Defending the Trinity

Answering Common Objections

to the Doctrine of the Trinity

Author: Ben Rast
Source: Contender Ministries - August 23, 2005
Link: about.me/gideonsword




Though the doctrine of the Trinity is quite biblical, many Christians find themselves unable to adequately answer the attacks on this doctrine by other monotheistic religions such as Islam and Judaism, as well as polytheistic and henotheistic religions such as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (henotheism is the belief in multiple gods, but the worship of only one).  Few Christian doctrines are attacked so viciously as the doctrine of the Trinity.  This aspect of the nature of God is awe-inspiring and wonderful.  As Christians, we should be prepared to explain it to unbelievers and to defend it against attacks.  As you will see, most arguments against the Trinity are weak and unable to stand up to biblical scrutiny or an appeal to logic.  If you witness to a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or a Muslim, some of these arguments are likely to come up, and it’s vitally important that you are able to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), demolish these arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5), and contend for the faith (Jude 3,4).

I have covered the biblical supports for the triune nature of God in a previous article, “A Comprehensive Biblical Defense of the Trinity.”  If you have not read that article, I encourage you to do so before moving on to this one.  In it, I provide biblical proof for the following points:

1.      There is only one God

2.      The Father is God

3.     Jesus is God

4.     The Holy Spirit is God

5.      The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.

Before addressing the most common objections, it’s important to make sure that we are starting with an accurate definition of the Trinity.  Many who oppose the Trinity do so with a faulty understanding of the definition.  Simply put, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one true God, and within that God there are three co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity is distinct from the other, but all three comprise one God.  Various heresies arise when this definition is distorted, and I covered some of them in the previous article.  Now that we start from a common definition, let’s turn ourselves to some common objections.

1.  The word “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible!

True enough, the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible.  A similar argument is used by theological modernists who assert that the term “homosexual” is a modern word that didn’t exist at the time the Bible was written, therefore the Bible can’t condemn homosexuality.  I think most people will agree that the Bible STILL condemns homosexuality, even thought this particular English word wasn’t used in the Greek or Hebrew texts.  Interestingly, the word “pornography” is similarly absent from Scripture, but we are still able to view the biblical teachings on sexual morality, coupled with Jesus’ teaching that a man who looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his heart to recognize that pornography is sinful.  The word “theocracy” is not found in the Bible, but the concept can be found there.  The absence of a word does not preclude its teaching in Scripture.

Critics also argue that no single verse of Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.  While many single verses provide excellent evidence for the triune nature of God (see the previous article), it is true that this doctrine is not capsulated in a single verse or passage of Scripture.  The Bible is not titled, “Christian Doctrine for Dummies.”  It is sometimes necessary to look at the teachings of Scripture as a whole.  When we allow ourselves to do that, we can see that the Trinity is quite Scriptural.

2.  The Trinity doctrine is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33 in the NIV states in part, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”  In the spurious New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the verse similarly states, “For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons will frequently cite this verse when arguing against the Trinity.  After all, the concept of a triune God can be confusing.  They argue that such a confusing doctrine must come from Satan, since God is not a God of confusion or disorder.  Yet such an argument is illogical.  That humans cannot fully understand the nature of God simply means that we are finite created beings who do not possess the mind of God.  The Bible is clear that such confusions are to be expected:

-   “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.  ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” – Isaiah 55:8-9

-   “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” – Romans 11:33

-   “Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12

Many aspects of God’s nature are hard, if not impossible, for the human mind to comprehend.  For example, infinite concepts give me a headache.  If I try to comprehend the concept of an infinite sum, I get a headache.  If I try to really comprehend the eternal nature of God (without a beginning or an end), I get a headache.  My finite human mind simply cannot comprehend eternity beyond the vague concept.  I’m not alone in this either.  While Jehovah’s Witnesses will use the confusion argument against the Trinity, they contradict themselves in other areas.  In the Watchtower publication Reasoning from the Scriptures, they acknowledge this confusion after citing Psalm 90:2, referencing God’s eternal nature: “Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it.  But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.” ^[1]

As is so often the case in arguments by cultists and heretics, they have divorced 1 Corinthians 14:33 from its context to use it in the fashion they desire.  It is vital that we read Scripture in context to gain a proper understanding of it.  Let’s put this verse back in its appropriate context, including verses 26-33, 39-40:

“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace….Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”

When placed in context, we can see that this passage is talking about how our worship should be orderly.  Paul is trying to put the gifts of tongues and prophecy into their proper usage and eliminate the confusion that can result in a service when these gifts are used improperly.  Just as there is no discord within God, so there should be no discord or confusion in our worship of God.  Putting Scripture in context allows us to read it the way the authors (and the Ultimate Author) intended us to do so.

3.  The Trinity is a pagan concept adopted by Christianity.

This is one of the most common arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity.  I’ve heard it expressed often by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Usually, the person using this argument has no evidence to back up this assertion, but on rare occasions they do.  Unfortunately, it is equally rare that a Christian is prepared to “demolish” this argument.  It can be done easily by an appeal to facts and logic.

The argument typically is expressed that certain pagan cultures, such as the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, developed a Trinitarian belief in places far removed from the birthplace of Christianity and predating it by thousands of years.  Therefore, it’s logical to conclude that these pagan doctrines were introduced into Christianity hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  However, this isn’t exactly true.

The Babylonians and Assyrians did NOT develop a Trinitarian theological dogma.  Rather, they believed in triads of gods who headed up a council of other gods.  In other words, whereas the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that ONE GOD is comprised of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Babylonians and Assyrians believed that three separate gods formed a leadership over other gods.  In this, their beliefs more closely resemble the polytheistic/henotheistic beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.  Mormon doctrine holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods in leadership over this world.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah God created Jesus – a lesser god, and that the Holy Spirit is simply Jehovah’s active force in this world.  These beliefs are closer to the ancient pagan beliefs than is the Trinity doctrine, which is strictly monotheistic.  Moreover, the separation of early Christian development from these pagan beliefs with respect to time and geography make it highly unlikely that the pagan beliefs played any role in the Church’s clarification of the Trinity doctrine as found in the Athanasian Creed.  This creed reads, in part, “This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.  Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.  What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.  The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.  The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.  Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.  So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.  Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.  Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.  Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  However, there are not three gods, but one God.”  It should be noted that “catholic” in the early centuries was used to describe universal and orthodox Christianity long before the Roman Catholic Church existed as such.  The creed continues in this manner.  Athanasius did not fabricate this.  Rather, he summarized the teaching of Scripture. 

Association based on similarities is faulty logic.  Pagans (and indeed practically all ancient cultures on earth) have a legend concerning a global flood.  Does this negate the truthfulness of the global flood described in Genesis?  Does this mean the Genesis account was “borrowed”?  Of course not.  The ubiquity of the flood story actually buttresses its truthfulness, even though other cultures don’t have all the details correct.  Furthermore, some pagan cultures have a “messiah” legend that has similarities to the gospel.  However, there are also differences in these stories.  We can take joy in the fact that these legends haven’t the accuracy of the Bible as verified historically and archaeologically.  Similarities don’t impart guilt.  Therefore, similar pagan doctrines in triads of gods are not the same as the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity, and it is baseless to assume that the Trinity was “borrowed” from paganism.  It’s simply not true.

4.  Jesus calls the Father, “the only true God,” therefore Jesus cannot be God.

This is an interesting argument often raised by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  This argument, as we will see, is self-defeating for them.  This argument refers to Jesus’ words to the Father in John 17:3, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”  Critics argue that the Father cannot be the “only true God” if Jesus and the Holy Spirit can also claim to be God.  The thinking is illogical.  First, Jesus’ words do not exclude the Son and Holy Spirit from also being the only true God.  They DO exclude Jesus and the Holy Spirit from being separate gods.  In other words, if the Father is the only true God, then Jesus cannot also be a true God and the Holy Spirit cannot also be a true God (distinguishing them as separate gods rather than simply separate persons).  If we understand the true nature of the Trinity, we can acknowledge that the Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal persons that comprise the one true God, and John 17:3 does not counter that.  However, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe that Jesus is a separate god, and Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit is yet another god.  In the Mormon New World Translation, John 1:1 states, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (emphasis added).  Mormonism’s founding prophet taught, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”^[2] Now if a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness wants to claim that this verse teaches that the Father alone is the only true God, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit must be false gods.  If that is true, the teachings of the LDS prophets and the New World Translation must be wrong. 

5.  Jesus prayed to God in the garden, so Jesus can’t be God.

This statement has needlessly stumped some Christians, though not for long.  It is a misleading generality to say, “Jesus prayed to God.”  To be more precise, we should say that Jesus (The Son) prayed to The Father in the garden.  While it is true that there is only one God, it is equally true that God exists as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  During His earthly ministry and being subject to a mortal body, Jesus willingly endured the limitations of man.  As such, it should come as no surprise that He communicated with The Father through prayer!  This does nothing to diminish the deity of Jesus Christ or to contradict the monotheistic nature of God. 

6.  The Bible says that God is ONE!

This argument, which attempts to disprove the triune nature of God based on unity, is based largely on two verses:

-"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." – Deuteronomy 6:4   -"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’.” – Mark 12:29

Deuteronomy 6:4 in the New World Translation says, “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”  We’ve gone into detail in other articles about the fact that “Jehovah” is not a word that appears in the Bible, but is rather a modification of Yahweh.  One way to read the last phrase with some of the Hebrew intact is “Yahweh (Jehovah) our elohim is one Yahweh (Jehovah).  The Hebrew words themselves are “Yahweh elohim echad Yahweh.” The NIV footnote for this verse lists a few possible ways to translate this verse based on its grammatical construct.  Echad means “one” or “only”.  Because of the construct, this verse could be translated as it is above, or as “The LORD our God is one LORD,” “The LORD is our God, the LORD is one,” or “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”  I think the best of these translations can be assessed by observing the context of the passage.  In Deuteronomy 5, Moses had just presented the Israelites with the Ten Commandments.  One sin that marked these people was their habit of turning to idolatry (golden calf ring a bell?).  As we read down in chapter 6, we see that this is still the focus and concern at this point.  In verses 14-16 we read, “Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.”  This is a very clear exhortation for the Israelites to abandon their worship of multiple “gods.”  Therefore, the most reasonable way of interpreting Deuteronomy 6:4 is “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”  This establishes that only Yahweh is the true God.  All other “gods” are false and must be rejected.  Deuteronomy 6:4 does not exclude God from being triune in nature.  Mark 12:29 is simply a recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4 with the intent of that verse intact – we have one and ONLY one God!

Yahweh is our elohim, Yahweh alone.  In my previous article on the Trinity, I established Scripturally that not only is the Father Yahweh, but Jesus is also Yahweh.  Similarly, the deity of the Holy Spirit reveals He is also Yahweh.  In this article and the previous one, I have addressed some of the most common objections to the doctrine of the Trinity.  The teaching of the Word of God is clear.  There is one God.  God exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each of these three are rightfully called God, yet each is distinct from the other.  The absence of one convenient summary of this truth in Scripture does not negate its truthfulness, nor does it mean this truth is not found in Scripture.  God has revealed this wonderful truth to us through His Word.  The question is, are we listening?

NOTES:

1. Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), p. 148.

2. Joseph Smith, Jr., The King Follett Discourse (Salt Lake City: Joseph Lyon & Associates, 1963), p. 9.

Deception and Apostasy

Link: about.me/gideonsword

The following post consists of two articles. The first, 'If It Looks So Good, How Can It Be Deception', is a timely warning for the modern-day church in North America -- a church which is increasingly being led down the road to apostasy by sensual, feelings-driven religious movements which appeal to the senses but have little to do with the sound doctrine and solid principles of Bible teaching. The second article, 'Pathway to Apostasy', is a commentary from Roger Oakland in which he shares some concerns concerning the direction and trends which evangelical Christianity is following today. Following both articles I have included a video presentation of a sermon by Pastor Carter Conlon (Times Square Church) entitled, 'Run For Your Lives', in which Bro. Conlon, annointed by the Holy Spirit, gives a tearful exhortation to the church to avoid false teachings and doctrines of demons at ALL COSTS.

If It Looks So Good,
How Can It Be Deception?

Author: Barbara Wilhelm
Source: web.archive.org - 11/1997




"Now the serpent was more subtle and crafty than any creature of the field which God had made." (Gen. 3:1 - Amplified version)

"But also (in those days) there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among your-selves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines." ( 2 Pet. 2:1)

"For certain men have crept in stealthily - gaining entrance secretly by a side door." (Jude 4)


How often do we hear the refrain - if it looks so "good" ("brings forth such "good fruit"), how can it be deception? Are we expecting deception to be obvious? Why then would the Bible describe it as "more subtle and crafty, stealthily" gaining entrance as by a side door? Barnes Commentary states in the analysis of 2 Peter 2:1 that,

"...(false teachers) would not at first make an open avowal of their doctrines, but would, in fact, while their teachings seemed to be in accordance with truth, secretly maintain opinions which would sap the very foundations of religion. The Greek words used in the preceding verses means properly to lead in along with others. Nothing could better express the usual way in which error is introduced. It is by the side, or along with, other doctrines which are true; that is, while the mind is turned mainly to other subjects, and is off its guard, gently and silently to lay down some principle, which, being admitted, would lead to error. Those who preach error rarely do it openly."

THEREFORE, WE SHOULD EXPECT DECEPTION TO LOOK "GOOD"!! According to the Bible, the easiest method of deception is for error to ride on the back of truth. We hear what is, indeed, truth being preached. We assume that everything, therefore, being preached is truth, that everything being done is Biblical, so we let down our guard...and error and deception can then enter "secretly by the side door." Do we forget that it is a little bit of leaven that leavens the whole loaf?

Let's carefully examine what the Bible says about things that look "good." A few simple - yet startling - examples:

Gen. 13:10 - What did God describe as looking "like the Garden of the Lord"? SODOM (where exceedingly great sinners lived, v.13)

Ezek. 28:12- Who did God say was "the full measure and pattern of exactness - full of wisdom and PERFECT IN BEAUTY"? SATAN

Matt. 7:15 - Who will come "dressed as sheep" on the outside, "but inside are devouring wolves"? False prophets...looking "good."

Acts 20:29-30 also speaks of "ferocious wolves" that come from "inside", from those thought to be in the flock of Christ.

Matt. 23:12 - Who "looked beautiful on the outside"? The Pharisees who "inside are full of dead men's bones and everything impure."

2 Cor. 11:14,15 - Who will come as an "angel of light" and as "ministers of righteousness"? Satan and his servants.

Conclusion: deception looks "good" on the outside, but inside it is deadly.

It requires diligence to discern when Satan comes as an "angel of light", bringing what looks like the "light" of new revelation on a holy subject: when he comes, not as a devil, but as "another Jesus"; not with out-and- out heresy, but with "another Gospel"; and when he does all this in a religious setting, as "another spirit" (2 Cor. 11:4). Have we forgotten that Satan is a "religious" creature? Have we not realized that false gospels are not completely new gospels, rather they are true gospels with a few "minor" changes? Didn't the Galatians believe the basic truths of Christianity? Yet, Paul said, not once but twice, that they were to be "accursed" (Gal.1:8-9) for receiving a "different gospel," for making a few changes to the true gospel.

Perhaps, we need to look at some passages of Scripture in greater detail so that we may grow in discernment and avoid the deadly dangers of deception. Let's start at the beginning...

Genesis 3 contains the foundational truths of discerning deception. The Garden of Eden was a perfect religious setting; and into this perfect religious setting came deception. The relationship between God and the man and woman was so close that He "walked in the garden in the cool of the day" with them. This was spiritual intimacy of the highest order. And therein was part of Satan's subtle deception - he tempted the woman in the realm of that spiritual intimacy to become closer to God, to be more like Him (v.5). Let's remember that deception came before the Fall, before sin corrupted her mind with the twisted knowledge of what good and evil were. Exactly because of the purity of her being, this deception had to come in a very "good" disguise - so it came disguised in a holy desire for her to be closer to the God she loved. Such a holy desire - but, in order for it to be fulfilled she had to disobey His one "small" warning: just take one bite of what looked "good" to her. Here was the first appearance of the "angel of light", bringing new "light" in a "holy" way. And she did eat...and Adam did likewise. And they lost everything. The temptation looked "good"; it sounded "holy"; and it would allow them to grow "wise" - how could this be bad when it looked so good?

In their deception and sin, the man and woman did not even first realize there was any change in them: "After Eve had eaten and apparently suffered no ill effect, this constituted an additional argument why Adam need not hesitate to adopt the same course" (Barnes Commentary). After all, she hadn't died as God said she would if she ate of the fruit, so it must be safe. But, "they eat, they expect marvelous results, they wait and there grows on them a sense of shame" (ibid). When we are first deceived, we may still seem to be holy - perhaps we may even think we are more holy - but in time a sense of shame will grow on us. We have partaken of that which God has forbidden in His Word: we have fallen for that which we think looks "good."

In the Garden of Eden, wasn't one of the things the Lord was saying was that He had already given the man and woman ALL they need? They did not need more than all the trees and fruits He had already provided for them. Today, isn't He trying to tell us the same thing? He has given us salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - there is no "more" described in the Bible. Then why is the cry across the land for "more, Lord, more"? Biblically, what "more" is there? Do we not already have all we need?

Then there is the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13:24-30. Unger's Bible Dictionary defines tares as:

a poisonous grass almost indistinguishable from wheat while the two are growing into blade, at the beginning. When they come into ear, they can be separated without difficulty.

At the beginning all the crop "looks good", according to what the eye can see. But as time goes on the tares become visible. The wheat is sown first by the Lord. Then the enemy sows his tares as men sleep. Isn't this another way of saying that first, the true gospel may be preached, but "alongside" of that tares are sown? (remember 2 Peter 2) The Matthew Henry Commentary states:

"...when reason and conscience sleep, and people are off their guard then the enemy comes in...Note, when Satan is doing the greatest mischief, he studies most to conceal himself; for his design is in danger of being spoiled if he be seen in it; and therefore when he comes to sow tares, he transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13,14)...The tares appeared not until the blade sprung up and brought forth fruit, v.26. As the good seed, so the tares lie a great while under the soil, and at first springing up, it is hard to distinguish them..."

All revivals may look good: great enthusiasm and devotion may be displayed. But, religious enthusiasm in itself is not evidence of the truth. The Pharisees had great religious enthusiasm, so do Catholic mystics and Mormon missionaries. Yet, remember Matt. 7:21-23:

"Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in YOUR NAME, and driven out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty miracles in YOUR NAME? And then I will say to them openly, Depart from Me, I never knew you." (Emphasis added)

Who were in danger: just a few? No, many. Were evil acts being performed? No, they were doing miracles, great signs and wonders, prophesying. Were they done in a demon's name? No, in JESUS' NAME! In His Holy Name. Yet, He said - depart from Me. How "good" it all looks and sounds - in our eyes. Not in His.

Moses was a true man of God, working true miracles. Yet, in the beginning, his miracles were duplicated by Pharaoh's magicians (Ex. 7:11-12, 22;8:7). So that we do not forget how prone we always are to "signs-and- wonders" deceptions, 2 Tim. 2:5-9 makes references to these magicians, Jannes and Jambres by name. It warns against "silly" (v.6) people who are "forever inquiring and getting information, but are never able to arrive at a knowledge of the Truth" (v.7). Verse 9 promises that these counterfeits will eventually be exposed. But, in the meantime, they will continue performing signs and wonders, counterfeit signs and wonders.

Counterfeits, in the real world, are only successful in so far as they, as closely as possible, imitate the real. Only very close scrutiny will show that that $100 bill is not legal tender. In the real world, if a warning went forth that there were counterfeiters at large, wouldn't we scrutinize our money with great diligence? Yet, there are "spiritual counterfeits" at large and so many are naively accepting what they teach at face value. There is so much more at stake - our spiritual lives hang in the balance.

The whole chapter of Deut. 13 is a warning about deception, but perhaps the most alarming verses are 1-3:

"If a prophet arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder and the sign or wonder he foretells to you COMES TO PASS, and if he says, Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them. You shall not listen to the words of that prophet; for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your mind and heart and with your entire being." (Emphasis added)

Note: the man called himself a prophet of God. He came from among them, like the tares are among the wheat, like error comes alongside truth. And, incredibly, what he said CAME TO PASS! IT LOOKED GOOD!! Yet, God says not to listen to him; on the contrary, v.8 says that that prophet is to be put to death for talking rebellion.

The Lord says all this deception is sent as a test to know whether we love Him totally. Interestingly, the remedy for deception is for us to do our own "testing." In 1 Thess. 5:21 we are commanded by God to "prove all things until you can recognize what is good; to that hold fast." The word prove in scripture is a metallurgist's term. It is referred to in Jer. 6:27-30. An assayer or prover is to test ore closely because fool's gold looks so much like real gold ( it "looks good.") Once the assayer tests the ore and discovers it is gold, he then tests it further to see how pure that gold is -- 10k, 12k, 24k, etc. Interesting isn't it: God tests us to see if we are gold and how pure gold we are, and we are to test all things to see if they are gold and how pure they are. In Acts 17: 11 the Bereans were commended as being "more noble" because they took the Scriptures so seriously that they even tested the teachings of Paul. Notice that they did not use the fluctuating criteria of emotions or experiences in their testing; they used the only one reliable, trustworthy, infallible standard - the Word of God. Isa. 8:20 commands, "Direct people to the teaching and the testimony; if their teachings are not in accord with this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Where is the purest gold found? in the City of God (Rev. 21:21). We are only fit for this Golden City as we, too, are purified and immerse ourselves in pure teaching. In John 17:17 Jesus Himself said: "Sanctify them by the Truth. THY WORD is truth." (Emphasis added) Not our emotions, not our experiences, not by how "good" it looks or sounds or feels...by THY WORD.

I will close this by two simple examples of testing popular teachings by the holy standard of the Bible:

How many times have we heard that the end-times will be marked by revival? Yet, revival is NOT the sign of the end-times. DECEPTION is the sign of the end times. So says Jesus in Matt. 24 in v. 4-5,11,23-24. So says Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3.

How often have we been hearing lately about "miraculous signs and wonders"? The problem is that whenever signs and wonders are mentioned in the Bible in relation to the end times, they are called LYING signs and wonders! So says Jesus in Matt. 24:24 and Paul in 2 Thess. 2:9 ( see also 2 Pet. 2). Jesus in fact warns strongly against signs and wonders in Mt 12:39 and 16:4 --"An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." Then why are so many today being applauded for the "signs and wonders" in their midst?

Modern Day Application
There is a movement occurring today that, sadly, illustrates the principle herein described: error comes in alongside truth. I am speaking of the "Pensacola Revival" at Brownsville Assembly of God Church. I have personally viewed video tapes of numerous Brownsville services and read countless articles from Biblical authorities on their observations regarding the "Pensacola Revival." The Word that is preached may be holy. The burden for the lost and the heart's desire for the flock may be real. Individuals' lives may have changed for the better because of a sincere desire for God. BUT are the "impartations", the "birthings", the physical manifestations and emotional excesses truly of God? Are they not, instead, errors that have come alongside truth and are not those "little bits of leaven" in terrible danger of leavening the whole loaf?

We cannot test what we see and hear by our emotions or by experience: the only remedy for deception is the truth, the objective truth of God's Word. We must discern what is light and what is darkness. We must test the origins of this revival, its teachings and its total conformity to Scripture. Only by testing can we know what is true and to be embraced and what is deception and to be avoided.

Our criteria for truth, therefore, is not if it looks, sounds or feels "good." Partaking of the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and evil was our first sin - thinking we knew what was "good". The remedy for that sin in the Garden of Eden was "Yes, God HATH said!" Today, the remedy is still the same - has God said in His Word that it is good. Let our prayer be that in Isa. 11:2-3:

"(That) the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon ( us), the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the reverential and obedient fear of he Lord. And make us of quick understanding, and (let our) delight be in the reverential and obedient fear of the Lord. And (let us) NOT judge by the sight of (our eyes) neither decide by the hearing of (our) ears"...Nor by how "good" it looks or sounds or feels. Amen." (Amplified Version).

Pathway to Apostasy

Commentary by: Roger Oakland
Source: Understand The Times International: Roger Oakland Ministries
www.understandthetimes.org




Recently, I was contacted by a friend and colleague who also has a discernment ministry. He was surveying other discernment ministries in order to come up with a list of the top ten subtle ways the body of Christ is presently being led astray. As I was busy speaking at a conference at the time I received his e-mail, I wrote him back and told him I would get back to him in a few days.

While flying back to my home after the conference, I took out my computer and responded to my friend’s request. The topics I had presented at the conference were still fresh in my mind. Following are the first ten trends I have personally encountered. While I am certain there are many more, the following ten trends provide a good overview of what is taking place in the church today:

- Ecumenical unity at any cost yet completely void of any connection to the message that Jesus died on the Cross.

- The church-growth movement, which is focused on a market-driven seeker-friendly Christianity emphasizing a megachurch mentality.

- A Christianity focused on following men, their methods, and their movements.

- A Jesuit agenda promoted by publishers and pastors proclaiming the teachings and ideas of Roman Catholic church fathers and Roman Catholic mystics.

- The rejection of biblical creation and the acceptance of theistic evolution and progressive creation.

- The acceptance of New Age ancient Babylonian practices such as yoga and contemplative prayer as a means of “getting closer to Jesus.”

- A false Christianity that substitutes the gospel according to the Scriptures with a social gospel.

- The “Purpose-driven P.E.A.C.E. Plan” that prepares the church for a global one-world religion.

- An experience-based “Christianity” that seeks after signs and wonders and rejects the biblical warnings of a Last Days spiritual deception found in the Bible.

- The compromising of the church in order to become “postmodern” and “progressive” in an attempt to reach the postmodern generation.


It was not my objective to place these various trends in their order of importance. The fact is, each one is occurring, and the vast majority of professing Christians are not even aware these trends are happening or even that there is a problem. Perhaps in the future, these ten points would make good chapter headings for a small book that would deal with each topic in more detail.

For now, let me say I believe biblical Christianity is under attack like it has never been before. We are not only on a “slippery slope” -- Christianity is ready to fall off the cliff. As Jesus asked in Luke 18:18: When the Son of man cometh, will He find faith?

Current events indicate the pathway to apostasy is leading exactly in the direction foretold by the Scriptures.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

Sermon presented by: Pastor Carter Conlon at the Times Square Church
Source: Youtube - NeverSurrender channel

Occult History: The Mormons and Freemasonry

Link: about.me/gideonsword

The Masonic Roots of Mormonism

Source: conchisle.com




Some Mormons do not realize that their temple Endowment ceremony was copied directly from occultic rites in Masonry. The Mormon temple ceremony has no connection whatsoever with Christianity. On March 15, 1842, Joe Smith became an Entered Apprentice Mason, and the next day he became a Master Mason. The usual thirty-day wait between degrees was waived by Abraham Jonas, Grandmaster of the Illinois Lodge.

Joe Smith admitted to being a Mason in his History of the Church (vol. 4, p. 551).

Under the date of March 15, 1842 his entry is, "In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office." (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 551)

The very next day he noted becoming a Master Mason, "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree." (Ibid., p. 552)

Dr. Reed Durham, who was president of the Mormon History Association, noted:

"There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Mormon ceremony which came to be known as the Endowment, introduced by Joseph Smith to Mormon Masons, had an immediate inspiration from Masonry. It is also obvious that the Nauvoo Temple architecture was in part, at least, Masonically influenced. Indeed, it appears that there was an intentional attempt to utilize Masonic symbols and motifs. . . ." (Mormon Miscellaneous, pub. David C. Martin, October, 1975, pp. 11-16). The remainder of Dr. Reed Durham's address can be viewed at http://web.archive.org.

Less than two months after becoming a Master Mason, Joe Smith introduced the Endowment ceremony. For the Endowment ceremony, Joe Smith copied Masonic rites from a book called Freemasonry Exposed (1827) by William Morgan. When one compares the Nauvoo ceremony with the Masonic rite in Morgan's book, one easily sees the Masonic influence on the Mormon rite. The two rites resemble each other to the point of being identical at places. Morgan's account was an exposé of his local York Rite's "Craft" degrees.

One can easily see the similarities between Masonic and Mormon rites. The penalty for revealing the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, Smith copied from the penalty of disclosing the first degree (Entered Apprentice) of Freemasonry.

Mormon text: "We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots" (W. M. Paden, Temple Mormonism, 1931, p. 18).

Mason text: "I will . . . never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots. . . ." (William Morgan, Freemasonry Exposed, 1827, pp. 21-22).

Compare the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood with the Second Degree (Fellow Craft) oath:

Mormon text: "We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip, or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field" (Paden, p. 20).

Mason text: "I . . . most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear . . . that I will not give the degree of a Fellow Craft Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any other being in the known world . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence . . . to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and vulture of the air. . . ." (Morgan, p. 52).

Besides similar penalties, there are also similar signs, arm positions, ear whisperings, passwords and handgrips. For instance, compare the "First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood" grip with the "First Degree" Masonic grip:

Mormon text:
Peter - "What is that?"
Adam - "The first token of the Aaronic Priesthood."
Peter - "Has it a name?"
Adam - "It has."
Peter - "Will you give it to me?"
Adam - "I can not, for it is connected with my new name, but this is the sign" (Paden, p. 20).

Mason text:
"What is this?"
Ans. "A grip."
"A grip of what?"
Ans. "The grip of an Entered Apprentice Mason."
"Has it a name?"
Ans. "It has."
"Will you give it to me?"
Ans. "I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it." (Morgan, pp. 23-24).

Ashamed and embarrassed about Smith's copying Masonic rites for the Endowment ceremony, Mormon officials expunged the Five Points of Fellowship and the Penalties from the Endowment in 1990.

Although Freemasons use names and trappings from the Bible, Freemasonry is an occult organization. Various books have traced the occult roots of Masonry. Masonry forces its members to address all prayers to the Great Architect of the Universe--Lucifer, or Baphomet--(GAOTU). Masons have been forced out of the organization when they prayed to Christ Jesus.

In the Masonic initiation, the initiate bares his left breast and rolls up his left pant leg over the knee. His right shoe is replaced by a slipper and his eyes are blindfolded. A noose is placed around his neck, and he is led to the outer door of the Masonic temple. The blindfold symbolizes his being in outer darkness outside of Freemasonry. A sharp point is pricked on his breast, and he is made to kneel before an altar, behind which stands "The Worshipful Master," who presides over the ceremony. The initiate is then required to say that he is lost in darkness and is seeking the light of Freemasonry. A Christian cannot say that he is lost in darkness, since a Christian, by definition (1 John 1:4-7), walks in the light of Messiah. He would be lying if he took this oath.
[See Also: The Myth of Christian Freemasons, The Mason and the Christian, and Why I Left Freemasonry]

At the Blue Lodge ceremony, the initiate is given a white lambskin apron, as an emblem of a spotless and pure life, to bring before the "Great White Throne" when he dies (Masonic Monitors, the Craft ritual manual). However, there is only one Great White Throne in the Bible (Revelation 20:11-15), and only those who are to be eternally damned appear before it. It is the judgment of the lost. The only covering of sins God will accept is Christ’s blood atonement (Col. 1:13-14, 20; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:14; 1 John 1:7; Matt. 26:28; Isaiah 64: 5-6; Rev. 1:5). To God, good deeds alone are as filthy rags.

Dr. Albert Pike was a Masonic authority who wrote Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. He was the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Supreme Council, A.A., Scottish Rite, for 32 years. The current Sovereign Grand Commander, C. Fred Kleinknecht, noted that "Pike's great book, Morals and Dogma, is the most complete exposition of Masonic philosophy there is."

In Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike admits that Freemasonry is a religion (pp. 210, 213, 219). Among others, Masonic authorities Albert Mackey (Encyclopedia of Masonry, pp. 618-619) and Henry Coil (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, p. 512) admit that Freemasonry is a religion.

The Masonic definition of God as polytheistic is not compatible with the Biblical, monotheistic God. Neither is the Masonic plan of salvation—works, moralism, Masonic ritual--compatible with the narrow Christian path to salvation--confessing sins (1 John 1:9), repenting from sin (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38), having faith in Christ (John 3:14-18), being born again of the Spirit (John 3:3-8) and reading the Bible in earnest (2 Timothy 3:15).

"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.'" (John 14:6)

Scripture says there is only one true God (Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). God commands us to have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20:1-5), yet Masonry, by definition, bows to all gods and refuses to acknowledge the God of the Bible as Lord.

After earning the three Blue Lodge degrees, and having completed the Scottish or York Rite degrees, Masons can petition to become Shriners, who swear to a blood oath and who confess Allah as God (The Mystic Shrine: An Illustrated Ritual of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Shrine, 1975, pp. 20-22). "Allah" is not just another name for God; Allah is the name of another god. You may view an article with further information on Islam (together with two additional Mormonism articles) HERE.

Joe Smith copied the Mormon Endowment ceremony directly from the Blue Lodge degrees of Freemasonry, and he borrowed Masonic symbolism, such as the Masonic markings on underwear Mormons wear. Over the right breast in occult Mormon underwear is a carpenter's square, and over the left, a mason's compass. The opening at the navel is symbolic of the evisceration penalty for disclosing Mormon secrets. Mormons are taught that their underwear, and in particular its Masonic markings, "will be a shield and a protection" to them from the power of the destroyer (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, vol. 2, p. 295).

When the underwear becomes worn, Mormons may use the garment as, say, a rag only if they cut out and burn the patches with the Masonic square and compass. The occult power is in the Masonic symbolism.

Mormon buildings also have occult markings. The inverted pentagram is prominently displayed not only at the Salt Lake City Temple, but also at the entry of the LDS Museum just across South Temple Street, as well as on the new statuary honoring Moroni in Manti, Utah. The inverted pentagram is a symbol of Satan.

According to the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, "The Pentagram, the sign of the Microcosm, was held to be the most powerful means of conjuration in any rite . . . with two points in the ascendant it was the sign of Satan" (vol. 2, p. 552).

The inverted pentagram is also called the "Baphomet," or "Goat of Mendes." It is on the cover of Anton LaVey's satanic Bible, and it is on the Salt Lake City temple.

In the architecture of Mormon buildings are various other Masonic and occultic symbols. The Nauvoo temple had decorative caps called "sunstones" on pilasters. The sunstone depicts a sun with a radiant, but goofy human face. There were thirty of the 2.5 ton white limestone sunstones decorating temple columns before the temple was destroyed. There were also thirty "moonstones" and "starstones." Mormon elder William Weeks was the architect for the 128 by 88 foot Nauvoo temple, although Joe Smith occasionally interfered and asked for changes, such as round windows on the second floor and sunstones. Smith had a "vision" in which the sunstone represented the Mormon "Celestial Kingdom." The term "Celestial Kingdom" is similar to the Masonic "Celestial Lodge Above."

The source of the sunstone is the Egyptian sun god Re (Horus-Re). Egyptians saw the sun as dying and being reborn each day. To Egyptians, the sun god Re made this diurnal journey in his solar bark. Egyptologists identify Re in Figure 3 of Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham. Dr. Samuel Mercer was one of the eight Egyptian antiquities experts who were quoted in Franklin S. Spalding's booklet Joseph Smith, Jr., as a Translator (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Arrow Press, 1912). All eight, of course, found Smith's explanations of Facsimiles completely false. Dr. Mercer was distinguished as the custodian of the Hibbard Collection of Egyptian reproductions, the most complete collection in the United States (The Utah Survey, vol. 1, no. 1, September, 1913, p. 3). Dr. Mercer noted that the personage in Figure 3 is Re (Ibid. p. 23). In his numbered explanations of Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, Joe Smith wrote that Figure 3 represents "God, sitting upon his throne" (Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price). The Egyptian sun god, then, represents the Mormon god.

The Masonic influence is throughout Mormon temple architecture. At the Salt Lake City Temple, over a window of the east central tower, is the All-seeing-Eye. The All-seeing-Eye is taken from the left eye, the "moon" or "sound" eye of Horus. Horus is a detestable pagan god, the son of Osiris and Isis. There is much pagan Egyptian mythology in the roots of Masonry and Mormonism.

Besides the All-seeing-eye, the Salt Lake City temple also has as a part of its architecture Ursa Major, cloudstones, starstones, sunstones, moonstones, earthstones, Saturnstones and the demon Moroni. The clasped hands on the Salt Lake City temple were also derived from Masonic symbolism. The Mormon beehive is a Masonic emblem of industry and virtue. The 1854 architect's drawing of the south elevation has Saturnstones over each sunstone on the main buttresses of the central body of the temple. In 1870, Brigham Young moved the Saturnstones to a more obscure pattern atop five of the six spires of the temple. The sixth and highest topped is with the demon Moroni.

Next to Moroni, the Saturnstones have the loftiest place on the building. The pagan Roman god Saturn is the source of the Saturnstone. In Mormon symbolism, Moroni, the blood spurting ghost of a Spaniard who was murdered as an enchantment to guard treasure, occupies the loftiest position on the temple. The next highest position is occupied by a symbol for the pagan god Saturn.

At the seventh degree in Masonry, the "Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch," the initiate learns "God's" secret name: Jahbulon. The name Jahbulon is a composite name from Jah-Bul-On. It joins Jehovah (Jah) with two pagan gods, the pagan Canaanite deity Baal (Bul) and the Egyptian god Osiris (On). According to Masonic authorities Henry Wilson Coil and Malcom C. Duncan, "Jah" refers to Jehovah. "Bul" refers to the Assyrian or Canaanite deity Baal, and "On" refers to the Egyptian deity Osiris (Henry Wilson Coil, Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, New York, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply, 1961, pp. 516-517; Malcom C. Duncan, Masonic Ritual and Monitor, New York, David Mckay Co., nd., p. 226; Dr. Ron Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House, 1994, p. 86).

This is strong evidence that Joe Smith's LDS "church" is satanic at its roots. In the Bible, God does not allow His name to be mixed with pagan gods. Baal and Egyptian gods are all completely detestable in God's eyes. God is a very jealous God, and He has severe consequences for those who worship another. Much of the Bible is about the hammer coming down hard on Hebrews who fooled with Baal or other pagan gods.

Printing the initials J.B.O. for the secret name "Jahbulon," the ritual book of the Craft states,

"We three do meet and agree--in peace, love and unity--the Sacred Word to keep--and never to divulge the same--until we three, or three such as we--do meet and agree."


"And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies." (Judges 2:14)

"Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." (Ezekiel 20:7)

In the seventeenth degree of the Scottish Rite, or The Knights of the East and West Degree, the secret password is Jahbulon, and the Sacred Word is Abaddon.

"They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon [destruction], and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon [destroyer]." (Revelation 9:11)

No true Christian can take the name of the angel of the abyss, Abaddon, as a "sacred word."

In the eighteenth degree--the Most Wise Sovereign Knight of the Pelican and the Eagle, and Sovereign Prince Rose Croix of Heredom--there are various obscene mixings of Christ's name, together with a mockery communion of eating a biscuit, salt and white wine. In the thirty-first degree, the Grand Inspector Inquisitor Commander, various Egyptian gods and goddesses are honored, including Anubis, Osiris and Isis. In the thirty-second degree, the Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, there is the false Trinitarian deity AUM, and its parts: Brahma as the creator, Vishnu as the preserver and Shiva as the destroyer. There is drinking from a human skull in this and other Masonic rites.

The Christian hope for Salvation is spelled out clearly in the Bible. On the other hand, the LDS religion is rooted in Freemasonry and other occult practices. Symbolizing his false hope, Joe Smith's last words included the Masonic distress signal.

In his book exposing Freemasonry, William Morgan revealed how Masons signal for the aid of fellow Masons "in case of distress": "The sign is given by raising both hands and arms to the elbows, perpendicularly, one on each side of the head, the elbows forming a square. The words accompanying this sign, in case of distress, are, 'O Lord, my God! is there no help for the widow's son?'" (Morgan, p. 76).

Mormon bishop John D. Lee, who was executed for his part in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, wrote about Smith's giving the Masonic distress sign before dying, "Joseph left the door, sprang through the window, and cried out, 'Oh Lord, my God, is there no help for the widow's son!'" (Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153)

Less than one month after Joe Smith's death, the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons referred to Smith's giving, as his last words, the Masonic distress sign, " . . . with uplifted hands they gave such signs of distress as would have commanded the interposition and benevolence of Savages or Pagans. They were both Masons in good standing. . . . Joseph's last exclamation was 'O Lord my God!' " (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585).

LDS "apostle" Heber C. Kimball also admitted that Joe Smith gave the Masonic distress sign just before dying, "Joseph, leaping the fatal window, gave the Masonic Signal of Distress." (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball an Apostle, the Father and Founder of the British Mission, Salt Lake City: The Kimball Family, 1888, p. 26).
[Read more about both the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the truth behind Joseph Smith's supposed 'Martyr's Death' HERE]

Joe Smith had placed his hopes of Salvation in a false hope, in that which cannot save. Those who follow Smith's religion likewise will share Smith's fate in hell.

Examining the Cult of Mormonism

Link: about.me/gideonsword

A Summary and Evaluation of Mormonism

This article presents a brief overview of the Mormons; including the history and basic belief structure of the Mormon church.


Author: Rev. Shane Lems
Source: ReformedFellowship.net - The Outlook, January-February 2011, Volume 61, No.1 - Reformed Fellowship, Inc.

Introduction
The cult of Mormonism is on fire. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is burning up the religious landscape in the United States. In 1800 there were no Mormons; in 1950 there were around two million; estimates today are around thirteen million. Recently the Mormon church has been brought to the spotlight through Mitt Romney’s run for president, Glenn Beck on FOX, David Archuletta’s #2 spot on American Idol in 2008, and the recent trials over polygamy that we’ve read about in newspapers and blogs. Many know about Steve Young, Brigham Young University, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and those crisply dressed young male missionaries with the shiny black name tags. Many of us have seen one of the Mormon temples spread around the world, from Australia to Korea to the Philippines to China to South America and beyond. In a word, we can’t escape the Mormon religion: it is as ubiquitous as baseball and hotdogs.

In recent years, Mormons have been attempting to name themselves Christians. “We’re Christians too” is a theme song of the Mormon missionaries. What should we make of that claim? I’m guessing that some of us would quickly agree that Mormons are not Christians in the historic sense of the term, but exactly why can they try to use that label? Should we budge an inch and let them take the name in the broad sense of the term, and include them in our larger Christian church: Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, and Reformed? The answer is the strongest and loudest no you can yell next time you hear the question: Are Mormons Christians? This will become evident as we dig a bit deeper into what Mormons teach.

The following discussion has two basic parts. First, we take a historical and theological trek through Mormonism. In a point by point, straightforward manner, we will discuss the major teachings and beliefs of Latter Day Saints. After observing the “brute facts” of Mormonism, we engage in a critical evaluation, matching them up with the historic Christian faith. Also, in the second part, we learn that the inner workings of Mormonism—the nuts and bolts of their theology—are neither logical nor biblical. Much of the information I use about Mormon doctrines is found on their website, www.lds.org; what follows is but a very brief survey. I only quote official sources, and since footnoting every source would significantly lengthen the article, most of the following quotes are “googleable” (you can Google them to find the source). Please note that each quote from a significant Mormon authority can be documented and thus is part of Mormonism.


Joseph Smith
To understand Mormonism we start with Joseph Smith (b. 1805). One of the Mormon scriptures, The Doctrine and the Covenants (D&C) says, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it” (135:3). The late President, Gordon Hinckley (d. 2008) said, “Our entire case, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, rests on the validity of this glorious first vision. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by, is of greater importance than this initial declaration.” In other words, Joseph Smith is one of the foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is not their savior, but without him, according to Hinckley, the truths of Mormonism would not stand.

Smith’s “glorious first vision” came in 1820, when he was around 15 years old, as a resident of west New York State. He was praying and meditating when suddenly he saw a bright pillar of light over his head. “When the light rested upon me I saw two personages,” wrote Smith, “whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.” One spoke to the young boy, pointed to the other personage, and said, “This is my beloved Son; hear him.” Smith later noted that these two “personages” were the Father and Jesus Christ: Smith saw both as distinct personages. From this revelation the Mormon church was born.

From this date on, Smith had many more visions, some of which became later Mormon scriptures, which are addressed briefly below. In 1827, after a few years of attempting to get golden plates that he heard about in another revelation, Smith was finally allowed by the angel Moroni (more info on Moroni below) to have the plates. Smith was led to a hill where he dug and found golden plates along with a mysterious translating device that allowed him to read the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic picture script that he found on these plates. Smith enlisted several people, including his wife, to help him translate the plates. While the helpers were not allowed to see the plates during translation, later these eleven witnesses signed a statement saying they did see the plates.

While it is beyond the scope of this discussion to highlight the details of subsequent Mormon history, the literal movement of the Mormon church is worth noting. The history of Mormon travels is significant for all Mormons; it is an interesting topic to study. They compare their journey to similar ones in the Old Testament. After Smith’s revelation, many followers moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri (where they say Zion was physically located) to Illinois to Salt Lake in 1847, where many still reside today. Along these lines is the Mormon enthusiasm for genealogies, though it would take us too far afield here. Again, this history is part and parcel to the Mormon faith.

The Book of Mormon
One of the foundational scriptures of Mormonism is The Book of Mormon (BoM). They call it “another testament of Jesus Christ.” They affirm and use the Bible (rightly translated); the BoM stands right next to the Bible as another word of God. Joseph Smith said about the BoM, “The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than any other book.” Along with Smith and his revelation, the BoM is a pillar of Latter Day Saint theology and practice.

The BoM is the history of a people from around 2000 BC to AD 421. It is roughly the length of the Bible, sounds exactly like the KJV, and reads mostly as history, but some theology and doctrine is found in it as well. In the BoM, some Jews from the kingdom years in the OT fled persecution and made several trips to Central America (though the exact location is disputed within Mormon scholarship). When in Central America, the Nephites and Lamanites (the two main people groups—Jewish peoples) set up massive civilizations. The BoM says that their cities covered the lands and the people numbered as the sands on the seashore (Mormon 1:7). While in Central America, they built ships, synagogues, sanctuaries, and temples; they had shields, compasses, silk, armor, cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, and elephants, among other things (cf. Ether 9:17–19; 15:15).

In the BoM, destruction—earthquakes, storms, and darkness—came to Central America when Jesus died in Jerusalem (around AD 34; cf. 3 Nephi 11:1–12). This destruction killed many wicked people in Central America, and the resurrected Christ appeared to those who remained. The resurrected Jesus taught these Central American people the Sermon on the Mount, the institution of the Supper and baptism, and so forth. He then ascended into heaven.

Later on, in the 5th century AD—still in Central America—a Nephite named Mormon gathered all the plates of the history of his people (dating back over 2000 years) and summarized them into one set of plates, and his son Moroni buried them around AD 421. These plates are what Smith found, what the now-angel Moroni showed him, which is now called The Book of Mormon. Along with the BoM, the Mormon church recognizes the Doctrine and the Covenants (D&C), the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible rightly translated—all these are their scriptures. Smith recorded many of his prophecies in the BoM, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price before he was murdered in 1844 (note: these three books also contain the prophecies/revelations of other significant Mormon leaders and prophets).

Mormon World History
“Long ago you and I were born as spirit children of God, and naturally, a Goddess, actual beings of glorified human form and substance.” This is the way one Mormon author explains the eternal period of existence before creation. Before creation, Mormons teach, God the Father (Elohim) had some sort of physical sexual intercourse with a goddess who then gave birth to spirit children. The first born spirit-child was Jesus, whose brother was Lucifer. People are also spirit-children, the offspring of Elohim. In the words of another Mormon authority, “Before you began your life on earth, you lived with your Heavenly Father as one of his spirit children.”

Brigham Young (d. 1877) the second president of the Mormon church (Smith being the first) wrote, “We were first made spiritual, and afterwards temporal.” In other words, before people had physical bodies, they existed as spiritual entities. In fact, not only did spirit-children exist before creation, so did the “elements.” And these elements are eternal (D&C 93:33). There was “stuff” or material or matter or intelligence—something—that is eternal, that had no beginning. Of course, Elohim and other gods (male and female) are eternal as well. Brigham Young said, “How many Gods there are I do not know, but there never was a time when there were not Gods.” We discuss below the Mormon teaching of “gods.” For now, simply note that before creation, there was/were 1) God/gods, 2) spirit-children, and 3) unorganized matter or “elements.”

Concerning creation, Mormons teach that the gods created the world (including God/Elohim as the leader). Smith taught, “In the beginning the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.” Gods created the world out of preexistent matter in a manner similar to the way that construction workers make a house. Mormons strongly deny the ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) teaching of historic Christianity. Additionally, J. F. Smith (d. 1918), the tenth president of the Mormon church, declared that Adam in his spirit existence helped form this earth—he said “perhaps Noah and Enoch” did as well, “and why not Joseph Smith?” Mormons also teach that God created the world out of love, so that his spirit-children would have a place to dwell, a place wherein to progress to salvation. Mormons teach that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives, a plan that we were involved in before creation itself.

Adam and Eve were historical people. They were, with us, spirit beings before creation, but they were the first humans on earth. They lived in the Garden of Eden, which Mormons teach is in Independence, Missouri. Eve sinned by eating the fruit; Adam committed a transgression when he ate. Note the terminology: Adam didn’t sin; he transgressed God’s law, and Adam’s transgression opened the door of salvation. He said, “Blessed be name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy” (Moses 5:10). Adam fell that man might be and progress in this life, on this earth (2 Nephi 2:25). In a mysterious way, the fall was a fall upward, and Adam did the right thing by eating the fruit. Also fundamental to Mormon doctrine is their absolute denial of original sin: it is written in their foundational document, Articles of Faith. That is, since Adam’s transgression was not a sin, there is no sin to pass down to his descendants.

Mormon Theology Proper
Mormon theologians and scriptures teach that God is loving, compassionate, caring, and powerful. In general terms, Mormons speak about God the same way Christians do. However, there are extreme differences. For example, many Mormon theologians teach that God progresses. Smith himself said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. . . . we have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see . . . he was once a man like us. . . . here then is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves.” Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints said—now famously—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” In fact, “God . . . has flesh and bones,” Smith wrote elsewhere. In summary, Mormon theology holds that God was a man like you or me, who progressed to be the God that he is now. Orson Pratt even taught that God continues to progress in knowledge and power.

One other significant aspect of Mormon theology proper is that God is subject “to the laws which govern . . . even the most refined order of physical existence.” In other words, since God is at least in some real sense a physical being (remember he had some kind of physical sex with a goddess); he is subject to the laws that govern physical being. Since he has a body like people, he is confined to certain limits of physical existence—he has parts that take up some kind of space. Of course, he has to progress, since he is not outside of the laws of progression. This progression in Mormon theology even touches God’s fatherhood: Mormons teach the fatherhood of God ad infinitum. Smith: “If Jesus Christ was the son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?”
Finally, concerning theology proper, Mormon theology is not Trinitarian: “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . I say that is a strange God anyhow . . . three in one, one in three! It is a curious organization. . . . All are to be crammed into one God according to sectarianism [read: Christian theology]. He would be a giant or monster,” Smith preached. Another Mormon publication says, “We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.” In other words, there is not one God, but three Gods—three different and distinct beings who share the title “God” but not the substance or essence of a single being. To reword the historic Christian Athanasian Creed: the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Spirit is Lord: yet these are three Lords, not one Lord.

The Doctrine of Man (Anthropology)
We have already noted the creation and fall of man: it is a historical fact in Mormonism. Again, we learned that Adam’s fall was not a sin, but an upward sort of transgression, which resulted in the possibility of spirit-children to take on human bodies, Adam and Eve’s many descendants. There is not a huge gap between God and man in Mormon theology. Joseph Smith said, “We say that God himself is a self-existent being. . . . Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist on the same principles. . . . The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. . . . The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . The first principles of man are self-existent with God.” Even more boldly, Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie said, “Man and God are of the same race.” In other words, humans and God are on the same being-scale; God is only exalted and higher on the scale or ladder. There is no Creator/creature distinction in Mormon theology. There is a difference, but it is not an ontological or metaphysical essential distinction, just one of progress on the same scale of being.

Another thing to note about Mormon anthropology is again the teaching of progression. Man can by faith and obedience—as we note in a few moments—attain godhood, in a way similar to God’s progression to godhood. This has everything to do with the Mormon doctrine of salvation: how people attain godhood. We return to this topic after briefly examining the Christ of Mormon Christology. For now simply note that as God progressed to where he is now (and where he will go as he progresses still), man follows in the progression stage.

The Doctrine of Christ (Christology)
Jesus is Jehovah, the Son of God, the Savior; hence the name of the church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is a loving and caring Savior, the firstborn of all spirit-children. He was a spirit-child of God and a goddess—before us, but with us—in the stillness of pre-creation time. Lucifer, or Satan, is a spirit-brother of Jesus (and in turn, humans). According to one Mormon writing, “Both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our heavenly Father, and, therefore, spirit brothers. . . . Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother.”

Jesus “was not begotten by the Holy Ghost,” according to Young. Joseph F. Smith said, “Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God” [emphasis mine]. God the Father had intercourse with Mary, and the result was Jesus’ conception. She was still a virgin because she didn’t have sex with an earthly man, but a progressed God. Jesus, after God’s prior progression, also progressed by obedience and faith. Jesus was saved by his faithfulness. According to McConkie, Christ “is a saved being.” Again, progression is key: God, man, and Jesus progress to salvation and godhood.

Mormons teach that Jesus is the only Savior, and apart from him there is no salvation. Many Mormon authorities sound similar to Christian teaching about Jesus as Savior. Through his suffering at Gethsemane and the cross, Jesus saves people. Actually, according to www.lds.org, “Through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death.” This general salvation that Jesus accomplished is a free gift from the Savior to all humans. Yet this universal resurrection as gift is by no means a resurrection to eternal blessedness in the highest degree—some are raised by Jesus as gift only to wind up in some semi-blessed state.

The Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology)
We’ve already touched on salvation in the sections on the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ; now we tie those themes together. According to the Mormon text Gospel Principles, exalted Mormons “will have everything that our heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have: all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.” Men become [a] god according to Mormon soteriology: exalted people (saved people) will share some of God’s essential or divine attributes (characteristics). Notice yet again the theme of progression: men climb the ladder of being to the attainment of godhood, or exaltation.

How does a person attain this salvation in Mormonism? By faith in Jesus Christ: “the fundamental principle of our religion is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” as one Mormon president said. Of course this means repenting and trusting, but in Mormon theology, the definition of faith includes faithfulness. According to McConkie, “Faith . . . includes good works. . . . Works are part of the definition of faith, and without them there is no faith.” “Faith is a gift of God bestowed as a reward for personal righteousness.” To be saved means to trust and obey, for there’s no other way to attain godhood in Mormon theology (see D&C, 132:20–21). It is clear then that Mormon soteriology is completely at odds with the “faith alone” teaching that many orthodox Christians hold so dear. One Mormon teacher wrote, “The sectarian doctrine of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity.”

According to www.lds.org, “Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual’s continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God.” Faith is essential for salvation, but not enough; you must keep the commandments of God to climb the ladder to godhood. Though it is another topic, Mormonism teaches levels of glory: the celestial, the terrestrial, and the telestial kingdoms. “The glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion, expressed by our obedience to the Lord’s commandments. It will depend on the manner in which we have received the testimony of Jesus.” In summary, the more faithfulness a person shows, the higher he or she will climb on the ladder: the top of the ladder is the celestial kingdom, where humans reign as gods over their own kingdoms, wives and all.

The Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
When Joseph Smith found the golden plates in 1827 (which resulted eventually in the BoM), it was the restoration of the gospel and church of Christ. God reestablished his church on earth through Smith and the plates. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a continuation of the Church of Christ in the New Testament, according to Mormon theology. Smith received his revelation because there were no true churches on earth. In fact, in his vision he was told that all churches of his day were apostate. Thus, the Mormon church is the only true church on earth (D&C 1:30) and there was no drop of gospel-truth from the early days of church history until the American Joseph Smith was used by God to rekindle the church. Many early Mormon authorities (Smith, Young, Taylor, etc.) often said that Christianity was a tool of the devil, a bag of stinking falsities. As an interesting side note, some Mormons will give the Reformers a nod for their attempt to take the church back, though Mormons will say they fell quite short.

For Mormonism, the doctrine of ongoing, or progressive, prophecy and revelation is central. As we saw earlier, some of the fundamental truths of the Mormon church are Smith’s revelations in the 1820’s, along with other revelations of later Mormon teachers and prophets. In fact, in 1829, Peter, James, and John appeared to Smith and a friend of his and gave him the keys of the kingdom and made them apostles. In this way, the Melchizedekian priesthood was officially restored. There are still apostles and prophets in the Mormon church—fifteen total, including the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. “Prophets . . . receive revelation for the church;” the Scriptures are not closed; the canon is open and dynamic, always progressing, always becoming. Revelation can change, as with the change in the stance on polygamy and with the change in the stance against black people holding the priesthood. In a word, Mormon theology holds that divine revelation and prophecy is still going on and fluctuating from the Old and New Testament times. This is why the Mormon church has several scriptures, not just the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Another aspect of Mormon teaching that goes hand in hand with the doctrine of the church and ongoing revelation is the internal voice of the Holy Ghost, which assures a person that the Book of Mormon is true and that Smith was a true prophet of God. In fact, if you look at nearly any copy of the BoM, you will see on the inside flap somewhere a phrase that suggests reading the book and earnest, intense, heart-felt prayer will result in the Holy Ghost testifying that these things are true. Joseph Smith said this internal call is unmediated—that is, without book or voice, but God directly communicating to a person without external means. I’ve had several discussions with Mormons where they always end on this note: “I know it is true because I prayed it and the Spirit told me” (or something similar). This is one of the highest validations for Mormons concerning the truth of their religion: they will look you in the eye and in some way explain that they have a warm feeling deep down inside that Mormon teaching is true. For Mormons, you cannot question this revelation, because it is internal and unmediated.



_______________


Rev. Shane Lems
(MDiv, Westminster Seminary California) is the pastor and
church planter at the United Reformed Church in Sunnyside, WA

Religious Pluralism

Life or Death...The Choice is Yours

Part 2: Religious Pluralism

It is tragically true that few of those who believe that all spiritual beliefs are valid paths to God seem to have made an in depth study of various religions to see if their claims are based on fact, or fairy dust.

Author: Carol Brooks
Edited by: Vicki Narlee
Source: InPlainSite.org
Link: about.me/gideomsword

Sections:

Part 1: Religious Tolerance: What It Means and What It Doesn't Mean
Part 2: What Is Religious Pluralism?
Part Three: Three Common Beliefs of Religious Pluralism
Part Four: Contradictory Claims
Part Five: Ambiguity: Restricted Solely to Spirituality
Part Six: Charges Often Leveled at Christians
Part Seven: The Million Dollar Question
Part Eight: Judging Religious Claims



Religious Tolerance

One of the more recent buzzwords in an increasingly diverse society, is "tolerance". A large percentage of the population, cheerfully confusing democracy and truth, has run with the idea that equal tolerance of all religions means that one has to accept all religions as being equally valid paths to God.

Not so!

What It Means
The English word ‘tolerate' means to put up with something you may not like, agree with or approve of etc. In a religious context, it simply means that a person of one faith will tolerate, or put up with, other religions, and will not, in any way, discriminate against people because of their religious convictions.

And no one can argue that this is not the right thing to do.

The pages of history are blood soaked by the terrible consequences of man's extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, opinion, or practice that differs from his own. Religious bigotry has led to so called holy wars... the crusades, inquisitions etc., all of which were all morally reprehensible, and makes it extremely important that we do all we can to foster religious freedom. Every man and woman alive has the right to choose whatever religious path they wish.

What It Doesn't Mean
Having said that, I have to point out that religious tolerance does not mean that

a) A person of one religion agrees with, or endorses some, or any, of the beliefs of another.
Hundreds of thousands of people who have, apparently, never heard of a dictionary, think 'religious tolerance' means that you are supposed to accept any and all spiritual beliefs as having some truth, regardless of whether you think they contradict facts, or even make a whit of sense.

b) A person of one faith cannot, or will not, argue or debate the validity of their own religion.
One outcome of this misuse, of the word 'tolerance' (which I thought was a simple easy-to-understand word in the English language) is that proselytizing, or trying to induce someone to convert to one's own religious point of view, is seen as "intolerant". People who do so are often accused of trying to 'cram their religious views down others throats'. Unfortunately this is another skewed view of 'tolerance'. People have as much right to argue, discuss, and debate the validity of their own religion, as much as any other topic. However, should person two reject any of what is put forth, person one accepts that everyone has the right to believe and practice what they do.

I will defend to the death your right to believe as you do, just as much as I will defend to the death my right to try and convince you that you are wrong.

(Note: The same lack of understanding of basic English comes up when Christians are accused of being "homophobic" when they state their belief that homosexuality is wrong. See Footnote I)

The claims made by Christianity are constantly being challenged by other people. In fact, we live in a time when the only prejudice that is tolerated is the prejudice against Christians and Christianity. However, on the precept of 'what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander', the truth claims of other religions are also open to challenge.

Also, it is perhaps worthwhile mentioning that advocates of this "tolerance" are, very often, not in the slightest bit tolerant themselves. They only tolerate those who agree with them, not those who make truth claims. For example, if a Christian were to say Jesus is the only way to God, he, or she, would be accused of being narrow minded, arrogant, intolerant and a host of other, less than complimentary, adjectives. This, by any standard, is not tolerance at all. What the accuser usually forgets is that the very tolerance that they so emphatically espouse, requires them to be tolerant of the Christian who is stating his, or her, beliefs.

Besides which, as Grantley Morris so rightly says... "should you talk to any vigorous proponent of the tolerance issue, you would find that when it comes to issues that happen to be close to their hearts .. animal cruelty, racism, rape, environmental vandalism, nuclear warfare, banning abortion etc. (to name a few possibilities) tolerance would take a flying leap out of the window, and what they believe would matter very much." [1]

Additionally, it is equally important that we not confuse tolerance and truth, which I will come to a little further down.


What Is Religious Pluralism?

Occasionally used as a synonym for ecumenism, religious pluralism believes there are many spiritual paths to the same destination. In other words, even if all roads don't actually lead to Rome, all have some value in that they provide comfort and moral guidance to their adherents. A very common claim heard today is that no religion is absolutely true (the word "absolute" means unconditional... unlimited by restrictions or exceptions.) And this view appears to be more widespread than we realize.

In his book Absolute Confusion, George Barna reported that two-thirds of all adults (62%) believe that "it does not matter what religious faith you follow because all faiths teach similar lessons about life." [2] This was substantiated by a major nationwide survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center in 2007. An interview with more than 35,000 adults in the U.S. showed that:

"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)." [3]

Religious pluralists, who sometimes call themselves "spiritually eclectic", believe that it doesn't really matter what spiritual path you follow because 1. there is no conclusive evidence in favor of one religion being 'right' and 2. there is at least some validity and truth in almost all religions and philosophies. All that matters is that you are "sincere", and have some version of God in there somewhere. Religious pluralists, therefore, do not follow one religion to the exclusion of all others, but tend to pick and choose (usually from varied traditional religious beliefs) those doctrines, philosophies and/or practices that resonate with them...what pastor Greg Koukl aptly calls a "Pious Porridge". [4]

The last verse of English music journalist, biographer and poet, Steve Turner's satirical poem, entitled Creed says..

We believe that each man must find the truth
that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

And, heaven help the person who actually happens to think that anothers religious views may actually be wrong. Pluralists often accuse Christians of being imperious, overbearing and arrogant because they think they are right, and other spiritual paths/religions are wrong. However, what rarely seems to occur to any one is that these very same pluralists think all non-pluralist beliefs are wrong. In other words they are just as dogmatic as the people they rail against.

What few realize is that Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity (the belief that only one religion is true.)

Islam claims theological and linguistic exclusivity....Muslims believe that the sole and consummate miracle of Islam is the Qur’an, and that only in Arabic (any translation is believed to de-sanctify it.) The Qur’an itself says "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (Imran 3:85. Sahih International)

Hinduism, while claiming to be a religion that 'accepts all religions to be true', is absolutely uncompromising on the authority on the Vedas (Hindu scripture), the law of karma (the law of moral cause and effect) and reincarnation. Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda said "The path of the Upanishads is the pure path" through which "truth becomes clear." [5]

Additionally, while pluralistic beliefs may sound very tolerant and enlightened, none of them hold up under, even the slightest, scrutiny. Let's examine the more common ones.


Three Common Beliefs of Religious Pluralism

1) It Doesn’t Matter What You Believe as Long as You're Sincere
But, as Grantley Morris asks, "what if you believe...All you need for skydiving is a good umbrella. Plumbers have better cures for constipation than doctors.
Red traffic lights mean 'go'."

And, as he goes on to say, "In the physical world, what you believe is critical. And the same God made the spiritual realm. Try telling a victim of Hinduism that it doesn't matter what you believe. Especially before Christian influence gained momentum in India, millions of Hindus sincerely believed that:
Baby girls should be drowned in the Ganges so they can be reincarnated as boys.
Surviving widows should be cremated alive with their deceased husbands.
The gross discrimination and prejudice of the Hindu caste system should be enforced.
It is better not to relieve human suffering because that would be interfering with people’s karma." [6]

In this regard, the late Dave Hunt tells an amusing, but very telling story. He says he was in hospital for surgery and, during his stay, enjoyed talking to the doctors and nurses "about what really matters". He goes on to say that he was shocked at how many nurses declared they could believe what they wanted. Dave's response was to tell the medical staff to remove the I.V. and let him out of there. This, obviously, met with some consternation until he explained to them that he was not willing to be treated in a hospital where nurses and doctors could believe whatever they want. The staff then explained that they were talking only about religion, and he had no need to worry since here were definite medical procedures for treating patients.

In other words, there are rules for caring for the body but, when it comes to ones eternal soul, anything goes. As Dave went on to say:

"Such is the irrational thinking engaged in by the majority of people today. They can be very sensible and careful about things in this life, but when it comes to eternity they literally throw reason to the winds." [7]

2) Every Religion Only Has A Portion Of The Truth
A common analogy often used to illustrate the point that every religion only has a portion of the truth is the story of the blind men who are trying to describe an elephant by touching the elephant's body. The blind man who only feels a leg claims the elephant resembles a pillar; the one who feels the tail thinks the elephant is more like a rope; the one who touches the trunk says the elephant is like the branch of a tree, and the one who touches the elephant's side believes the elephant is much like a wall, and so on.

In other words, the parable claims to show that no one religion, or individual, has the whole picture (truth), and to claim to do so is unmitigated arrogance.

What is truly amazing is how many people nod their heads very wisely at this parable without thinking it through.

The problem being that only someone who knows exactly how much truth is out there, can claim that each religion only has a portion of that truth. The only way this parable makes any sense at all is, if the person relating the story, has seen the entire elephant, which means they are claiming to have knowledge that they say none of the religions have.

Unless you have seen the whole elephant....unless you know what the absolute truth is, your belief that no religion has this truth is nothing but a personal opinion.

3) All Religions Stem From The Same Source
It is sometimes argued that the one omniscient deity created all religions in order to reach people from various cultures and backgrounds, in a way that most appeals to them. Therefore, although their customs and practices may be different, all religions stem from the same source. Advocates of this position often appeal to the common factors between religions, most especially the fact that many of them have a similar moral code and often produce positive moral changes in their followers.

A comment made by "bhinkson41' on an article in Time magazine entitled 'Viewpoint: The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’, by Rabbi David Wolpe, serves to illustrate what seems to be a very common viewpoint:

"All religions have a common moral code and are based on living a moral, positive life....The difference between a muslim, a catholic, any other religious person and a SBNR is really just specific customs, holidays and traditions, not what is being taught or advocated in each sect."[08]

However, although this theory may, on the surface, sound quite enticing, it has a fatal flaw. If all religions stem from one source, they have to possess similar truths, at least on the major issues, and this is certainly not the case. A second verse of English journalist, Steve Turner's satirical poem, entitled Creed says,

We believe that all religions are basically the same,
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation sin heaven hell God and salvation.

We should, for a start, note that not only were several religions founded in opposition to ones existing at the time, but they contradict each other on the most vital of issues:

Buddhism in India blossomed as a result of people seeking freedom from an extremely oppressive, caste-ridden society, which stipulated strict norms of ritualistic worship, and granted special status to just a handful of the "privileged class" of society, while looking down upon the rest of the population.[9] Gautama Buddha rejected the ultimate authority of the Vedas and the caste system creating a new emphasis on renunciation and transcendental knowledge.[10]

Sikhism came as a challenge to both Hinduism and Islam. Guru Nanak’s disciples rebelled against the established social order and created a whole new identity for themselves. After a vision, the founder, Guru Nanak, said since God was neither Hindu nor Mussulman, the path he would follow would be God's path. [11]

Bahai: "While Baha'ullah considered that "Qur'an held pride of place among the sacred writings of the world", he "did not accept a traditional account of Islam. He rejected polygamy, slavery, and the concept of holy war (jihad). Much of the Qur'anic teaching was modified or explained in an allegorical or metaphorical sense. Thus belief in angels and evil spirits was dropped. Heaven and hell were treated symbolically. In these and other ways the monotheism of Muhammad was liberated from the particular thoughtforms and regulations natural at the time of the Prophet, and were given a new look." [12]


Contradictory Claims

Anyone who insists that all religions are equally true, or at least, there is validity to be found in all religions is ignoring the fact that claims made by one, often flatly contradict claims made by some of the others. In fact they do not agree on the most crucial of all questions... whether or not there is only one God and, if there is only one, who He is, how we relate to Him, what happens to us after we die, etc. For example, the Bible says that there is only one God, which Muslims and Jews agree with.
In Hinduism, Brahman is often seen as an impersonal absolute reality which permeates all things. However, most Hindus believe in a pantheon of Gods, although some hold that deities like Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna are simply manifestations of Brahman.
Buddhism does not believe in God at all.
In Shintoism, the indigenous religion of Japan, Kami are the central objects of worship, defined in English as "god," "spirit," "spiritual essence" of nature, as well as spirits of the deceased who eventually becomes a part of a collective ancestral spirit.
In the Christian tradition, God can be known, while most eastern traditions believe God to be impersonal and unknowable. Christianity teaches that when we die, we will go to either heaven or hell, while Hindus claim that we are all reincarnated depending on our 'karma'.
Shintoism says there is no afterlife, just the here and now, so make the most of it.
Buddhists seek Nirvana, the complete absence of desire.
Islam denies the virgin birth, deity, crucifixion, and literal physical resurrection of Christ, and Judaism also denies that He is the Messiah -- four doctrines that are at the very heart of Christianity.

In nearly all religions, salvation (if, in many cases, it can even be called that) is attained through human effort - good works, alms giving, etc. Only in Christianity does salvation come solely as a gift from God - it cannot be earned through human effort.

In our daily lives we do not believe two contradictory facts at the same time. For example, either the Seattle Seahawks won the 2014 super bowl, or they did not, both cannot possibly be true. Similarly, when it comes to religion,

Either God exists, or He does not.
Either there is one God, or there is more than one.
Either God is knowable, or He is not
Either Christ is the Messiah, or He is not.
Either we are reincarnated, or we dies once, after which comes the judgment.

There are no other choices, and no in-between view.

If two religions make truth-claims which contradict each other, they cannot both be right. When one religion says there is only one God and another says there are many gods... someone doesn't have their facts straight. God can either be either knowable (Christianity) or unknowable (Eastern religions) ... He cannot be both. When Muslims and Christians claim that each person lives only once, then faces judgment, and Hindus claim that each person is reincarnated many times, one of the two parties is wrong... one cannot 'go to heaven' and be reincarnated at the same time.


Ambiguity: Restricted Solely to Spirituality

Some people choose their religious beliefs like they choose their food at a buffet. At a buffet you, like most people, probably take a little of this and a little of that, helping yourself to food that appeals to you and tastes good. But you may very well be adding things to your plate that are not going to do your body any good. In fact, some of your choices might actually do you harm. Think about it for a moment - your selection would probably be very different if you were piling onto your plate only food that was good for you, which would only happen if you had done, at least, some research on basic nutrition.

Similarly, when a people pick and choose from a variety of different spiritual beliefs and practices, they tend to choose what appeals to the palate. The spiritually eclectic might be happy with a spiritual path of their own invention but, sadly, they have never investigated whether their choices are spiritual junk food that, in the end, is going to harm them. They haven't done any study of basic spiritual nutrition and, therefore, have no idea whether what they have is, at best, devoid of any nutritional value or, at worst, carcinogenic.

When it comes to the most important issues of life - What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What happens when I die? Does how I have lived my life matter? Will I be called to account by the Judge of the universe, if such a being exists? - it is assumed that either we cannot know, or it doesn't matter. Figuring out a belief or practice that "works for me" is all that is required.

Yet, oddly enough, those who claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth make scores of decisions every day on the basis that they believe some things are true and others are false.
Why?
Simply because we happen to live in world of absolutes, also called facts.


Dozens of Decisions We Make Every Day, Are Based on Facts not Feelings

Our world today, especially with the advent of the internet and television, can be extremely complicated, if not downright confusing. We are constantly barraged with, often conflicting, news reports and advertising, etc. It is quite obvious that we cannot, at least if we have an iota of common sense, accept everything that comes down the pike. And, luckily, most people do not, but make at least some effort to find out if the claims or statements are true.

In fact, whether we realize it or not, we literally make dozens of decisions every day, based on evidence, not feelings. As Anglican Clergyman, Dick Tripp, so rightly says,

"I will not turn on a light without believing in the reality of electricity, or drive a car without believing in the effectiveness of the combustion engine. No one flying in a cloud through mountainous terrain would want to be directed by a navigator who did not believe in the truth of his instruments. No one undergoing brain surgery would want to be operated on by a surgeon who did not believe that some things about the brain were true and some not true."[13]

Society as a whole, works exactly the same way. For example, our entire justice system is founded on the process of finding out whether a person is innocent, or guilty, of some crime. Evidence is presented, alibis are checked, witnesses are interviewed, with every effort made to determine whether they are telling the truth, etc. Why do we do this? Simply because there is one truth out there -- either the person committed the crime or he didn't. And we need to find out which.
Similarly, the scene of an accident, especially one that involves several vehicles, can be pure chaos in terms of multiple versions of what exactly happened. One person will usually blame the other, passers by will relate what they saw, or think they saw, and so on and so forth. It often takes a huge amount of sifting through evidence before the truth can be arrived at. And, I am willing to bet not too many of us are reaching for our check books to support The Flat Earth Society dedicated to demonstrating that "the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax."[14] And why not? Simply because the evidence for a round earth is overwhelming.

There is no question that our feelings, or gut instincts do, on occasion, come into play and can even be very useful. For example, we may have a 'feeling' that a particular person cannot be trusted. However, feelings and facts are not synonymous, simply because feelings can, and are, caused by all manner of things; from how we physically feel that day, what we might have eaten, or what our current circumstances are. Most people can probably recount far more instances when they were wrong about something; when their feelings led them astray. In fact, the high divorce rate in modern society provides irrefutable testimony to the fact that feeling cannot always be trusted. Most people, having met a person they are very attracted to, become convinced that he, or she, is "the one" at least partially based on immensely powerful feelings. They feel very happy, more energetic, need less sleep etc. etc. etc. Yet, how many wind up in the divorce court, fighting often bitter custody and property battles.

On the other hand, facts are always true, and completely unrelated to what people think or believe. For example, believing 2 2=4 is a mathematical fact, regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. The truth does not become 'more truthful' if it accepted by scholars, theologians, experts in various fields, or by the general population. Conversely, the truth does not become 'less truthful' even if no one on earth accepts it. The truth remains the truth - regardless. You are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion. However, you cannot make up your own truth -- not in mathematics, not in science, and not in religion.

Except, Apparently, When it Comes to Religion
But, for some reason I cannot possibly fathom, the one major exception to logical analysis, is religious belief.
What would any of the spiritually eclectic people say to the doctor who refuses to recommend a definite line of treatment, but suggests that the patient can choose any medicine out there; anyone, or combination, of which should have the desired result depending, of course, on how the patient feels while they are taking it, and whether he, or she, believes it will help. And what shall we say to the insurance agent who tells us that one policy should achieve the same results as all the others. I would be willing to bet good money that the unwell patient would not waste very much time finding another doctor, and the person looking for the best insurance policy has long slung the agent out of his, or her, house.

So, when we refuse to accept ambiguity in virtually every arena of our lives, why are we so willing to accept it in our spiritual lives; the arena that could have the most far reaching consequences of all. Sadly, precious few who make claims such as 'all spiritual beliefs are valid paths to God" seem to have made an in depth study of various religions to see if their claims are based on fact, or fairy dust. It is usually sufficient that the beliefs and practices they adopt sound, and feel, "spiritual". However, the open acceptance of many spiritual paths, even those that flatly contradict each other on some crucial issues, would be sheer lunacy in any other context. In fact, we would find ourselves in deep trouble on quite a regular basis, if important decisions were based on how we emotionally relate to something, instead of collecting known facts/weighing all the evidence.
The question now becomes: are we simply going to delude, or continue deluding, ourselves into believing that two or more contradictory statements can all be true? Or are we going to, like the legendary detective, Hercule Poirot, repeatedly said, stir the little grey cells?

In short, the real issue is not whether you find your spiritual beliefs appealing and whether they seem to work for you, but whether they are true, especially considering, that many, if not most, of them flatly contradict one another. As Keith Johnson says:

"Claiming that it is intolerant to say that "all paths do not lead to the same destination" misses the point. The important issue is the truth or falsity of this assertion."[15]


Charges Often Leveled at Christians

Christianity claims to be the one and only true path to God, which conflicts with the very popular belief that all religious belief is relative, and all claims to truth are equally valid. This has led to various criticisms, few of which hold water simply because they are aimed at the wrong target.

Accusations Based on The Person, Not His Belief
Among other charges often hurled at Christians are; they are narrow minded and/or bigoted, myopic, need a crutch, are biased, or are Christians merely because they were born into a Christian country or family. However, if you are paying attention, you might have noticed that, without exception, every one of these criticisms is about the believer, not his belief. The accusations are focused on a fault/failing, or circumstance of the Christian himself. What is being attacked are the Christian's mindset, his character flaws, his emotional needs, his feelings, his biases, his culture, etc., none of which tells you one single thing about the truth or falseness of his beliefs. None of the objections focus on whether there is good reason for the Christian to believe as he does -- whether what he believes is true.

However much you might disagree with, or even deride, a Christian's reasons for belief, it does not mean that belief is not justified. To learn whether or not the Christian's beliefs are well placed, you have to focus on the beliefs themselves.

You Are Only A Christian Because you Were Born into a Christian Country or Family
Religious pluralists often claim that religious beliefs are relative to geography and culture, not the rationality or truth of the religion itself.
For example, people are Christians merely because they were born into a Christian country, or family. A person who happens to be born into a Hindu family in India is very likely to be a Hindu. If born into a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, Muslim. In Tibet, a Buddhist. And had you been born and raised in pre-war Germany, you might have been a Nazi.

So what?

Let's start with the fact that, as Jason Dulle points out, this argument is a double-edged sword. The pluralist can only make these claims because he was born in the 20th century in a western country. Had the religious pluralist himself been born in Saudi Arabia, he would have been a Muslim, and the vast majority of Muslims are exclusively dedicated to Islam.[16]

In any case, geographical/cultural factors are completely unrelated to the truth or falsity of a religion. As pastor Greg Koukl once said, (unfortunately, cannot find the article in which he said it,)

"Consider two men, one a pediatrician in New York and another a pygmy in the Congo. Each describe the cause of sickness in different ways. The pediatrician faults germs, the pygmy, spirits. The doctor invokes medicine for healing, the pygmy, magic. Each believes exactly what his culture has taught him and lives as if it were so. Here is my question: Who is correct, the doctor or the pygmy?"

In other words, you can neither validate, nor invalidate, a religion based on how a person came to follow that religion. Just because a person is a Muslim because he, or she, lives in a predominantly Muslim country does not mean their beliefs are true. And it works both ways: just because a person is a Christian because he, or she, lives in a predominantly Christian country, does not mean their beliefs are false.

Greg Koukl also goes on to point out that Christians are often guilty of the same error:

"I've frequently heard the content of modern psychology dismissed as bogus simply because it came from irreligious people who hated God. Would these same ideas magically morph into truth when tumbling from the mouth of a Christian? A prominent Christian talk show host dismissed the work of homosexual scientist Simon LeVay in search of a "gay gene" with the remark, "But he's gay." Just because a person may have a motive to deceive, though, doesn't mean his research is deceptive.

It does not logically follow that you have to accept the religion of your family or culture. It doesn't make a whit of sense to assume that just because your parents/family/countrymen believe one way, they are necessarily right. They may very well have done exactly the same thing -- unquestioningly followed the belief system of their parents, who might have unquestioningly followed, ad infinitum. You may begin your life accepting the belief system around you, but once you reach the age of reason, you have the freedom and, may I say it, the responsibility, to examine and evaluate the evidence and claims of your religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, while it may seem evident that most people are capable of discerning simple truth, this may be slightly harder than it appears. Some studies actually corroborate the fact that feelings often outweigh facts. David Haury, associate professor of education at Ohio State University, conducted a study on how people make decisions. He says:

"Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins."[17]

While this study was concerned only with why people do, or do not, accept evolution, there is every reason to believe that gut feeling triumphs facts when it comes to accepting other theories as well. Besides which, the phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance" shows that once we believe in something, we will try to explain away anything that conflicts with it.[18]

I would, however, like to particularly address two of the charges, that is that Christians are narrow minded and arrogant to think that they're right and other spiritual paths/religions are wrong. There is a huge difference between being narrow minded and empty headed.

Narrow-Minded?
I am sure there is little question that, just like every other group in the world, some Christians are narrow minded. However, we usually consider people "narrow minded" when they refuse to even consider the pros and cons of any opinion, or belief, that does not agree with their own convictions. As said by Glen Miller of The Christian Thinktank (Bold added, capitals in original):

"...when a college professor spends 40 years studying all sides of an issue, and TAKES A POSITION on that issue, we rarely accuse her of being 'narrow-minded' even though the position may be the same one held by a narrow-minded type. So you see, just holding strongly to a belief that something is true is NOT necessarily being 'narrow minded'. But, beyond this, the REAL question is more an issue of "is this position TRUE?" than it is of "are they holding it in a narrow-minded fashion?"
And, practically speaking, we KNOW that wisdom and experience teaches us to trust some options over others. For example, when our doctor prescribes a medication to help us get well, it is not narrow-minded to accept their advice, even though we know there are psychic healers and tribal witch doctors who would urge a different approach. The question is, who has credentials we can trust?
And, looking at this from another angle, if it were simply one human opinion versus another, we might not be entitled to hold our viewpoints so strongly. But if we become convinced that God has broken into history with a factual message, then it's not narrow-minded to believe HIS statements--its a matter of trusting a credible source of information. (Presumably, He knows the REAL facts.) [19]

An extremely good point brought up by pastor Greg Koukl, and one we need to bear in mind, is the fact that 99.9 % of everything we know comes from someone else, not from our own research. For example, all our knowledge about the universe, the microscopic world, distant lands, and history, comes from one authority or another. The key issue being the reliability and credibility of the source.[20]

Being open-minded does not mean we accept every belief that is out there, but that we do not close our minds off to the possibility that something is true. Only someone who is open-minded will recognize truth when they see it. On the other hand, someone who is narrow minded will not even entertain the possibility that ideas or beliefs, other than the ones they already hold, can be true. Narrow minded people are thus apt to miss the truth.

Arrogance and Bigotry?
‘Bigotry’ is the intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
The charge is often made that Christians are arrogant and bigoted to think they are the only ones with all the answers, have the only way to God, and that their attitude is nothing more than a version of western colonialism. However, this is little more than name calling by those who have no idea of the premise that Christianity is based on, which is to save people's lives. Lets see if I can, with a very simple analogy, rectify the completely erroneous impression that Christians try to stuff their opinions down other people's throats, remembering, of course, that most analogies are less than perfect.

When flu season rolls around you are constantly reminded to take your flu shot, especially if you are elderly. This may actually be sound advice since the flu is often a killer (The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed over 20 million people). So we are constantly urged to get the shot by the medical profession, the media etc. since it is one way to be pretty sure of avoiding the virus. However, how many people have you heard loudly protesting that the doctors, nurses and other members of the medical profession are narrow minded fundamentalists, trying to force their views down other people throats? Why aren't we telling these people that they are intolerant and hateful for trying to fob their views off on us? After all isn't it narrow minded to insist that THEIR WAY is the only way to avoid getting sick? Even if you happen not to want a flu shot, or do not believe that it helps, you accept that the medical profession is trying to save your precious life. And whether you agree with them or not, whether you believe them or not, Christians are trying to do the same thing--warning you that Jesus is your flu shot--the only way to salvation. Not because we said so, but because HE did.

Christians do not think they are better than you (smarter maybe) for getting the 'flu shot', because by doing so they are actually admitting they are sinful and in need of forgiveness--that nothing they can do is good enough to get them into "heaven". We are not in God's favor because of our good works, the exemplary lives we have led, or because we are better than everyone else. Much to the contrary, in many instances, I am sure that there are non believers who lead more moral lives then many of us. But for the grace of God, we would be lost.

If you believe that arsenic and sugar are interchangeable, but all the evidence points to arsenic being a deadly poison, would it be intolerant and arrogant of me not to try and convince you to reconsider spooning arsenic into your coffee? Or would it be inhuman of me not to do so?

In the final analysis, the decision is to take or not take the flu shot is yours, as are the consequences of that decision. However, making that decision without really exploring it, is not good sense.


The Million Dollar Question

The question has to be asked: what if all paths do not lead to the same destination? When various religious traditions such as Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity offer such radically different views of God, the destiny of the soul, and even the world, then it would seem that each person must make an informed choice. Anyone who goes through life on an unhealthy diet, choosing only foods that taste good to them, has to accept that there are often severe consequences to these decisions, including increased risk for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and osteoporosis, among others. Similarly, someone who goes through life picking and choosing those spiritual beliefs that appeal to them, and appear to do good in the here and now, also has to consider the possibility that there may be even more serious consequences. But, considering the widely differing claims of the various religions, how does one go about making an informed decision?


Judging Religious Claims

It is indisputable that adherents of most religions, including Christianity, tend to reject most other religions simply because they do not agree with the tenets and teaching of their own faith. For example, a Muslim will reject Jesus as the Son of God because the Qur'an says He is only a prophet. Similarly, Buddhists will reject the idea of a factual 'heaven' since it does not square with Buddha's teachings. However, it does not follow that there is no objective criteria by which we can evaluate different religious traditions. That there are no standards we can use that are unrelated to, and undistorted by, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personal bias, tradition etc.

In a June 2010 article by John Blake entitled 'Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?' on the CNN web site, someone called "misirlou" made the following comment:

"Being "spiritual, but not religious" is definitely a modern trend, but I don't think it reflects the Burger Kingization of religion. I think it reflects a far more educated and inquisitive society than existed in the past who look at the world around them and realize that religion makes no sense and science provides far better answers to our questions about the nature of life and the universe. Religion has only persisted so long because the general populace lacked access to information and education. Now that anyone can go to college and take science courses, book a trip to another country with a foreign culture, or get on the Internet and do their own research, there are fa. r fewer people willing to be spoon-fed a bunch of B.S. and accept it without question."[21]

Which is as far from the truth as it gets.

Much to the contrary, the very fact that so many people to day are better educated, have access to all kinds of information, and are thus able to do their own research, makes it much easier to use the same tools to judge religious claims that are used to judge any other non-religious claims. In fact, it seems to come as quite a surprise to many that similar criteria used to judge whether something is true in the secular world, can be applied to religious claims. However, what one cannot do is apply one set of standards, or tests, to secular literature and another to the Bible. Evidence is neither relative, nor based upon feelings. While you can accuse the Christian's viewpoint as being 'their opinion' or 'their beliefs', you cannot say the evidence is 'their evidence'. Evidence is evidence, whichever way you look at it.

The Criteria
One of the most important factors in any kind of investigation, is the testimony of witnesses, who tell us what they saw, heard and/or experienced.
When witnesses are called to testify in a court case, whether their testimony is believed or not largely depends on the credibility of the person testifying. In technical matters, much depends on the witnesses' knowledge, training, and experience. However, in non technical matters, the emphasis is largely on the witnesses' known personal character, lifestyle, and appearance of honesty and forthrightness. A person shown to have lied about other matters, even non-related ones, is far less likely to be believed than one whose character appears to be exemplary. While we might have some sympathy for the boy who cried wolf, we certainly can understand the villagers who ignored him when, at the last, he raised an alarm and this time, there really was a wolf who, if memory serves me right, ate him.

Quite obviously, in the case of events that took place many hundreds of years ago, we have to rely on written accounts, or historical documents. Corroboration of key facts by other witnesses makes the event more credible, especially when it comes from someone who could be viewed as "hostile". Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts also helps substantiate the document's accuracy and reliability. In other words, it has to be consistent with other fields of knowledge such as science and archaeology. For example, archaeology can help validate, or repudiate, the historical accuracy which often forms the background to the story. While historical accuracy does not "prove" spiritual authority, it does enhance its credibility in non-historic areas.

Additionally, it should give us considerable pause for thought if a document, known to be several thousand years old, displays accurate scientific knowledge, light years ahead of the periods in which it was written.


[Continue on to Part 3: Faith and The Bible
What most people do not seem to realize is that Christianity is perhaps the only religion that does not demand 'blind faith' from it's followers. CLICK HERE]


Footnote I
Christians are often accused of being "homophobic" when they state their belief that homosexuality is wrong. However, a "phobic" is a person who has a "phobia", which is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. in fact, I know of no case where the suffix phobia does not mean "irrational fear of."

So, 'homophobic' cannot possibly be applied to anyone who opposes homosexuality on moral grounds... And someone who opposes homosexuality on moral grounds does not necessarily mean they hate, discriminate against, or are prejudiced against homosexuals.

Besides which, the term is usually used in a derogatory fashion. So, how is it acceptable for you to call me a less than polite name, but it's not okay for to me to think homosexuality is morally wrong. How is your attitude more 'loving' and 'tolerant' than mine?


Endnotes
[1] Grantley Morris. All Religions Are The Same [net-burst.net]
[2] George Barna. Absolute Confusion: The Barna Report. Regal Books, 1994. Pgs. 73 and 80
[3] U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, June 2008 [pewforum.org]
[4] Greg Koukl. Religious Stew [str.org]
[5] Thoughts on the Vedas and the Upanishads [vivekananda.net]
[6] Grantley Morris. All Religions Are The Same [net-burst.net]
[7] Dave Hunt. An Appeal To Reason [thebereancall.org]
[8] Rabbi David Wolpe. The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’
[ideas.time.com]
[9] Hinduism vs Buddhism - Complementary or Contrary? [dollsofindia.com]
[10] The foundations of Buddhism [britannica.com]
[11] The Gurdwara Sahib [neworleansreligion.blogspot.com]
[12] Ninian Smart. The Bahá'ís, Religious Experience of Mankind, pages 417-418. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
[13] Dick Tripp. What is truth and does it matter? [christianity.co.nz]
[14] www.theflatearthsociety.org
[15] Keith Johnson. Do All Paths Lead to the Same Destination? [www.leaderu.com]
[16] Jason Dulle. 'You’re only a Christian because you were born in America' [theosophical.wordpress.com]
[17] When It Comes To Accepting Evolution, Gut Feelings Trump Facts. Research and Innovation Communications © 2012. The Ohio State University.
[18] [psychologytoday.com]
[19] Glenn Miller. [christianthinktank.com]
[20] Greg Koukl. 'Testing Religious Truth Claims' [str.org]
[21] John Blake 'Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?'
[www.cnn.com]