodily resurrection on the third day. The New Testament does not present the resurrection as a vague spiritual idea, but as a real historical event. The tomb was empty. The risen Christ appeared to many witnesses. The resurrection isn’t just well-attested. It explains things that otherwise make no sense. Why would the disciples, terrified and scattered after the crucifixion, suddenly become bold enough to face torture and death? Why would they invent a story where women (whose testimony wasn’t valued in that culture) were the first witnesses? Why did the movement explode in the very city where Jesus was executed, where His body could have been produced to stop Christianity before it started? The apostles were willing to suffer and die rather than deny what they had seen and heard. On that basis, they proclaimed that God has made Jesus “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and that He “will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).

Ultimately, the question of God’s existence is not merely about winning a debate. It is an invitation. The God who made you calls you to know Him, to be forgiven through Jesus’ death on the cross, and to receive new life by His resurrection. If you are wrestling with this, here is a good next step: pray honestly, “God, if You are there, please show Yourself to me.” Then begin reading the Gospel of John with an open Bible and an open mind. Christians are not better than anyone else. We are sinners whom God has graciously opened to the truth we once resisted. If you sense that you have been pushing this truth away, you are not alone. All of us, by nature, do the same until God, in His kindness, opens our eyes. If you want to go deeper on this, consider reading Tim Keller’s The Reason for God or R. C. Sproul’s If There’s a God, Why Are There Atheists?, and we would be glad to talk with you in person at King’s Church.

N. T. Wright’s Quiet Undoing of the Gospel

Posted on by

The Scholar Who Softened Sin:

N. T. Wright and the New Perspective’s Quiet Undoing of the Gospel

Sheepfold Under Siege — Article 6

✒️ The Pilgrim’s Post (facebook)

Introduction — When Brilliance Becomes a Mist

Some wolves roar.

Some wolves charm.

But some wolves simply rearrange words until clarity dissolves like breath on a mirror.

N. T. Wright is not a villain of the faith.

He is a man of stunning intellect, warm pastoral tone, and genuine love for Scripture. His writings pulse with literary beauty and historical insight. He is the kind of author whose books young seminarians dog-ear and underline, whose lectures flood YouTube with academic gentleness, and whose commentaries adorn the shelves of pastors longing to sound learned.

And yet, the danger he represents is not loud—it is quiet.

Not rebellious—it is respectable.

Not flamboyant—it is scholarly.

Wright’s influence has shaped an entire generation of pastors into believing that the classical Reformed doctrines were “misreadings,” that the Reformers misunderstood Paul, and that justification—the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls—is something more ecclesial, more eschatological, more nuanced… something less sharp, less judicial, less about guilt and wrath.

In Wright’s hands, sin becomes a failure of vocation more than a moral revolt.

Justification becomes a declaration of covenant membership more than a verdict of righteousness.

The gospel becomes a story of God’s big project rather than Christ saving sinners from the penalty of their sin.

The cross becomes a doorway into the new creation more than the substitutionary sacrifice that bore divine wrath.

Wright does not deny the gospel.

He simply detunes it—shifting the frequency until the melody of grace becomes a background hum instead of a trumpet blast.

And because he speaks softly, the danger spreads widely.

This article is not an assault on Wright’s character.

It is a pastoral lament over the fruit of his theology—a drift that has quietly unstitched some of the Church’s most essential threads.

For as Paul warned:

> “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

— Galatians 5:9

With Wright, the leaven is nuance.

—

1. The Teacher & His Appeal — Why N. T. Wright Became a Hero to the Modern Church

N. T. Wright is the kind of scholar whose appeal seems obvious the moment one reads him.

He is brilliant.

He reads Scripture in stereo while many read it in mono. His historical imagination brings first-century Judaism alive.

He is pastoral.

Unlike many academics, Wright writes as though he loves ordinary Christians.

He is hopeful.

His emphasis on resurrection, new creation, and kingdom renewal appeals deeply to modern believers weary of cultural decay.

He is gentle.

His tone lacks harshness; his critiques are indirect; his persona is that of a patient teacher, not a bombastic polemicist.

He offers a “bigger story.”

Modern Christians feel starved for narrative richness. Wright’s sweeping description of God’s renewal project feels like a feast.

He speaks the academic language younger pastors want to master.

Many evangelicals are academically insecure. Wright gives them a way to speak like scholars without sounding fundamentalist.

He seems to unify things that others divide.

Law and gospel. Kingdom and cross. History and theology. Church and world. Sin and brokenness.

In short:

Wright makes Christianity feel intelligent, beautiful, and narratively compelling.

This is the appeal.

And that appeal makes his drift all the more subtle—and all the more dangerous.

—

2. The Drift — The New Perspective on Paul and the Rewriting of the Gospel’s Grammar

The center of Wright’s doctrinal shift is his advocacy of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)—a scholarly movement that reinterprets:

justification

righteousness

law

works

covenant

and sin itself

in ways that depart significantly from historic Reformed theology.

To be clear, Wright is not the originator of NPP; that belongs largely to E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn. But Wright became its most popular and pastoral voice—its ambassador to the broader evangelical world.

His tone softened what should have alarmed.

His gentleness carried ideas that sharper men would have resisted.

Let’s examine the drift.

—

A. Justification Redefined — From Courtroom Verdict to Covenant Membership

Historically, Scripture teaches:

Justification = God declaring sinners righteous on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness.

(Rom. 3:21–26; 4:1–8; 5:1; Phil. 3:9)

Wright teaches something else:

1. Justification is not about how you get saved, but about who is in the covenant community.

He calls justification a “lawcourt metaphor”—not the heart of the gospel but its boundary-marking declaration.

2. Righteousness is not imputed righteousness but “covenant faithfulness.”

In Wright’s framework, “the righteousness of God” is God’s faithful action to keep His covenant, not His gift of righteousness to sinners.

3. The final justification will rest partly on the believer’s Spirit-produced life.

This last point dangerously blurs the line between:

faith and faithfulness

justification and sanctification

grace and works

The Reformed tradition has always insisted:

We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.

Wright subtly shifts this:

We are justified by belonging to the covenant community—and our final justification reflects that belonging.

This is not mere nuance.

It is a redefinition.

—

B. Sin Softened — From Guilt Before God to Failure of Vocation

For Wright:

Sin is humanity failing to “image God” properly.

It is brokenness more than rebellion.

It is dysfunction more than treason.

It is missing our calling more than incurring divine wrath.

Wright does speak of sin as rebellion at times—but functionally, his system frames sin primarily as a vocational failure, not a courtroom guilt demanding atonement.

This matters because if sin is a failure of vocation, then salvation becomes restoration of purpose, not rescue from punishment.

Wright does not deny substitutionary atonement.

But he tends to eclipse it under the weight of “kingdom theology” and “new creation participation.”

The result:

The cross becomes less a wrath-bearing sacrifice and more a symbol of how God launches new creation.

A beautiful idea—

but one that dilutes the horror of our guilt and the glory of Christ’s substitution.

—

C. The Gospel Reframed — From Christ Saving Sinners to God Launching His Renewed Creation

In Wright’s hands, the gospel becomes:

“Jesus is Lord, therefore new creation has begun.”

“Jesus is raised, therefore the world is renewed.”

“Jesus is king, therefore the kingdom is here.”

All true.

But incomplete.

Wright’s gospel is cosmic—

but not sufficiently personal.

Biblical gospel:

Christ bore our sins.

Christ satisfied wrath.

Christ redeemed sinners.

Christ grants righteousness.

Wright’s gospel:

Christ defeated death.

Christ launched new creation.

Christ fulfills Israel’s story.

Christ restores humanity’s vocation.

Again, true.

But insufficient.

There is a difference between:

“You are guilty, and Christ takes your place,”

and

“Humanity has failed, and Christ shows the true story.”

Wright emphasizes the latter until the former becomes a footnote.

—

D. The Reformers Critiqued — The Historic Gospel Cast as a Misreading

Wright frequently claims:

Luther misunderstood Judaism.

The Reformers misread Paul.

The church has exaggerated justification.

Imputation is a later invention.

Reformed categories are “medieval.”

But the burden of proof lies not on Paul, nor on 2,000 years of consistent exegesis, but on Wright’s reconstruction.

A reconstruction that is elegant, learned, beautiful—

but not apostolic.

—

3. The Fruit — A Church With Great Storytelling but Weak Repentance

Wright’s drift is subtle, but its fruit is not.

A. A Generation Embarrassed by Imputation

Pastors influenced by Wright speak glowingly of the kingdom…

and awkwardly of the cross.

They speak confidently of justice…

and hesitantly of justification.

They love speaking of story…

but grow uneasy speaking of wrath.

B. Sin Becomes Sociological, Not Moral

In Wright’s framework, sin is often:

exile

brokenness

the “fracturing of vocation”

systemic disorder

Rarely is it:

personal guilt before a holy God.

C. Churches Preach Resurrection Life But Not Penal Substitution

Wright’s emphasis on resurrection is glorious—but often unbalanced.

It becomes:

“God’s new world has begun!”

without

“Flee from the wrath to come.”

D. The Urgency of Conversion Is Replaced with the Calm of Vocation

Wright’s message sounds like:

“Live into your renewed humanity.”

“Join God’s larger story.”

“Become what creation intended.”

Missing is the burning urgency of:

“Repent and believe the gospel.”

E. The Gospel Becomes a Symphony Without a Melody

Beautiful orchestra.

No saving note.

—

4. The Call — Receive Wright’s Gifts, Reject His Drift

We must be careful and gracious here.

N. T. Wright is not a heretic.

He is a flawed brother whose gifts we may receive with thanksgiving:

his love for Scripture

his historical imagination

his literary clarity

his pastoral gentleness

his emphasis on resurrection hope

his insistence that Christianity is not escapist but world-renewing

These are precious gifts.

But we must also reject, firmly:

his redefinition of justification

his softening of sin

his eclipsing of substitution

his vocational reframing of salvation

his critique of imputation

his diminishing of penal atonement

his overemphasis on kingdom themes at the expense of the cross

We can honor his scholarship while refusing his system.

For the gospel is not a vocational summons.

It is a divine rescue.

The cross is not a symbol of renewed humanity.

It is the bloody satisfaction of divine justice.

Justification is not a declaration of community membership.

It is the declaration that guilty sinners are righteous because Another stands in their place.

Wright tells a grand story.

But sinners do not need a grand story.

They need a Savior.

And they need Him not as Guide, Vision, and Vocation—

but as Substitute, Sacrifice, and Righteousness.

Christ for us.

Christ instead of us.

Christ in our place.

This is the heart of the gospel Wright obscures.

—

Citations / Sources

Primary Wright Works Referenced:

What St. Paul Really Said

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision

Various public lectures & interviews

Reformed Responses:

John Piper, The Future of Justification

Thomas Schreiner, articles on NPP

Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul

Douglas Moo, Romans commentary

Guy Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul

Scripture Anchors:

Romans 3–5; Galatians 1–3; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9–10.