الوسم: Islam?
Why Should Christianity Be Accepted As The Only Way To God?
Why Should Christianity Be Accepted As The Only Way To God?
Just before Easter Sunday, I had the opportunity to share with a lady who claimed to have had a profound religious experience. She was once a Christian, but this other incident had totally transformed her life. She did not clearly state what her religious experience entailed, but it resulted in a firm belief that her personal encounter with deity was a genuine revelation.
Moreover, she was convinced that Jesus was just a man who achieved “Christhood” through His own spiritual enlightenment (in a way, I suppose, similar to her own), and that Satan was a myth. She considered Jesus one of many prophets and the Bible one of many holy books. The writings of Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Moses, and others were all divine revelations that ultimately lead faithful searches to the same God.
As our conversation progressed, it became apparent that she had never considered Christianity in light of its historical evidences. Rather, its truth-claims rested solely on one’s subjective opinions. Thus it merited no more or no less consideration than any other religion, allowing her to decide in her own mind its authenticity. She is not alone in this view.
Many non-Christians assume that all religions are paths to the same mountain top, that all religions lead to the Supreme Being and eternal bliss. The implication is that all religions are equal, similar in their teachings, and acceptable to God.
It seems that most people who embrace this belief either have no affiliation with any kind of organized religion, or they belong to a religious group, such as the Unitarians and followers of the Bahai Faith, that accepts this belief as a central doctrine. The lady I was sharing with had become a Unitarian.
This belief, however, is born of ignorance. A little reflection shows how illogical it is. Not only do many religions believe that theirs is the only true revelation and the only path to salvation, but almost every major religion has a dramatically different view of the nature of God. How could they all be right? How could they all point to the same reality when they all perceive that reality so differently? It’s simply logically impossible.
Opposing views cannot all be right. In fact, only one can be right, and all the rest have to be wrong. Like arithmetic, there is only once correct answer to any figure, and all others are wrong, no matter how close to the right answer they may be.
Let me put this another way. Many people claim that all religions will ultimately be acceptable to God because they represent mankind’s corporate attempt to find religious truth. They say that even if Christianity is God’s only true revelation, He will still accept other religions because they represent sincere attempts to find Him.
As much as people may wish this to be true, it simply isn’t. We’ll soon see that religious beliefs and practices other than Christianity’s are not an attempt to find God but are actually rebellion against Him. Non-Christian religions are unacceptable to God. I’ll demonstrate this by giving some examples of exactly how the major world religions differ from Christianity, focusing on their views of the nature of God; showing why non-Christian religions represent willful rejections of God; and summarizing why God chose one particular plan for the redemption of man and no other.
THE GOD OF GODS, THE LORD OF LORDS
Christianity, like many other religions, claims to be God’s only revelation of spiritual truth. And it maintains that Jesus is the only path to salvation. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The New Testament writers agree: “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, nasv).
The Bible reveals that God is an infinite-personal Being who is perfect in truth and goodness. He is creator of the universe and thus stands apart from His creation (transcendent). However, God also upholds and maintains the universe and in that way is immanent in nature. God is not one in essence with nature (pantheism), but He is fully aware of and sovereign over all He created, and He reveals His existence and power through His creation (general revelation). God is also holy and can tolerate no sin. Indeed, He will punish wrongdoing, as decreed in Scripture.
Space allows for only a superficial look at the nature of God taught in the major non-Christina belief systems. But even this glance will demonstrate that their gods are incompatible with the God revealed in Scripture. The majority of the world’s religions fall within the following divisions.1
EASTERN RELIGIONS
Eastern religions (such as Hinduism) and its Western offshoots (such as the New Age movement) differ in many ways, but most of them accept the same basic picture of God, which is pantheistic. This view denies a personal-creator God and identifies God as somehow being one in essence with nature. In other words, the universe and all that is in it is an extension of God itself, and this extension is frequently viewed as an illusion that needs to be transcended. What appears to be material may not really exist.
In addition to a pantheistic concept of God, most Eastern religions entertain a pantheon of lesser gods, many represented by idols.
Pantheism clearly contradicts Christian theism. God cannot be both impersonal and personal, no creator and creator, all that is and different from creation, the greatest God and the only God. Either pantheism is true or Christianity is. Neither represent a view of God even remotely similar.
ANIMISM
Animism covers the religious expressions of the early American Indians, Australian aborigines, and many other preliterary cultures. Although most animistic religions possess a latent concept of a supreme God, generally, their religious beliefs focus on spirit beings that supposedly indwell both animate and inanimate objects such as stones, mountains, lakes, lightning, manufactured articles, trees, and animals.
These spirits often have great power and cunning and exhibit the spectrum of human emotions, including hate, joy, anger, jealousy, fear, and love. Spirits influence every aspect of life (sickness, injury, marriage, childbirth, hunting, agriculture), so animists seek to appease the spirits by paying proper respect through prayer, offerings, sacrifices, and other appeals to the spirits’ often capricious egos.
Obviously, the godlike creatures of animism and the creator-God of Christianity have next to nothing in common.
ISLAM
The Islamic concept of God is much closer to the Christian concept. In Islam, God is both personal (monotheism) and creator. However, the trinitarian aspect of God is denied in Islam and, therefore, Muslims reject Jesus as the Son of God. “Allah,” as the Muslims call God, takes little interests in his creation. He is generally strict, aloof, capricious, and unpredictable, and he is responsible not only for good but also for evil. Allah sorely lacks the attributes of love, grace, forgiveness, and holiness so clearly revealed in the God of Christianity.
THE CULTS
A cult can be defined as a perversion of biblical Christianity. Most cults claim some affiliation with Christianity and even accept the Bible (with their own reinterpretations and modifications) as one of their holy books. However, all of the cults reject many of the central beliefs of the Christian faith, including the Trinity. Consequently, and without exception, all of the cults reject Jesus as the eternal Son of God, as one in essence, power, and authority with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The assorted views of God found in the cults run the gamut from nontrinitarian monotheism (Jehovah’s Witnesses) to polytheism (belief in many gods, such as Mormonism) to pantheism (Christian Science). None of these views square with orthodox Christianity, and their various gods are far different from the God revealed in the Bible.
Because the nature of God differs fundamentally in the cults and the world’s many religions, it is impossible to harmonize them and conclude they all mirror the same God. A religion’s view of God will influence all of its subsequent doctrines. Consequently, the doctrines of sin, salvation, man, and other beliefs taught in these religions all conflict with Christianity.
Either Christianity is true or some other religion, but only ignorance and irrationality could maintain they’re all basically the same or all point to the same God. The Christian God—and Him alone—deserves and demands our worship. When people turn to other gods and worship them, the only true God declares that totally unacceptable, worthy of judgment (Exod. 20:3–6; Rom. 1:18–32).
RELIGIOUS REBELLION
ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW GOD
The Bible teaches that God has revealed Himself to man in two specific ways. One is through special revelation, which is directed to specific peoples at specific times in history and includes very specific information about God (e.g., that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone). Special revelation is recorded in God’s written Word (the Bible) and is most explicit in the person of Jesus Christ.
The other way God unveils Himself is through general revelation, which is that revelation that can be understood by all people at all times throughout history. It is a perpetual or continuous revelation, and it occurs in two primary ways: nature (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1; Acts 14:16–17) and an intuitive (innate) moral consciousness God has placed in all human beings (Rom. 2:14–15).
General revelation in nature, according to Romans 1:20, reveals to everyone everywhere that God exists, that He is infinite and almighty, created and governs the universe, and judges evil. From this evidence, all people have the opportunity to know God.
General revelation through moral consciousness exhibits itself in a number of ways, but one profound way is in a fundamental, world-wide moral code that finds expression across cultural, religious, and historical barriers.2 God is a moral Being who created a moral universe. Man, created in God’s image, is instinctively aware of God’s moral law. It is seen in every culture through prohibitions against such sins as murder, stealing, rape, lying, and betrayal. Like nature, this moral consciousness is designed to point people to God, the moral Lawgiver. When we respond positively to this intuitive moral code, we respond to its divine Author (Rom. 2:13–16).
Because God has revealed Himself to all people through nature and a moral consciousness, He expects all people, including those who have never heard of Jesus, to respond favorably to Him. He has revealed enough information about Himself so all people have the opportunity to seek Him. Non-Christians who have never heard of Jesus will be judged according to whether or not they respond to God’s general revelation (Rom. 1:20).
Thus people who have never heard of Jesus Christ are still accountable to the God of Scripture because He and the God of nature and morality are one and the same.
ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE GOD OF SCRIPTURE
Since the personal-infinite-creator God we read about in the Bible is the same God revealed in nature and our moral consciousness, we can be sure that general revelation will not contradict special revelation. This is the key to understanding why other religions are not acceptable to God. If God has revealed Himself to all men equally through general revelation, and if people choose not to respond to this revelation and instead seek other gods, then they are guilty of rejecting the God of Scripture. Thus, other religions are forms of rebellion against God. Let me explain how this happens.
The Bible teaches that God created the universe and revealed Himself to the first man, Adam. Adam knew God and had a close personal relationship with Him. Nevertheless, Adam rebelled against God by willfully disobeying Him. This incurred God’s judgment, and the first couple were banished from the Garden. Following Adam’s footsteps, subsequent generations continued to rebel against God, resulting in the judgment of the worldwide flood (Gen. 6) and later in the dispersal of humanity at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11).
Sometime after Babel, God began to build the nation of Israel, starting with Abraham, as the focus of His special revelation. Through Israel, God began to reveal to the world fuller truths about Himself and His plan for mankind’s redemption. Prior to the Babel incident, the Bible does not relate that man, even in his rebellion against God, practiced idolatry, polytheism, or any other false religion.
In other words, all knew of the one true God even if they rejected Him. It was only after the dispersal of humanity into various cultures and God beginning to focus His special revelation on the nation of Israel that we see the rise of false religions. Except for Israel, the nations of the world quickly turned away from their previous knowledge of God. They rejected God’s general revelation of Himself and began worshiping idols and practicing polytheism and other deviant religions. Israel, alone among the world’s nations, practiced monotheism and worshiped the one true God. So pantheism, polytheism, animism, and all the other false views of God grew out of human rebellion, not genuine searching.
This biblical teaching is substantiated by secular studies in comparative religions. In the nineteenth century, due to the influence of Darwinian evolution, it was thought that modern religions actually evolved from animistic roots into polytheism and later into monotheism (that is, belief in countless spirits evolved into the belief in specific gods which in turn evolved into the belief in one supreme God).
If this is true, primitive societies would have no concept of a Supreme Being (monotheism). However, not only is there no evidence that animism evolved into polytheism and later into monotheism, but there is tremendous evidence supporting just the opposite. It appears that monotheism de-evolved into polytheism.
Today, anthropologists and ethnologists have proven that most primitive animistic religions have a latent monotheistic belief, even though they also believe in other spiritual forces. This is a common element in the oldest cultures on earth: the Australians, Polynesians, Zulus, bushmen, Congo tribes, and Mongolians. All of these cultures worship a primal Father. Belief in an all-powerful supreme Being also predates polytheism and pantheism in Eastern religions. For example, the earliest reference to religion in China refers to a Supreme God called “Shang Ti.”
This belief goes back more than two thousand years before Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism arose in China. Similarly, an original concept of a supreme God is found in the early histories of Sumeria, Egypt, and other ancient civilizations.3
What were these religions like? Were they kind, loving, merciful, and pure as Christianity is? Not at all. Nineteenth-century Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, gave an appropriate description of the depravity of humanity once the true God of Scripture was rejected:
But the fact is lamentably true, that [man] soon became an idolater, a worshiper of moral abominations. The Scythians and Northmen adored the impersonations of heroic valor and bloodthirsty and cruel revenge. The mythology of Greece and of Rome, though it exhibited a few examples of virtue and goodness, abounded in others of gross licentiousness and vice.
The gods of Egypt were reptiles, and beasts and birds. The religion of Central and Eastern Asia was polluted with lust and cruelty, and smeared with blood, rioting, in deadly triumph, over all the tender affections of the human heart and all the convictions of the human understanding. Western and Southern Africa and Polynesia are, to this day [the nineteenth century], the abodes of frightful idolatry, cannibalism, and cruelty; and the aborigines of both the Americas are examples of the depths of superstition to which the human mind may be debased.
In every quarter of the world, however, there is a striking uniformity seen in all the features of paganism. The ruling principle of her religion is terror, and her deity is lewd and cruel. Whatever of purity the earlier forms of paganism may have possessed, it is evident from history that it was of brief duration. Every form, which history has preserved, grew rapidly and steadily worse and more corrupt, until the entire heathen world, before the coming of Christ, was infected with that loathsome leprosy of pollution, described with revolting vividness by St. Paul, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romans.4
God made an adequate revelation of Himself to all people everywhere. He expects them to respond to this revelation by acknowledging Him and by seeking to obey their moral consciences. Yet most people reject this revelation and therefore reject God. Rather than worship Him, they create their own false religions and disobey their moral consciences. They worship creation instead of the creator. Thus other religions are not attempts to find God—instead, they represent rebellion against God.
ONLY ONE WAY
One final question needs to be answered. Why did God choose Christianity as the only means by which one can be saved? To a large degree, the answer should be clear. Only Christianity preserves an accurate picture of God as He is revealed in both general and special revelations. Nevertheless, let’s probe a bit further.
According to the Bible, the presence of human sin is a direct result of Adam’s fall. This was the historical event in which sin first entered humanity (Rom. 5:12). When God created the earth and life, He said that it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). The earth was a place free from sin, evil, and human (and animal) suffering. It was also a place where man could have known and worshiped the one true God. Yet today the world contains sin, evil, human suffering, and false perceptions of God. And all of this originated with Adam’s first act of disobedience.
Without going into all the details (see Gen. 1–3), it can be briefly said that when God created Adam, He gave him the freedom to choose to obey or disobey Him by not eating from a certain tree. This was a test for Adam to prove his obedience and love for God, and God warned him of the consequences of not acting wisely. Adam would be punished if he ate the forbidden fruit. Nevertheless, Adam chose to disobey, and, as a result, he became separated from God, sin entered the world, and numerous false religions eventually arose.
The Bible teaches that Adam was the corporate head of the human race—the representative of mankind. Just as the decisions made by the ruler of a nation affect all the people under that ruler, so Adam’s decision to rebel against God affected all mankind. Furthermore, when Adam sinned, he not only represented us, he acted in precisely the same manner as any other man or woman would have in his place. Like Adam, we too rebel against God and are equally guilty and deserving of punishment.
Christian theology teaches that in his fallen state, man is totally unable to reach out to God. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the mind of man is hostile toward God, and man does not subject himself to God because he “is not even able to do so” (nasv; see Rom. 7:15–25). It is natural for fallen man to “suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18) and “not see fit to acknowledge God any longer” (Rom. 1:28, nasv).
Thus for man to become reconciled with God. God Himself must take the initial step to achieve reconciliation. I believe God has taken this initial step by providing all people with an innate awareness of His existence (Rom. 1:18–2:16) that includes the ability to respond to or reject saving truth, whether it comes through general or special revelation (Rom. 2:4; Titus 2:11).
Explains the late Henry Clarence Thiessen of Dallas Theological Seminary, “Because man is without any ability or desire to change, God responded by prevenient grace. This grace (sometimes considered a part of common or universal grace) restores to the sinner the ability to make a favorable response to God.”5
However, the Bible also clearly teaches that the possibility of salvation is made available in only one way. Out of His immeasurable love for man and His creation and of His own sovereign will, God chose to make a fuller revelation of Himself. God came to earth as the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, to reconcile humanity to Himself.
The work of Christ here on earth is called the atonement. Literally, the word means “to cover.” It involves the removal or covering of man’s sins by the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (Rom. 5:8). Instead of guilty human beings making payment (redemption) for their own sins, Jesus—God Himself—did it for us (Mark 10:45; 1 Cor. 6:20). This opens the door to reconciliation between God and man.
Through Christ, man stands before God justified. That is, on the basis of Christ’s work, man is accounted righteous in God’s eyes (Rom. 3:23–24). Just as sin was charged to man’s account through Adam, so righteousness before God becomes ours when we accept this work of Christ (Rom. 5:12–21).
We must realize that this forgiveness is not based on anything we can do. We could never do enough good works to earn God’s favor. Salvation is a free gift from God based solely on our acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8–9; Tit. 3:5). To receive this free gift and the eternal benefits that go with it, we only have to invite Jesus into our lives, accepting Him and His work by faith (Rom. 10:9). The Christian message and hope are that simple.
So the reason Christianity claims to be the only path to salvation is because it is the one true revelation of God, and it is the only way God has ordained for mankind to become reconciled to Him. All other socalled paths lead away from the true God of Scripture and the work of Jesus on the cross. That Jesus actually had to die on the cross proves there is no other way to God. If there were, God would not have sacrificed His beloved Son.
In light of all this, we can clearly see how irrational it is for someone to say, “It doesn’t matter what I believe so long as I am sincere.” Sincerity is not the issue. One can be sincere and still be wrong. The facts are facts, whether one understands, accepts, or rejects them. Believing does not make a thing true anymore than disbelieving makes it false. Christians say that Jesus is the only way to God not because they invented the concept but because God Himself said it (John 14:6). Christ is the only way.
1 For more information on the different concepts of God, I would recommend these resources: Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, WORLDS APART: A HANDBOOK ON WORLD VIEWS, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989); Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, HANDBOOK OF TODAY’S RELIGIONS (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1983); James W. Sire, THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR: A BASIC WORLD VIEW CATALOG, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988).
2 C. S. Lewis’s MERE CHRISTIANITY, and his THE ABOLITION OF MAN.
3 Henry Morris, THE GOD WHO IS REAL (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 51.
4 Simon Greenleaf, “The Testimony of the Evangelists,” quoted in Montgomery, THE LAW ABOVE THE LAW, 95.
5 Henry Clarence Thiessen, LECTURES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1983), 106.
Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (109). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Why Should Christianity Be Accepted As The Only Way To God?
سجين مسلم يدعو سجناء آخرين للإسلام أو سيتعرضون للقتل داخل أو خارج السجن
سجين مسلم يدعو سجناء آخرين للإسلام أو سيتعرضون للقتل داخل أو خارج السجن
سجين مسلم يدعو سجناء آخرين للإسلام أو سيتعرضون للقتل داخل أو خارج السجن
سجين مسلم يدعو سجناء آخرين للإسلام أو سيتعرضون للقتل داخل أو خارج السجن
Video of a beating inside an Ottawa jail shows Carlos Larmond, who is facing terrorism-related charges along with his twin brother, being attacked after allegedly trying to convert another inmate to Islam.
The incident occurred March 3 at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. Video of the incident, played in an Ottawa courtroom Thursday, shows two men viciously attack Larmond with a flurry of punches and kicks while surrounded by other inmates. At one point in the video one of the men appears to drop an object on Larmond before he is able to get to his feet and is escorted out by correctional officers.
Terrence Wilson, 24, was sentenced on Thursday to 60 days in jail for assault causing bodily harm related in the attack.
Paolo Giancaterino, the lawyer representing Wilson, told Global News Larmond had tried to convert his client to Islam on several occasions and threatened to kill him when he resisted.
“It first started with some friendly requests for him to convert to Islam and be a soldier of Islam, and my client was having none of it,” Giancaterino said. “It escalated to the point where threats were starting to be made that my client would be killed in his cell if he didn’t convert. That was followed up by another threat that my client’s family would be killed by someone on the outside if he didn’t convert.”
Giancaterino said the threats escalated over a period of several weeks.
Giancaterino said Larmond suffered a broken left hand and a black eye in the beating.
Carlos Larmond and his twin brother, Ashton, are facing terror-related charges after they were arrested by the RCMP in January after allegedly attempting to travel overseas for terrorist purposes.
Both have been charged with participation in the activity of a terrorist group and for attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activity abroad. Ashton has also been charged instruction to carry out activity for a terrorist group.
Attempts to reach the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services for comment were not successful.
المصادر:
Why Should We Reject Religious Writings Other Than the Bible?
Why Should We Reject Religious Writings Other Than the Bible?
Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New Age movement, Christian Science, the Unification Church. What do these religious movements, as well as countless others, have in common? They all believe their writings are superior to the Bible. They may sometimes include the Bible in their list of acceptable religious books, but they will hold on to their belief that their writings significantly expand on, if not correct, what the Bible teaches.
Are they right? Is it possible that the writings of non-Christian religions are inspired by God and thus equal in authority to the Bible?
Some of these same religious groups, including some Christian ones, also argue that some God-inspired writings have been lost or that those in the Protestant Bible are only a partial listing of the extant books God inspired. Are they right?
All these claims are common, and if any of them are true, some of what I’ve argued may have to be rejected or at least modified. Let’s carefully consider each one.
ARE OTHER RELIGIOUS WRITINGS EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO THE BIBLE?
One of the common denominators of non-Christian religions is that the Bible is not God’s final revelation. Many groups teach that their particular prophets have been inspired by God to write new revelation that supersedes Scripture. The Christian response to this claim takes four steps: (1) define the qualifications of a prophet, (2) determine the source of a prophet’s revelation, (3) examine what the Bible says about “new” revelation, and (4) compare the Jesus of Scripture with the Jesus promoted by other prophets.
A PROPHET’S QUALIFICATIONS
We have already established that the Bible is God’s written revelation and is completely inerrant. So we can turn to Scripture to see what it says about the qualifications of a prophet, then we can take that list and match it against those who are held up as prophets. If these prophets don’t meet the qualifications, then they are false prophets and anything they teach contrary to Scripture is also false. In other words, if Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science, Muhammad of Islam, or any other self-proclaimed prophet fails the biblical test, then their so-called revelations are a lie and their followers are being duped into believing a false religion.
In Deuteronomy 13:1–5 and 18:20–22, God reveals what counts as the use and misuse of prophecy and who shall prophesy. A false prophet could make true predictions but still not be appointed by God. If a prophecy ever failed to come true, even if it was prophesied in the name of the Lord, then the one who uttered it was considered a fraud.
All non-Christian prophets have failed the second test and thereby demonstrated that God was not inspiring them. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 84:1–5, 31, September 1832, Joseph Smith claimed that “Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem … shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. … which temple shall be reared in this generation.”
Likewise, the official writings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaim numerous unfulfilled prophecies. One well-known example is their prediction that the battle of Armageddon would occur between 1874 and 1914: “In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of a.d. 1914.”1
A more recent example of false prophecies concerns “Moses” David Berg, founder of the Children of God, also known as the Family of Love. In 1973, he prophesied that the coming of the comet Kahoutek would result in the destruction of the United States unless America repented: “I believe God means what he says in this shocking revelation above! You in the U.S. have only until January to get out of the States before some kind of disaster, destruction or judgment of God is to fall because of America’s wickedness!”2 Thus, the religious writings of these false prophets and all other “prophets” who have failed prophecies are disqualified as revelations from God.
On the other hand, all biblical prophecies concerning events up to this point in history have come to pass. As we saw in Chapter 3, numerous Old Testament prophecies have been confirmed by archaeology, including not only those pertaining to the Jewish nation and the Messiah but also those dealing with other nations and peoples. Even if we ignored all the Bible’s prophecies except for those more than three hundred concerning the Messiah and recorded in the Old Testament, we would be as assured as possible that God had spoken to us through His chosen prophets. Why? Because the possibility of these prophecies being fulfilled in one person by sheer chance is a tiny fraction of one percent—namely, one over eighty-four followed by 123 zeros.3 Those are odds only God could fulfill!
Another criterion that disqualifies many so-called prophets is the use of objects of divination. Many New Age prophets use crystal balls, mediums, tarot cards, and other “mystically empowered” objects to communicate with spiritual forces. But God plainly warns in Deuteronomy 18:10–12 that no one should use divination, practice witchcraft, interpret omens, or use a sorcerer, medium, or spiritualist. Yet this is exactly what many modern-day prophets do. For example, Joseph Smith used a divining stone and carried an occult Jupiter Talisman around his neck.4 On these grounds alone, many “prophets” could be dismissed as false.
A third test for prophethood revolves around the biblical injunction not to add to or take away from Scripture (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18–19). In other words, the Bible is God’s complete and final revelation, so any other religious writings claiming to have the same or greater authority as Scripture is a false revelation—it is not from God. Again, the message is plain: Any so-called holy book, whether it claims to be additional revelation to Scripture (e.g., the Book of Mormon) or claims to contain spiritual truths contrary to the Bible (e.g., New Age philosophies) must be rejected as divine revelation.
A final test to determine if a prophet is from God is to compare his revelation of Jesus with the Jesus described in Scripture. The cults portray a much different Jesus than the one revealed in the Bible. If God inspired other prophets to write about Jesus, He certainly would not contradict His revelation of Christ in the New Testament. This is the case in Scripture. The Jesus of the New Testament fits perfectly with the Jesus prophesied by various Old Testament prophets. In a similar way, if Jesus revealed Himself in other writings, He would be the same Jesus we find in the Bible.
However, in every case, none of the cults bear witness to the Jesus of Scripture. They all reject Him as part of the triune Godhead—one in essence, power, and authority with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The apostle John warns in 1 John 4:1–2 that many false prophets will go out into the world, but he assures us that we can know if they come from God because they will confess “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” In other words, Jesus is God incarnate (in bodily form). Any alleged prophet who claims to speak new revelation from God but teaches a false Jesus is not from God.
DO OTHER ANCIENT WRITINGS BELONG IN THE BIBLE?
The second question to answer is a little more difficult: How do we know that the books presently in the Bible are the only ones that belong there? This question has to do with the canon, the sixty-six books (thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New) officially accepted by the Protestant church as God’s inspired and complete revelation. How do we know there should be just sixty-six books?
Although the Old Testament canon was established by about 400 b.c., the New Testament was not firmly established for nearly three hundred years after the last book (Revelation) was written. Nor, in some people’s minds is the matter settled yet. For instance, in 1945, forty-nine ancient religious books were discovered near Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt. Many people claim that these books, and other ancient writings, contain additional words and deeds of Jesus. Should they be added to the Bible?
The problem of possible missing books becomes even muddier when we read in 1 Corinthians 5:9 about a letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians that is not found in Scripture—a letter that some people think belongs in the Bible but was lost. In Colossians 4:16 Paul mentions a second letter written to the church at Laodicea, which we also don’t have. Even the Old Testament mentions some documents not included in the biblical canon (Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13). How do we explain the absence of documents written by the authors of Scripture? Why are some books considered canonical while others, perhaps even written by the same authors, are not?
One of the dangers of apologetics is that we can get so involved seeking objective evidence to validate biblical claims that we overlook the faith element. We must never lose sight of the fact that nothing in proclamation (preaching), teaching, or apologetics is done independently of the Holy Spirit. Christianity has a subjective element, and it’s there that truth is vindicated by no other power than that of the Spirit of God. Even if we didn’t have all the objective evidence currently available, the Bible would still be validated by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 2:6–14).
Furthermore, God has not given clear answers to all of the questions asked by Christians and non-christians. The information Scripture gives is designed to persuade us to trust Jesus Christ for our salvation (see John 20:30–31; 21:25). The author of Hebrews reminds us that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (11:1). We are perfectly justified to accept the Bible strictly on faith.
The question of what books belong in Scripture falls largely into the faith category. Ultimately, canonicity is not based on human rationality but on divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, God determined canonicity by inspiring the writing of certain books, and man discovered through the power of the Holy Spirit which of these writings (books) are canonical or authoritative and which are not.
With this in mind, I can now point you to certain tests the Holy Spirit allowed the church fathers to use in discovering which books belong in the Bible. Two scholars, Norman Geisler and William Nix, list five questions that acted as guides in discovering which books were truly inspired.5
“Is it authoritative?”
Throughout the Old Testament, introductory phrases such as “Thus says the Lord,” “The Lord spoke,” and “The Word of the Lord came to me” are used more than two thousand times. The Old Testament authors never claimed authority for themselves, but they did acknowledge the Scripture’s authority. While Jesus, of course, spoke with His own authority (“Truly, I say …”), the authors of the New Testament also maintained that what they wrote came from God. Their words were His words, and vice versa (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 1:21).
By comparison, other books were not accepted into canon because they either made no claim to convey God’s spoken word or their claim of divine inspiration faltered when their contents were examined. In many cases, noncanonical books are full of fanciful and magical events that obviously lack the earmarks of historicity.
“Is it prophetic?”
Perhaps the most important evidence for the canonicity of the books of the Bible is that they were written either by a prophet, as in the case of the Old Testament, or by an apostle or the companion of an apostle, as in the case of the New Testament. The apostles Matthew, John, and Peter wrote their own books. Mark was an associate of Peter, and Luke was a fellow worker with Paul. Paul was an apostle appointed by Jesus (Gal. 1:1). Tradition claims that James and Jude were half brothers of Jesus. The author of Hebrews puts himself in apostolic company when he says that the gospel was “confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb. 2:3, emphasis mine).
The importance of apostolic authority is reinforced by the selection of a replacement for Judas. When Judas died, the two qualifications noted for becoming an apostle were being an eyewitness of Jesus from the beginning of His ministry at His baptism by John and being a witness to His resurrection (Acts 1:21–22).
The importance of apostolic authority in the authorship of the New Testament cannot be underestimated. If only an apostle, or a companion of one, writing from an apostle’s personal account, could write a book and have it accepted as canonical, no writings could gain such acceptance if they were composed after the death of the twelve apostles. This automatically renders the Book of Mormon and other cultic writings as noncanonical.
“Is it authentic?”
The Bible is the most historically reliable document from antiquity. In every area in which it could be checked out, it has proven itself to contain truthful information. Moreover, the Bible is consistent throughout. The New Testament is in complete harmony with the Old Testament on its views about God, salvation, sin, and all other major doctrines.
But many of the writings that were turned down as canonical are totally out of harmony with Scripture. Some contain moral incongruities, blatantly heretical teachings, and false prophecies. They could never fit with the rest of the Bible.
For example, in the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus 33:25–28, we read quite a different attitude toward slavery as found in Philemon:
Make your slave work, if you want rest for yourself;
if you leave him idle, he will be looking for his liberty.
The ox is tamed by yoke and harness,
the bad servant by racks and tortures.
Put him to work to keep him from being idle,
for idleness is a great teacher of mischief.
Set him to work, for that is what he is for,
and if he disobeys you, load him with fetters.
In The Prayer of Manasses (vv. 8–9), we read that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never sinned against God—quite a different picture from the Genesis accounts.
Other apocryphal books teach false doctrines, such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:44–45), and give fanciful, unbelievable accounts of alleged historical events (2 Macc. 14:41–46).
“Is it dynamic?”
A book was not accepted as Scripture if it lacked the power to change people’s lives (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17; Heb. 4:12). God’s Word moves people away from sin and toward lives of holiness. The Bible contains the perfect recipe for an abundant life (John 10:10). It holds the secret (the love and power of Jesus) for healing broken, wounded lives (Matt. 11:28–30). Throughout the past two thousand years, these promises have been borne out in the experiences of many millions of Christians. No other book in the world can, or has, affected so many lives in such a dramatic and positive fashion as the Bible. The fact that biblical principles have been the guiding moral light of Western civilization for centuries further testifies to its dynamic power.
“Was it received?”
Perhaps the major reason the Bible was not fully canonized in its present form until the fourth century is because communication was slow in ancient times. There were no telephones and fax machines, and travel was ponderous and dangerous. The church was scattered throughout most of the known world, and many of the church fathers lived hundreds of miles apart. It was impossible for councils to meet frequently to discuss the scores of books vying for canonicity. Hence, it took nearly three hundred years for the sixty-six books of the Bible to be approved by the church fathers and for them to study and reject contending books. However, in spite of this, all of the books in the Bible were commonly accepted by most of the church fathers long before they were formally approved as canonical.
Aside from these five tests, there are internal validations in Scripture. For example, in Luke 24:44, Jesus said that everything concerning Him in the “Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” had to be fulfilled. The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms marked the threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures. So in this passage, Jesus displayed His acceptance of the entire Old Testament as canonical, as God-inspired. Jesus also referred to many Old Testament books, many times quoting from them—another indication of His belief in their inspiration.
Likewise, the authors of the New Testament quoted and referred to most of the Old Testament books. In fact, of the twenty-two books numbered in the Hebrew Bible (the same books which Christians have divided into 39 books), eighteen are cited by the New Testament authors.
In a similar way, Jesus and the New Testament authors verified the canon of the New Testament. In John 14:26 and 16:13, Jesus prophesied that the New Testament would be revealed through the power of the Holy Spirit. And in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter confirmed that Paul’s letters were part of the “Scriptures.”
DOES THE APOCRYPHA BELONG IN THE BIBLE?
Now we need to deal with an issue that divides Christians. It concerns the apocrypha—the fourteen or fifteen books written between 200 b.c. and a.d. 100 (after the completion of the Old Testament canon and before the establishment of the New Testament canon) that are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic church. When we apply the tests listed above to the apocrypha, we find that these books don’t pass. I’d like to summarize the reasons Protestantism has rejected the apocrypha as Scripture. Together these reasons represent a formidable case.
First, the apocrypha was never included in the Hebrew Bible, and it was not even formally included in the Catholic Bible until the Council of Trent in a.d. 1546. The Catholic church embraced the apocrypha to counter the attacks of Martin Luther and other Reformers who discovered that several aspects of Catholic theology came from the apocrypha, not from the sixty-six books of the Bible. Some of these doctrines concerned mass for the dead, merits acquired through good works, purgatory, penance, and indulgences. In short, the Catholic Church added the apocrypha to Scripture after the fact to give divine authority to already existing doctrines.
Second, neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers quoted from the apocrypha as Scripture, even though they cited passages from the Old Testament nearly three hundred times. Jude quotes the noncanonical book of Enoch, but the prophecy he cites was originally uttered by the Enoch mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 5:19–24). In any event, it is fallacious to assume that just because the Bible quotes a noncanonical book that that implies it is inspired. Paul quotes pagan poets in Acts 17:28. Certainly we should not conclude from this that these poets or their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The Old Testament Apocrypha
|
Type of Book |
Revised Standard Version |
Douay |
|
Didactic |
1. The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 b.c.) |
Book of Wisdom |
|
2. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (132 b.c.) |
Ecclesiastes |
|
|
Religious |
3. Tobit (c. 20 b.c.) |
Tobias |
|
Romance |
4. Judith (c. 150 b.c.) |
Judith |
|
Historic |
5. I Esdras (c. 150–100 b.c.) |
III Esdras* |
|
6. I Maccabees (c. 110 b.c.) |
I Machabees |
|
|
7. II Maccabees (c. 170–110 b.c.) |
II Machabees |
|
|
Prophetic |
8. Baruch (c. 150–50 b.c.) |
Baruch Chaps. 1–5 |
|
9. Letter of Jeremiah (c. 300–100 b.c.) |
Baruch Chap. 6 |
|
|
10. II Esdras (C. a.d. 100) |
IV Esdras* |
|
|
Legendary |
11. Additions to Esther (140–130 b.c.) |
Esther 10:4–16; 24 |
|
12. Prayer of Azariah (second or first century b.c.) (Song of Three Young Men) |
Daniel 3:24–90 |
|
|
13. Susanna (second or first century b.c.) |
Daniel 13 |
|
|
14. Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 b.c.) |
Daniel 14 |
|
|
15. Prayer of Manasseh (second or first century b.c.) |
Prayer of Manasseh* |
In Luke 11:51, Jesus accuses the scribes of slaying all the prophets God had sent to Israel from the time of Abel to the time of Zechariah. Abel died in Genesis, and Zachariah’s death is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20–21, the last book in the Hebrew Bible (Malachi is the last book in our English Bible). In making this statement, Jesus expresses the extent of the Old Testament canon, omitting completely any of the apocryphal books.
Third, most of the leading church fathers recognized a distinction between the canonical Hebrew Bible and the noncanonical apocryphal books, and many, such as Origen and Athanasius, spoke out against the apocrypha. Moreover, no local synod or canonical listing included the apocryphal books for almost the first four hundred years of the church’s existence.
Fourth, even Jerome, who first translated the Bible from Greek into Latin (the Vulgate—which is the official translation of the Roman Catholic church) rejected the apocrypha as part of canon.
Fifth, while the apocrypha includes some valuable historical information, it contains numerous nonbiblical, fanciful, and heretical doctrines. It also relates numerous historical, geographical, and chronological errors that are totally inconsistent with the inerrancy of canonical Scripture.
Sixth, the apocrypha doesn’t claim to be the inspired Word of God, and it was written well past the era of the Old Testament prophets.
THE BIBLE SUPREME
We can conclude that the church today has the complete, full, and final revelation of God in sixty-six books. Therefore it’s virtually inconceivable that an alleged lost book would be discovered that belongs in the Bible. Nor is there any reason to suspect that any new revelation will come for inclusion in Scripture. God would not inspire a written revelation, guide the church by its mandates for nearly two thousand years, then suddenly reveal additional truths that expand on or contradict His previous revelation. Yet this is exactly the kind of revelation groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to possess. God is a God of truth, not of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). He has spoken completely, finally, and supremely in the sixty-six books rightfully called Holy Scripture.
[1]
1 “The Time Is at Hand,” in STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Series II (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1909), 99.
2 Quoted in Walter Martin’s THE NEW CULTS (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1980), 147.
3 John H. Gerstner, REASONS FOR FAITH, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1967), 115.
4 Norman Geisler, CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 374.
5 Norman Geisler and William Nix. A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1968), 138–145.
* Books not accepted as canonical at the Council of Trent, 1546. From Norman L. Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1983), 169.
[1]Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (63). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
![[PDF] Legends & Narratives of Islam: The Biblical Personalities - Dr. Khaled Sanadiki 1 [PDF] Legends & Narratives of Islam: The Biblical Personalities – Dr. Khaled Sanadiki](https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/20221114_124251-scaled.jpg)