I was afforded an opportunity that most Christians are not, last Saturday. The opportunity to discuss the scriptures in the house of a Jehovah’s Witness. The reasons for this are rather lengthy, but I can summarize it briefly. Two of my children, and their mother, (hereafter referred to as S.) now attend a local Kingdom Hall - I was informed of this the day before I was scheduled to pick them up. I was curious as to what brought their mother to this decision, as she comes from a (nominal) Roman Catholic background. A phone discussion ensued, in which she admitted that she didn’t have answers to many of my questions. Therefore, I was told that they would invite their Elder to answer any questions that I might have. you HAD to confess the Father as GodFurther, I could not have the kids unless I had this discussion. As it turns out, he didn’t show up - I was rather skeptical that he would, as JWs are told not to invite “apostates” (non-JWs) into their houses. However, I did talk to a younger man living there, hereafter referred to as J. - (I’m not sure what the relationship there is, and I didn’t ask) whose sister, and her two small children also live in the house (and who listened to the entire conversation).

S. and I had discussed several passages previously - especially John 1 and Hebrews 1. However, when we began our discussion, I began by asking him to define what it was he believed, in his own words. After he did that, I would take a bit to explain what I believe, in as succinct a manner as possible. He did so, and took about 2-3 minutes to do so. I took notes as he did, so that I would be sure not to become confused thereafter. Here is what he told me:

1. Jehovah is God’s name.
2. His son is Jesus.
3. After the resurrection, Jesus will be the head of the government, along with the 144,000.
4. There is a trial period after sleep.
5. Satan deceived Eve, and tested God.
6. Therefore, God gave Satan a chance - to exercise a certain amount of rule.
7. Satan is the government over the world, and the world has seen how Satan’s rule is.
8. How we choose is how we will be judged.

I believe I asked one question, at this point, in order to confirm what it was he had said. I think it was about point 6, and the story of Job was discussed, but very very briefly.

I then began to present what I believed. I was only able to get a very short way into point 3, due to the myriad objections that came my way at that point. This is the outline I use when giving a short explanation of what Christians believe. It can be expanded, compressed, or given a detailed look, depending on the subject.

1) Scripture:
i) Scripture is the God-breathed (inspired) self-revelation of God to, and for His people.
ii) It is comprised of 66 books - the OT originally written in Hebrew, with the NT written in Greek.
iii) No word of the Scripture can be broken, as Christ said - therefore, it is the only arbiter, source, or definition for what must be believed.

2) Trinity Defined
i) Within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
ii) Each word of this definition is important. Each term has a certain, definite meaning. Please don’t ignore any of them. These few words present the foundation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: monotheism, the existence of three divine Persons, and the equality of those Persons.
iii) The phrase “one Being” communicates the truth that there is only one true God, the Creator of all things. The Trinity is monotheistic. It is not, however, Unitarian. Monotheism says that there is only one Being of God, while Unitarianism asserts that there is only one person of God. The Being of God is what makes God, God. It is the substance of God. In the Christian definition I just gave you - recognize the difference between the words Being and Person. The failure to recognize that the definition given above is using these two terms in different ways is one of the prime reasons for confusion in regard to the Trinity. Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who he or she is. As Hank Hanegraaff puts it, when speaking of the Trinity, we speak of one what (the Being of God) and three whos (the three divine Persons).
iv) We speak of these three divine Persons as coequal and coeternal. The Father has eternally been the Father, and the Son has eternally been the Son. The terms Father and Son refer to an eternal relationship that they have with each other. It is vitally important to understand that this relationship has always been. If we neglect to recognize this fact, we run the danger of thinking that the Father precedes or creates the Son, when this is not the case. While theologians speak of the Father begetting the Son, they do so in such a way that completely denies that the Son is a creation of, or ontologically inferior to, the Father. Each of the divine Persons shares fully and completely in the divine Being, but they likewise bear a relationship to one another within the Godhead itself. Many arguments raised against the Trinity actually focus on the relationship between the Persons, as if these automatically indicate an inferiority of nature. We do well to recognize this kind of error in the arguments of those who oppose the Christian faith.
v) The final assertion of our definition comprises the deity of Christ and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit. Many of our conversations of the Trinity focus on this particular area. The key element in successfully explaining and defending the Trinity is to recognize that the doctrine is based on the plain teaching of Scripture. We can never afford to abandon the only ground upon which the Christian can stand — the teaching of God’s Word. Each of the three foundations of the doctrine are clear teachings of the Bible, and we must focus our defense there, if we wish to honor God and give a God-glorifying answer to those who ask.
(Taken and compressed from a section of The Forgotten Trinity, James R. White)

3) Sin defined
i) Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 490)
ii) Exo 20, Matt 5:22,28, Gal 5:20, Eph 2:3
iii) A failure to glorify God in all things and to thus love him perfectly - Mark 12:30, Isa 42:8, 43:7,21, Eph 1:12
iv) Sin is lawlessness - 1jo 3:4, Rom 2:15, Rom 2:17-29,
v) Right in their own eyes - Deu 12:8, Judg 17:6, 2Ki 10:30, Pro 21:2

4) Punishment defined
i) Death - Eze 18:4
ii) Everlasting - matt 25:46
iii) Demanded by God’s Holiness - Rom 7:12, Rev 4:8, 6:10, 15:4
5) Biblical requirements for salvation
i) Belongs to God alone - Gen 49:18, Psa 3:8, Isa 12:2, Isa 45:8, 45:17
ii) Everlasting - Isa 45:17, 51:6,8, Mar 16:20, 2th 2:13, Heb 5:9
iii) Substitutionary - Rom 4:24-25, 5 (all)
iv) Justifies - Rom 5 ( all of 5) Rom 8:33 (and all of 8 )
v) Atones (propitiates) - Rom 3;25, heb 2:17, 1jo 2:2, 4:10

6) Depiction of the Savior and Redeemer
i) Isa 53, Mic 7:16

7) His salvific work - atonement and redemption
i) By that atoning work, He satisfies the wrath of God against the sin of man - past, present of future. Fulfills the covenant of the law, begins the covenant of grace, and satisfies every requirement God had decreed. By this mighty work, He has secured us as His elect people, as chosen from before the foundation of the world (eph 1), as newly reborn creatures, being sanctified in his love and grace.

8 ) Perfection of that work, due to the perfect fulfillment of it
i) His work is not, and cannot be, a failure. Christ died for His peculiar people, throughout history, and throught the future, securing their pardon, once and for all. His perfect sacrifice, as the spotless lamb, purchased us as His people for all eternity.
ii) Our rebirth is His gift (Eze 37-38, eph 2:5) Our faith in Him is His gracious gift (heb 12:2), as is the repentance (acts 5:31, 2ti 2:25) we must show. His salvation is a perfect gift, as is His sanctifying grace (eph 2:8-9, 5:26, 1th 5:23).
iii) Therefore, man may never take one iota of God’s glory in salvation for Himself.

9) Perfection of His people through Him
i) Those who are in Christ are branches of the one true vine. There are those who falsely claim to be part of the vine - but will be pruned, and cast into the fire.
ii) False professors - apostates - are those who knwo the truth, yet reject it in favor of a lie.
iii) True believers endure to the end. That is the hallmark of a true, enduring faith - for all true faith is a gift of God, and therefore cannot fail.
iv) At the resurrection, we will be made like Christ, and live forever in the presence of the Triune God, praising and glorifying Him forever. Heaven and earth will be remade, and a number beyond counting will be present. We will no longer sin, and sin will be cast into hell along with the demons, the unsaved, sinful humans, and every hint of depravity and corruption.

10) To put the Gospel succinctly: God is Holy - man is sinful. Man must repent of his sin, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, for who he claims to be - Lord over all of creation, and the only savior for mankind. To reject the identity, the lordship, or the salvation of Christ is to reject the only way to be saved from an eternal hell, and to fulfill the condemnation of God which He has already determined for all sinful creatures. To believe truly is to spend eternity in the presence of God, glorifying Him.

So, this was my planned outline. As I said, I didn’t get far into it. J. said he had a question - if I recall, the immediate question was - how can two persons be the same person. if you will recall, the above specifically states that it is important to make the distinction there. When i expanded upon what the various terms meant, and signified - I was given more objections, and more, and more. When I asked if I could finish the presentation of what I believed, I think the answer I received was “but you haven’t answered what I said about (x) yet.” Answering the objections, it seemed, was now the point of the discussion! This is a very, very common gambit in debate. I have a name for that - shotgun apologetics. Fire a full spread, see what hits - then chamber the next round of shot. Eventually, your opponent is either out of time, or out of answers - and either one works. So, I switched tacks a bit. I began answering objections with Scriptures that would counter his objection. I did get to exegete a bit of John 1 - unfortunately, the greek text I had pulled up on my browser (transliterated, original, english) was lost as I plugged my laptop in. The screen wouldn’t reactivate, and I lost my browser windows that i had kept up the entire trip, for this very purpose, as I knew that text (along with several others) would be a sticking point. So, I had to “reconstruct” the word order of the Greek text from what I could show him from Strong’s inline references in my KJV E-sword. Very frustrating.

His response was to offer more objections. Unfortunately, if someone isn’t listening to your presentations, but waiting for you to finish, so that they can present the next objection, the conversation is effectively over. This wasn’t any different.

So, to make the best of things, so that i could at least present the gospel, I went to Philippians 2, in response to an objection that centered around the humanity of Christ. (One of several) I found something very interesting - every time they’d read Phil 2, they’d just “skip over” the portion that speaks of Christ as “being in the form of God”. Every time. Like it wasn’t even there. After the 4th time I went back to that section, he finally gave me a throwaway answer - “that just means that Jesus was like God” - he became agitated, so I moved on.

So, I proceeded to Isaiah 6. If you remember, this is the chapter where Isaiah sees the Lord - in majesty, train of his robe fills the temple, etc. I showed him the “YHWH” Strong’s reference in my bible - and he agreed, this must be Jehovah God. Then, I took him to John 12. He was visibly annoyed at this point, and muttering to himself - but he turned. We read from verse 30 to verse 41. I asked him: “Who did Isaiah see?” His answer - “God”

I said, “exactly”. Who is John saying that Isaiah saw? “God.” “So,” I said, “who is John saying that Jesus is?” He became extremely agitated at this point, and said “Jesus is a created being - he cannot be God!” “Yet”, I pressed, “Jesus is said, right here, to be the one that Isaiah saw.” “Where does it say that?” He replied. I went through all the times just prior, and just after, that John points out, over and over, that Jesus is the one that is referred to throughout, as “Him”. At 5 times within the previous 5 verses, “Him” is Jesus. There is no context change between the verse prior, and this one - all the same discussion. The next verse says that “even some of the rulers believed in Him” - I asked J. - in who? “God”, was his answer. “The rulers already believed in God the Father - and to be a Jew, you HAD to confess the Father as God - so who is John saying they are afraid of confessing, for fear of being put out of the synagogue? “God!” (Very, very agitated, now)

“Read on a little further, then. ‘He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in the One who sent Me. He who sees me, sees the One who sent Me.’ See that? Christ is answering your question for you. Isaiah saw the glory of the preincarnate Christ, seated on a throne, with the train of His robe, fillign the temple.”

I was then informed that the conversation was over, he didn’t want to talk about it, that I could feel free to talk about things related to the children, but that we were done. I asked him - “are you sure you wouldn’t like to look at Psalm 102, first?” The last response I got was “What part of the conversation is over did you not understand?” I spoke to S. for a just a moment longer, and added only that she should recall what Christ said - “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. That’s the reason I wanted to talk to you all today. Not to win a debate, not to score points, or make myself look smart. I have to be a faithful proclaimer of the Gospel.” The discussion ended, I collected the kids, and their things, and we were on their way.

It may not look like a lot - but remember - I was told that I wouldn’t get my kids otherwise. It would have been very easy to have a “can’t we all get along” discussion. Just ask questions. Instead, I challenged the heart of their doctrine, with the full understanding that I might not get my kids as a result. I didn’t expect to get them at all, to be very frank with you, but I knew that God would be honored by a faithful defense of His gospel, and I couldn’t do otherwise. I trusted that God would be faithful to me, whatever the outcome, but that i had an opportunity that doesn’t come along often - to witness to a jehovah’s Witness where they live, with them knowing that it was with the understanding that they were answering my questions.

Despite that fact - they threw the objections at me - I counted at least 30 separate objections, and many of the same type, but in different forms, using verses, in addition. In a discussion that was meant to answer my questions. No, it wasn’t fair. I didn’t expect it to be. I was interrupted, treated rudely on several occasions - and, to be honest, I may have interrupted someone myself. When two different people are both giving you objections simultaneously, it’s hard not to interrupt someone! But, this isn’t to toot my own horn - it’s to illustrate that God is faithful to those who witness faithfully - especially when they are given every opportunity to “opt out” of a defense of the Christian faith. I never got to ask any of the questions I brought with me. I’m saving them for the meeting with the Elder that they said they would set up on my return. I’m just thankful to God for His faithfulness to me in a situation that could have been devastating.

I have also been invited back to talk to their elder - once again in their home - on July 25th. Please pray for me, that I might be a faithful witness!

Went over a large-scale overview of Baptist history

Week 12 - Baptist History - notes - audio

Next Week: That’s it! No more. All 12 weeks complete. I’ll have a “home” post for my church history series up soon. Thanks for listening!

Went over a large-scale overview of the English Reformation

Week 11 - The English Reformation - The English Reformation II - notes - audio

Next Week:

Week 11 - TBD - haven’t finalized all of my notes as yet, sorry.

Why is it that we can hear a sermon about the Sovereignty of God in salvation one week, then hear about making a decision for Christ the next? Why can we hear about the Sovereignty of God in granting faith to a sinner in the same sermon that we are told that Jesus is knocking on the door to our heart? Why is it that we are exhorted to trust in the Sovereignty of God in salvation, and His unmerited grace toward sinners, in His regenerating power - in the same service that the pastor pronounces a person “part of the family of God”?

Schizophrenia. I don’t think it’s purposeful. I don’t think it’s an intentional compromise. It is, pure and simple, simple inconsistency, and perhaps a lack of examination concerning our methodology in our services compared to the theology we present. I’m not trying to be simply critical. I’m trying to understand why it is we do these things. Why do we present these contradictory viewpoints? Why do we offer an altar call and a decision - but yet proclaim the Sovereignty of God?

“…everybody is lamenting the fact that this country believes it’s saved, when it’s no more saved… it’s as lost, as they say in Alabama, as a ball in tall grass. But no one wants to point to what the problem is - and the problem is even when we preach the gospel correctly, we go to this thing of how to invite men that is neither Biblical not historical, we get them to jump through some Evangelical hoops, and say yes to the appropriate questions, and we popishly pronounce them to be saved. And when they believe that false, religious lie, given by a religious authority, when someone comes along later to preach the gospel to them, because they’re living in the world, they won’t listen. Because a religious lie has so much power.”

“…then afterwards, often after a person prays or is led in a prayer by the evangelist, he or she is assured that if they were sincere, then Jesus has definitely come into their heart, because He promised he would, and if He didn’t come in, He is a liar, because they were sincere. How many people do you know believe they are going to heaven because they are not so much trusting Christ, but in the sincerity of a decision they made a long time ago. Often times, after a few minutes of counseling, they are immediately presented before the church and welcomed into the family of God. Now, you tell me I’m wrong. They come down front, I’ve seen it so many times, they’re given over to a counselor, who’s been trained in a package counseling form, they’re talked to for about 5 or ten minutes while the invitation rolls on, and immediately they’re presented before the church, our ‘new brother or sister in Christ’. That’s the last most of them will ever, ever hear of conversion counseling. And then what will happen? If they never grow, or if they doubt their salvation, they are taken again back to that day when they prayed, and questioned as to the sincerity of their decision. If they ever come to the pastor again, doubting their salvation, he’ll take them back to that day again and say ‘did you ever pray and ask Jesus to come into your heart?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Were you sincere?’ ‘I think so.’ ‘Then it’s just the devil bothering you.’ If they never grow in the things of God, their lack of growth is attributed to the lack of discipleship, or the belief in the doctrine of the carnal Christian. One convention that I know of came to the conclusion that 60% of their converts never came to church. Their answer was that they had to do a better job of discipleship. No - Jesus? His sheep? They hear his voice. And they follow Him! Whether you disciple them, or not. Now, we ought to do discipleship. My friend, back in the 70s, discipleship became the big thing. Personal discipleship. We have just as many people leaving by the back door as are entering in by the front door ofthe church because we’re not doing personal discipleship. No! It’s because we’re not preaching the gospel correctly, and we’re pronouncing people converted that are not converted - and they went out from us because they never were of us. Now, you’ve got to understand this. We deal 5 MINUTES with a person on their conversion, and then we spend 50 years trying to disciple a goat into a sheep.”
~Paul Washer, “Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional Evangelism”

I’m not trying to make a slam on anyone. I’m trying to understand why - why the schizophrenia? Our local church is at least a nominally Reformed church. Why doesn’t our practice match our preaching? Why aren’t we seeing the traditions of men for what they are? Why do we take a methodology that doesn’t match our theology, and use it as if it were? What practical necessity is present for us to use such anti-scriptural methods when it comes to the eternally significant care of a soul who is present before us, and under the apparent conviction of the Spirit? Do these practices line up with the NT? Do they have any precedent in the history of the church prior to, to be generous, a couple of hundred years ago? What then must we do? Repent, and believe. Both gifts of God. What about our heart? The untrustworthy, deceitfully wicked heart? Does Christ knock at the door to it? No. Christ does not knock at doors. He appears in their midst. He removes the heart of stone, and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Christ is not a supplicant. He is not a beggar. He is Lord, and we must fall on our faces in repentance, fear, and adoration of this risen Lord. Easter is not a “time of decision”. It is a time of regeneration. Salvation belongs to the Lord, not to the sincerity of men.

Went over Tyndale, a bit more about heresies, Romanism, Thomas More, and a few other topics.

Week 10 - The English Reformation I - William Tyndale - notes - audio

Next Week:

Week 11 - The English Reformation II - notes

Well, my connection issues have been rectified! Here’s Week 9! Includes a short discussion on Zwingli, a short overview of Calvin, and his importance in systematizing theological study, presuppositional apologetics, and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. (The last two were unscripted diversions, but it went with the topic nicely!)

Week 9 - The Swiss Reformation - notes - audio

Next Week:

Week 10 - The English Reformation - notes

My ftp, chat, email, or whatever will not connect, at all. All I can get is webpages - so I can’t upload the files for the Church History class yet. As soon as it comes up, I’ll post it :/

John Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ - Book IV, Chap 3, scroll down to Section 3

Enjoy!

I did it again. I forgot to post last week’s audio/notes. I DID upload it immediately. I just didn’t post to link where it was.

Week 7 - Jan Hus - notes - audio
Week 8 - Martin Luther - notes - audio
Week 9 - The Swiss Reformation - notes for next week

Lately I’ve found myself more and more uncomfortable with certain practices in, at least, our SBC church. Which ones, you ask?

1) Raising hands.

2) Revivals.

3) Altar calls.

4) Applause after “special music.”

5) Children’s Church.

6) Skits or drama in worship services.

Now, before you get annoyed about this, let’s examine something. Baptists, as a rule, have subscribed to something called the “Regulative Principle of Worship”. What this principle posits is that only those things which have scriptural models are allowable in Christian worship. When you don’t have a Scriptural model for something - what, then, is your model? In other words - are we believers in Sola Scriptura, or are we not?

I’m thinking about doing a short series on what the regulative principle seems to say in regards to the above practices, and to see if they can accord with Scripture - for my own benefit, as much as that of others. As I have time to do so, I will. In the meantime, what do you think?