Witnessing to Liberals - Ron Rhodes

Liberal Christians typically seek to adapt religious ideas to modern science. Their goal is to make Christianity "relevant" to modern man. By elevating science to supreme authority, they assume the Bible is a fallible human document, approach Scripture with an antisupernatural bias, and dismiss miracles as the fantasies of ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws of nature. They also view humanity as fundamentally good, with no real sin problem.

Jesus is not viewed as God incarnate as God incarnate or as a divine Savior. Rather, He was a man supremely full of God and was characterized by ethical and moral excellence. He is an example to--and moral teacher of--the human race. He didn't die on the cross for our sins, but His death nevertheless has an uplifting "moral influence" on people (setting an example of sacrifice).

God's primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.

Confronted with such a plethora of unbiblical ideas, conservative Christians might wonder how to begin in evangelizing their liberal counterparts. Following are some guidelines I have found helpful when dialoguing with liberal Christians.

Be loving. Liberal Christians sometimes view evangelicals as narrow-minded and unloving. For this reason it is all the more important that all of your personal encounters with liberals be marked by love. Be courteous, tactful, kind, and humble.

Debunk the caricatures liberal Christians often have regarding evangelicals. As a case in point, some liberal Christians think typical evangelicals believe in the dictation theory of inspiration (the view that God literally dictated the Bible word for word to the biblical writers). Emphasize that typical evangelicals reject this view.

At the same time, however, be ready to explain and defend the correct view of inspiration. Biblical inspiration may be defined as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using (rather than bypassing) their own historical situations, personalities, and writing styles, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). (Space forbids a detailed apologetic defense of inspiration, but good resources are available for this.)

A necessary consequence of this view of inspiration is that the authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. Since the written revelation from God has been recorded under the Spirit's direct superintendence, that revelation is authoritative--just as authoritative as the One who gave it.

Now, besides dealing with inspiration, you should also address the liberal view that because the four gospel writers had theological motives (the intent to convince readers of Jesus' deity, for example), their historical testimony is untrustworthy. This is clearly faulty reasoning. As scholar Craig Blomberg put it, "The fallacy...is to imagine that telling a story for a purpose, even in the service of a cause one believes in passionately, necessarily forces one to distort history. In our modern era, some of the most reliable reporters of the Nazi Holocaust were Jews passionately committed to seeing such genocide never repeated."

Another caricature you may need to deal with is the liberal's misperception that evangelicals interpret Scripture too literally. Point out that evangelicals do not hold to a "wooden literalism"--the kind that interprets biblical figures of speech literally. Explain that what is understood to be symbolic and what is taken literally should be based on the biblical context itself--such as when Jesus used obviously figurative parables to communicate spiritual truth.

Emphasize that a literal approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which have certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly. Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation). Point out that an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture.

Even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas--namely, a literal approach. Such an approach gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage--whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and humankind is impossible.

A third caricature you may have to deal with is the notion that evangelicals are unaware of--or are not willing to deal with--so-called contradictions in the Bible. Challenge this charge. Put the burden on the liberal, and ask him or her to cite specific contradictions. Use resources like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and Norman Geisler's When Critics Ask to demonstrate that there are alternative explanations that make good sense.

Debunk the liberal's charge that miracles are the fantasies of ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws of nature. People in biblical times did know enough of the laws of nature to recognize bona fide miracles. As C. S. Lewis put it, "When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was 'minded to put her away.' He knew enough biology for that. Otherwise, of course, he would not have regarded pregnancy as a proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation, he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of the laws of nature to know that this was a suspension of them."

Moreover, Lewis observed, "when the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the laws of nature and known that this was an exception. If a man had no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order." Nothing can be viewed as "abnormal" until one has first grasped the "norm."

Don't let the liberal get away with saying that science "disproves" the biblical miracles. Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles--such as the Incarnation and the Resurrection--are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be the judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred. The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature.

Scientists are speaking outside of their proper field when they address theological issues like miracles. R. C. Sproul observes, "Today when somebody steps outside of his area of expertise, people tend to follow and believe him. That is the basis of much advertising. For example, a baseball star may appear on television and promote a particular brand of razors. If that star were to tell me how to hit a baseball, he would be speaking with authority. But when he tells me the best razor blade to buy is a certain brand, then he is speaking outside of his area of expertise." Scientists do the same type of thing in regard to miracles.

The skepticism of liberal Christians notwithstanding, there is good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Cor. 15:6). One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (e.g., Peter, James, and John). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). (If they could have disputed it, they would have.) Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (vv. 47-48). Remind the liberal that because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

Demonstrate that nature and Scripture, properly interpreted, do not conflict. God has communicated to humankind both by general revelation (nature, or the observable universe) and special revelation (the Bible). Since both of these revelations come from God--and since God does not contradict Himself--we must conclude these two revelations are in agreement with each other. While there may be conflicts between one's interpretation of the observable universe and one's interpretation of the Bible, there is no ultimate contradiction.

We might say that science is a fallible human interpretation of the observable universe while theology is a fallible human interpretation of the Scriptures. If the liberal challenges the idea that science can be fallible, remind him or her of what science historian Thomas Kuhn proved in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions--that is, science is in a constant state of change. New discoveries have consistently caused old scientific paradigms to be discarded in favor of newer paradigms.

Here is the point: it is not nature and Scripture that contradict; rather, it is science (man's fallible interpretation of nature) and theology (man's fallible interpretation of Scripture) that sometimes fall into conflict. Hence the liberal cannot simply dismiss certain parts of the Bible because "science and the Bible contradict."

Also keep in mind that the allegation that the Bible is not scientifically accurate is sometimes related to the Bible's frequent use of phenomenological language. Ecclesiastes 1:5, for example, refers to the sun "rising and setting." From a scientific perspective, the sun does not actually rise or set. But let's be fair. This is the same kind of language weather forecasters use. "Rising" and "setting" are accepted ways of describing what the sun appears to be doing from an earthly perspective.

Demonstrate that Jesus was not a mere example or moral teacher. No mere "example" or "moral teacher" would ever claim that the destiny of the world lay in His hands, or that people would spend eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether they believed in Him (John 6:26-40). The only "example" this would provide would be one of lunacy. And for Jesus to convince people that He was God (John 8:58) and the Savior of the world (Luke 19:10)--when He really wasn't--would be the ultimate immorality.

Certainly, if Jesus had intended to teach doctrines compatible with liberal Christianity, He was a dire failure as a teacher. Indeed, His words led all those who followed Him during His earthly ministry in the precise opposite direction than He supposedly intended. All His followers ended up believing in miracles, that man is a sinner, that Jesus died on the cross to save them, and so forth.

In proving that Christ is the divine Messiah He claimed to be, one good approach is to demonstrate Jesus' fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament--including ones He couldn't have conspired to fulfill, such as His birthplace (Mic. 5:2), being born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), and the identity of His forerunner (Mal. 3:1). (This is what first got my attention back in the 1970s when I was attending a liberal church.) Since liberals respect science, mention that the science of statistics shows there is something like a 1 in 10¹⁷ chance of one man fulfilling just eight of the hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Peter Stoner, author of Science Speaks, provides an illustration to help us understand the magnitude of such odds:

Suppose that we take 10¹⁷ silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.

Jesus fulfilled not just eight but hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Besides this, Jesus is referred to by the names of deity (e.g., "God," Heb. 1:8; "Lord," Matt. 22:43-45); has all the attributes of deity (e.g., omnipotence, Matt. 28:18; omniscience, John 1:48; omnipresence, Matt. 18:20); did the works of deity (e.g., creation, John 1:3; raised the dead, John 11:43-44); and was worshiped as deity (Matt. 14:33). You should thoroughly familiarize yourself with these and the many other biblical evidences for Jesus' deity.

Don't be surprised if the liberal suggests that Jesus is just "one of many ways to God." If they propose this theory, you should contrast the doctrine of God (the most fundamental of all doctrines) in the various religions. Jesus, for example, taught that there is only one personal God who is triune in nature (Matt. 28:19). Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but that God cannot have a son. Confucius was polytheistic (he believed in many gods). Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu scripture) believed in a combination of polytheism and pantheism (all is God). Zoroaster taught religious dualism (there is both a good and a bad god). Buddha taught that the concept of God was essentially irrelevant. Obviously, these religions are not pointing to the same God. If one is right, all the others are wrong.

Emphasize that Jesus claimed that what He said took precedence over all others. Jesus said He is humanity's only means of coming into a relationship with God: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). One either accepts or rejects this claim, but no one can deny that it is exclusive.

Emphasize that Christianity is a religion of history. The apostle Paul warned the religious men of Athens of an impending objective event: the divine judgment of all humanity. And he based this warning on the objective, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31). It was this historical resurrection that instilled such boldness in the disciples. Initially, when Jesus was arrested, "all the disciples forsook Him and fled" (Matt. 26:56). But following Jesus' resurrection, these fearful cowards became steel bulwarks of the faith. They remained unflinching in their commitment to Christ, even in the face of great personal danger and death.

There have been various attempts (especially by liberals) to explain away the resurrection of Christ. One of the most popular of these is that Jesus' followers made up the resurrection story.

In response, point out how hard it is to believe that these followers--predominantly Jewish and therefore aware of God's stern commandments against lying and bearing false witness--would make up such a lie, and then suffer and give up their own lives in defense of it. Moreover, if Jesus' followers concocted events like the Resurrection, wouldn't Jesus' critics have then immediately come forward to debunk these lies and put an end to Christianity once and for all?

It is worth noting that the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 speaks of Christ's resurrection as part of a confession that had been handed down for years. First Corinthians was written around A.D. 55, a mere 20 years after Christ's resurrection. But many biblical scholars believe the confession in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was formulated within a few years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Paul noted that the resurrected Christ appeared to more than 500 people at a single time, "most of whom are still alive" (1 Cor. 15:6). If Paul had misrepresented the facts, wouldn't one of these 500 have come forward to dispute his claims? From a historical perspective, it seems clear that the evidence for the Resurrection is as strong as (or stronger than) the evidence we have for any other accepted event of ancient times.

Emphasize that Christianity ultimately is a relationship, not a religion. Christianity is not just a set of doctrines or creeds--a "dead orthodoxy." Rather it involves a personal relationship with the living Lord of the universe. This is the most important truth you will want to leave the liberal to ponder because this is the ingredient of true Christianity that the liberal "Christian" is most painfully lacking.
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken. A liberal reinterpretation of Scripture that fails to recognize man's sin (Luke 19:10) and yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death.

The paradox underlying the liberal attempt to make Christianity "relevant" is that for everyone to whom Christianity is "made relevant" (those who believe miracles are unscientific), there are likely thousands for whom it is made irrelevant. For, indeed, the liberal version of Christianity lacks an authentic spirituality to help people and give them hope in the midst of life's problems. Former liberal Christian Alister McGrath said that, among other things, liberalism's "pastoral weakness became especially evident to me." He said "liberalism had little to offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of unemployment, illness, and death."

In addressing the spiritual bankruptcy of liberalism, you can use the liberal's recognition of God's love as a launch-pad to emphasize that God loved humankind so much that He sent Jesus into the world to die on the cross to rescue humankind from hell. Be sure to note that Jesus--love incarnate--spoke of God's wrath and the reality of hell in a more forceful way than any of His disciples ever did (see, e.g., Matt. 25:46). Hence, God's love is not incompatible with the reality of hell. Jesus affirmed that His mission of love was to provide atonement for human sin (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence in our world) by His sacrificial death on the cross (Mark 10:45; John 12:23-27).

Inform the liberal that if he or she really wants to experience the love of God, the place to begin is a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Then tell him or her about your relationship with Jesus. There's no better way to close a discussion with a liberal Christian than by giving your testimony, focusing on how your personal relationship with Jesus has changed your life forever.

Source

"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists" - Ron Rhodes

No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.

(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time--with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe--can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.

(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.

If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet--present company included--would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"

The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.

Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

Source

Tips on Witnessing to Jewish People

There are 60,000 Jews in the St. Louis area. Some are deeply religious—especially followers of Orthodox Judaism. Others are very secular, viewing their Judaism more as a cultural identity than a religious perspective. This is often the case within Reformed Judaism, which allows its members to be atheists or agnostics if the choose. Conservative Jews are somewhere in between. Messianic Jews—or “completed” Jews, as they sometimes wish to be called—are Jewish followers of Jesus, or Jewish Christians.

1. Who says which is the “true” Judaism? Which is oldest?

The most common Jewish objection to Jesus goes like this, “I’m Jewish. Jews don’t believe in Jesus.” Who says so? The rabbis? They have a vested interest in this issue—they want Jews to follow them. Historically, the dominant strand of Judaism is Christianity! Messianic Judaism—or Jewish Christianity—is a lot older than modern rabbinic Judaism! There were three branches of Judaism in the first century: Messianic Judaism, Priestly Judaism, and Pharisaical Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism didn’t exist; it came only after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70. Of these three ancient branches of Judaism, only Messianic Judaism remains today. The other two ceased with the destruction of the Temple.

Judaism as a theological system cannot exist without either (1) a temple with guilt offerings, or (2) a priestly Messiah who lays down his life for the transgression of the Jews. The Scripture says that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Every sin must be punished—either directly in the age to come, or vicariously through a scapegoat—a temple offering, or some other acceptable substitute. With the destruction of the Temple, only a Judaism with a Messianic sacrifice—Yeshua—can work within the covenantal Hebrew religious system.

Most Jews don’t realize how Jewish Christianity is. “Christ” is just a Greek translation of Messiah, the one promised in the Hebrew Scriptures. Christ was not Jesus’ last name. Also Jesus is just a Greek translation of Yeshua, a common Hebrew name, and the name of the Jewish carpenter-turned-prophet who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah in the first century. All of Jesus’ first followers were Jews—and observant, faithful, religious Jews at that.

And to follow Yeshua does not mean abandoning one’s Jewish heritage, but fulfilling it. There is nothing in the Christian Scripture that forbids the observance of the Passover or Hanukkah or Rosh Hashanah. Indeed, Christian worship services have traditionally been patterned after ancient synagogue worship. And today, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people are following Yeshua as Messiah. They see themselves as completing their Jewish identity and finding their God-given calling in the world. Try reading Matthew’s gospel, and ask yourself whether Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah. He upholds the Torah, observes the Law, and gives his life for the Jews.

2. Which branch of Judaism has fulfilled the TANAK?

The TANAK—what Christians call the Old Testament—promised that all the nations would come to Yahweh during the Messianic era. Billions have done so through the teachings of Yeshua, almost none through rabbinical Judaism. The Prophet Isaiah said that, during the Messianic era, all the nations would stream forward to worship Yahweh. God’s Law would go out from Zion to bring all nations to repentance (Isaiah 2:1-5). Habakkuk foresaw a day in which “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14). Rabbinic Judaism has not done this. Yeshua has, and his influence on earth grows every year. What one figure has convinced a quarter of the earth’s population to read the Jewish Scriptures as the Word of God? Yeshua. What one figure has single-handedly convinced billions of Gentiles—goyim—to worship Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Yeshua.

The greatest glory of Messianic Judaism is not that it’s the oldest strain of Judaism, but that it’s persuaded billions of Gentiles to worship the God of the Jews. At times in history Christians have sinned against Jews—sometimes violently. This is tragic, and true followers of Yeshua are deeply repentant over it. But the failings of Christianity are only noticed because they’re so out of character. Just look at the impact Yeshua has had upon the world [See lesson 8]!

3. Centuries before Yeshua, Isaiah told what Messiah would be.

The Prophet Isaiah has spoken of the Messiah, the Suffering Servant. In chapter 53 of his book, Isaiah said that, rather than ushering in a victorious rule through military conquest...

• The Messiah would suffer (v. 3)

• The Messiah would suffer willingly (v. 7)

• The Messiah would die an innocent man (v. 9)

• The Messiah would die for the sins of Israel (v. 8)

• The Messiah would die as a sin-bearer and bring atonement (v. 5-6, 12)

• The Messiah would be resurrected (v. 10-11)

Between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the ancient Temple—between the room where priests ministered and the room housing the very presence of God—there was a veil. This veil ceremonially separated God from his people. God was holy, righteous, and unwilling to accept sin. Yahweh had told us long ago that he would only accept perfection (Leviticus 17). God’s people were always defiled, imperfect, and in bondage to sin. At the very moment Yeshua was crucified as a sacrifice for sin, this curtain in the Temple was torn in two, opening the way for all people—and especially the Jews—to be reconciled to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Through the Messiah’s offering of himself upon the alter of the cross, God was now willing to live with humans, with no more sacrifices needed—their guilt having been atoned in full, once for all. When the Temple was destroyed by Roman armies a few years later, the solution was not to re-invent a rabbinic Judaism without a Temple. Rather, God was ratifying the fact that the Jews no longer needed a Temple—they had Yeshua, whose perfect sacrifice made all others obsolete. Through union with Yeshua, we have new hearts and a new covenant with God, just as it was promised by the Prophets Jeremiah (31:31-34) and Ezekiel (36:25-27).

Source

What to say to a Jehovah's Witness (Part 3) - Andre Holwerda

Continued from Part 2

The third and final argument requires the following verses:

Thus says the Lord (i.e. Jehovah), the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord (Jehovah) of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)

Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (Isaiah 48:12)

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, 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.” (Revelation 1:17-18)

And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.” (Revelation 21:5-6)

"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Revelation 22:13)

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." (Revelation 22:16)

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20)

In Isaiah 44 and 48, as well as in many other parts of Isaiah, Jehovah identifies Himself as ‘the first and the last’. A similar title appears in Revelation 1:8 where, in the New World Translation, it reads: “I am Alpha and Omega”, says Jehovah God…”. This is seen again in Revelation 21:5-6, where the one sitting on the throne of God says: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end”. So, ‘Alpha and Omega’, ‘the first and the last’ and ‘the beginning and the end’ are all titles of Jehovah. You cannot have two alphas and two omegas, or two firsts and two lasts, or two beginnings and two endings. Therefore, these titles belong only to Jehovah and nobody else!

Now, in Revelation 22:13, someone speaks and declares Himself to be ‘the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end’. He also says, in this verse, that He is ‘coming quickly’. So who is this person who claims the titles that belong only to Jehovah and says that He is coming quickly? Revelation 22:20 answers this question with the words, ‘He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’ The one who is coming, who claims the titles of Jehovah for Himself, is none other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Jehovah!

Notice also that in Revelation 1:17-18, this person who calls Himself ‘the first and the last’ also mentions that He died and is now alive again. We have established that Jehovah alone is the first and the last. So that brings up the question, ‘when did Jehovah die and rise again?’ If Jesus Christ is not Jehovah, then this question remains unanswered and the statement made in these verses makes absolutely no sense and is therefore an error in the Bible. Either Jesus is Jehovah or the Biblical author was wrong or lying at this point. There simply are no other options.

Some other useful arguments:

- Isaiah 48:11 and John 17:5: In John 17:5, Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the glory He had with the Father before the world existed. So Jesus shared the Father’s glory before He came to earth. But in Isaiah 48:11 Jehovah God says He ‘will not give His glory to another’. He gave His glory to Jesus. Therefore, either Jesus is Jehovah or Jehovah lied when He said He would not give His glory to another. Since the latter is unacceptable, Jesus must be Jehovah.

- Hebrews 1:8: This verse quotes the Father saying to the Son, ‘your throne O God, is forever and ever.’ Thus, the Father Himself calls the Son God.

- Colossians 2:9: This verse clearly states that ‘all the fullness of deity’ dwelt in Jesus bodily. In other words, everything God is dwelt in Jesus. The NWT mistranslates the word ‘deity’ as ‘divine quality’ but the Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation correctly translates it as ‘deity’ or ‘divinity’.

- John 20:27 – 28: In verse 27 Jesus appears to Thomas and proves to Him that He really has risen from the dead. Verse 28 is Thomas’ response in which he says, ‘my Lord and my God.’ The Greek ‘ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou’ is literally rendered ‘The Lord of me and The God of me.’ The definite article is present for emphasis, so that we don’t miss the fact that Thomas was calling Jesus ‘The God’ (i.e. Jehovah). Now, had that been merely Thomas’ opinion and not the truth, Jesus, as a good rabbi, would have immediately rebuked him for blasphemy. Instead He commended Thomas! Thus, Jesus confirmed Thomas’ statement.

John 5:17 – 18: In verse 17 Jesus calls God His Father. In verse 18 John makes a comment in which he mentions that by calling God His Father Jesus was ‘making Himself equal with God.’ Thus, John teaches us that calling yourself the Son of God is no different to calling yourself God.

Source

What to say to a Jehovah's Witness (Part 2) - Andre Holwerda

Continued from Part 1

In my previous article on witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses I stressed the need to remain focussed on two topics only; namely, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and also His deity. In that article I gave some tips on presenting JWs with arguments for the resurrection. In this one it is my purpose to provide evangelical Christians, who wish to witness to JWs, with some basic arguments supporting the Christian understanding of the deity of Christ.

Let us start, then, by getting a clear understanding of the difference between what JWs believe about the person of Jesus and what we who call ourselves evangelical Christians typically believe. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God and based on that we might make the mistake of thinking that they believe the same as we do. However, the Watchtower defines the title ‘Son of God’ as referring to a created being who, while the first and greatest creation of Jehovah, is nevertheless a creature, not God, and is not to be worshipped. Two thousand years of orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, has consistently defined the Son of God as a being who is uncreated, eternally begotten, co-equal with the Father and of the very same nature and substance as the Father, while remaining a distinct person. What these two wildly different definitions serve to demonstrate is that JWs believe in one version of Jesus, while evangelicals believe in another. This is one instance in which Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:4 ring true, in which he indicated that it is possible to be deceived by someone who preaches ‘another Jesus’ (literally ‘a different Jesus’).

With our terms defined, then, let us move on to the nuts and bolts of how to present a cogent argument for the deity of Christ to JWs. Many arguments have been formulated for this task and most of them hold some value for the defence of this doctrine, however there are a select few that I find to be the most powerful when dealing with JWs. In this article I will present what I feel are the best three and then give some additional arguments at the end for those who wish to delve deeper.

The first argument involves the following verses (I am quoting from the ESV but this argument can also be made using the Watchtower’s own translation, the NWT):

"O my God," I say, "take me not away in the midst of my days-- you whose years endure throughout all generations!" Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Psalm 102:24-27)

But of the Son he (i.e. the Father) says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (Hebrews 1:8-12)

Thus says the Lord (i.e. Jehovah), your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,...(Isaiah 44:24)

In Psalm 102 we learn that it was Jehovah God who created the heavens and the earth. Get your JW friend to read those verses and acknowledge that indeed Jehovah God is the creator. Now, turn in your Bible to Hebrews 1 and get them to read verses 8-12. Verses 8 and 9 give us the context by showing us that this is a quote of God the Father saying something to His Son. Then in verses 10 to 12 we have God the Father taking those verses from Psalm 102 and applying them to the Son! So Jehovah God himself attributes the creation of the universe to the Son. There are profound Christological riches in these verses that could form separate arguments on their own but be sure to stick to the main point, which is that Jesus is called the creator by no less of an authority than the Father himself!

Now, this alone may seem to be a powerful argument for the deity of Christ. However, the JWs have formulated a response to this by saying that the Father created through the Son; that the Father was kind of like the chief architect, while the son was merely the builder. This is where Isaiah 44:24 comes into play. By taking your JW friend to this verse in Isaiah you can prove to him that Jehovah created all things all by himself! So, pulling the argument together, Psalm 102 says that Jehovah is the creator, Hebrews 1:8-12 says that Jesus is the creator and Isaiah 44:24 says that Jehovah created the universe all on his own. Therefore, Jesus and the Father are both Jehovah God! There is simply no other way to reconcile those verses.

For our second argument, the following verses are needed:

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" (Luke 4:8)

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

Now the argument is this; in Luke 4:8 Jesus, being tempted by the devil, refused to worship Satan because Deuteronomy 6:13 clearly stated that one is to worship Jehovah God and only Jehovah God. Comparing that with Hebrews 1:6, however, we see that God the Father commanded the angels to worship Jesus. The conclusion then is that either the Father commanded His angels to commit idolatry or else Jesus is Jehovah! And since the Father does not command anyone to sin, therefore the latter conclusion must be the correct one. Jesus is Jehovah! There is no other option. Even if a JW will not admit that Jesus is Jehovah, on the basis of Hebrews 1:6 he or she must at least admit that Jesus is to be worshipped.

Source

What to say to a Jehovah's Witness (Part 1) - Andre Holwerda

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the religious organisation that oversees the international movement known as Jehovah's Witnesses (hereafter referred to as JWs). It is one of the largest and most profitable organisations of its type in the world, with its publishing houses producing a greater number of publications per year than all the denominations of Christendom combined. If you live in a major city in almost any part of western society, you have probably experienced that familiar knock at the door on a Saturday morning from two well dressed individuals who wish to talk to you about Armageddon, the end of the present world governments and how you can survive it all and live forever in a kind of paradise on earth. In such a situation as this, many of you would no doubt be tempted to express your views to these people using the time-honoured door-slam method. I write this article to urge you to rethink that particular strategy.

When you are being visited by a pair of JWs, what you are being presented with is your own personal home mission field. You are being visited by two individuals who have been the unfortunate victims of brainwashing. They have been taught not to think independently but to depend almost exclusively on what they are being taught by the Watchtower. There are severe repercussions within the organisation for anyone who dares to entertain an independent thought. This kind of brainwashing is typical of cults and is extremely damaging to mental health. This is one of the primary reasons why instances of mental illness among cult members are statistically far more common than among the general population. It is imperative then, that we as Born Again Christians take the time to carefully witness to these folks who have been seriously deceived by this dangerous cult.

As you can probably tell from the introduction, this article is not designed to be read by Jehovah's Witnesses. Its purpose, rather, is to shed some light on what these people believe and how best to witness to them with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Firstly then, let's establish some basic ground rules that should be kept in mind whenever we are dealing with a JW.

1. Cultists (and especially JWs) are, as I mentioned already, the victims of mind control. Therefore, much patience, self-control and tact is required when dealing with them. They simply will not understand most arguments from scripture and logic the first time you make those arguments. The importance of this point cannot be overstated.
2. JWs are typically well-meaning and, frankly, nice people. You should adopt a similar attitude.
3. JWs are trained by their organisation to be teachers rather than learners. They do not come to your door to have you give them a course in theology (although that is what you are subtly going to do). They come to teach YOU about THEIR version of God. So play dumb and act like you want to have them teach you.
4. Ask questions! Use buzz words and phrases, such as: "Can you help me?", "I don't understand that. Could you explain it to me please?", "I have a problem with that. Can you give me the answer?"
5. Pray! Pray! Pray!

If you keep these five points in mind you will find that your JW friends are more likely to come back again next time. If, instead, you just try to grill them with scripture, one of two things will happen. They may become extremely defensive and offended and will shut down mentally to everything you say and you will have ruined the opportunity. The other possibility is that you will have insufficient knowledge of scripture to deal with their arguments and you will be twisted into a doctrinal pretzel. With all of that said then, let's move on to part two of this article and discuss the beliefs of the Watchtower and how to deal with them.

When you put forward your arguments to a JW you must be sure to focus on only two major themes; the diety of Christ and His resurrection. Of all the unbiblical beliefs held by JWs, their denials of Christ's deity and his physical resurrection are the most damming. Do not allow the JW to distract you from these issues. When you start talking about these things, they WILL attempt to take you down a rabbit trail and get you talking about issues like Hell, the 144,000, corruptions in your version of the Bible and their pet favourite – The Trinity. You must not allow them this luxury but when they attempt this strategy you will simply say, "I'd love to talk to you about that but we'll have to come back to it later because right now I really need you to help me with the issue at hand."

In my experience witnessing to JWs, a very solid and dependable approach is to begin with the resurrection by stating something like this:

"Hey, I was wondering if you could help me with something. I have a problem. You see, I was speaking to another one of your people a little while ago and they said something I didn't quite understand. They said that Jesus, when he was raised from the dead, didn't actually rise in a physical body but came back as a spirit creature. Is that correct?"

The JW will emphatically answer yes and you will say:

"Well, you see now that's my problem! What if Jesus had said that he was going to come back in the same body he had before his death?"

Following this statement, the JW will virulently object, claiming that Jesus never said that. You must keep your cool and assure them that you have in fact found some place where he did say that. You will then, with head-spinning speed, turn to John 2:19-20, where we read:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?"

You must get the JW to follow along with you in their Bible, which although a woefully inaccurate translation, is nevertheless quite correct in its rendering of this verse. Get them to read those two verses with you if you can and then turn to them and ask:

"Which temple was Jesus talking about?"

In my experience I have received two common answers to this question. One is "I don't know" and the other is "the temple in Jerusalem". Either of these answers will provide the perfect opportunity for you to read the very next verse, which says:

But he was speaking of the temple of his body (emphasis mine).

So there you have it. Jesus promised that he would physically raise himself from the dead. That this is speaking of his resurrection is clear from reading verse 22. It does not say he was speaking of the temple of his spirit but rather his BODY! The Greek word somatos, translated here as 'body', only ever refers to a physical form. Under no circumstances can it possibly mean a spiritual form. In this context it can only have one meaning and that meaning is 'a physical body'. You will press this point to the JW and will not leave John chapter 2 until they are prepared to admit that there is at least a chance that they might be wrong about the resurrection being spiritual. If they will not admit right there and then the possibility that they may have been mislead regarding the resurrection, you must bid them farewell and ask that they please return when they have discovered the answer to your problem. You will remind them that you would be most willing to consider joining their organisation if they could only convince you that what Jesus said about being raised physically was not in fact what occurred. This may or may not get them to return but if nothing else it will hopefully plant a seed of doubt in their mind and get them thinking independently about whether or not what they have been taught is true.

Of course, things may not always go so smoothly when witnessing to a JW. They do have a pre-programmed list of go-to texts up their sleeve that they have been trained to twist in order to provide answers to the claim that Jesus' resurrection was physical. None of their answers are any good, but they are confusing enough to stop the average Christian in their tracks. In another article I will deal specifically with these and other objections and provide tips on how to refute them. However, for now, I would like to give a couple of scripture references you can have up yoursleeve that will add further weight to your side of the argument. Those references are as follows:

• Luke 24:36-43 – In this passage Jesus appears to his disciples after his resurrection and their first reaction is to assume that they have seen a spirit. However, Jesus corrects them and says, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have". This statement obviously indicates that Jesus was physical and not a spirit, as the disciples had supposed. Not only that, but he also ate with the disciples. Since when does a spirit eat?
• John 20:24-27 – In this passage Thomas, one of Jesus' disciples, states that he will not believe the reports of Christ's resurrection unless he personally sees him and touches him. In order to counteract Thomas' unbelief, Jesus does appear to Thomas eight days later and does allow him to place his fingers in his wounds. So not only was Jesus able to be touched (thereby demonstrating his physical nature) but he also still bore the wounds of his crucifixion, thus confirming that he still possessed the same body he had before his crucifixion. Verses 28-29 of John 20 will also come in very handy when we begin to deal with the issue of the deity of Christ.

To summarise then, the John 2 reference, when combined with Luke 24 and John 20, provides a cogent argument for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. This argument stands in stark contrast to the teaching of the Watchtower that Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual and not physical. Frankly, this argument is unanswerable from a Biblical standpoint. JWs cannot make a solid defence against it. They will, however, attempt to take certain texts out of context and twist their meanings in an attempt to confuse you enough to get you off the subject. I will deal with these attempts in my third and final article. My next article, however, will present some arguments that I recommend using to make a case for the deity of Christ. Again, remember that when talking to a JW the two issues of greatest concern are the resurrection of Christ and the deity of Christ. All other issues are peripheral and should be treated as such. In fact, it may be best to avoid them altogether if at all possible.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Source