Partner
  1. 6 min

    Who Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    cannot avoid. Only God is to be worshiped. Jesus received worship; therefore, Jesus is God. However, while every English translation of Scripture rightly reads “they worshiped him” in Luke 24:52, the New World Translation reads “they did obeisance to him.”
    Focus on the scriptural teaching about the just punishment for sin. Scripture teaches that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Physical death leads to eternal death for those under the wrath and curse of God. Jesus and the Apostles taught that the just penalty for sin is “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46; see also 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7). God is infinite and eternal; therefore, one sin against the infinite and eternal God deserves infinite and eternal punishment. Coming to terms with what our sin deserves is essential to seeing our need for the atoning sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Conversely, if there is no eternal punishment, men should simply desire to live their lives for possessions and pleasure (1 Cor. 15:32).
    Ligonier Editorial
  3. 4 messages

    Ask R.C. 2007: Best of Listener Questions

    People have real, important, and difficult questions when it comes to theology and the teachings of our faith. In this series of “Ask R.C.,” Dr. R.C. Sproul answers a variety of questions about the Bible, philosophy, the Christian life, and many other important theological issues called in by listeners and supporters of Ligonier Ministries. 
    Questions include: 
    • What is your opinion about the age of the earth and its theological significance?
    • Could Revelation 11:18 be interpreted in an ecological context?
    • Can you explain the Catholic doctrine of purgatory?
    • If salvation is based on God’s election, how can there be any guarantee your children will believe (Titus 1:6)?
    • How can God be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent in his divine nature but not his human nature?
    • In John 4:24, what does it mean to worship God in Spirit and in Truth?
    • Since Satan cannot be omnipresent and omnipotent, who tempts us?
    • What is the Christian response to those political groups who object to the Ten Commandments today?
    • What is the evidence that God has given someone His Holy Spirit?
    • What was the nature of Adam’s will before the Fall?
    • What is the response to Kant’s Critique Pure Reason?
    • What did Christ do during the three days he was in the tomb and before he rose from the dead?
    • How do we respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses claim against Jesus being the ‘Alpha & Omega?’
    • What is the difference between Adam’s state pre-Fall and our state in heaven?
    • Is heaven biblical?
    • Why does the Holy Spirit have the characteristics of a person but has never taken on a human nature?
    • Does Calvinism say that God caused Adam and Eve to sin? Is God the author of sin?
    • Do you believe the church will be raptured in the midst of the tribulation period?
    • What does the phrase “because of the angels” mean in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16?
    • What happened in the temple immediately upon Christ’s death (Matt. 27:50-52)?
    R.C. Sproul
  8. 4 min

    A Snare in Your Midst

    size and endurance of such groups tend to give them more credibility as time passes and as more people associate with their beliefs. When we look at groups, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we find elements of truth within their confessions. Yet at the same time, they express clear denials of what historically may be considered essential truths of the Christian faith. This certainly includes their unabashed denial of the deity of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have this denial in common. Though both place Jesus in some type of exalted position within their respective creeds, He does not attain the level of deity. Both groups consider Christ an exalted creature. Following the thinking of the ancient heretic Arius, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the New Testament does not teach the deity of Christ; rather, they argue it teaches He is the exalted firstborn of all creation. They say He is the first creature made by God, who then is given superior power and authority over the rest of creation. Though Jesus is lifted up in such Christology, it still falls far short of Christian orthodoxy, which confesses the deity of Christ. Passages in the New Testament such as Jesus being “begotten” and His being the “firstborn of creation” are incorrectly used to justify this creaturely definition of Christ.
    In the first three centuries of Christian history, the biblical passage that dominated reflection on the church’s understanding of Christ was the prologue of the gospel of John. This prologue contains the affirmation of Christ's being the Logos, or the eternal Word of God. John declares in his gospel that the Logos was “with God in the beginning, and was God.” This “with God” suggests a distinction between the Logos and God, but the identification by the linking verb “was” indicates an identity between the Logos and God. The way in which this identity is denied by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cultists is by substituting the indefinite article in the text, rendering it that the Logos was “a god.” In order to wrest this interpretation from the text, one must have a prior affirmation of some form of polytheism. Such polytheism is utterly foreign to Judeo-Christian theology, where deity is understood in monotheistic terms.
    The threat of cultic distortions is something the church must struggle with in every generation and in every age. It is also important to understand that even legitimate churches may contain within it practices that reflect the behavior of the cults. Cults can emerge within the structures of certain churches. In the Roman communion, for example, we see in Haiti a mixture of Roman Catholic theology with the cultic practices of voodoo. Also in that same communion there is no question that large groups of people venerate Mary to a degree that is beyond the limits espoused by that church itself, degenerating their worship into a cult mentality. But such can be the case among Lutherans, Presbyterians, or any group, when orthodoxy is
    R.C. Sproul
  9. 5 min

    Who Do You Say That I Am?

    ”In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The introductory segment of the prologue of the gospel of John was the most carefully examined text of the New Testament for the first three centuries of Christian history. Of all the theological issues and questions facing the early church, none was more acute than the church’s understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.
    The New Testament devotes plentiful attention to the person and work of Jesus—what He said, what He did, where He came from, and where He went. But nothing captivated the minds of the intellectual leaders of the early church as much as the question, “Who was He?”
    The question “Who was Jesus?” forced attention on the Johannine concept of the logos. This Greek term, simply translated “word,” was the deepest idea about Jesus introduced in the New Testament.
    We note the distinction John makes when he writes: “The Word was with God and the Word was God.” At worst, John falls into a ghastly contradiction between two assertions made about the Logos with barely a breath taken between them. When we say someone or something is with another that normally indicates a distinction between them. We note an obvious difference between distinction and identity. When we assert that two things are identical we usually mean there is no difference or distinction between them. Yet, here John does two things: On the one hand he distinguishes between the Logos and God, while on the other hand he identifies the Logos with God.
    Contradiction? Not necessarily, though we live in an era in which theologians, both liberal and conservative, are not only content with, but take delight in contradictions. However, if we are to retain theological sanity, we must reject the idea that these assertions are in fact contradictory. Nor do we wish to succumb to the popular but deadly notion now popular in formerly Reformed circles, that real contradictions can be resolved in the mind of God. This new irrationalism gives us an irrational God with an irrational Bible and an irrational theology; all defended by an irrational apologetics. This movement rests on the false premise that the only alternative to irrationalism is rationalism. But one need not be a rationalist in order to be rational. Flights into the absurd may delight existential philosophers, but they slander the Holy Spirit of truth.
    Nor can we solve the tension in John by appealing to the absence of the definite article (as do the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) and render the text: “And the Word was a God.” This feeble attempt at resolution yields only polytheism.
    It was this type of question that impelled the church to examine and test Christological formulations for three centuries. The watershed confession of the fourth-century Nicene Creed did not leap suddenly on the scene like Athena out of the head of Zeus. The formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity was codified in the fourth century but was by no
    R.C. Sproul
  10. 2 min

    Sects of Seduction

    From time to time I get a knock on the door from two exuberant representatives of one of the local cult chapters. Although such visits have become less frequent in recent years, it is generally my practice to step outside for a nice little chat. The friendly couple always seem overjoyed at the fact that I am willing to take the time to talk with them, and usually, during our formal introductions, I am thinking to myself: “They have no idea what they’re in for.” After listening intently to their presentation and their questions, I begin to reply with concise, reasoned questions that always seem to be a factor in their change in demeanor. Within minutes, the exuberant facade that radiated from their smiling faces turns into a fortress of defense.
    The last couple who visited me told me plainly they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, to which I responded, “So am I.” They soon discovered, however, that my definition of being a witness of Jehovah was quite different to theirs. After I spent some time explaining the necessity of the deity of Christ for fallen man’s salvation, I asked them one simple question: “If Jesus were to walk up and greet you, what would you do?” To this question they had absolutely no programmed response. “According to your beliefs,” I said, “if Jesus were to come and greet us here and now it would be entirely appropriate for you to shake His hand and say, ‘It is so nice to meet you, my friend.’ But, if He were to come and greet me, the only appropriate thing for me to do would be to fall at His feet and worship Him as my Lord and my God.” After I said this, I observed something I never had before. The younger of the two men began to cry. Then, within seconds a van pulled up and they were whisked away.
    When I recall that experience, I still pray for that young man. For just as every member of every cult is enticed by those who have disguised themselves as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14), that young man had been seduced to follow and serve as a witness not of the one and only eternal, triune Jehovah but, instead, of the prince of darkness whose minions have deceived multitudes throughout the world. For this reason, the cults of the world cannot rightly be called “sects of Christianity.” On the contrary, they are sects of Satan himself, for they have manufactured another gospel, and they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And, indeed, without repentance, it is before His face they will suffer His judgment.
    Burk Parsons
  11. 5 min

    Modern Cultic Tendencies

    culture in which there is certainly no place for truth is what has been termed “postmodernism.” Postmodernism is difficult to define briefly, but it involves a number of movements in art, architecture, literature, and such that are identified by their rejection of modernism, or “the Enlightenment project,” and its appeals to universal norms. “The animating spirit of postmodernism,” as Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed, “is radical individualism and skepticism that rejects any idea of truth, knowledge, or objectivity.” Obviously, those who reject the idea of objective truth will not be able to discern truth from error. The extreme relativism and irrationalism of post-modern culture is found throughout the church today.
    It is important to take into account not only important intellectual realities, but also technological innovations that have dramatically altered our cultural landscape. One such important technological advance is the Internet. In the nineteenth century, if a person wanted to propagate his teachings, he could find places to speak, or he could attempt to have them published and distributed more widely. Without radio or recording devices, the audience for public speaking was normally limited to those actually present (that is, unless someone transcribed the spoken message). If one desired to publish his teachings, he generally had to find a publisher willing to publish his work. In other words, the fact that a person had something he wanted to say to as many people as possible did not mean that he would be able to do so.
    Not so today. The Internet has given a printing press to everyone with access to a computer. With the Internet, there are no publishers or editors who decide what will and will not be published. On the one hand, this has provided numerous opportunities for those with good and substantive material to make that material available to a wider audience. But it also provides a way for any cult to propagate falsehood. And the Internet does not discriminate. One can find the works of a Calvin or a Warfield on the same computer that one finds the works of a Joseph Smith or a John Shelby Spong. The user of the Internet alone must discern truth from error, but in the current relativistic and anti-intellectual climate, such discernment is rare.
    The Internet has made it far easier for cult leaders, schismatics, and theological mavericks to spread their message. Those with hyper-individualistic and cultic tendencies can set up shop on the Web and spread their messages around the world. Today, older cults such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have professionally-designed web sites. Theological mavericks of every stripe have set up web sites of varying quality espousing their mutually contradictory interpretations of Scripture. Many of these schismatics use their web sites to set themselves up autonomously as little cyber-popes, regularly pronouncing anathemas on any and all who would dare disagree with any of their idiosyncratic and unbiblical opinions.
    There have always been wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, the anti-intellectual and anti-theological climate in today’s world has made it more difficult
    Keith Mathison
  12. 4 min

    One Lord

    that is the Bible (Matt. 11:27; 2 Tim. 3:16–17).
    So What?
    Biblical monotheism is not mere abstract speculation but has at least four practical consequences for life and ministry:
    Certainty—God clearly and truly reveals Himself, so we are not left to guess what He expects from us. Modern people often view themselves as “seekers” doing their best to figure out God. Yet mere conjecture is a shaky foundation for one’s eternal destiny.
    Courage—Western Christians are not yet being thrown to the lions. Yet if we ever face serious suffering, we will not persevere if we are unconvinced that the God of Scripture is the only God. We will deny Christ at the first hint of trouble if we waver on the fact that one God means one Savior for the world. Without this foundation, we will bow to religious relativism. Daniel’s commitment to monotheism strengthened him to resist paganism. By God’s grace, we follow his example. We fear not what our enemies can do to our goods, kindred, or mortal lives, for if there is only one God and we are on His side, persecution is but a “light momentary affliction” compared to the “eternal weight of glory” in store for us (2 Cor. 4:7–18).
    Conviction—Conviction and courage are inseparable and mutually dependent. Courage enables us to persevere in love for the one true God. Conviction enables us to take a stand even before trouble comes our way. If our faith is grounded in the fact that there is only one God and therefore one truth, then our preaching, teaching, evangelism, and cultural engagement will be strong. We will confront fallen humanity’s strongholds, and the Spirit will use our words to soften the hearts of sinners. The church sorely needs men and women of godly conviction. Such conviction begins with an unwavering commitment to biblical monotheism.
    Clarity—Understanding biblical monotheism helps us to be clear about what we believe and are to teach. We do not believe in one God who is known by many names and who offers many paths of salvation. We do not affirm that it is enough to believe one God exists. We confess that we must trust in the God of the Bible, who is not worshiped even by the most well-meaning Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, animists, or modern Jews.
    Not Unitarianism
    As for clarity, biblical monotheism is not unitarianism. The fullness of the Shema’s testimony to God’s oneness is in the Bible’s teaching that His oneness is not undifferentiated unity. His oneness pertains to His divine essence, but this one divine essence is shared fully and equally by three distinct persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully and equally divine, but the Father is not the Son, who is not the Spirit (John 1:1; John 14:16–17; 2 Cor. 13:14).
    Salvation is the work of the triune God. The Father sends the Son; the Son atones for sin; and the Spirit applies this atonement to us. The Spirit regenerates His people; thus, they trust in the Son alone; and the
    Robert Rothwell
  13. 2 min

    5 Recommended Resources on False Teaching

    Our God is entirely trustworthy because He is a truth-telling God who never lies (Num. 23:19; John 17:17; Titus 1:2). Yet in this fallen world, the devil spreads falsehood (John 8:44), and false teachers who reject or obscure the truth of God’s Word abound (2 Peter 2:1). How can believers identify teaching that is not in line with Scripture and help others gain freedom from falsehood? The following resources, curated by the Ligonier editorial team, can help Christians identify and refute false teaching so that they may guard the precious truth of God’s Word.
    A Field Guide on False Teaching by Ligonier Ministries 
    This resource provides an overview of the major theological errors, cults, and world religions to help believers guard against the pernicious influence of false teaching. By exposing how false teaching runs counter to Scripture, readers can not only be strengthened in their own lives, but also seek to protect and proclaim the truth in their churches and among believing and unbelieving loved ones.
    The Other Worldview by Peter Jones
    This book addresses the two basic worldviews that all religions and philosophies can be divided into: “Oneism” and “Twoism.” Jones traces the roots and spread of Oneism’s influence throughout the Western world and exposes the dangers of such a worldview. Only Twoism, the belief that a distinction exists between the Creator and creation, offers a biblical worldview that reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ as humanity’s only hope.
    Cults and the Occult by Edmond Gruss 
    For readers looking for a helpful overview of the major cults, this book covers fifteen well-known cults, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Astrology, Christian Science, and the Baha’i faith. A biblical analysis of each group is provided, along with additional resources, including bibliographies for additional study.
    The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson
    In this volume, Robertson addresses the case for the spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy being in use today, arguing from Scripture that the fascination with these gifts reveals the church’s failure to grasp the fullness of New Testament teaching and the superiority of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who is the Final Word for believers today.
    A Christian Introduction to Religions of the World by Johannes G. Vos
    This short book begins by examining the origin of religion according to the Bible as well as the Christian approach toward those who embrace false gods. The remaining chapters address particular religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Islam, and Judaism.
    Karrie Hahn
  14. 4 min

    New Testament Christology

    Jesus is the Christ (Acts 17:2–3) and Lord (1 Cor. 1:2–3) and confesses the deity of Christ (Col. 1:15–20; 2:9; Phil. 2:6–11). When we recall the basic confession of Old Testament Jews that the Lord is one, these statements about Jesus coming from the mouth of Jews are all the more striking.
    Several passages in the New Testament explicitly refer to Jesus as God. The Gospel of John, for example, opens with a declaration of the deity of Christ: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it . . . But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–5, 12–14)
    Here the Word, who is identified with Jesus (v. 14), is said to be "God" (v. 1). The exegetical contortions of Jehovah's Witnesses notwithstanding, this passage is unambiguous in its declaration of the deity of Christ.
    The Apostle Paul also explicitly calls Jesus God in several places. In Romans 9:5, he writes: "To them [the Jews] belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." Jesus Christ, he says, is God over all. In Titus 2:13, Paul speaks of the appearing of "the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." The words "God" and "Savior" modify "Jesus Christ." That is, Jesus Christ is God and Savior. Peter, too, confesses that Jesus is God and Savior in the first verse of his second epistle. To think about the implications of these statements for even a moment is mind-boggling.
    The Old Testament clearly declared that the Lord our God is one (Deut. 6:4). The New Testament continues to emphasize that God is one (Mark 12:29). Yet, at the same time, the New Testament also declares that Jesus is God. Is the New Testament contradicting the Old Testament? How were Christians to understand these claims? How could the Church confess that God is "one" and at the same time confess that Jesus Christ is God? It took the church several centuries to work through these issues and explain the teaching of the New Testament in a way that took into account all of the evidence.
    Keith Mathison
  15. 7 min

    The Liberal View of Justification

    we do not consider it a form of Christianity. In my own book on the cults [Theology of the Major Sects, Baker Book House, 1960], I class it with the non-Christian sects. When discussing the sects, I mention that it is far more of a threat to the Christian church than are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists put together. Anybody who is at all knowledgeable about those and other cults is immediately aware that they are not orthodox Christian bodies. But liberalism, flying at a “low level of visibility,” is often not seen as a cult or sect, which in fact it is. Consequently, it probably leads more Christian people astray than all the recognized cults combined, precisely because it is not recognized as a cult. On the contrary, it falsely represents itself as, and frequently is thought by its victims to be, a bona fide expression of the Christian religion.
    We can see, however, that it is categorically opposed to Christianity at its heart. The way of salvation taught by the Christian religion (the liberal Mr. Cahill very correctly observed) is by faith in Jesus Christ; whereas, according to liberalism, a person is justified by his own efforts. He thinks he is justified by faith in himself.
    (This series will continue with Gerstner's look at the neoorthodox view of justification)
    Excerpted from Primitive Theology by John H. Gerstner.
    Click here to read the first part of this series.
    John H. Gerstner
  16. 3 min

    Preaching Grace

    It was a beautiful, sunny morning. My wife and I were sitting on our porch, enjoying a rare, completely undisturbed moment together, when a white sedan drove up our laneway and stopped a few feet from us. The well-dressed driver got out, while the young woman remained in the car. I could see it in an instant. I looked at my wife Nancy, and whispered: “Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll take care of this.”
    The man came up to me and said, “Good morning.” Before he could say another word, I took the offensive. “Yes, and the world is getting worse and worse, isn’t it?” “Uh, yes,” he replied, “but….” Before he could say anything, I leapt in like Jet Li in the movie Fearless.
    “The issue,” I said, “is not how I will deal with the problems of the world. I know we are both convinced we have the answer. My question to you is this: where will your answer lead you?” He opened his mouth to answer, except that Jet Li was faster. I silenced him once again, changing the subject and asking, “Can you say that you are ‘born again’?” “No, but…,” he weakly stammered. I interrupted, “There are no but’s, my friend. The Bible is contrary to what your group teaches. ‘You MUST be born again’!”
    I could feel the man shrivel against my now almost frenzied assault. I couldn’t stop. As I went in for the kill, I remembered the scene where Jet Li annihilates the opposition with a dizzying array of spin kicks.
    “Jesus, my friend, is GOD!” I shouted into his face. I didn’t even need my Bible for this, as I boldly rattled off verse after verse. “‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD was God.’ John 1:1. Notice it’s not ‘a god’ as your New World Translation suggests.” I looked into the car and told the young woman that she should tell her friend to use a real translation.
    I wasn’t done yet, not by a long shot. I started pacing back and forth. My congregation of one and his car-sitting sidekick stared bewilderedly at me. As the man tried to interject, I went on: “He is ‘God OVER ALL’ Romans 9:5. If that doesn’t answer it for you, what about Colossians 2:9? ‘In him the whole fullness of DEITY dwells bodily.”’ I then repeated those words for emphasis, “FULLNESS OF DEITY!”
    The man seemed extremely agitated by this point. But here came my spin kick. “One last thing,” I said, “and then you can say whatever you would like in response. In Revelation 1:17–18 it says: ‘I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’ Who do you say that is?” “Don’t answer,” I replied to my own question, “We both know it’s Jesus. Dead and alive. First and Last. Interesting, isn’t it? Who does the Old Testament say was ‘the
    Richard Ganz
  17. 6 min

    No Other Gospel

    and other Bible passages the equation is: Faith equals salvation plus works. In cultic thinking the equation is: Faith plus works equals salvation. Scripture is clear that good works are the result of God’s grace; they do not earn salvation (Gal. 5:22–25).
    Divide. Does the organization claim to be the only one that has the truth? Does it claim it is God’s sole channel or only true church? As a result, are all other religious organizations to be rejected as false? If a person leaves the group is salvation lost? LDS members believe they belong to “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30). JW believe that since 1919 their organization has served as Jehovah’s “sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come” (Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 590).
    There are four other important characteristics that should be reviewed.
    Doctrinal ambiguity. Are the teachings of the group characterized by doctrinal ambiguity or uncertainty? Are doctrines presented as revealed by God, or as “due- time” light, later rejected or replaced by new understandings? There are many examples of this practice in LDS (polygamy, Adam-God) and JW (The Great Pyramid, the “higher powers” in Rom. 13:1–7) literature.
    False prophecy. Does a study of the group’s history reveal that its leaders have pronounced or promoted false prophecies? This was done either by new revelations or by speculations based on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. Joseph Smith and his successors assumed the title of “prophet,” but more than fifty of Smith’s prophecies failed, as have those of his successors.
    The Jehovah’s Witnesses are notorious for promoting prophetic speculations that have failed (1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1975, etc.). I still remember when JW were speaking of “the remaining months before Armageddon” in 1941. According to the Bible, these failures clearly identify a false prophet (Deut. 18:21–22).
    Sound rules of interpretation. After naming several contemporary cults, Dr. James Sire asks, “how can these very different religious movements claim Scripture for their own? ... They can only do so by violating the principles of sound literary interpretation” (Scripture Twisting, Intervarsity Press, 1980, p. 12). The subtitle explains the book’s focus: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible.
    Semantics. Are biblical terms used but given a different meaning? To be aware of this redefinition of terms is essential if one is to understand how LDS doctrine differs from biblical Christianity. Consider the following (with a Scriptural response). Mormonism views sin as specific acts, not as man’s basic nature (Rom. 5:6–8; Eph. 2:3). The Gospel is explained as the teachings and church ordinances restored by Joseph Smith (1 Cor 15:1–4). Being born again is baptism into the LDS Church (2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Peter 1:23).
    What Is the Christian’s Responsibility? While there are many reasons for the growth of cults, one obvious reason is the lack of biblical understanding and spiritual discernment. Christians must understand the challenge of cults and dedicate themselves to “being prepared to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15), and “to contend for
    Edmond Gruss
  18. 6 min

    The Cult of Personality

    new religions. One of the most notable to emerge in the early nineteenth century was Mormonism. Begun in 1830 by Joseph Smith (1805–1844), following the publication of the Book of Mormon, the Church of the Latter-day Saints became a concoction of distinctively American themes. Smith emerged as a prophet of Jesus Christ, who stood ready to lead his followers into a new age of salvation history. The Book of Mormon itself bore the influence of the King James Version, which Smith knew well. And it allegedly granted to the United States its own special revelation: The land had ancient roots in pre-Columbian immigrants who supposedly left the gold plates that Smith discovered and translated. No matter how far its specific teachings deviated from those of historic Christianity — the doctrine of eternal progression, which assumes man will evolve to divinity, a belief in pre-existent souls, a deviant Christology — Mormonism in several respects reflected the religious context of the nineteenth century. It was a religion that circumvented inherited religious structures, appealed to people without social standing or political clout, and attempted to link America’s history to the history of Israel and the early church.
    Another religion that illustrated the peculiar religious qualities of nineteenth-century America was that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The movement’s founder, Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), who sold men’s clothing in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, tapped the millennial speculations and democratic impulses of the era. This layman’s reading of the Bible established that the second coming of Christ had already taken place in 1874 and that the end of human history would occur some four decades later. Taze lived to see that the world did not end in 1914, but this did not prevent his message, which condemned the churches for false-teaching, the government for abusing its power, and businesses for exploiting the working man, from gaining a considerable following. Indeed, like Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses proved that people unrestrained by preachers and teachers of the Word were capable of combining a smattering of Christian conviction with conspiratorial views about their society to concoct fairly sensational new religions.
    Of course, one lesson from the examples of these nineteenth-century cults is that with freedom in religion comes the potential for great abuse. But the more important moral to this story is a complicated one about the value of religious authority. The American experiment did have the side effect of unleashing the possibility of religious anarchy. But the new political and social order did not undermine the legitimate authority of pastors and churches. In fact, the series of new religions to spring up in the United States is proof of God’s wisdom in providing His church with pastors and teachers whose duty is to divide the Word rightly. To be sure, the authority of the church can be abused — and the Reformation was an attempt to correct such mischief. But the exploitation of authority in no way undermines the legitimacy of church authority. As much as the disestablishment of religion in the United
    D.G. Hart
  19. 3 min

    The Rise of Religious Cults

    Writing early in the last century, J.K. Van Baalen argued that “the cults are the unpaid bills of the church.” Van Baalen’s influential work, The Chaos of the Cults, represented one of the first comprehensive efforts to evaluate the various cults of the day—Spiritism, Theosophy, Christian Science, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Mormonism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others—from the vantage point of orthodox Christianity.
    In Van Baalen’s analysis, orthodox Christianity had opened the door for the cults to proliferate throughout the culture. Sidelined by pragmatism, distracted by divisions, and committed to a “smallest common-denominator faith,” the orthodox churches had left the larger culture, and even some of their own members, unprepared to meet the challenge of the cults.
    If anything, the problem is more acute in our own day. The seductions of postmodernism and the complexities of a pluralistic culture compound the difficulty involved in engaging, understanding, and confronting the cults.
    In one sense, the rise of religious cults is nothing new. The religious pluralism confronted by the apostle Paul at Mars Hill must have represented something like a foreshadowing of postmodern America. This nation’s experiment in religious liberty provided cults with a safe environment for growth even as the spent emotionalism of American revivalism left a vacuum the cults were only too willing to fill. Writing in the 1920s, Charles W. Ferguson described the United States as “overrun with messiahs.”
    These new religious movements attracted both sociological and political attention. Walter R. Martin, whose book, The Kingdom of the Cults, became an evangelical classic, resisted the temptation to reduce the challenge of the cults to sociology. His particular concern was with those cults that, while deviating from historic Christianity, nonetheless insisted “that they are entitled to be classified as Christians.” Martin would cite Professor Lee Belford of New York University as stating, “The problem is essentially theological where the cults are concerned. The answer of the Church must be theological and doctrinal. No sociological or cultural evaluation will do.”
    Confronted by the challenges of the Enlightenment and its aftermath, many Christian denominations appeared confused and defensive about Christianity’s most crucial truth claims. Troubled by questions such as the faith of the unevangelized, the doctrine of predestination, and the anticipation of hell, many Christian churches appeared to lack confidence in biblical doctrines. Beyond this, the existence of rival Christian denominations, focused on debates over what some consider to be secondary issues, left the ground open for movements such as Mormonism to step in and claim to resolve those vexing difficulties.
    Inevitably, any Christian defense had to be rooted in biblical authority. The distinctive Christian revelation claim required orthodox believers to look backward into a distant past in order to define and defend Christianity. As a restoration movement, Joseph Smith and the Mormons claimed to speak with the authority of living apostolic witnesses whose experience was presumably far closer to that of contemporary Americans.
    Against the Christian doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ alone, Mormonism promoted a form of universalism. According to Joseph Smith and later Mormon teachers, hell
    Albert Mohler
  20. 4 min

    One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Worship

    living God. As we stand and say the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, we follow in their footsteps. As we confess, we need to ask God to arouse our emotions. We are saying the very words that were on the lips of martyrs as they died, not ashamed of the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The proclamation of His Word and the creedal declarations are the plumb lines which separate His church from the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians.
    It is wonderful when we have diversity in race and culture worshiping in the same room. However, we must remember that diversity in the same sanctuary is not the truest expression of our catholicity. The catholicity of the church is expressed not mainly in our relationships with each other, but it is expressed in our gathering to worship the Trinitarian God who is one. All of His church worships the same God and Father, and all are indwelt by the same Spirit, who bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God, brothers of Christ, and brothers with each other. Imagine the picture that is seen from heaven each Lord’s Day when people from every race, language, and nation gather before this one God to worship. The sentence I have just written brings to our minds one passage over all others: And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5:9–10)
    That is the song of heaven. Our worship is a prelude and preview to that hymn sung and seen around the globe every Lord’s Day.
    Dear reader, do you understand that every aspect of our worship—our worship in our local church this Sunday—should proclaim that we are a part of the one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic church. This is our calling, our duty, and our joy. It is not easy; it cannot be approached casually as if it did not matter. It requires study and thought, not only by those who plan the specifics of the worship, but also by the worshipers themselves. It requires teaching so that this precious heritage continues in the next generation. It requires constant attention that we might grow in our understanding of worship. Most importantly, it requires a heart filled and energized by the Holy Spirit so that we will not fall into the empty grave of dead orthodoxy.
    By our worship, we are known to be the one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic church.
    John Sartelle
  21. 3 min

    Heresy and Those Who Fought It

    the end of the fourth century the emperors generally felt bound to use their power to preserve orthodox doctrine. Penalties for heretics included confiscation of property, banishment, and death. Another dimension was added in the Middle Ages with the rapidly growing power of the papacy. Heresy became defined as disobedience to the pope in the area of doctrine.
    The church finally came to deny to the state the authority to tolerate a heresy which the church had condemned. The state carried out the death penalty so often that the medieval church shed more blood than did pagan Rome with the early martyrs. One need only mention the Albigensians (or Cathari), who were apparently dualistic and extremely ascetic, and the Waldensians, who were evangelical and would later join forces with Reformed groups. Thousands of these and others would perish at the hands of the Inquisition led by the Dominicans. This medieval “engine of iniquity” would continue into Reformation times with Protestants as targets, for they were regarded as heretics (the Eastern Orthodox were considered only schismatics). The Reformers themselves inherited the doctrine of persecution from their mother church and practiced it in varying and lesser degrees with the goal of preserving the Reformation.
    Reaction to persecution has often happily led to greater toleration. The downside is sometimes indifference which can lead to intolerance of the faith, as in the French Revolution.
    The coming of liberal Protestant theology in the last century represented a most radical intellectual schism in the church. Heresy seems an inadequate term for liberalism, in that it denied the basic doctrines of Christianity to the degree that J. Gresham Machen called it a new religion (Christianity and Liberalism). The ancient denials of Christ’s deity hardly entitled liberalism to be called modernism. The partly Arian Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses belongs on a higher rung than does the unreconstructed liberal Christology. Study of the old heresies can still help us. Some of the second-century arguments of Irenaeus against the Gnostics can be used today against New Age thought.
    The dreary and lamentable trail of real heresy through the ages has generally involved a satanic snatch at the crown of the King of kings and Lord of lords, who is the way, the truth, and the life. It is comforting to remember Augustine’s words: “Nothing conquers but truth, the victory of truth is love.”
    Frank Farrell

  23. Grieving with Hope

    Hard work, minding our own affairs, obeying the biblical sexual ethic—these things, Paul has argued, show love to other people and make for a good witness to the unbelieving world (1 Thess. 4:1–12). But there is more that we should think about with respect to our witness to non-Christians. Paul lets us know this in today’s passage when he exhorts us not to “grieve as others do who have no hope” (v. 13). The reference here is to unbelievers, who have no hope of life after death and thus can fall into despair when a loved one dies.
    The Apostle is now dealing with eschatology—the doctrine of the last things, including death, eternal life, and the final resurrection of the dead. He speaks of “those who are asleep,” which is a reference to those Thessalonian Christians who had already died when Paul wrote the epistle. Scripture commonly uses sleep as a metaphor for death (e.g., 2 Kings 8:24; 2 Chron. 32:33), but the ancient pagans did so as well. Given that the pagans and the believers in the God of Israel had very different conceptions of the afterlife, we should not press the metaphor of sleep too literally and think that at death we lose consciousness until the resurrection. The metaphor was simply a common way to refer to death—after all, a dead body looks as if it is sleeping. In light of the full biblical witness, the metaphor of death as sleep implies the bodily resurrection, for then the body will “wake up,” but it does not demand a belief in soul sleep, the notion that our state between death and the final resurrection of the body is a state of personal unconsciousness. Today, soul sleep is taught by sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and by heterodox groups such as the Seventh-day Adventists, but it has been rejected by orthodox Christians throughout church history. Rightly so, for the Bible is clear that personal consciousness continues after death as the spirits of the departed await the resurrection of the body (Acts 7:55–60; Phil. 1:18b–24).
    Today’s passage shows us that the Thessalonian church had a misunderstanding regarding the state of the departed, but it is difficult to know what the misunderstanding was. Some have suggested that they believed that those who had already died would not be resurrected or that they would not see Christ when He returned. Whatever the case, Paul will tell us in the upcoming verses that because of Christ, we need not despair when believers die.
    1 thessalonians 4:13

  24. The Need for Biblical Theology

    The discipline of biblical theology is just as important to the life of your church as systematic theology. Biblical theology is the root of doctrine; systematic theology is the fruit. And we need to get both right if we want to know who Jesus is, what the gospel is, and how to guard and guide our churches.
    What Is Biblical Theology?
    The phrase biblical theology can mean theology that’s biblical, or what is called systematic theology. Systematic theology organizes everything the Bible says on topics such as sin, Christ, and government.
    But biblical theology is more commonly used to mean a way of reading the Bible (or, a hermeneutic) as one story. It assumes that Scripture’s many human authors tell one story—about Christ—by one divine author. Just as good doctrine depends on good exegesis, so it depends on good biblical theology.
    Think of how Jesus chides the Jews for not recognizing that the Scriptures are all about Him (John 5:39) or how He tells two disciples that the whole Old Testament points to Him (Luke 24:25–27, 44–47). Biblical theology, then, is the discipline that goes back to the garden, Noah, Abraham, the exodus and Passover, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets and then always asks, “How does this moment point to Jesus?”
    Bad Biblical Theology Kills Churches
    Bad biblical theology misconstrues the biblical story. It makes the Bible about us instead of Jesus.
    Theological liberalism redefines the story of salvation as God’s work to overcome, say, economic injustice. Roman Catholicism casts the clergy and sacraments in a mediatorial role that smacks heavily of the old covenant. The prosperity gospel also imports elements of the old covenant into the new.
    The list of bad biblical theologies is long, whether in cults such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses, or in movements within churches such as the social gospel, liberation theology, or some forms of fundamentalist separatism. Each story culminates in an imbalanced (or false) gospel and so creates an imbalanced (or false) church.
    Why Your Church Needs It
    Good biblical theology, however, guards a church’s doctrine and guides the church toward better preaching, better practices, better paths. It helps biblical exposition to be gospel-centered and not moralistic. It focuses the church’s mission on sharing the good news and making disciples, not just on doing works of mercy and justice. It teaches that God saves not just individuals, but a people, and that being a Christian means living together with other Christians, for they are our true family, body, and nation.
    In short, good biblical theology guards the church against wrong emphases, wrong expectations, and a wrong gospel. It offers a trustworthy guide to the gospel, the Christian life, and the local church.
    Jonathan Leeman

We use several internet technologies to customize your experience with our ministry in order to serve you better. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.