California Christian Apologetics Conference (VII)

For my third and final elective I opted for "The Case for Pro-Life" with Sean McDowell. Sean is quite skilled at doing presentations in a straightforward, understandable, and logically sound manner. And this one was no different. For those who don't know me, abortion is my pet social issue. There are a lot of things that are noble to fight for, like to end poverty in America or something, but those just seem to be less serious to me. To be sure, homeless people don't exactly have it going for them, but it's WAY better in America than elsewhere. For example, I have heard that 30,000-40,000 people die every day of starvation. That is huge! And dying of starvation is not something that sneaks up on you. Hunger slowly overtakes you and you suffer for a long time. Now you might say, "Well, Evan, then why isn't your pet issue helping those overseas who are starving?" And I'll answer by saying that although it is huge deal that we should be concerned about, it doesn't have quite the same sting to me as millions being heartlessly slaughtered by their parents… LEGALLY. Somehow this just gets to me. It could also be that it is happening in America, so it seems more real and urgent. Anyways, I attended this session mostly to refresh my memory on some of the reasons for believing the unborn is a human person.

Also, I should add that I am so thankful God has saved me. If I were not a Christian, what hope could I give the abortionist? For the woman who has killed her baby, what reconciliation could there be? For the man who has encouraged his girlfriend to go through with murder for the sake of making his own life easier, what comfort could there be? It would be a hopeless case I think, because I would be trying to get them to admit they were a murderer without having a solution to the issue of their guilt and sin. Who is ever going to do that? Who would go so far as to admit that they had taken an innocent human's life for their own comfort when they could hide behind the pro-choice movement? None. No one in their carnal state that is. But those holy who God has set aside will see their sin and be converted. That is what I hope for!

Sean had 3 main cases for the pro-life position that he outlined (I love outlines) for us.

The first was the Biblical background of abortion. This case is important because 1) It's the word of God for crying out loud! And 2) because people are going to use the Bible to further their agenda however they can. We need to make sure that they don't legalize baby-killing with Bible twisting. It is good to be able to explain why the Bible is implicitly against abortion even though it is not explicitly against it. First of all, abortion was unimaginable to Israelite women. I mean, it wasn't even a consideration! Children were considered a blessing from God (Ps 127:3). They knew that God is the sovereign ruler over conception in the womb (Gen 29:33). And furthermore, it was viewed as a curse to remain childless. There was no incentive to kill that which was being "intricately woven in the depths of the earth" (Psalm 139:15).

Also, Scripture makes no distinction between the potential life of the fetus and the actual life of the newborn. In the NT the word "brephos" is often use to describe the unborn, the newborn, and younger children. In the OT, "geber" was used to refer to a person at conception but also to a grown man. They all have the same basic nature: human persons! Therefore, we can see that God views all stages of human development equally in the sense that they all bear His image! Furthermore, the Bible repeatedly refers to conception as the beginning of life (Gen 4:1, Job 3:3, Psalm 51:5), and (this was quite fantastic to ponder) God relates in a personal way to the unborn! For example, Job 31:15 says "Did not he who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashioned us in the womb?" And Ps 139:13-14 says, "For you formed me in my inward parts, you wove me in my mother's womb."

Secondly, Sean shared the scientific case for pro-life. The question here is, how do you know the unborn is human in scientific terms? Well, first of all, the unborn is clearly alive! There is no period of non-life from mating to birth! The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and then they join and that conceived child (what they called a fetus) is alive! The unborn is growing biologically; it has metabolism; it has reaction to stimuli. Also, abortion clearly kills something. No one denies this. Of course, this blunt language won't be used. In order to soften the issue, "terminate" is the word of choice. This all seems to make a clear case that the unborn is living. However, even if we're not sure, who gets the benefit of the doubt? Should we risk killing an innocent human being in order to make someone's life more comfortable?

Now that Sean showed clearly that the unborn is alive, the next step is to show that it is separate from the mother. You always hear it, right? "Women should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Well, if we can show that it actually isn't their body, then such an objection can get tossed out the window. This right is limited when it affects another body! It's illegal to kill someone, even if you're using your own body! Is this making sense? The case for this is pretty straightforward too. All we have to do really is just look at a bunch of ways the woman and her child are different: Gender (A woman can have a boy right?), Blood type, Race (Yes, white women CAN give birth to black babies – or vice versa), and DNA. Incidentally, this last one proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the unborn is human. It's not a dog, or kangaroo. It's human!

Now, how is anyone going to squirm out of this? Sometimes, you could get a confession that the unborn is indeed human, but it's not a person! That's where the philosophical case for pro-life comes in.

The philosophical case for pro-life addresses when exactly the unborn gains personhood and value. Before taking us into the positive case for the personhood of the unborn at conception, Sean presented us with common arguments for personhood coming at different time. The first is viability - the point at which a fetus can naturally survive outside the womb. This might make sense, but viability is changing. It gets earlier and earlier all the time as our technology increases. Therefore this has more to do with medical ability than the essence of a thing. The second proposal is brain waves - a dead person has no brain waves, so since the baby doesn't have them, we don't need to honor their life. But this misses what we've already determined – that the baby is indeed alive! It certainly isn't dead, otherwise you wouldn't be killing anything. A third option is sentience - the moment at which a fetus can feel sensations, specifically pain. But do lepers who cease to feel pain cease to be persons? How about those who are born who NEVER feel pain? Are they not persons? Of course not. This confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm. The last one, and I think the weakest and least popular, is quickening – when the mother first feels the presence of the fetus inside her womb, then it becomes a person. But what about a mother who is in a coma? She NEVER feels the unborn in her womb. She isn't awake to tell anyone anyways. Besides, why does the baby's essence have anything to do with the mother's awareness of it?? Why should your value be defined by other's notice of you. Are popular people more of persons than people who aren't as well known? Of course not. We can see that all these suggestions fall apart. So what are the reasons we should believe personhood and human value begins at conception?

This argument I have heard before from Scott Klussendorf, a man who is very good at directing the conversation back to the actual issue: What is the unborn? He uses a simple acronym to outline his argument: SLED - the differences between an unborn and a newborn. The main question of the argument is whether any of these have a strong enough bearing on whether we can kill the unborn. S stands for size: The unborn is smaller than a newborn. Is Shaquille O'Neil more valuable than Hillary Clinton? Are men more valuable than women? The funny thing is, Dr. Seuss got it right a long time ago: "A person is a person, no matter how small!" - Dr. Seuss.

Second, L stands for Level of Development. The unborn is less developed than the newborn. But are teens less valuable than adults because they are less developed? Some might say they're less valuable for other reasons… but that's a different story J. The point is: we are always on a continuum of development and your value never changes! So value is not based on development.

The third letter, E, stands for Environment. The unborn is in a different location than the newborn. But this is a terrible reason for anything to gain personhood or value. Does your value as a person change based upon your address? Doubtful. What if you climbed in the swimming pool? Not a person anymore, sorry! Not at all! If a doctor killed a 24-week-old early delivered baby, that would be murder!! Why do we react differently when a mother does the same thing to her baby when it's only 6 inches away? We shouldn't; it's not any different.

The fourth and last letter D stands for degree of dependency. The unborn is dependent on the mother, therefore it's not a person. I don't see the logic there… but a good question to ask here is: Do you lose your value because you're in a coma? You're now dependant on the machines… so you're no longer a person? What if you go in for heart surgery and they plug you into a blood pumping machine. You're certainly dependent there! So we know that your value cannot depend on your dependency!

The force of this argument comes in that these are the only significant differences between the unborn and the newborn. Therefore, since we have proved that all significant differences are not sufficient reasons to believe that the unborn is less valuable than the newborn, we can conclude that they are not, in fact, different!

A final cry you may hear is, "But it doesn't LOOK human!!" …Of course it does! It looks as human as it can at that stage of development. Exactly as God intended it to be. Intricately woven. Knitted together.

So now that you're prepared, go do some pro-life evangelism!

California Christian Apologetics Conference (VI)

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason was the speaker for Plenary Session 4. I really respect him as a clear thinking person who is fair minded and wary of bad arguments all around, not just those bad arguments promoting things he doesn't believe in. If you present to him a bad argument for the truth, he will not gently pat you on the back and say "Good job, buddy. Way to reach the right conclusions." No, instead he will say something more along the lines of "Well, here's why I don't think that argument is very convincing, but here's a different argument for the same conclusion that I find far more persuasive." I had the chance to tell him personally that I appreciated this aspect of his ministry, and he replied, "I agree. If we have the truth, we don't need bad arguments to support it." I am certainly on board with that! I encourage you to check out his website. He's got a ton of articles there addressing most of the present moral crises of the day from abortion to same-sex marriage to the existence of the soul.

Greg opened up Plenary Session 4 by addressing a problem he perceived many people would have at this conference. The problem at this point in a conference is "I don't know how to use all this information I've been given!" The goal of his talk was to give us tactics for defending our faith, and the ability to get into conversations with people with absolutely no risk to us!

First he advised us to get in the habit of listening carefully to what people to say, because in doing so you can make the other person doing all the work. Often you'll find that people say things they don't really believe. If you call them on it and don't let them be sloppy with their words, they won't be as sloppy in their thought. We need good tactics in our conversations (make people think about what they're saying), because we will not win by frontal assaults (simply telling people they're wrong). The fact is, people are not really open to listening to you, a fundamentalist Christian. There are more books written about the danger of you, than of the danger of radical Islam. It's sad, and I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is. We will not win by shouting louder; there are too many voices opposing us.

In his talk he outlined three tactics for conversation. First, ask questions! Second, use the "suicide tactic," that is, show how the view is inconsistent. And finally, "take the roof off," that is, draw the logical conclusions of the argument (often times the conclusion is absurd!). These tactics explained are so that you will be able to manage the conversation in a non-offensive way. You need to take an active role in directing the conversation, but you don't want to drive them away from Christ.

Of course, the main, overarching "queen mother of all tactics" that is the subject of this talk is called the "Columbo Tactic." This is named for Lieutenant Columbo, a very smart, small, annoying detective who just keeps asking questions! These questions inevitably lead him to the solution of the crime. We actually just ordered some episodes of Columbo on Netflix and he is absolutely hilarious. Of course, the series is a bit old, so the acting quality is a bit below average… However it's interesting to listen to some of the references characters in the series make. Something about the impossibility of finding errors in the Old Testament. Anyways… I digress… The point is to get into the habit of asking questions as a follower of Jesus Christ. Go on the offensive in an inoffensive way with carefully crafted questions. If you don't know what to do next, ask questions! If people perceive you are interested, they will generally conclude you are interesting. Plus, when you ask questions, you are in control of where the conversation goes.

There are three purposes/uses of the Columbo Tactic, each initiated by a different question.

1. Gather Information.

The first use of the Columbo Tactic is to Gather Information. It's the first thing Columbo does when he gets to the scene of the crime! This puts no pressure on you at all, because you are basically pleading ignorance and asking for help. It's also virtually effortless. The main question here is "What do you mean by that?" which is a genuine request for more information, not a juvenile antagonistic response meant to push someone to the limit of their patience. You know how little kids sometimes go on a spree of asking "why?" all the time? Yea… Don't be like that. Ask in a genuinely inquisitive way. I suspect that part of developing a genuineness to this question is pondering how little you actually know and how unspecific language can sometimes be. For example, if someone says "There is no God," simply ask, "What do you mean by God?" That is to say, "Describe to me the God you don't believe in! Maybe they believe in an impersonal God, but not a personal God. See how the word "God" can be ambiguous there?

Another example: Perhaps someone will say, "All religions are the same." Simply ask, "Can you describe to me the way in which they are all the same?" This is simply another form of "What do you mean by that?" Chances are they haven't even thought about such a thing as how the religions are they same. If they have, it's undoubtedly a shallow answer such as "they all teach love." They will discover this because of your question, and you didn't have to lecture them. It's patently obvious that religions are not all the same. But instead of just saying that to someone's face, you make them think about it. Once someone really thinks it through, they will not be able to stay intellectually honest and continue proclaiming such nonsense.

If someone says, "You should not force your views on me!" simply ask, "How am I forcing my views on you?" The fact is, you aren't at all! No one is holding a gun to their head physically forcing them to succumb to your beliefs. Instead of saying "No I'm not" (which only convinces them that you are in denial about what's going on), make them think about what they're saying. Generally they'll realize their error and retract their statement, or they will give you another shallow answer.

One response you might get is a repeat of what they've just said, or something very close. For example, if someone says "You're intolerant," and you ask the first Columbo question, "What do you mean by that?" They might respond, "Well, you're just not tolerating my beliefs!" In doing so they haven't explained their meaning to you, have they? The ambiguity of the meaning of "tolerate" is still there. Don't let them off the hook. Keep pressing: "What do you mean by 'tolerate'?" This will help you get to the bottom of their complaint. And eventually they will most probably figure out (in this particular case) that their complaint is moot. "You're intolerant" is not really a thoughtful claim, just a battle cry to distract from the actual conversation.

A caveat: this question needs to show genuine interest in the other persons view. These are not ruses or tricks to turn opponents into pretzels. Ask the question and pay attention to how they respond. Think carefully. Also, ask these types of questions often. It's probably not the best idea to figure out the person is a Buddhist and then go read a bunch of books on Buddhism. Perhaps none of those books truly represent the beliefs of the one you're talking to. Just go ask them what they belief! They are the most reliable source for that sort of information. As Greg said, "It's better to get views straight from the horse's mouth."

2. Reverse the Burden of Proof.

The second use of the Columbo Tactic is to reverse the burden of proof. The burden of proof is the responsibility to give reasons for the claim you're making. If you make no claims, you face no burden! That is why we always ask questions and make fewer statements. The problem is that non-Christians make claims all the time and expect you to do the heavy lifting and disprove them. Don't fall into that trap! For example, in an attempt to show that the Universe was not made by God, perhaps a non-believer would say, "You could say that… [Spins fairytale]." They can insert whatever story they want in there, but your response is always going to be the same: "Yea, you could say anything, but you haven't given any reasons for anyone else to believe that this is actually the case!" An alternate explanation is NOT a refutation! The point is to make them tell you why their explanation is a good one. The Question: "How did you come to that conclusion?"

Most people haven't come to conclusions about the deeply held beliefs that they have. People don't think they emote! They will feel like something is right, and conclude that it must be. Make them think. They might change their minds. Asking questions is the best way to do this, because if you just tell them, you might just be emoting yourself!

I will warn you. There is a liability to this question. It is always a mistake to make a frontal assault on a superior force in an entrenched position. Here I'm referring to some sort of classroom discussion with a professor who can dance circles around your arguments just because his knowledge is vast an experience greater. This is not to say that he therefore has the right answer, only that your argument will certainly not be convincing to your audience. Instead, use the tactics! If a professor says, "the Bible is a book of fairytales," ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" Is this rude? Or a power struggle? Not at all. However, if you get up and say, "You're wrong, sinner! Repent!" Then it becomes a power struggle. And you will lose that struggle.

Greg warned us to watch out for "the professor's ploy!" If you make no claims, you have nothing to prove! But sometimes someone might make claims for you, put words in your mouth, and ask you to prove the case they've made on your behalf. "Oh I see; you're one of those fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. Perhaps you would like to come up here and prove that to the class? Tell me. Why should I believe that a snake talked to Eve?" Do not take the bait! This is the "professor's" attempt to put the burden of proof on you. But if you respond and say, "With all due respect, sir, I have not said anything about what I believe. I was simply asking why you think the Bible is a book of fantasy. I'm just a dumb college student… here to learn… [Pen poised above note paper]." This prevents whoever you're talking to from laying a huge burden on your shoulders of convincing everyone that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most likely you will persuade no one and just look like a fool. There is a time and place to present positive reasons for believing the Bible to be inspired. The secularly university classroom with Ph.D. professor in Religious Studies is not one of them.

At this point Greg anticipated a little uneasiness from people who are hyped up about soul saving! "Greg, what do you mean, 'don't defend the Bible.'? Don't tell people to repent? How can you say that? That's exactly what we're here for!!" He explained that he doesn't believe you have to get to the foot of the cross in every conversation. In fact, he said, "My goal is never to convert someone." This might shock some people. It certainly shocked me. But as I thought about it, I supposed that to convert someone is never really my goal either, because such a thing is not in my control. This applies even when I go out specifically to witness. My goal is to effectively spread an accurate and clear presentation of the gospel message in such a way that people might consider it as a reasonable option. I present the law, meant to convict people, and then the gospel to cure their disease. However, once I've done that, all I have is a hope that God will work in them repentance and faith. I do not cause that. I hope with all my heart that God will use His Word to tug at the hearts of sinners, but I never consider a day a failure if no one falls on their knees just from talking to me. In fact, such a thing has never happened to me, and yet the days I witness I am often greatly encouraged and invigorated just by obediently answering the call of God. If I have presented the gospel clearly and caused people to just think a little bit about it, I'm content that I have done my part. I have warned people of the wrath to come, without causing them to flee. Greg Koukl simply does this on a much more elementary level. Many of the people who do get the privilege of seeing people come to Christ just by walking up to them and sharing the gospel do not realize that the repentant one's heart has been seeded, tilled, and watered for some time by people like Greg who have challenged them to think deeply and clearly about important subjects.

There is a subcategory for this question, which is called Staying out of the Hot Seat. You use it when you find yourself in a circumstance where you're "out of your depth." Like if you start witnessing to the guy next to you on the airplane and he turns out to be Richard Dawkins or somebody like him. How do you deal with a situation in which someone starts giving you truly thought out reasons to why they believe contrary to how you do? Well, this tactic's got another snappy name: Conversational Aikido. It's using their energy against them; let them come. What you might say is, "Could you slow down for a moment? You obviously know more than I do [humility]. Tell me what you believe, why you believe it, and then (and this is key) and then let me think about it!" This allows you to get out without your tail between your legs! Aikido translation: "You want to beat me up? Ok! Just do it slowly and thoroughly."

3. Exploit a Weakness or Flaw.

The last use of the Columbo Tactic is to use questions to exploit a weakness or flaw. There's no model question here, because it depends on the flaw. You do this once they have committed an error in thinking. What you do not want to do is jump on them and say "I got you man!" The point is not to 'get them'; the point is to get them thinking! What you do is exploit the problem with a question rather than a statement. Let's go back to our "intolerant" example.

"You're intolerant!" says your opponent.
"What do you mean by that?" you reply genuinely.
"Well, you think you're right!" he explains.
"Alright… but the things you believe… are those true?" you probe.

Of course he believes they're true. That's what it means to believe them! If he didn't believe them true he would stop believing them and believe something else, which he would believe to be true! So the exploiting question is: "Why is it when I think I'm right, I'm intolerant, and when you think you're right, you're just right?" Now that is a probing question that will make people think. Some might get angry at you, but it's not because you're being mean, it's because you've pointed them to the logical conclusions of their thought process and they realize those conclusions are inconsistent.

To close, Greg gave us a parting thought heard from a Marine: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle." He let us know that he was teaching us this because he does not want us to bleed, but he wants us to sweat really hard. Do the clear thinking and preparation before you go into the harvest field, and you will come out with fewer wounds than you would have otherwise! Perhaps you may even return with some victories: souls won for Christ!

California Christian Apologetics Conference (V)

For elective number two, I opted to attend the seminar titled “A Compassionate Response to Homosexuality” led by Neil Mammen, a local apologist, and Kevin Patao, a former homosexual and friend of Neil. Because of the nature of the seminar, they actually asked us not to give the information we received to homosexuals, so I won’t be publishing it in this public context, for fear of unnecessarily offending homosexuals with that which is not the gospel (1 Cor 9:12). However, if you would like the information, which is basically a rebuttal of 8 myths about homosexuality, you can email me or just comment here and I’ll get it to you.

To be clear, they clarified that they were not at all homophobic (afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality), nor were they disgusted with homosexuals. They simply believe that homosexuality is clearly contrary to God’s intended and clear plan for human sexuality (Rom 1:18-32). Those in this lifestyle don’t simply need to get out of the lifestyle; they need the forgiveness of God that comes with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ that comes by repentance from sin (of which only one of them is homosexuality) and faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, if I were to witness to a homosexual, I probably wouldn’t address that sin directly, but would talk about sins that are common to us all, like lying and pride and blasphemy. In that context, when they realize the nature of sin, they might then understand what I mean when I say homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t simply mean that I don’t like it; it means that it is contrary to God’s design for ideal human affairs, and ultimately runs contrary to His moral law.

Romans 1 is so clear about this issue. And let me make it clear that it lumps the punishment for homosexuality together with that for disobeying one’s parents, so it’s not as if I’m raising this issue above any other. God hates sin! All of it! It requires him to destroy people who bear His image. Yet the grace of God is greater than ANY of your sin. So never think you’ve out sinned God’s grace. Such a thought is only your own pride. He will forgive you, but He does so only on His terms: repentance and faith. Don’t wait to do that.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (IV)

For my first elective session I had the privilege of hearing from Pastor Harold C Felder. There were five different options to choose from at each session, but I opted for the Jehovah’s Witness (JW) seminar because I’d been meeting with one Witness in particular rather regularly. Harold is co-pastor of the Journey Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Not a very famous guy (at least I’ve never heard of him before!), but certainly passionate about the Lord. His energy and enthusiasm were exhilarating, and he even “caught himself preaching” a couple times. His session was on a subject I’ve written about before here and here, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Origins, Beliefs, and Dangers. The full PowerPoint presentation can be found online here at his website. I especially appreciated this session for the documentation it provided of Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.

Quite a bit of hearsay was brought up throughout the 1 hour seminar, and I thought Harold dealt with it well: he didn’t comment on something he was not familiar with, as far as I remember. He did not pretend that every charge brought against the Watchtower was legitimate just because a Christian said it or just because the Watchtower obviously teaches false doctrines. Just because they lead a false religion does not mean that everything they teach is false; let me just get that on the table!

That said, he spared no expense in making abundantly clear that the Watchtower organization is not one in which any “seeker” will find the light of the Gospel or the gracious forgiveness of God. And for this reason he added a disclaimer to the beginning of his talk, to biblically justify the stance and the method he was approaching the subject with. Lest some might object to his “pickin’ on folk,” he quoted three verses from Titus and Timothy exhorting their respective recipients to pay close attention to doctrine and refute false teaching (Titus 1:9,2:1; 1 Tim 4:16). These are great verses that we should all have memorized. Why not do it this week?

He then moved on to make his point that the Watchtower is indeed a force to be reckoned with. He quoted some statistics concerning their membership. As of last year the Watchtower’s official membership is at 6,741,444 in 236 countries; they have a total of 99,770 kingdom halls; they conducted an average of 6,286,618 Bible studies last year (averaging to over 17000 bible studies per day); and they baptized 248,327 new members! This is not an insubstantial number of people! Clearly the Watchtower has significant influence on people’s minds. By comparison, the Southern Baptist denomination (the largest protestant denomination in this country) only baptized approximately 100,000 more people than the JW’s did last year, and even that number has been decreasing slowly over the last few years.

Then, before getting into any actual refutation, Harold spent time going over some of the particularly identifying marks of Jehovah’s Witnesses, practices and beliefs. Harold disappointed me with respect to his documentation in this section, unfortunately, but there is grace for him. I understand as one who writes (and makes bold claims!) myself that documentation can be possibly the most boring part of preparing some sort of refutation, but it is so comforting and refreshing the those reading that the stuff you’re feeding them is not just hearsay, but accurately represents the views of the ones being refuted. Anyways, without further ado.

The practices that set JW’s apart from the rest of Christianity are as follows (there may be more, but these are the most common, well known ones):

- door to door witnessing is necessary for salvation;

- they are governed by the “governing body” in Brooklyn, New York;

- members meet in Kingdom Halls (church) five times per week;

- they reject the celebration of cultural, national, and religious holidays as pagan and idolatrous;

o they also reject the celebration of birthdays along the same logic;

- members who disobey these rules can be disfellowshiped;

- they are not allowed to read any material other than the Watchtower’s;

- reading the Bible without the aid of Watchtower literature is forbidden.

I had known most of these before I came to this meeting, but the first one struck me as being incredibly works-righteous. Also, a lot of people think they are rather stupid (to put it bluntly) for rejecting holidays, but to think so is a bit hasty. The Watchtower mandates it because (they claim) they want to exalt only God and not share his glory with another. This is commendable and I even know about some Christians who have decided not to celebrate Christmas (not the gifts part anyways) so that they would train themselves to not be so focused on earthly treasure and such. This is commendable for those whose consciences are pricked in that area of their lives. However, in my chat with Jim and his wife (the JW’s that had been visiting me), I confronted them with the fact that the Bible says “freedom” while the Watchtower says “forbidden.” I pray this made them consider the Watchtower’s stance on other things as well. Perhaps it could simply be the pebble in their shoe, as Greg Koukl likes to say, that gets them running from the Watchtower. Please pray for them.

Harold then moved on from practices to beliefs. The sections we got through were God, the Holy Spirit, Christ, Salvation, and the Afterlife. Of course, they believe that Jehovah is the name of God and seem a bit overzealous about pronounced that name in order to be saved. After all, their translation of Romans 10:13 says that “all who call on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Unfortunately, the word “Jehovah” is neither in there nor anywhere in any New Testament manuscript. In fact, no one even knows exactly how to pronounce the tetra gram YHWH. Jehovah is simply gotten by adding the vowels from Adonai in between the consonants. He reviewed this along with the standard refutation of the claims against the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and then moved on to the section that I personally found most helpful and extremely encouraging in my personal walk with God: the Holy Spirit.

Not much attention is paid to the Holy Spirit in Bible teaching these days, and unfortunately so, since he shares in the same glory as the Father and the Son. However, I learned and was reinforced as to the personality of the Holy Spirit as Harold gave his defense. Harold showed that the Holy Spirit has all the attributes of personhood: a mind (Rom 8:27), emotions (Eph 4:20), and a will (1 Cor 12:11), but the most striking to me was the verse brought up wherein the Holy Spirit talks about himself. This, I perceive to be glorious beyond comprehension. In Acts 13, “while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” This absolutely blew my mind. Here is the Holy Spirit speaking and commanding on his own authority, his own divine authority. You don’t see it very often because the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son; but here He is, gloriously sanctifying Saul and Barnabas for the work He has called them to. Praise the Holy Spirit (don’t hear that every day, do you?).

After demonstrating the personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit, Harold went after the person of Jesus, clarifying that He is not in fact, Michael the archangel, as the JW’s believe. He also persuasively demonstrated Jesus is Divine, God in flesh, 100% man 100% God, and was raised physically, even by simply using in a consistent manner several verses that JW’s use inconsistently. For example, in Colossians 1, the word “other” is added four times total in verses 16 and 17. But actually, the word “other” is not there and since it totally distorts the meaning, it certainly is not warranted to ‘clear up’ confusion in the verse. It makes perfect sense all by itself – unless you are a Jehovah’s Witness. Also, four aspects of Jesus resurrection prove that it was indeed physical and not spiritual (i.e. he wasn’t raised as a spirit or phantom or ghost of some sort): 1) The tomb was empty, so the body was definitely gone (Matt 28); 2) Jesus bore crucifixion scars (John 20:27); 3) He predicted He would raise HIS body in 3 days (John 2:19); 4) 1 Cor 15:44 was referring to a Spirit-controlled body, not a phantom. For added support of his interpretation of 1 Cor 15:44, he quoted Galatians 6:1 – “if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” This is not talking about those who are ghost-like in appearance!

The last aspect of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that we really dug into was their doctrine of Salvation. This is so key, because after the Watchtower is done with the doctrine of justification, grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6). Salvation in the Witness religion is based on works, pure and simple. Now, they’ll say it’s by grace, but their grace is God graciously giving humans the ability to earn their way to heaven! “To get one's name written in the book of life will depend on one's works” (Watchtower, Mar 15, 1962). Furthermore, one must acknowledge the Watchtower as from God in order to receive eternal life (Watchtower, Feb 15, 1983). Of course we know, and Pastor Harold proved to us, that salvation is solely by the grace of God and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), and that salvation comes by faith in Christ, not an earthly organization, or even in His church (Jn 5:24).

And at this point I am going to cut! We went over the afterlife for a bit, but you’ll have to check out the website for yourself if you want to read about it!

On a personal note, I was extremely convicted during this session of my intense arrogance. At one point when we were going over the admittedly strange doctrines of the Watchtower organization, one of the attendees gagged “This is so stupid…” in quite a haughty manner. After noticing how repulsive this sort of response was, realizing that it drips with pride and is dry of compassion, I remembered all the times my mother confronted me ever so graciously on my own attitude in this area. Praise God for opening my eyes to this sinful attitude, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). That was a stinger, but I am confident that realizing this face will benefit anyone’s evangelism efforts greatly.

Where does it end?

I appreciate the motivation (kill disease), but not only are they aborting babies, they are transplanting them into COW EGGS?? This is no joke.

Check out this disturbing report. Even more troublesome are the comments at the end...

The fact is that animals are fundamentally different from human beings in that
we are made in the image of Almighty God (Gen 1:26). Mixing them up is not an option!!

I mean... am I out of my mind here? This is ridiculous.