Text: Joshua 4:4-7, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Romans 14:5-6

Time: December 25th, 2011

Today is Christmas and millions around the world are remembering the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem two thousand years ago. It’s a unique Sunday because Christmas falls on a Sunday. Some large churches have canceled services, while most are having the regular Sunday service, only maybe an abbreviated version, in order to let families visit and be together today. As we gather today for Christmas church let’s remember the reason why we celebrate Christmas. Not all Christians have deliberately celebrated the birth of Jesus with a special holiday. After all, if you remember, the Puritans – those first Christian settlers to North America – didn’t formally celebrate the Christmas season. They abstained from it for spiritual purposes, believe it or not. What was their problem with Christmas? To understand their logic you have to understand the scene in Europe at the time. Puritans were called “puritans” because they sought a pure form of biblical Christianity without all the traditional trappings the established church brought to the Christian faith. In other words, they were reformers of the Christian faith who felt it was important to limit Christianity to only what the Bible specifically taught, nothing more. In Europe at the time most of Christianity was operating under a state church system, meaning, that each country had it’s own official state Christian church. For example, in England there was the Anglican Church. In Spain, there was the Roman Catholic. In Norway, Sweden and other Northern European countries, Lutheranism was the official state church. And these state churches controlled the public expression of Christianity, including how Christmas was celebrated. The Puritans rejected these ideas.  For them, Christmas was a time, yes, to remember the birth of the Savior Jesus Christ, but in a simple, modest way. The feast days and holiday celebrations of the established churches had gotten out of hand, out of control in their revelry and indulgence. Now what true Christian today can’t sympathize with our Puritan forefathers in their criticism of overdoing Christmas celebrations? Don’t we see this happening all the time today, although in a new, modern way? The overly commercialization of Christmas, the extra secular trappings constantly added year-after-year, the strong link between Christmas gift-giving and materialism and consumerism, the emphasis on celebrating the celebration rather than the reason for the season, Jesus. Yes, if our Puritan forerunners were here today they’d probably vote all the more to pass on Christmas because of what it has become today, as well as their original reasons. But as Christians today, we must ask the question anew, “Is the condition of the modern celebration of Christmas so bad that we totally abstain from the holiday altogether, like the Puritans?” In answering this question, I conclude that the sad state of the Christmas holiday season, as bad as it is and as bad as it’s getting, still doesn’t give us reason for doing away with all of it. We are free to celebrate Christmas in any way we choose today, so we aren’t forced into one, established Christian or church expression that the Puritans faced. We are free to emphasize any aspect of Christmas that aligns with our biblical Christian convictions. But even though we are free to celebrate Christmas according to the biblical emphasis, that doesn’t mean we aren’t led astray by our mostly secular, pagan culture – we can be led astray and we often are led astray because of its strong influence today, especially with television. So we need to listen to the Puritans, even though we decide against their radical reaction to culture’s excessive holiday celebrations. Let’s look at a few reasons why we should celebrate Christmas using a number of passages from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

First, we should celebrate Christmas because of the Old Testament example. Joshua 4:4-7, “So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, on e fro each tribe, and said to them, ‘God over before the ark of the Lord your God into the idle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.’” This is an example, not by an means the only example, of ancient Israel remembering an important historical and spiritual event in their faith tradition. We could talk about the Passover with Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Passover feast is a remembrance of that event. We could talk about other feasts and festivals that the Jews were careful to observe on a yearly basis. All of these were for the purpose of remembering special past, historic events in the spiritual history of the Jews. Most of these holidays on the Jewish calendar were commanded by God himself, specifically recorded in the pages of the Old Testament, although a few of them are celebrations that the Jewish people naturally remembered and built special days around, without specific commands of God to do so. Now when we look at our celebration of Christmas, in the past and today, we can’t exactly point to any command of Christ or the Apostles for making it a holiday. There is nothing in the New Testament, nothing in the Gospel accounts specifically that instruct Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus. But we shouldn’t think that implies there’s something wrong with doing so, because that would be faulty reasoning. Just like in the Old Testament, not all the special feast days or festivals or celebrations of the Jews are specifically commanded by God, yet they served an important purpose in the spiritual calendar of Israel. The truth is, we humans need help in remembering things, especially things spiritually important. Today, our secular calendar is full of special days that probably shouldn’t be there, like Halloween and Valentine’s Day and other secular holidays. Then there are national holidays such as the Fourth of July and President’s Day. If we aren’t careful we’ll lose the importance of the truly important days in the midst of all the other holidays we’ve added to our calendars. It’s important, even more important today with all the other, extra holidays added in a secular culture, to remember the truly important ones – such as Christmas and Easter. That’s why as Christians, I think it’s great that we can still celebrate Christmas, that our whole culture still celebrates Christmas, even though there is no question it is now being diluted of its spiritual meaning more and more. The ancient Old Testament Jews remembered important events in their faith history and so should Christians today remember special events in the history of our Christian faith, such as Christmas and Easter. That’s why I’m all in favor of celebrating the Christmas holiday. I understand and agree with where the Puritans were coming from; I just think they took things too far in rejecting the whole Christmas holiday celebration.

Second, we should celebrate Christmas because of the New Testament example. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Of course, this is the famous Lord’s Supper passage, read or recited every Communion in churches all around the globe. It’s purpose is to point us back to the Lord’s sacrifice for us on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. It is supposed to remind us of this most important event in the life of Christ and it’s supposed to bring us into the reality of that event every time we participate. Why do we need to repeat and remember again the Lord’s Last Supper? Because we are so prone to forget or neglect great spiritual themes, we need help in recalling these important things in order to live in their reality in the present. There can be no doubt that Christ’s death on the cross for our salvation is most important of all the things Christ did during his incarnation on earth. It is appropriate for us to remember or recall or reenact it on a regular basis so that we never, ever forget it, so we can always participate in it by faith. But what about Christmas? There is no specific instruction from the Lord concerning its remembrance. We are specifically and very deliberately instructed by Jesus to remember his death on the cross for our salvation, but he doesn’t tell us to remember his birth in the same way. Does that mean we are to forget his birth? Does that mean we shouldn’t honor and celebrate it? No. We should remember and reflect on all the great things Jesus said and did while he was here on earth. Why wouldn’t we simply, naturally, emphasize certain important events in the life of Christ, such as his birth, his death and his resurrection? Even though there is no direct instruction to do so, I think it makes a lot of sense to celebrate the birth of Jesus. And this is exactly what the established church has done for nearly 2000 years of Christian history. Now the Puritan’s and others had a problem with the way it was celebrated – and we can understand their argument. But if we are free to celebrate it any way we want, let us say the right way, then why shouldn’t we? It’s an important event in our faith history. In one sense, if it hadn’t occurred, none of the other important events could have occurred either. If Jesus hadn’t been born, he couldn’t have lived his miraculous life or died his sacrificial death or rose supernaturally from the grave. So we really should celebrate the birth of Jesus because it’s very important for us to reflect on this important events – and all that it means to us today. Were the Puritans wrong in not celebrating Christmas in their day? No, because we aren’t specifically instructed by God to celebrate it; we are given the liberty to do so or not to, depending upon our convictions concerning the matter.

Third, we should celebrate Christmas to the degree and extent we feel comfortable doing so. Romans 14:5-6, “Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.” According to the New Testament God gives us freedom in our worship and celebration of our faith. Personally, I see many reasons for the celebration of Christmas and not many reasons against it. But again, that is the conclusion I’ve come to. But for others, such as the Puritans, I can understand their reasons for abstaining from celebrating Christmas – the pagan corruption of the holiday, the overindulging and revelry associated with Christmas and all feast-day celebrations, the growing worldliness of celebrations, the actual neglect or forgetting of the holiday’s true meaning, the pageantry and show associated with public celebrations – to name a few objections. Of course, we must remember that the Puritans didn’t fail to remember the events of Christ’s life; they just abstained from setting aside a special, public day or season for remembering Christ’s birth because of the way it was being celebrated in the culture. The irony is, the Puritans probably celebrated Christ’s life, death and resurrection better than most people even though they abstained from the Christmas holiday. And most of the people who celebrated the Christmas holiday probably neglected remembering the Lord most of the rest of the year. The sad truth is that most of the holiday celebrating today isn’t the celebration of the Lord Jesus but rather celebrating or partying for its own sake. The pagan people’s of Europe had winter celebrations on or around December 25^th before Christmas was ever celebrated. Heading into a long, cold and dark winter, there are purely natural reasons why people would find any excuse to eat, drink and be merry. And sadly, the same pagan winter celebrations continue, only now, because of the Christmas tradition, they use December 25^th as their rallying point for doing something they’d do anyway in some form or fashion. How many people who celebrate Christmas actually do it for spiritual reasons? What all of this means in our modern, secular society is this – we need to use the freedom God gives us to participate or not participate in all or part of the Christmas holiday. Not all of the traditions formed around Christmas are healthy; these should be neglected or rejected. Some or most of the traditions that have developed around Christmas are neither harmful nor helpful, they just are, what they are. These we should participate in as we see fit. But the truly spiritual traditions, such as the singing of church Christmas carols and attending candlelight services on Christmas Eve are very helpful in remembering the reason for the season. But what the New Testament teaches us is that others and we are free to participate or not participate in Christmas. If someone you know rejects Christmas as pagan and corrupt, let him or her take that position and not participate. Let’s let Christmas time be a holiday of peace, hope and love, not something we battle over. Let’s remember that holy morning when Christ was born, that peaceful setting in the quiet of the night, as in the popular Christmas hymn, Silent Night – all is calm, all is bright. Let’s all remember the birth of Jesus in our own way and let others remember it in their own way also.

Text: Matthew 1:18-25

Time: December 19th, 2011

I just wrote another article for the local newspaper for publication during the Christmas week dealing with the possibility of the Virgin Birth in respect to modern science:

The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ: Fact or Fiction?

In the PBS television documentary The Elegant Universe the argument was made for the strangeness of the universe – reality is a lot more mysterious than we ever imagined. As science learns more and more about the way things operate at a sub-atomic level, the more we find that the old Newtonian idea of a perfectly rational and ordered reality is not how things really work. For example, according to Quantum physics a particle might be in two locations at the same time or might arrive at a destination before it departed from its previous location, etc. Now the implication of all of this to the Christmas Nativity event is this – the virgin birth of Jesus Christ can’t be ruled out as scientifically impossible any more by skeptics because of the direction modern science has taken. According to quantum physics, the universe isn’t some closed system that’s locked into a naturalistic loop without any possibility of divine intervention. No. Now science is showing us that at a fundamental level, reality is very unpredictable and that we can’t rule out anything from happening at any time. How did God perform the miracle of the virgin birth? Under the old paradigm, skeptics, atheists and agnostics simply ruled it out as impossible according to the laws of science. But they can’t do so anymore, not with quantum physics and new developments in sub-atomic science, because at this fundamental level of reality the laws of science, as we know them, seemingly don’t apply. Working at the sub-atomic level, God Almighty could easily stir into the mix the recipe for a virgin birth without much disruption at all. Or he could simply stack the statistical odds of certain particles being in one place with a different value – and the result, a virgin conception in the womb of Mary. According to quantum physics when we examine things at the smallest level particles or energy can’t actually be observed but only predicted based on statistical averages. Applying this to the virgin conception in Mary, Jesus’ birth is not impossible, but only a very statistically rare event. But we already knew that, as everyone will agree. So the next time someone gives you the old, “The virgin birth of Jesus is impossible” argument, tell them about quantum physics. With God all things are possible.

Now I’m sure I’ll get lots of comments in response to this article, especially around Christmas. But I wanted to get people thinking about the new direction science is heading – and how that helps, not hurts the Christian faith. In another message, I’ll talk about what scientists are calling “parallel universes” and how that opens up possibilities in talking about biblical concepts like heaven and hell. But today, I’d like to focus on modern science and the Virgin Birth – how science is actually opening up doors for making belief in this important and essential doctrine of the Christian faith easier to believe. Let’s turn to the account given in Luke 1:30-35 (read). Let me say three things about what this verse says and modern science.

First, under the old scientific view, many people rejected miracles like the Virgin Birth because they contradicted the laws of science. Luke 1:34, “’How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin.’” Sir Isaac Newton was the discoverer of gravity and other fundamental forces and laws of science, and ever since his time the picture of the universe that emerged was mechanistic – or in other words, the universe operated like a giant machine, according to laws at all times and every place. This came about because scientists using mathematics could chart the stars and planets forward and backwards and predict exactly where they’d be. This was all based on the known laws of science. Starting with massive objects like the sun and other planets, scientists could determine a lot of things about the universe, including how it came about and where it’s going. This ability to predict and determine the placement of large objects gave scientists the feeling that other things, medium and even small objects would operate under the same principles. As more and more scientific laws and principles were discovered many people began to dismiss all notions of supernatural miracles, because they felt if the universe operated like a giant machine, then all that was needed for its operation were universal scientific laws, not miracles. They explained the biblical miracles away as primitive explanations arrived at before we discovered scientific laws that explain things better. So then it was only a short jump from this attitude to the outright rejection of all miracles, including the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Christmas is a time of celebration of the birth of Christ – and that birth was a virgin birth. So then when science raises up to discount all miracles of the Bible — that is a direct attack on the Christian faith. Unfortunately, many churches over the last one hundred or so years have simply conceded or surrendered the doctrine of the Virgin Birth away to modern science. You hardly ever hear sermons defending it. Most pastors act like they are afraid to speak or defend the Virgin Birth. And if science can indeed explain everything in the world without reference to miracles, only using natural laws, then that certainly leaves Christians in a very shaky position in trying to communicate the faith as truth in the modern world. This was the situation for most of the 2oth century – and we saw many Christians and churches compromise in respect to the Virgin Birth doctrine. But what’s interesting today – and what I wrote about in the newspaper article – is that science is beginning to head into a new direction, one in which there is more room for miracles, even in the modern world among modern thinkers. Ancient people like the people in Jesus’ day new about the basic laws of nature, such as the improbability of a virgin birth – what was Joseph doing at first, but objecting to Mary’s story of a miraculous conception based on a simple knowledge of the laws of nature? Only later, as more and more laws of science were formulated, scientists and modern people began to get dogmatic and rigid in their rejection of miracles, as if science prohibited it. Well, that’s all changing today. Let me explain.

Second, under the new direction of science it’s a lot harder to reject or rule out completely the biblical miracles, such as the Virgin Birth. Luke 1:35, “The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’” The first verse we examined showed Mary questioning the angel, saying, “How will this be, I’m a virgin?” Mary, like Joseph, also knew the basic laws of nature. She knew that since she hadn’t been with any man it was impossible for her to be pregnant with child. Mary reacted a little bit like modern people operating under the old Newtonian paradigm of science that looks upon miracles as a violation of natural law – and to them that’s impossible.  But the angel tries to explain to Mary that natural law isn’t such a fixed and final thing, that God through the Holy Spirit can interrupt and intervene into nature to change things. The supernatural is possible for God. What the new direction science is headed in opens up is the possibility of unpredictable and unplanned change at the sub-atomic level. According to quantum physics, reality at the extreme sub-atomic level isn’t stable and fixed, but instead, it’s jumping around in unstable and unimaginable chaos – only it does follow statistical probability for all the chaos that exists there. The classical laws of nature that Newton and others formulated don’t apply to the sub-atomic level scientists are now saying. If physicists try to operate at the sub-atomic level using the same principles, laws and formulas as used in measuring, studying and predicting larger realities their calculations don’t work. It’s as if there were two separate realities operating in the same universe – the classical laws of science and the quantum laws of sub-atomic particles. But we all know that this just can’t be because reality is one, not two or divided. There must be some way to unify science on larger levels with science at smaller levels, although scientists haven’t yet discovered how to put the two together. What they have discovered is there is chaos and uncertainty and unpredictability at the sub-atomic level. What that means for us as Christians is that we don’t have to be so defensive in defending our faith, especially the biblical miracles like the Virgin Birth, because science now shows that reality isn’t a closed system where everything can be squeezed into a simple formula. A lot is happening out there that can’t be explained, and may never be explained, even in principle. There will always be a degree of mystery because at the sub-atomic level it’s just not possible to pin down or predict what is happening. In terms of how a Virgin Birth could happen we have to remember that all it takes is for God to thrown into the mix slightly different statistical averages of certain particles and suddenly an egg is fertilized and a baby is conceived. Let me talk more about this.

Third, as God created the vast universe, the galaxies, the solar systems, the suns, the planets and moons, so too could he create at the small level a Virgin Birth. Luke 1:36, “Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible for God.” Elizabeth and her miraculous birth are usually forgotten in the Christmas accounts, but if you remember, according to the laws of nature she shouldn’t have been bearing a child either. Not only is a virgin birth contrary to the normal laws of nature, but so also is a woman giving birth in old age. And the ancient people, even though they were not scientists in the modern sense, they also knew that Elizabeth was beyond childbearing years, just as those who knew about Mary knew that women don’t get pregnant without the help of a man somehow. Under the older scientific paradigm, the old Newtonian mechanistic view of the world, the laws of science were unbreakable; they operated at all times in all places. Supernatural miracles couldn’t happen, for many people, because they contradicted nature itself. But under the newer scientific view, nature isn’t seen as so rigidly mechanical. Scientists began to examine nature at a sub-atomic level and they found that instead of a continuation of the regular, predictable and law-like certainty that they were used to with larger objects, they found unpredictable, uncertain and flat-out strange things happening. In my newspaper article I mentioned the discovery that in some circumstances, sub-atomic particles can arrive – can be measured arriving – at a destination slightly before they leave their previous spot. But how can that be? We all know that you can’t arrive at the church before you’ve left your house on Sunday morning. We all know that you leave your house first, then arrive at your destination, in that order. But in the weird and bizarre world of quantum physics, it appears that things can arrive and leave in different order. Don’t ask me to explain it; I don’t think anyone can. It’s just weird. But that’s what’s happening way, way down at the very bottom of the known reality at the sub-atomic level. Now if strange and weird and mysterious things are already happening at this level of reality, why shouldn’t we expect strange things to pop up once in a while – supernatural miracles even? Normal reality follows the normal course of nature and we understand this and we live our lives based on things being regular and predictable. But we need to be open to the fact that things can happen that seem to violate the normal laws of nature for which there is no explanation other than God.

Think about the prophecy in the Old Testament concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Isaiah 7:14, “Behold the virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and he shall be called Immanuel, meaning, with us is God.” Then think about what might have happened in the womb of Mary to produce the supernatural, miraculous conception. Something happened that defies all the known laws of science. Scientifically speaking, in order for conception to happen there needs to be a male sperm and a female egg. One-half of the male chromosomes joins with one-half of the female chromosomes and forms a completely new life. That new life begins to grow and nine months later a baby is born. Now how could Mary have gotten male and female chromosomes together in her womb to conceive as a virgin? It’s naturally impossible. Yes, but not impossible for God. Just like the angel said, “For nothing is impossible for God.” How might God have done it? Well, operating at a sub-atomic level, God could have changed the statistical values of the most elementary particles so that instead of going here, they went there. From observing larger objects using classical physics we know that gravity has an effect that can be measured, so even such a force as gravity somehow could have altered the natural course of the particles in the womb of Mary to produce a child. Or, God could have made sure Mary received an extra dose of some kind of invisible rays, gamma rays or ultra-violet or some such known force, which could have altered the particles in her body and thus produced the highly unlikely and statistically improbable result of a virgin conception. But see all of this is possible in the new view of science that admits that it doesn’t know how things operate down at the sub-atomic level, and admits that it might be impossible for us to know anything with certainty at that level, ever. The end result of all this talk about sub-atomic science is that miracles such as the Virgin Birth are no longer things that can be ruled out by skeptics as impossible. We believe in the truths of the Bible because we believe in God and his revelation. We don’t need science and scientists telling us what we can or what we cannot believe. But it’s nice to know that science is moving away from the old view that thought it could explain everything in a nice, neat little formula. There are still scientists who talk about the so-called “Theory of Everything,” but that’s just whistling in the dark. Nobody can explain everything except God. Isn’t it good to know that smart people are starting to take a more realistic and honest view of reality and say, “We just can’t rule out anything, even the supernatural.” This Christmas, let’s give thanks to our God who is bigger than the laws of nature and who can intervene, manipulate or stir up nature at any point at any time as he so wills. He did so in the Virgin Birth of Jesus – and we celebrate it this Christmas. Let’s pray.

Text: Matthew 1:18-25

Time: December 18th, 2011

One of the great advantages of living in the modern 21^st century is our ability to think about age-old questions in light of new scientific discoveries. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how we think about things, or how we put together the new knowledge and the old historical, biblical accounts. A Christian will be careful to give God’s Word, the Bible, full credibility – while at the same time try to integrate what new knowledge that science can shed light on with the biblical truths. That’s what I intend to do today in tackling an important Christmas question, “How was Jesus conceived?” Now the account in the Book of Matthew simply states that Mary was “found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” and “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit,” but it doesn’t go into details as to how this came about. Let’s read the whole passage on the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:18-25 in order to get the context (read). Now we know that Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, but how did this actually come about? I raise the question because in light of new science and technology there are a number of different possibilities as to how God the Holy Spirit could have brought about a virgin birth. I’d like to look at a few of the more plausible options as to how God could have brought about a virgin conception. Of course, we don’t actually know for sure 100% how it came about because God hasn’t revealed that to us in his Word. It wasn’t his intention to reveal everything about everything in the Bible. Can you imagine how big the Bible would be if God went into detail about everything he revealed in his Word? The Bible is already a big book, although through the providence of God, it is a manageable book – we can actually pick up and carry around the complete and full revelation of God for mankind in one volume! But imagine how big the Bible would be if God stopped to explain how every miracle took place in detail. It would be unmanageable. So there aren’t many details that explain things in the Bible, and we actually don’t need these details to benefit from God’s written revelation. But as curious humans – made that way, by the way, in the image of God — we ask for more information. We think about things and come up with possible explanations. That’s what I’m doing in respect to the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. What better time of the year to ask such questions as Christmas? The world is celebrating the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem two thousands years ago, so let’s ask a few questions and consider a few possibilities about the virgin birth.

First, there’s the possibility of divine artificial insemination. Matthew 1:18, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” Artificial insemination is when male sperm is put into the female’s reproductive track in order to bring about conception. So one possibility is that the Holy Spirit somehow artificially inseminated Mary’s reproductive track and brought about pregnancy that way. Under this scenario the way it works is God supplies the male sperm and Mary supplies the female egg, when the two mix there’s a divine/human conception. Now the obvious problem with this possibility is that according to the Bible, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23, including Mary. So then, if God supplied the perfect, sinless seed from heaven, and Mary supplied the imperfect, human egg, then the product would be a mixture of sinless divinity and sinful humanity. But we know that Jesus was perfectly sinless from Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet without sin.” Jesus didn’t inherit original sin, making him unique in this condition from all humanity. But if only Jesus were sinless, as the Bible states, then Mary couldn’t have provided any part of the ingredients of conception for the birth of Jesus, since she too was a sinner, part of the fallen human race tainted by original sin. Now our Roman Catholic friends have a solution to this problem – they claim that Mary was kept supernaturally free from original and actual sin all her life. Thus, she could provide the female half of the conception equation while God provided the divine half. Mary’s sinless life is a tradition in both the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox church. Catholics believe Mary was born without original sin and also she didn’t ever sin during her lifetime, while Orthodox Christians usually believe only in her sinless life. But a close reading of the Bible fails to turn up any teaching on Mary’s sinless life or her “Immaculate Conception” – as it’s called. These are external traditions that are not part of the original biblical revelation. They would also seem to contradict the fact that Mary needed a Savor from sin like everyone else. So the problem with thinking that the virgin birth came about through divine artificial insemination is that Mary would have to be sinless in order for it to work – something the Bible doesn’t teach, and something the Bible implies isn’t the case. But there’s another possibility.

Second, there’s the possibility of an already divinely fertilized egg implanted in Mary’s womb. Matthew 1:18, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” Under this scenario, the Holy Spirit of God brings about a divinely fertilized egg and implants it in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Even though Mary was part of sinful humanity, even though she inherited original sin like everyone, even though she was a sinner and unable to live a life of sinless perfection, she was still able to carry the perfect Son of God, Jesus Christ, for nine months of pregnancy because a fertilized egg was planted within her supernaturally by the Holy Spirit. Now this avoids any taint of original or active sin mixing with the perfect divine conception and it allows for Mary to be the actual biological mother of Jesus, as the Gospel accounts describe. Now the only possible problem with this understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus is – does it qualify Jesus as being fully human, as well as fully divine? In other words, there’s no question that a divinely fertilized egg dropped into the womb of the Virgin Mary qualifies the divine nature of Christ, but does it qualify the human nature of Christ as well. Can Jesus be fully human if there is no direct DNA connection with any human parent? We already know that there wasn’t any of Joseph’s DNA as part of the conception of Christ, but was Mary’s DNA absent as well? And if Mary’s DNA was absent from Jesus, was he really a part of the human race, connected with authentic humanity? As you can see, science and technology now allow us to ask new and different questions about the virgin birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, we don’t always have the answers, because we just don’t know. If Jesus had the generic DNA of humans, — that would probably qualify as a member of true humanity, even though he didn’t share the DNA of his parents Mary and Joseph. Of course, through a supernatural miracle, God could give Jesus both Mary and Joseph’s DNA minus any defects or sin – if sin is even part of DNA. On the other hand, maybe original sin isn’t passed through DNA anyway, so it wouldn’t matter if Mary’s DNA were mixed with God’s divine DNA to conceive Jesus. Again, we have more questions than answers. We can only speculate. But what we do know is that Jesus was born free of original sin and kept free from actual sin his whole life. Only a perfect, sinless sacrifice could atone for our sins on the cross. So however the conception came about, it was free from sin.

Third, there’s the wonder of God in Jesus Christ going through the conception, development and birth stages of life. Matthew 1:18, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” We often forget in our celebration of Christmas each year that we’re talking about God Almighty entering humanity through conception and birth. What an amazing thing! Now why would God choose to go through this route in relating to us in our humanity on earth? Let’s consider the different ways God could appear on earth to reveal himself to us humans. Well, he could appear in all his glory and totally blow our minds and probably give everyone a heart attack in the process. Remember the prophet Isaiah who was given a vision of God Almighty? What did he say? “Woe to me! I cried. I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty,” Isaiah 6:5. God could have come to us and totally intimidated us into submission and obedience, but he didn’t. No. He took the totally opposite route and decided to visit us in the most possible non-intimidating way. In other words, he decided to “sneak up on us” in the form of a baby born in an obscure part of the world to ordinary parents. He did so because he wanted us to approach him with our guards and defenses down. Imagine an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present Being trying to relate to his creatures on earth. Almost everything he would do would intimidate us. But God doesn’t want us to love him through intimidation; he wants us to love him freely. So his plan is to enter humanity as a baby, identify with us as a man, and then offer salvation freely through the cross.  We can never accuse God of being some detached Father in heaven who doesn’t relate to us or feel our pain. God was willing to identify with us humans from conception to death. Imagine God Almighty living nine months in the womb of a woman. Imagine God Almighty being pushed out into the world at birth and being slapped on the rear end and crying and breathing his first breath of air. Imagine God Almighty being a helpless little baby, unable to feed, cloth or change himself. God was willing to do all of this for us because he cares about us so much and loves us so. Christmas is special time of the year when we can reflect on the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. It’s when God became man in the form of a little baby. As you can see, there is so much more to think and talk about in the Christmas account, but I’ll stop here for today. Do you know God this Christmas? Have you opened your heart up to the Christ child? God became human at Christmas to relate to us and for us to relate to God. Have you taken advantage of God’s plan for reaching out to you in this way? Why not draw close to God this Christmas? Why not renew your Christmas faith this year? Let’s pray.

Text: Matthew 1:18-25

Time: December 15th, 2011

One of the great benefits of the Christmas season is we can explore all the many different Nativity themes found in the Bible. I love the holiday season because it gives me an excuse to teach and preach about the birth of the Lord Jesus in Bethlehem two thousand years ago. There are some pastors, sadly, who actually don’t enjoy the Christmas season, because they claim they are expected to come up with fresh messages on the old familiar Nativity topic – which they find difficult to do. But I’m just the opposite. I love to dig around the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in order to find some different angle on Christmas, some theme that hasn’t been explored thoroughly, so that I might preach on that. So I rather enjoy digging in to the accounts of the birth of Jesus because there is so much there that needs to be mined for all the truth it contains. So from that perspective, let’s dig into another issue involving the first Christmas account found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter one (read). I’d like to focus on one specific passage, Matthew 1:20-21, 24, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’. . . When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.” Now for the longest time I as a Christian I was under the impression that Joseph, husband of Mary and earthly, human father of Jesus, had encountered an angel – or had an angelic visitation that told him what to do. I later learned that the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream. Now my question is, is there a difference between really seeing an angel and simply dreaming you saw one? Or put another way, is there a difference between having an angel appear to you and having an angel in a dream appear to you? Well, clearly there is a difference. For example, if someone came up to me all excited and said, “I just had an angel appear to me and tell me something!” If I asked further and said, “Where did this angel appear to you?” And if they responded, “In my dream last night,” clearly, it would be less impressive than if an angel had really appeared to the person while he was awake. Why? Because all kinds of things pop into our heads during dreams, some pretty strange, bizarre and mysterious. But if we were to have something appear while we are fully awake, such as an angel, like, for example, what the shepherds in the fields outside of Bethlehem encountered with the angels in Luke 2 – that would be truly impressive and special. But for an angel to appear in a dream? That might seem a little under whelming. But is it? What really happened to Joseph? Let’s look at what happened to poor Joseph that night which convinced him to marry Mary. I’m not calling into question the reality of the vision, I’m just asking questions about it that might help us all understand our Christmas faith better.

First, Joseph might have had more like a vision than a dream. Matthew 1:20, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” Once again I was snooping around in the Greek New Testament, rereading the familiar Nativity accounts found in Matthew and Luke, when I discovered that the little phrase that is usually translated “in a dream” in most English Bible translations begins with the preposition kata in Greek, not en or “in.” Kata means “according to,” so a literal rendering is, “according to a dream,” a little awkward, but it could fit. But maybe kata was used and not en to mean something slightly different. So it’s possible that Joseph actually had an angelic appearance or vision that was like a dream or similar to a dream, but really wasn’t a dream, but instead was really an appearance. That would make what Joseph experienced a real angelic vision, not just a subjective dream in the night. Now the most obvious problem with this interpretation is in verse 24 it says, “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him.” That would seem to imply that he was sleeping and that he really was dreaming when he saw the angelic vision – and so the angel would have appeared to him in a dream, not outside of dreaming. This problem would tend to weigh against the interpretation I just gave, although it could still be true, if we think of Joseph in that state of sleep – half asleep and half awake. You’ve probably all experienced sleep walking or sleeping talking, where you actually talked with someone or walked about the house, all while you were really still asleep. Now if you could talk or walk, were you really asleep? Not fully asleep, at least not asleep enough to be fully, as they say, “out of it.” So, if you can talk and carry on a conversation, are you really asleep? If you can walk and go down to the kitchen and grab a snack and eat it and then climb back into back, where you really asleep after all during that time? Or were you really half-asleep and half-awake? When I was a small boy I’ve been told that I could sleep walk and go back to bed without remembering anything. Now, was I really asleep or was I mostly asleep and a little awake? That could be debated back and forth, but maybe Joseph was half awake and half asleep. If so, maybe he really did encounter a true angelic visitation and it all seemed like a dream to him when he woke up fully. Or maybe Joseph had a real angel encounter, a vision by his bedside like Mary, but then afterwards fell into a deep sleep, only later waking up as verse 24 says. So we can’t totally rule out because of the Greek sentence construction that Joseph really saw an angel, not just dreamed he saw an angel. But let’s look at another possibility.

Second, maybe Joseph really did dream he saw and heard an angel. Matthew 1:18, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” Of course, there’s always the possibility that Joseph really did have an angel appear to him in a dream, like most Bible translations put it. After all, in the Greek, the preposition kata can and is translated, “in,” by most New Testament translators in this passage for the phrase, “in a dream.” So it could be, probably is, that Joseph saw the angel in a dream. But then that raises the question, “Did Joseph dream that he saw an angel, or did an angel appear to Joseph in a dream?” Do you get the distinction? It’s very important. For example, I don’t know about your dreams, but whenever I dream, sometimes my dreams can be so weird, so strange, really bizarre. It’s possible for people to dream they saw biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, the Apostles, even Jesus. Does that mean the really did? In other words, just because we dream we saw something does that mean we actually saw that something, the real thing? When it says that Joseph saw an angel in his dream, does that mean that Joseph dreamed he saw an angel, like we might dream we saw heaven or dream we see Jesus, for example? I don’t think so. When the passage says that an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, I think that means that Joseph was dreaming and the angel broke in and appeared to him. Joseph didn’t dream up an angel, the angel broke into Joseph’s dream with a message – maybe interrupting something Joseph was already dreaming! So the emphasis would have been on the angelic revelation, not Joseph’s dreaming it up. Because if it were simply Joseph dreaming that he saw an angel, like everyone dreams some strange things some times, then I don’t think that would have had the impact it had on Joseph; it wouldn’t have been as powerful and as real as it turned out to be. Joseph didn’t just dream up an angelic appearance, an angel intervened in his dream to command him to marry Mary. That’s a different thing all together. So we see it’s a bit more complicated than just Joseph falling asleep — and thinking or dreaming he saw an angel. No. God revealed something important, something essential to Joseph by means of a dream. It was God who manufactured this dream, not Joseph. We can’t just dismiss it as someone coming up with a wild dream. Joseph didn’t come up with the angelic dream, God visited him with it for a purpose. It’s a good thing that God was able to convince Joseph to go ahead and do his part and marry Mary, because the Christmas Nativity account would be completely different without him. Joseph, in the end, was obedient to God’s plan and purpose for his life. Are you so obedient to God when he presents his plan for your life? Let’s hope so.

Third, either way, God gets his will across if we’ll listen and obey. Matthew 1:20-21, 24, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’. . . When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.” It doesn’t really matter what Joseph experienced – whether it was an actual angelic appearance or an angel appearing in a dream, the purpose was accomplished either way, because Joseph married Mary and took care of the baby Jesus. That was the whole purpose of the angel’s visit; and he accomplished his mission. God got through to Joseph, changed his mind about Mary, and fulfilled his plan for the Christmas birth of Jesus. God will fulfill his plan for our lives as well, if we’ll stay open to his will, no matter what it is at any given time. Now in the case of Joseph, it took a little bit of effort to bring him around to fulfilling his calling. He didn’t believe or buy into the supernatural miraculous tale told by Mary at first. But eventually God got through to him that he was indeed supposed to go forward with marriage to Mary and that he had an important role to play in the birth and life of the child Jesus. There may be times when God calls us to do something that at first doesn’t sound possible or probable. There may be times when God’s will for our life may even seem crazy. It may go against common sense, or society’s customs or tradition. As we live in an increasingly secular and godless society, we may find God calling us in directions that contradict or conflict with the general population’s will and way. We may be tempted to reject the calling of God if it seems strange to our modern, secular and skeptical ears. But we have to consider that from God’s perspective, the way unbelieving people think and act is strange. As society moves more and more away from God in rebellion, the will of God will seem more strange to modern thinking, but that doesn’t mean we should refuse God’s will or fail to obey him just because what he calls us to do seems strange by modern standards. For example, in modern Europe today, going to church on Sunday is rare, even odd or strange for someone to do. But even so, it’s something a Christian should do, whether he’s misunderstood or not. It took a little while, but finally Joseph came around to doing the right thing. Let’s pray to God that like Joseph we’ll come around to eventually doing the right thing according to God. Let’s pray that we’ll get to the place in our Christian life that it doesn’t take very long for us to believe and follow God’s will. And if it takes an angelic visitation or something supernatural to give us a nudge, let’s pray that God will send that too. Let’s pray.

Text: Matthew 2:1-18

Time: December 11th, 2011

We’re only two weeks away from Christmas day, which happens to fall on a Sunday this year. I remember a few years back Christmas fell on a Sunday and I learned that a number of larger churches canceled Sunday church because they wanted families to spend time together on Christmas day. I’m not sure how I feel about that — canceling Sunday church in order to give families time together on Christmas Sunday. The rationale of the bigger, mega-churches is that since they have services on the Saturday before Christmas Sunday, people can simply come to church a day earlier and then have all day Sunday to spend with family celebrating Christmas. I understand the logic of it all, I’m just not comfortable with the idea of canceling Sunday church for any reason – family time or holiday – whatever. It may be a symptom of our age — that we bump God, church, prayer or the Bible, because of some agenda or plan we have in life. It may be a worldly practice that bows to the priorities of the modern world. On the other hand, we shouldn’t be legalistic about anything connected to the practice of Christianity. Just as the Apostle Paul says in Romans 14:5-6, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regard on day as special, does so to the Lord.” So maybe it’s not so bad an idea, some churches not meeting on Christmas Sunday. I’m not comfortable with it, but that’s just me. Call me old fashioned. But anyway, we are again this week talking about the Christmas account in the New Testament. Last time I talked about the Holy Spirit in connection with the conception of Jesus, how the New Testament underscores the truth that Jesus’ conception was holy – as opposed to unholy, as some thought. Joseph at first thought that Mary was pregnant through some unholy means, but in the end he believed the angel who explained to him that it was the Holy Spirit’s doing – or as the literal Greek states, “the Spirit which is Holy.” This week I’d like to look at another familiar passage in the Book of Matthew, the section that describes Herod’s reaction to the announcement of the Magi that a baby king is born. Part of the fun of the Christmas holiday season is we can explore all these interesting themes that relate to the Nativity. Here’s an interesting verse, “When King Herod heard this (the announcement by the Magi that a king is to be born) he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him,” Matthew 2:3. I’ve always been interested in this verse. What does it mean that King Herod was disturbed when he heard a king was to be born? And what does it mean that the whole city of Jerusalem was disturbed also upon hearing the news? Come with me this morning as we explore this peculiar passage. Maybe we can learn a little more about that first Christmas –and maybe God can teach us something we can apply to our lives today in modern times.

First, Herod was disturbed. Matthew 2:3, “When King Herod heard this (the announcement by the Magi that a king is to be born) he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.” Now picture the familiar scene. The Magi had seen a bright star way over in the East, probably in Persia or some land far east of Israel. These Magi were astronomers – or more accurately, astrologists. They believed strongly in a correlation between the heavens and earth, between the stars and actual events on earth. So they studied the skies for clues as to what might happen on earth, in the present and in the future. They made predictions based on what they saw in the heavens – on the alignment of stars, planets, the sun and moon. The Bible doesn’t endorse astrology. God’s Word doesn’t encourage us to try to predict the future based on the zodiac or astrology. God simply used the bright star these men saw in the East to guide them into the land of Israel for the Nativity. So they set out and after many miles and many days arrived in Israel following the star which they interpreted was to signify the birth of a king. But when they arrived in the land of the Jews they found that nobody knew anything about the birth of any king! That must have been a shock. I imagine they were thinking that nearly everyone would know and be able to guide them to the newborn king, but when they entered the Promised Land they found nobody knew anything about the birth of a king! So they headed to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Surely someone in Jerusalem would know. So they went to Herod, but he was like everyone else – he was surprised about news of a newborn king. But he was not only surprised; he was disturbed. Why? Because he was king! And it was from his line, his family that future kings of Israel would come. Who was this other so-called king? He probably felt paranoid and threatened. It says he was disturbed. Now you have to understand a little of the background of King Herod. History shows that he was indeed a very paranoid ruler. In fact, he had his wife and sons murdered because he was afraid they were plotting against him. So he was a very insecure and violent man. If he felt threatened, his first instinct was to strike in violence against his perceived enemies. Now to be fair, that wasn’t all that Herod was about, because he was one of the great builders of the ancient world, constructing cities, monuments and other public works, even the great Temple in Jerusalem. But in this instance he felt threatened by the birth of a baby who could be a future king of Israel. So he was greatly disturbed by the baby Jesus. Imagine, the great King Herod intimidated by the baby Jesus! God came to visit earth and humanity in the form of a little baby in order to not intimidate us by his appearing. If God in all his glory appeared we’d be so scarred and intimidated we all might have heart attacks on the spot! But as hard as it is to believe, there are people who are still intimidated by the baby Jesus. Maybe that says more about their state of hostility towards God than anything else. God comes in peace in the form of a baby in order that we might relate to him better. Have you let the baby Jesus into your life yet, or are you still, like Herod, defensive towards God? There’s more.

Second, the Jews in Jerusalem were disturbed. Matthew 2:3, “When King Herod heard this (the announcement by the Magi that a king is to be born) he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.” Now we understand why evil King Herod might be disturbed – he was not right with God and he was paranoid of any rival leader who might challenge his ultimate power and control. But why were the people of Jerusalem disturbed? Well, the reason could be as simple as they were disturbed because Herod was disturbed. We don’t know what it’s like to live under a sovereign ruler or king. Even the people in England who live under the Queen don’t really know what it’s like to live under an absolute monarch. The King or Queen today in England is more of a figurehead than a real person of power and authority. But back in older times, the king ruled and his word was law. He held the power of life or death. If the king was angered or upset, disturbed or mad, then the entire population under his authority could be effected. Especially considering the kind of king Herod was, what the historical record shows about Herod, anything that might disturb him would give the people reason for alarm. Well, look at what he did when the Magi failed to return and report back to him about the baby in Bethlehem. He sent soldiers to kill all the babies two years old and under. That shows what kind of king the people had to put up with on a daily basis. So no wonder they were disturbed when he was disturbed. I can’t think of any other reason why they might be disturbed at the birth of a future king of Israel in fulfillment of ancient prophecy. Weren’t Jews looking for the Messiah? Weren’t they seeking deliverance from Rome? Wasn’t a future ruler or deliverer what they prayed for each night? Why would they be disturbed by the report of a newborn king? Unless, of course, they feared it might trigger violence and bloodshed in the land – which it could, if, for example, the Romans, saw it as a threat. Or, as happened, Herod saw it as a threat. Maybe the people were really concerned about a change in the status quo. Even though they prayed for change, maybe when change drew near they actually feared a change in the status quo. Isn’t that a lot like we are at times? We pray for God to change things for the better in our lives, yet when he starts to bring about changes we may become fearful because deep down often times we love the stable, comfortable status quo. It’s predictable, it’s regular, it’s something we know we can handle. But change, especially radical change, even if it’s for the good, we may hesitate or even oppose it simply because it’s different. Is that what you do when God brings change into your life? Maybe we should pray to God that he change us and also to give us the courage to walk into the new will of God for our lives. There are probably a lot of things God wants to change in your life, in my life, but we simply need to let go and let God. Are you willing to trust God for a better future?

Third, we don’t have to be disturbed if we keep our eyes on God. Matthew 2:11, “On coming to the house, they (the Magi) saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.” How different a scene in Bethlehem, at the manger of Jesus, than in Jerusalem with Herod and the people of the city. Back in the capital city they were all worried and disturbed. Herod was worried about a rival king threatening to take away his power and control. The city people were worried about a violent uprising that might occur, or some kind of change that might make life different for them. But in Bethlehem, around the baby Jesus, there was peace and quiet, there was calm. The Magi had left a tense situation in Jerusalem with King Herod and the citizens, but when they arrived on the scene of Jesus, Mary and Joseph – as the song Silent Night says, “All is calm, all is bright.” I think that’s an appropriate contrast that we see in our world today. People without the peace of Jesus are running here and there, worrying about the economy, about world peace, about politics and business – and all kinds of things. They don’t take the time to focus on God. They don’t take time for prayer or Bible study. They don’t take time for church or Christian fellowship. They are go, go, go – making money, shopping, striving after the pot of gold under the rainbow, or chasing the American Dream or pursuing the “good life” in the United Sates. We need to stop and reflect on the Nativity, the first Christmas. There was calmness, there was serenity, there was love and joy. All the best things in life were on display that first Christmas night because people were focused and centered around Jesus. That same principle of life applies today as well. As we center our lives on Jesus — not money, not possessions, not “things,” not “success” or “achievement” or any of the other things that the world says are essential for living the “good life,” as we center our lives upon Jesus, he gives us his peace and we feel the love of God no matter what we are going through. That’s what the Bible calls in Philippians 4:7, “the peace that passes all understanding.” If you are going through financial stress today, you can still have God’s peace if you focus on Jesus. If you are going through career troubles or out of work looking for employment, you can still have peace by focusing on Jesus, just as the people at the Nativity scene did. The Magi had King Herod looking over their shoulder, but they still had peace as they focused on Jesus. Even Mary and Joseph, as we later learn, would face the stress of fleeing from Israel from Herod, but by focusing on Jesus they too kept their peace. No matter what problems, challenges and difficulties you face this Christmas season of 2011, if you would only do what these people did so many years ago by focusing on Jesus, you’d find that God would give you his supernatural peace. Let’s pray.

Text: Matthew 1:18-25

Time: December 4th, 2011

We’re only twenty-one days away from Christmas day, so I thought I’d speak on the birth of Jesus. This sermon was inspired by my reading in the Greek New Testament, which is my daily habit that I try to keep as often as I can. I bring up the fact that this message was inspired by reading the Christmas account in Matthew in the original Greek because of something I noticed that doesn’t come through in the English translations. I first learned Greek during my college days at Wheaton College in Illinois over twenty-five years ago. Ever since I’ve tried to keep up my Greek by reading from it almost every day in connection with my daily devotions. Well, I was reading through both the Christmas account in Matthew and Luke, when something jumped out of the passage that drew attention to a point I’d never noticed before. Now usually the Bible translators do a really good job of translating the Greek into English for us whose main language is English, so we don’t have to worry that we are missing anything. But sometimes they simply overlook something that may or may not be important in their translation of Greek into English. For example, here’s what Matthew 20-21 says in the NIV, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’” We are all familiar with this passage because it’s the angel’s announcement to Joseph through a dream that it’s ok to marry Mary. But what caught my eye in the original Greek language of the New Testament is this – the verse actually says something more than what is translated. Here’s what I mean. Here is the original, literal translation of the last part of verse twenty, “Because what is conceived in her is from the Spirit that is Holy,” or “the Spirit which is Holy.” Most translations translate it, “Because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” The King James Version, the Living Bible, Today’s English Version, Phillips Modern English, the Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible all translate it, “Holy Spirit,” also. And after all, “the Spirit of Holiness” or “the Spirit that is Holy” means “Holy Spirit” anyway. So all these translations are correct, but I think they miss something important that is being made in the text. If it weren’t for the context of the verse, there’d be no point to be made in me bringing up this slight detail. But because there is a very clear and important context for the use of the phrase, “the Spirit which is Holy,” I think that we are missing something when we simply translate the passage using merely, “Holy Spirit.” Let me explain. We are now in the Christmas season so let’s talk about the Christmas account of the birth of Jesus. Today, let’s look at a detail of that account from Luke 1:18-25 (read).

First, there’s the context of the passage – Jesus is conceived by the power of the Spirit, which at first caused problems. Matthew 1:18-19, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” So the context is that Mary suddenly becomes pregnant through the Holy Spirit and Joseph her husband didn’t understand and couldn’t believe it was from God. So if he didn’t believe Mary was pregnant from God what did he believe? He must have believed that she was pregnant from some man – that would be the natural and normal way to become pregnant. We know he didn’t believe Mary at first because he was thinking of divorcing her. If he had really believed her story about the angelic announcement and the Holy Spirit he wouldn’t have made plans to divorce her — or thought seriously about it. He would have rejoiced in the will of God and accepted the miraculous conception and married Mary. But he was thinking of not marrying her because he didn’t believe the story. I think we can all understand his feelings. Who could believe such a strange tale? We believe it because of the whole Bible, the prophecies of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah 7:14 and others, and because of the New Testament accounts. We see the big picture. But Joseph was just an ordinary guy confronted with a strange and extraordinary situation. Now notice in Matthew’s account it says that Mary was “found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” In the original Greek the verse literally says, “found to be with child though the Holy Spirit.” So there is no difference between the Greek and the English translations in this case, in this verse. Of course, the Greek puts it, “Spirit Holy” instead of Holy Spirit, but that’s normal in biblical Greek. That happens in other languages, even modern languages. In English we put the word order as adjective and then the subject, like, “green tree,” but in other languages, they put the subject first, then the adjective, “tree green.” Nothing wrong with that. But my point is, the context of the verse is Mary giving Joseph this fantastic account of her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, being a normal man, couldn’t believe it. He must have thought that Mary was pregnant through some sinful act, either Mary’s own unfaithful and immoral act, or some man’s sinful act of forcible rape. What other natural explanation is there? Joseph was thinking that something sinful had occurred. The child was conceived not through something holy but through something unholy. Now we can see a clue as to the word order in the next couple verses.

Second, there’s the reason for the word order – to bring out the holy nature of the conception. Matthew 1:20-21, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from Holy Spirit (the Spirit which is Holy). She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’” Now we can see the importance of the literal Greek phrase, “the Spirit that is Holy” or “the Spirit which is Holy.” Because it is literally saying, “No longer think of Mary’s pregnancy as the product of something sinful, immoral or unholy, because it is something from the Spirit which is Holy!” Or in other words, “Joseph, don’t think any longer of Mary’s situation, her pregnancy, as the result of something bad or dirty or evil, because it really is something from God, it’s holy, from the very Spirit of holiness.” Now we miss that point if we follow the typical English translation of the verse. Thankfully, there aren’t many places in the New Testament that cover up an important point in the original Greek, but there are a few, like the one I’ve just mentioned. But I thought it was important to point out to you that the verse isn’t just giving the origination of Mary’s conception, it’s actually refuting Joseph’s thinking that Mary had been involved with something sinful or immoral or unholy. The word order, the literal Greek is saying that the child was conceived “out of the Spirit that is Holy,” rather than just restating that the pregnancy was from the Holy Spirit, it means to communicate that the child conceived is clean and the origination of the conception is not only clean but as clean as can be, as holy as can be, from the Spirit of God that is Holy. Do you see how rich the Bible is? Do you see how important careful Bible study is to the knowledge and growth of the Christian? Now you may say, “How could I ever discover what you discovered? I don’t know Greek, the original language of the New Testament.” Yes, but you can dig into the Bible through commentaries and study Bibles and learn the same thing. As a Christian I hope you have a few Bible commentaries laying around and a few books that explain the Bible in depth, because you can learn things like this from them. And we should all be curious about things like this, because they can give us better insight into the workings of God. You do want to know God better, don’t you? You do want to know his will and way better, don’t you? We can grow a lot in our faith by simply asking questions such as, “Why does the Bible say it this way, rather than some other way?” That’s what I asked to discover this fine point.

Third, there’s the lesson we can learn from this insight – God has a plan and purpose for everything he does. Matthew 1:22-25, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel – which means, God with us.’ When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” The Bible wasn’t just throw together like some people think today. Today, there are liberal, secular scholars who belittle the Bible and say it is the product of a cut and past process over many years. They say that it can’t be trusted, because different people than the names given on the biblical books wrote it. They say all kinds of disrespectful things about the Bible, God’s Holy Word. But as Christians we know that the Bible is the Word of God. It is true, it doesn’t contain errors or contradictions. God has a plan and purpose in giving us the Bible through the prophetic writings. Every book, every chapter, every paragraph, every sentence, every word – they are all important and they are all there for a reason. Today we just learned an important point that is often overlooked in most Bible translations today. That just shows that the Bible is even richer than we can imagine. Now I don’t fault the Bible translators because translating the phrase “the Spirit which is Holy” can legitimately be translated, “the Holy Spirit.” But in this case, in this passage in Matthew, it should have been translated more literally and more accurately because it actually brings out the important point that there is no hint of sin, immorality or unholiness in the conception and birth of Jesus. This passage, in it’s literal sense, in the sense I’ve tried to point out, refutes all the false and slanderous rumors that some pagans have tried to spread about the virgin birth of Jesus. There is the outrageous and evil rumor about Jesus being the son of a Roman solider named Pantarus. There’s no evidence for it; it’s just a vile rumor someone invented to hurt Christians. But this verse, the way it is constructed in the literal original Greek, refutes all such rumors. What was conceived in the womb of Mary was holy, was from the Spirit who is Holy. Just like the Apostle’s Creed says, Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Spirit” and “born of the virgin Mary.” There is nothing dirty, immoral, unclean or unholy about the way Jesus was conceived or born. So this Christmas let us rejoice in that our Savior Jesus Christ was miraculously born, lived a supernatural life and was raised to life on the third day by the power of God the Father. We believe a supernatural faith – and we don’t have to be ashamed to say so. God is inviting us to live a supernatural life. Are you willing to live supernaturally? God is inviting you and me to do so this Christmas. Let’s pray.

Text: Psalm 14:1, Ecclesiastes 1:2, 13, 16-18, Isaiah 5:20

Time: November 11th, 2011

I’ve noticed that atheism is gaining ground in our society lately as I’ve watched television, listened to radio, read the newspapers and surfed the Internet. Atheism is no longer confined to a few individuals or even one person in every town – the “village” atheist. Today, on college campuses across the country there are more than a few outright atheists on the faculty and still others who are practically atheists in their worldview. Atheists appear on television documentaries as “experts” on a wide range of topics. So the general population is being exposed to a lot of atheist thinking today whether they know it or not. But what isn’t so widely known in the general public is just what atheists actually believe. Sure, atheism is disbelief in God – but it goes a lot further than that. The implications of atheism are shocking when we examine them. Most ordinary people never go any further with atheism than it’s a belief that excludes God, but it’s a lot more than that. The implications of atheism are not only shocking — they are outright depressing. It’s one thing for an atheist to appear on television as a cool intellectual who thinks he can explain everything without God; it’s another thing to actually map out what he’s saying and explore the radical implications to his beliefs.  If we take the time to really think through what an atheist is saying we’ll find that his view is dark and depressing and essentially nihilistic. Nihilism is the outlook of purposeless meaninglessness. Having studied philosophy at Wheaton College under one of the finest philosophers in the country, Arthur Holmes, I think I grasp most of the essential implications of atheism. I’m alarmed to see how warm and welcoming our society is to atheistic ideas today, whereas, only a few decades ago, most atheists would have been rejected automatically. But today, when television documentaries and news reporters turn to a scientific expert to explain something, more and more they turn to atheists. And more and more the general public is being tutored by atheistic thinking without even understanding the implications of atheism. So today, we’ll be examining the three most shocking beliefs of atheists. I’m sort of in a series entitled, “Three most shocking beliefs of . . .” It started when a newspaper published an article of mine on the three most shocking beliefs of Mormons. I then wrote sermons based on that article explaining the three most shocking beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the three most shocking beliefs of Christian Science – and today, I’m exposing the three most shocking beliefs of atheism. I plan to extend the series to include major world religions, such as Hinduism, Islam and others. As Christians we need to know what people are believing in our society, and more importantly, we need to know what the implications are of these different – and as we understand from the Bible – false beliefs. How can we share the gospel with people if we don’t know where they are coming from? We need to become like missionaries today and understand the culture we seek to influence for the Lord. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool in his heart says there is no God.” That’s not the best way to enter a dialogue with an atheist, quoting this biblical passage, but it’s where the Bible begins with the philosophy of atheism. Let’s examine some other passages and examine atheism in closer detail.

#1 Shocking belief of atheism – life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. Ecclesiastes 1:2, “Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” When King Solomon uttered this famous phrase to open the Book of Ecclesiastes it shocked a lot of Jews at the time, and it still shocks a lot of Bible readers today who happen to wander upon this passage. Why is such a dark, depressing statement found in the Bible? Are we to take such an utterance as truth? Isn’t the Bible God’s Word? But if it’s the Word of God, why is such a discouraging and despairing statement found there? And why is David’s son, King Solomon uttering such a depressing expression? Well, we don’t have time to go into the entire background of King Solomon and what brought him to the point of such existential despair, but what we can say is that being raised by a king in prestige and privilege, he was given everything anyone could ever want. He had everything anyone could ever imagine – riches, power, position, fame and more. Being in such a unique position, he gave himself permission to explore all the different philosophies of life. One of these worldviews was atheism. Now, he wouldn’t have called himself an atheist, but he explored the worldview and lifestyle of life without God, or what we might call practical atheism. That’s when one lives his life basically as if there were no God regardless of what he says or claims to believe. It’s a very popular philosophy today, much more than outright atheism. Many, many people live essentially secular, godless lives without even knowing it’s basically atheism they are living. But Solomon explored this form of atheism and referred to it in Ecclesiastes as life “under the sun,” or in other words, a purely natural, material life – as opposed to the life of God and spiritual reality in the heavenly realm. The number one shocking belief of atheists is that life is ultimately meaningless or without ultimate purpose. Now atheists will quickly object and say, “My life has plenty of meaning and purpose, thank you.” But if you press them, they’ll have to admit that the only meaning and purpose they refer to is in this short life on earth, but beyond this life there is no overarching meaning or purpose for the universe or earth or human life. And that makes sense from an atheistic perspective, because if there is no God, then there is no context for anything; everything that is, just is, with no ultimate reason or purpose or meaning. Human life just is, each individual life just is, for no higher purpose. This is a very dark and depressing view of life, but it’s one of the main implications of real atheism. So when listening to an atheist, yes, he can be very enthusiastic and excited about what he’s explaining, but remember, when it all comes down to it, he’s preaching the ultimate meaningless and purposeless of life. It’s a dead end philosophy that only ends in despair. But there’s more.

#2 shocking belief of atheism – there is no ultimate right or wrong, no ultimate grounding for morality or ethics. Isaiah 5:20, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah, the great Old Testament prophet decries the perverting of morality and ethics by confusing the categories of right and wrong. When that is done in society then there is no up or down, right or wrong – ethically speaking. But this is exactly what atheism leads to in a person’s life and in the life of society in general. It’s called moral relativism or ethical relativism. There is no fixed or absolute right or wrong. Everything is relative. Absolute moral judgments are impossible under a system of ethical relativism. That’s what we are seeing in society today as atheism gains more and more credibility in the general population. Now atheists will no doubt object, “Why are you blaming us for the breakdown of society? Why are we blamed for the spreading of moral relativism in society today?” Because atheism guarantees moral relativism based on the simple implications of atheism. There may be a number of sources for moral relativism in society today, a number of influences that lead people to make up their standards of right and wrong as they go along in life. Probably the biggest source of this popular relativism is simply sloppy thinking and careless living. Most people do believe in God and hold to some theological convictions about right and wrong, even what is absolutely right and wrong under all circumstances. But they simply live lazy moral lives, not living up to what they profess. But with atheism, it guarantees moral relativism. Within the definition of atheism and the implications of it, we arrive at the belief in no ultimate right or wrong, no absolute standards for conduct. If there is no God there is no Lawgiver and Judge of everything. If there is no ultimate end or raison d’etre, as the French say, reason for being, then who’s to say what conduct is right or wrong ultimately. Atheists all do have some system of personal ethics, but they will have to admit that it is completely arbitrary and relative. If there’s no Lawgiver to determine what is ultimately right or wrong, if there is no Judge to finally decide who is punished and rewarded, then the universe is silent in respect to values and morality. In a world without God, to save or take a life is of equal value. To be a saint, like Mother Theresa, or to be a sinner like Adolf Hitler, is ultimately the same. If the universe is silent concerning ethics, then only human opinion determines what is right or wrong, but only relatively, because man might change his opinion for whatever reason. So in principle, atheism leads to moral relativism. Unfortunately, we don’t have to wait to see the results of this kind of thinking seeping in to society. We see it in the news every day. As atheism has a greater influence on the society, especially the youth, we’ll see what it’s like to live in a world without absolute values. It’s not something to look forward to. Without the intervention of God Almighty, without some form of spiritual revival occurring, I’m afraid we are headed for a dark future on planet earth. Atheism contributes to this darkness.

#3 shocking belief of atheism – there are no ultimate answers to the most profound questions of life. Ecclesiastes 1:13, 16-18, “I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. . . . I thought to myself, ‘Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge. Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom . . . but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.’”  Returning to King Solomon during his secular rebellious stage of his life, we see a man who is going through every area of life “under the sun” – that code phrase for a secular, materialistic, naturalistic life utterly apart from God. In his search “under the sun,” or in other words, apart from God, he found nothing of any ultimate value and even found knowledge meaningless. This is one of the implications of atheism, whether the outright atheistic convictions of a Stephen Hawking, famous British physicist who appears on many television documentaries as an authority on all things science, or the practical atheism of King Solomon during his existential stage of life described in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Atheism produces no ultimate answers to the really big questions of life, although atheists are fond of claiming only their view gives us all the answers. For example, atheists like to claim that they know why everything exists, then they give you their answer – the Big Bang. Fifteen billion years ago a gigantic explosion produced all the matter and energy in the universe. Out of this came all the galaxies. Out of this came our solar system. Out of our solar system came our sun and planets and moon. Our earth is one of the planets that formed within our solar system around the sun. Over the course of nearly five billion years the earth formed into an environment suitable for life. Then life happened. Then we happened – and that’s where we are now. But like the old Peggy Lee song, “Is that all there is?” Atheism teaches that we are accidents of the universe. There is no higher reason why we are here, we just are here. There is no ultimate or higher purpose for humanity or any individual. The most profound question of all is, “Why is there something here rather than nothing at all?” Atheism has no answer to this question. But Christianity does. We are here because a loving God chose to share his existence with others and so executed a plan to populate earth with people who would share his image and likeness. They would be conscious, rational and capable of relating to one another and ultimately with their Creator, God.

Atheism can only give “what” answers, but no “why” answers. Humans ask “why?” questions because we don’t just seek to know how the physics or biology of life works, we also want to know why there is life to begin with, why we exist ultimately. The atheist answer really isn’t an answer. Atheists say that we exist because we are the long product of cosmic evolution that started with the Big Bang billions of years ago and ended with life evolving on planet earth. We are simply the product of a purposeless, unguided and unplanned natural process of evolution that took place over millions and millions of years. Why are we here? Because nature happened to evolve us. We are here for the same reason a virus is here – nature evolved it. But these kinds of explanations really explain nothing in terms of the questions that humans have asked for thousands of years. What atheism wants is to do away with all the great questions of philosophy and religion – there are no ultimate answers to those kinds of questions. Atheism wants to reduce everything to mechanics. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy into that reductionism – and I don’t think most people ever will either. We ask questions like, “What is the point and purpose of my life? What is my ultimate destiny? What am I to do with my life here on earth? Who or what is my Creator? How can I relate with God? Is there life after death?” Atheism teaches there is no God and no life after death. Atheism teaches that life is simply being thrown into conscious existence for no point or purpose, and then suddenly being taken out of life at death, never to return again. But why did I appear briefly in life? Atheism has no answer. Atheism claims there is no answer. Atheism actually claims that to ask the question is meaningless. I was once watching a documentary produced by a leading atheist in England who was fielding questions from school children. One asked him what was the ultimate purpose of life? He replied that the question was meaningless. I’m sorry, but that’s just not an answer. Atheism must reject the classical questions of philosophy and religion down through the ages, because it simply doesn’t have any answer to offer. What atheism says is, “You don’t need to ask those questions anymore. We understand now that they are all meaningless anyway.” Well, that just doesn’t cut it. The Bible reveals answers from God that make sense and explain things in a meaningful way. No, the Bible doesn’t get into the technical “how” answers, the nuts and bolts of science, but it answers the profound life questions that really matter. Atheism is ultimately an empty philosophy that leads to discouragement, depression and despair. The great King Solomon of Israel found out by flirting with practical atheism where it leads – nowhere. If more people knew what atheists really believed, for example, these three shocking beliefs, they wouldn’t be as patient listening to the so-called atheist experts on television documentaries. Don’t you be fooled by their false wisdom.

Text: Galatians 5:16-21

Time: October 23rd, 2011

I’ve presented the three most shocking beliefs of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so today I’d like to round out the trio of infamous cults by presenting the three most shocking beliefs of Christian Science. To begin with, the name “Christian Science” is very misleading, because there is nothing Christian or scientific about what this church believes or practices. In fact, quite the contrary. Christian Science is a cult based on philosophical idealism, which is the belief that the only thing that exists is mind or thought. It has nothing to do with real science, which is based on careful empirical observation and testing. No. Christian Science has nothing to do with observation and testing — and everything to do with pure philosophical speculation. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was an armchair theologian, or in other words, she converted the philosophical school of absolute idealism into a theological system for use in her new church, the cult of Christian Science. There existed at the time a popular philosophy called idealism, which explained reality as simply mind or thought. The world exists as a reality only because we think it exists. The material world exists because we believe the idea that matter and energy exists, and so forth. Philosophers such as George Berkeley believed that everything existed in the Mind of God. Within God’s Mind we have our existence — and everything else exists also only as thoughts in the Mind of God. There is no matter, only the idea of matter. Everything is mind and mind is everything. Now from a strictly philosophical point of view, this school of thought has never been very popular because most people intuitively believe that what they experience as the real, physical world really is the real, physical world. Although, on purely philosophical grounds, absolute idealism is pretty hard to refute. In other words, if someone wants to take the position and hold to it stubbornly that everything is really only idea, not material, what can you do? A famous philosopher was once asked if he could refute the absolute idealism argument. At once he kicked a stone and said, “Thus, I refute it.” But as far as a rational, logical refutation, it’s hard to come by because someone can always claim, for example, against the stone-kicking argument, the stone only appears or is perceived to be hard; it’s only the very strong idea of hardness. It’s very difficult to go any further against such arguments. But what Mary Baker Eddy did was take the philosophy of absolute idealism and apply it to theology, Christianity and the Bible. Starting from the assumption that only Mind and ideas exist, she then reinterpreted all of the Bible and Christianity to fit this philosophy of idealism. But not only that, she used the occasion to alter the orthodox, biblical, historic Christian faith to fit her personal preferences as well. Because, after all, there were legitimate Christians who tried to apply idealism to the biblical faith in a more orthodox, traditional and biblical way during the same period. But Mary Baker Eddy’s system achieved the most notoriety, unfortunately, with all her departures from true, biblical Christianity. So what are the three most shocking beliefs of Christian Science? Let me explain.

Christian Science shocking belief #1 – the material world doesn’t exist, it’s an illusion of the mind. Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But according to Christian Science the earth, the material world of earth and sky, doesn’t really exist except in our minds. Borrowing heavily from the philosophy of absolute idealism, like I explained before, Christian Science teaches that there really isn’t a material world. We only think there is a material world. Here is a saying that is repeated each week in every Christian Science church, “There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter . . . [and it concludes]: Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.” Now from a biblical, Christian worldview, this is complete nonsense, because if the whole world and all of reality were simply an illusion of the mind; if the material world as described repeatedly in the Bible were really unreal as Christian Science teaches, then God would be guilty of the biggest representation of all because he reveals to us in the Bible a material world that is very real – and contrasts the material world with the spiritual world. You can’t contrast the material with the spiritual if there really is no material in the first place. What about the Apostle Paul? He writes in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable, it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” So we see that God’s revelation, the Bible, consistently describes the contrast between the material, physical world and the immaterial, spiritual world. This would be impossible if the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy were true. If in fact there is only one reality – spirit or mind, then the whole of God’s revelation would be misleading us. Christian Science thinks that understanding the world as a material illusion, when really everything is mind, helps explain things better. But it really only confuses things more. There are ways God could have communicated that the material, physical world wasn’t real, if that is what he intended to do. In fact, there are religions of the world that teach this very thing. For example, Hinduism and Buddhism, if they don’t teach that the material world is an illusion, come very close to teaching it. I’m not an expert in Hindu and Buddhist teachings, but if I can remember correctly from my college and seminary days in learning about world religions, these eastern religions both teach the illusory nature of the material, physical world. On this point, Mary Baker Eddy taught nothing new. But what’s so shocking is her applying it to Christianity and trying to convince Christians this is the biblical faith. It isn’t. What is shocking and what most people don’t know is that the Christian Science church and its members believe the material, physical world is an illusion. This bizarre belief is only the beginning of their shocking doctrines. There is more.

Christian Science shocking belief #2 – sickness and death don’t exist, they’re only illusions of the mind. Revelation 21:3-4, “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the older order of things has passed away.’” In historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity, sickness, pain and death are seen as realities that will one day be dealt with finally by the Lord. We look forward to the day when these negative and hurtful things will be done away with and a new order of pure life, health and blessings forever will result. But according to Christian Science teachings, these things don’t exist anyway; they are only illusions of the mind, mental tricks that cause us sadness because we believe in them. Mary Baker Eddy taught that sickness, pain and death are illusions of the mortal mind. However, here is where a lot of hypocrisy comes into the picture in connection with the Christian Science church. It’s founder, Mary Baker Eddy, took medicine to relieve her pain when she was ill. But wait, isn’t sickness and pain simply a mental illusion? If so, why didn’t the founder of Christian Science simply will her way to health? She wrote a book that is considered almost on a par with the Bible by Christian Science called, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” as an explanation of her new views. Yet, when she was sick she took medicine and when she was on her deathbed she took painkillers to help ease her discomfort. But this is only the beginning of the Christian Science hypocrisy. Christian Science members say they don’t believe in death, yet their death rate is still the national average – one per person! They say they don’t believe in sickness, yet church members still get sick. They say that pain is a mental error or false belief, yet they still suffer pain like everyone else. Now they do believe in divine healing, but so do real, authentic, biblical Christians believe in healing. But historic Christianity teaches that sickness, pain and death are real, but in the case of healing, God in his mercy and power intervenes to change sickness into health. In the Bible, we read of examples where God turned death into life by bringing back Lazarus, and also, of course, Jesus Christ from the dead. There are reports also of healings and even resurrections occurring today, but these are supernatural miracles. In Christian Science, healing is pursued by denying there ever was sickness! This is not Christian; this is cultic false teaching. People don’t realize this shocking and bizarre doctrine, because the Christian Science church is careful to cultivate a respectable image with publications such as the Christian Science Monitor newspaper. But underneath it all lays the shocking belief that the church denies disease, sickness, pain and death! But there’s more.

Christian Science shocking belief #3 – sin and evil don’t exist, they are illusions of the mind. Revelation 22:3-5, “No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.” This passage describes the final state for all believers with God in heaven. The curse of the Fall, of sin and evil will be removed. There will be no darkness, physically or spiritually in the final heavenly kingdom of God. Now what many or most people don’t know is that Christian Science teaches that not only is there no real physical or material world; not only is there no sickness, pain or death; but there is no sin or evil at all either! Yes, that’s right, according to Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science church, there’s no such thing as sin or evil – they don’t exist, only we think they are real and so they fool us in our minds. According to the Christian Science church we give them a false reality by believing in them. So then, the problem isn’t so much the problem of sin or evil, its’ the problem of us believing these things are really real! We simply have wrong thinking that needs to be straightened out. It’s pretty obvious that in this area Mary Baker Eddy and her church are treading on dangers grounds, because if sin and evil aren’t real, then Christ came for nothing. Or at best, Christ came to correct our way of thinking about these things. But if that’s why he came to die on the cross – to correct our way of thinking about sin and evil – why didn’t he just say so? He said he came to die for the sins of the world as an atoning sacrifice. He treated sin and evil as real things. If sin and evil aren’t really real, then he could have saved himself a lot of pain (real or imagined!) by simply explaining things along the lines Mary Baker Eddy does in her “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.” But Jesus doesn’t do any such thing, but instead treats sin seriously as something real that needed atoned. And he treated evil as something real that needed defeating. The truth is, Jesus and the apostles taught nothing like what Christian Science teaches. Like I mentioned before, there were already major world religions that taught much or most of reality is a mental illusion – Hinduism and Buddhism are examples. If Jesus and the apostles had wanted to teach that much or most of reality is illusion, they could have done so. But they didn’t. They dealt with the realities of the world, both physical and spiritual realities, in a straightforward way, unlike Christian Science that teaches much or most of reality isn’t real anyway. The level of denial members of the Christian Science church practice is shocking!

The only good thing about the Christian Science cult is that it seems to be dying – and that’s no illusion! Membership across the country and world is down. Where there were once large church buildings in downtown city areas, now these congregations have dwindled down to a few faithful, aging members. The Christian Science Monitor newspaper is still widely read and continues to have influence, but it too is suffering the way of all print-based papers in an Internet world – it’s declining too. There is a radio program, the Sentinel, that is heard on Sundays in many different locations, but that may be a last ditch effort at recruitment. The good news, from a biblical, historic Christian standpoint, is that if trends continue, the Christian Science church will be gone in the next fifty to one hundred years. If all churches are going through challenges to survive in the modern, secular era – and they are – then the Christian Science cult church is particularly hit hard by losses. Less and less people are willing to give them even a modest amount of respect simply because they call themselves a church. In times past, there was respect given to church, unfortunately of any type, which is how so many false cults got started in the early days, but now people are less willing to give churches respect simply because they are established churches. In days gone by the Christian Science church built and maintained church property in almost every town and city in the United States. There may not have been many people attending, but at least they were listed among churches in nearly every town or city. But today, with an aging congregation and dwindling attendance, just because they own church property doesn’t buy them any credibility in the area. In fact, as more and more people learn about the shocking and bizarre doctrines they teach, they’ll have even less credibility among people. It used to be that most people didn’t know what the Christian Science church believed or what they practiced. They were a church, so they were given a respected place in the community, even though hardly anybody understood them. Not today. As more and more people have access to information over the Internet through the ability to quickly search the church’s doctrines and practices, Christian Science will suffer even greater loss of credibility in the community. This is a good thing from an authentic Christian viewpoint. As I said before, there is nothing Christian or scientific about Christian Science. Today, many more people will understand and properly reject this church as a false cult. Let us pray this happens.

Text: Galatians 5:16-21

Time: October 16, 2011

Last week I wrote a newspaper article on why Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion is a cult, although that shouldn’t be permitted to stop him from running for president. The Jackson-Citizen Patriot ran my article, although they omitted my last point, how Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. I guess having the paper print two out of three shocking Mormon beliefs isn’t bad. I guess the last point was too shocking for the newspaper, or they thought it would be too shocking for the readers. But I’m glad God gave me a voice in the local newspaper in order to teach his Word among the people. Today, however, I’d like to shift from examining Mormon beliefs to putting Jehovah’s Witness beliefs under the microscope. Like the Mormon’s the Jehovah’s Witness religion is a false cult also – and they like the Mormons have shocking beliefs. Today I’ll outline three of the most shocking beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness cult. They are: one, that Jesus is a creature; two, that JW’s believe their church speaks for God even after repeated false predictions of Christ’s Second Coming; three, that Jesus didn’t raise from the dead. Now most or all of these shocking beliefs are things you’ll never hear about at your doorstep with a visit from a member of the Jehovah’s Witness church; they keep these beliefs pretty well hidden until you are fully indoctrinated into their religious cult community. But it’s important that people know, understand and beware of these false teachings because for all the joking and making fun of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ evangelism techniques, they are indeed recruiting followers going door-to-door. Most of these new recruits are led astray through ignorance, deception and lies. If people really knew what Jehovah Witnesses believed, they’d be more cautious and careful about listening to church members present their teachings. What Jehovah Witnesses believe is shocking. Just like what the Mormons believe is shocking. In a few weeks I’m also going to give an outline of the three most shocking beliefs of the Christian Science church, because like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this is a cult as well. It’s not as popular these days, it’s not growing rapidly, it might even be dying as an organization, but it still has influence in society today through such things as the Christian Science Monitor newspaper and radio broadcasts. But I’ll save that critique until next week; this week I’d like to focus on the three most shocking beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a group that is out and active in most communities. Every Saturday you’ll see two or three persons walking down the sidewalk carrying a briefcase and looking like they might be businessmen or women; but they aren’t, they’re JWs trying to recruit for their church. They’ll give a friendly, reasonable presentation on your doorstep, but what do they really believe? That’s what I’d like to explain today.

#1 shocking belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses – they believe Jesus is a creature, a created being, not eternal. John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” Historic, biblical, mainstream Christianity teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is eternal, without beginning or end, just as the historic creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, state. The Bible teaches that Jesus has existed from all eternity, just as the verse from John 1:1 shows, “And the Word was God.” Later in the same chapter, we read, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14. So here is a clear teaching that the Word, the eternal Christ, the Lord Jesus, existed from eternity back, but came to earth in the virgin’s womb and was born as the Savior of mankind. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this clear biblical teaching. They reject the historic teaching of mainstream Christianity. What they teach instead is that the Lord Jesus is a creature, a created being, who came into existence just like everything else came into being, only before all other things were created. In other words, the JWs believe that God the Father created the Lord Jesus first before all other things, then everything else was created after Jesus. But still, they teach that Jesus is a creature just like you and me, just like everything we see on earth and in the sky. To the Jehovah’s Witness, the Lord Jesus is not eternal, not everlasting and not God. But mainstream, classic, historic, biblical Christianity teaches that the Lord Jesus is God, second person of the Holy Trinity. But Jehovah’s Witness’s reject the Trinity and they also reject the deity of Christ. Instead, they teach that Jesus is a divine being, yet not God. They teach that he is a created being, not eternal. Now obviously this is a very shocking belief because it totally robs the Lord Jesus of his high status as God; it lowers him to the status of a mere creature, like us. He may have been created before us, he may be more powerful, more knowledgeable, more holy, more honorable than us, but he’s still a creature, still a created being, just like us, according to the JWs. Now in this we can see why Jehovah’s Witnesses are properly labeled a cult, because they depart from historic, biblical, classic, mainstream Christianity. They rob the Lord Jesus of his true glory, while at the same time twisting the biblical teaching of Jesus’ true identity in order to teach people that Jesus is a mere creature. JW’s don’t like it because they are labeled a cult, but they deserve that label because of their bizarre teachings about Jesus. There is plenty of diversity within Christianity, but all true Christians today agree that Jesus was God come in the flesh. That’s why the JWs are called a cult, because they don’t hold to classic, historic Christian teaching concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus. But there’s more.

#2 shocking belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses — they alone are the true church even though they’ve falsely predicted Christ’s return many times. Deuteronomy 18:21-22, “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message that Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” So here is the biblical test for prophets – if what they proclaim comes to pass, then they just might be a true prophet. But if what they proclaim doesn’t come to pass, then they are definitely a false prophet. That is the test outlined in the Bible for all prophets. Now according to the Bible’s own standard the Jehovah’s Witnesses are false prophets because what they’ve predicted time after time has not come to pass. For example, the Christian Research Institute, founded by the cult expert Walter Martin, published a small tract entitled, “100 Year of Divine Direction?” that outlines all the false prophecies and predictions the Watchtower organization (the corporate arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) has made. In 1874 they predicted the Second Coming of Christ, which failed to happen. In 1914 they predicted the so-called “real” Second Coming, but that also failed to materialize. In 1925 they predicted the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets, yet again, it didn’t happen. In 1975 Armageddon was supposed to happen, but it didn’t. Yet Jehovah’s Witnesses still maintain that they are the only true church, that they alone speak for God on earth, that they speak the truth. The problem is that every time their teachings can be tested, they fail the test. They claim to be the true church and speak for God, yet whenever they prophesy or predict anything, it fails to happen. In other words, how can the true church that speaks truth for God fail to make good on its claims? The answer is, it can’t. But what’s most shocking is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses still believe their church is the true church on earth and that it alone speaks for God. It’s shocking to think that there are so many gullible people who could be misled in this way. You’d think that after a few tries at prophecy, after a few failed attempts to predict the future, people might get the notion that the JWs claim is bogus. I’m sure there are some JWs that have left the church because of this failure, but what’s amazing still is that most JWs remain even though their own church has clearly failed in its predictions and prophecies. It’s shocking to think that thousands, even millions of Americans who belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the millions outside of the U.S. who belong, simply refuse to acknowledge that they are part of a false church that makes false claims to prophecy. If they are teaching false prophecy, what other false teachings are they peddling?

#3 shocking belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses – they don’t believe that Jesus rose from the grave, that his body left the tomb. Luke 24:36-39, “While they (the disciples) were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?’ Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’” Here is a New Testament passage that clearly describes Jesus showing his risen body to the disciples. He specifically states, “It is I myself, touch me and see, a ghost doesn’t have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” This truth forms the basis of the classic, historic, biblical teaching within Christianity that Jesus raised bodily from the tomb in resurrection from the dead. Yet, in contrast to mainstream, historic Christianity, the JWs believe that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead bodily, but only in some form of spirit, spiritually. Within a few miles of my old home in Jamestown, NY lies a village or community called Lily Dale. Why is this significant? Because it’s the world’s largest spiritistic or spiritualist community – which means, it’s the largest official community of people who devote themselves to conjuring up the spirits of the dead. They hold séances, they meditate and invite the departed souls to speak, they practice the Ojai board, they do table tipping and other means of communicating with the dead. Now they believe, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in spiritual resurrection not bodily resurrection. Yet Christians believe both in bodily resurrection and spiritual resurrection. Upon death, everyone’s soul or spirit departs from their body – Christians believe this too. But Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead not just in spirit or soul, but also in body as well. If Jesus rose from the dead only in spirit, like the JWs claim, then that’s nothing special, because that’s how all people will rise from the grave – the righteous to eternal life, the unrighteous to everlasting punishment. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are belittling the Lord Jesus further by making his resurrection only of a common variety, instead of a unique kind. They did this before with Christ’s deity and eternality. They deny that the Lord Jesus is eternal, they deny that he is God, and now they deny that he rose bodily from the grave. When they claim to believe in the resurrection of Christ, they mean only spiritually – but there is nothing unique or supernatural about a soul surviving death, because that’s how all people will rise. Furthermore, if that’s all the disciples meant to say when they proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, that his soul still lives, then where’s the power in that? The Jews, as well as most pagan religions, believed that everyone’s soul will survive death. So how does that make Jesus’ resurrection so special, so different? It doesn’t. Again, the JWs rob Christ of his glory and honor by belittling him and his accomplishments. That’s why they are correctly labeled a cult. As you can see, the JWs are a cult because they believe these and other shocking departures from real Christianity. We need to pray for the people who are caught in this dangerous cult, as well as pray that others are protected from ever entering into this false religion. We need to pray that the truth of real Christianity would spread near and far, and that the influence of the cults, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would diminish. Let’s pray.

Text: Galatians 5:16-21

Time: October 10, 2011

I recently read in the newspaper that presidential candidate Mitt Romney was criticized by a pastor from Texas for being a member of a false cult because of his affiliation with the Mormon church. It stirred up a controversy in the media, but I really don’t know why because Christians have been calling Mormons a cult since Joseph Smith founded the religion in the 19^th century.  I felt led to contribute an editorial article in the local newspaper, which reads as follows:

Mormonism is a cult, but in politics it shouldn’t matter.

The pastor in Texas who called Mitt Romney’s Mormon Church a cult is absolutely correct, but it shouldn’t matter in terms of electing public officials to political office in our democratic system. Let me explain. First, Mormonism – or the religion founded by Joseph Smith in the 19^th century – really is a cult, here’s why. One, Mormons believe that God started out like us, a human, but worked his way up to become God through faith and righteous works. Mormons also believe that God has a higher God, and God’s God also has a higher God, and so on and so on. Historic Christianity believes God has always been God, has always existed as God, that there is no “God beyond God.” That’s why he’s called God Almighty. Two, Mormons teach we can all become God, just like God became God, through faith and pious works. If a Mormon is careful to follow his church’s teachings he might one day become God of a planet of beings who pray and worship him, just like God is prayed to and worshipped by humans on earth. Historic Christianity teaches that we’ll never become God or god, but we’ll always be God’s children. Salvation is possible through Jesus Christ and we’ll live with God in heaven forever. Nobody starts their own planet, becomes its god, rules, receives prayer and worship from its inhabitants. Any church that teaches this, is a cult, which is why Mormonism is a cult. Three, Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers. Historic Christianity teaches no such thing, which is why there can be no doubt that Mormonism is a cult. But even though Mormonism is a religious cult, this shouldn’t particularly matter in politics because supposedly we aren’t electing a spiritual or religious leader, we’re electing a public official. In principle, there isn’t any reason why someone who holds public office couldn’t be a member of a religious cult, like Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness or Christian Science, Hare Krishna, or whatever, just as long as they do their job. Now voters may have questions about the character or spiritual wisdom of a cult member, but that’s a different issue. Here’s the bottom line — Mormonism is a cult, but that, in and of itself, shouldn’t disqualify Mitt Romney from being president.

From this controversy we learn that most people don’t know anything about Mormonism except maybe that they read from the Book of Mormon. But that isn’t the most shocking thing. People need to know about the three shocking beliefs I outline above. If more people knew about these three shocking Mormon beliefs, they’d understand why it’s properly labeled a cult. So let me talk further about these three false doctrines taught by Mormons so that we can all understand that it’s a false religious cult, regardless of whether Romney becomes president or not.

Shocking belief #1 — Mormonism teaches that God became God through a process of growth and development. Psalm 90:2, “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Now if the above passage is true, then Mormonism is false, because Mormon’s teach that God isn’t everlasting, that God wasn’t always God, that God became God through a process of spiritual growth and development. This is what Joseph Smith taught in what Mormon’s call the King Follett Discourse during the early days of Mormonism. It’s completely documented, so there’s no way to dispute its authenticity. The funny thing is, Mormon’s don’t like to talk about this doctrine, although they begrudgingly believe it, if the question of God’s origins comes up. But most people don’t even know about this doctrine, neither do most Mormons talk about it, certainly not to anyone they are trying to recruit into their church. Why? Because everyone knows – at least in the traditional Christian Western World – that God didn’t become God, God has always been God. Just like the Psalm says, “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” The idea that God started out as a man, like Joseph Smith taught, and then through gradual and steady maturity developed into God, is totally foreign to historical, biblical Christianity. That’s why this doctrine is so shocking. It’s one of the main reasons that Mormonism has always been known as a cult by true Christians of all denominations. To believe that God became God, to believe that God hasn’t always been God from eternity past, to believe that God grew up to become God is outrageous. It’s not only shocking, it’s blasphemy. It takes away the unique status of God Almighty and makes him just one of many developing Gods – which brings up a sub-point related to this first main point. Mormonism also teaches that God had a God, and the God of God’s God had a God, and so forth. Because Joseph Smith taught that God started out as a man and developed into God, there is also the belief in Mormonism that God must have had a God in order to empower, teach and inspire God to become God. Accordingly, there could be all kinds of Gods each operating within their own sphere of authority, ruling their own planets, receiving prayers and praise from their subjects, just like God receives prayer and praise from us on earth. This completely robs God of his glorious status as the only true and living God, because it would mean he wasn’t the only God, nor the greatest God, since there could be many God’s beside him or greater than him. Needless to say, this bizarre doctrine is one of the reasons why true Christians have identified Mormons as a false religious cult.

Shocking belief #2 — Mormonism teaches that we can become a God like God if we follow the right spiritual path. Genesis 3:5, “For God knows that when you eat of it (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the Garden of Eden) your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the media focuses on Mormonism they usually report things like Mormons once practiced polygamy, but this aspect of their teachings is trivial today. It is generally assumed by the media and the public that Mormons are basically Christians who believe and act a little different, but nothing really that different. But little do they know that Mormons hold beliefs that are shocking and scandalous. I just mentioned the shocking belief that God wasn’t always God, that he became God through faith and hard work, but that isn’t where the bizarre teachings end. Mormons also belief that we can become God too — through the same process that God became God. Now even the most ignorant and uninformed Christian knows that he’ll never become God. Even unbelievers of Christianity know that Christians don’t teach they can become God. This is most basic to any monotheistic teaching – or the belief in one God – that God is God and we are not. Even non-Christian Jews and Muslims teach that God is God and we are not – it’s basic to monotheism. Yet the Mormons not only teach that there are many Gods but that we can all become Gods as well. Now this is a teaching that Mormons themselves will talk about and teach, even though they are mostly careful to present it within their own church and in conversing with other Mormons. It isn’t widely taught to non-Mormons, at least not until they are properly indoctrinated in the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. So we can see why the pastor from Texas was more than a little concerned about having a Mormon presidential candidate running for the highest office. If Romney is faithful to his Mormon faith, then he must believe that he can become a God somebody, if he is sufficiently spiritual, because that’s what his church teaches. Maybe Romney isn’t a committed Mormon, maybe he isn’t a practicing Mormon, maybe he’s a nominal Mormon, meaning, he was raised in a Mormon family, that’s his heritage, but it doesn’t play a very significant role in his life today. But it should concern people to learn that Mormons believe they can become a God like God, that they can one day potentially rule over a planet themselves, and receive prayer and praise from its inhabitants. This doctrine isn’t historical Christianity, it’s cultic, it’s false doctrine. It was first taught by the Devil, or as he’s sometimes called, Lucifer or Satan, in the Garden of Eden, to tempt Adam and Eve to sin against God, “You will be like God.” Is it any wonder Mormonism is labeled a cult?

Shocking belief #3 — Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Hebrews 1:3-4, “The son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustained all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”  The whole first chapter of the Book of Hebrews explains how Jesus is above the angels – talking about the holy and righteous angels. Now if Jesus is superior to the good angels, then obviously he is superior to the bad angels, of whom Satan is one. But it isn’t so much that Jesus the Son of God became superior to angels, because he always was superior to angels because of his unique status as God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It was that after his atoning death and sacrifice on the cross for sins, and after having won our salvation, he was shown superior to the angels – because after all, not much was known of the Son of God in the Old Testament. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is deity, divine, God-in-human-flesh. Christianity teaches that the Son always was and always will be God, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John 1:1. But Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan started out as spirit brothers – only Jesus turned out good and Satan turned out bad. This totally undermines Jesus as the unique Son of God, because it makes it appear that Jesus was just another spirit kid from the neighborhood along with Satan, and it was Jesus who amounted to something, while Satan never amounted to anything good. Can anybody believe this stuff? Apparently Mormons believe it. And Mormons wonder why people label them as a false religious cult? And Mormons are offended at being called a cult? Why is it surprising that Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Protestant Christians – or any other kind of Christian – would label Mormons a cult? If I believed that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, I’d deserve to be called a cultist. It’s bizarre teachings like this that earns Mormons the label “cult,” because it fits. And I’ve only talked about three strange, novel and bizarre Mormon teachings; there are plenty of other weird doctrines they hold to as well. Anybody who takes the time to really look into Mormon doctrine will find that whatever kind of church it is, it isn’t Christian. In fact, Joseph Smith states that he once asked the Lord which church to attend and claims the Lord replied by saying no church was the true church. Mormonism claims to be the true church, yet instead teaches such bizarre and false teachings that it can only be labeled a cult.

I think the most disturbing part of the shocking false teachings the Mormon church promotes is that it undermines and belittles and dishonors the true and living God. Isaiah the prophet writes in his prophetic book, especially chapters forty-four and forty-five, about the uniqueness of God Almighty. For example, in Isaiah 44:6, “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” If this verse is true – which as Christians we presume it is, because it is contained in the Holy Bible, God’s Word – then Mormonism is false, because Mormons teach a different view of God. According to Joseph Smith and the Mormons, God Almighty wasn’t the first and won’t be the last God; in fact, Mormons teach that there are gods in the making right now. This is not Christianity; this is a false cult. Another example, in Isaiah 45:5, “I am the Lord God, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” Now either Mormonism is wrong and this verse true, or this verse is wrong and Mormonism is right, because they can’t both be correct. “Apart from me there is no God,” is true Christian teaching, but Mormonism believes that apart from God there are many other Gods, some of even higher rank than our God, the Bible God. According to Mormonism, the biblical God is just one of many Gods at different developmental stages. Someday, according to Joseph Smith, Mormons might become Gods themselves. According to Mormonism, man and God are essentially the same, only at different developmental stages. God is basically a man who grew up and advanced, like a company man might be promoted to higher and higher levels within the corporation, while other men remain at lower levels. God has been at it longer so he has a great advantage of time and maturity, but theoretically at least, according to Mormon teaching, it could be possible that a human, like Joseph Smith possibly, could pass God up in advancement. That possibility can’t be ruled out in Mormon teachings. But this is such a departure from historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity that it can only, properly be called cultic. Mormonism is a cult, plain and simple. Now that doesn’t mean a Mormon can’t run for public office, or even become president. It just means that if a Mormon did become president, he would be a member of a cult. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t work out as a fine president, but let’s not confuse things by saying, like William Bennett, that it’s hateful to say Mormonism is a cult; it isn’t hateful. It’s simply stating a fact, it’s telling the truth. If I voted for Romney, it would be because I felt he could govern the nation competently. I would not look to him for spiritual leadership; I would hope he could provide civic leadership. But in any case, we need to tell the truth about Mormonism, even if it comes across as impolite or rude. We still have freedom of speech last time I checked; we should use it to tell the truth about Mormonism and lead people out of false teachings.