The Lord of Glory (Sermon)

Sermon Title:

The Lord of Glory

Sermon Text:

Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

(John 8:54-49, NASB)

Sermon Proposition:

The identity of the person of Jesus Christ is at the very heart of our entire Christian faith, and those who compromise or reject the biblical truth on this issue do so at great risk to the state of their eternal souls.

Bible translations used:

AMP – Amplified Bible

ESV – English Standard Version

NASB – New American Standard Bible

NWT – New World Translation

First of all, I would like to ask you all two questions. My first question is this: How many of you here have had encounters with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints or other cultic groups? Raise your hands if you have.

(Wait for people to raise hands)

All right, that’s cool. I’ve had some encounters with some of them myself. In fact, over the summer last year I’ve had extended conversations with a Jehovah’s Witness who lives in my apartment building, and I’ve been able to procure several copies of their Watchtower magazine. Now, you don’t have to answer my second question out loud, but try to sort the question out in your own minds. The question is: Why is it that we reject fellowship with Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians and other such groups even though they profess to be Christians?

(Wait three seconds)

Now, you could point to various errors that they teach, but I would contend that the primary heresy these groups have that becomes the source of most their other errors is in their fundamentally flawed idea of who Jesus Christ is. The Church of the Latter-Day Saints believes that Jesus is a deified man, just one among many celestial gods. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that He is the archangel Michael; the greatest of God’s creations, but nonetheless only a creation. Still, the Unitarians believe that He is a great moral teacher, but is not substantially equal to the Father. And I understand that this is a very pluralistic society, so it is tempting to downplay these things and pretend that it doesn’t really matter. I mean, we can all agree to disagree, right? Well, if we are to proclaim the gospel of God, we simply cannot take that kind of attitude.

What I propose to you, brothers and sisters, is that the identity of the person of Jesus Christ is at the very heart of our entire Christian faith, and those who compromise or reject the biblical truth on this issue do so at great risk to the state of their eternal souls. The Lord Jesus Himself suggests this all throughout the scriptures, and especially in the Gospel of John. In fact, this affirmation of who Christ is appears right in the beginning of that Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3, ESV) Just prior to the passage that was recited for us, Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24, ESV).

Now, here is a helpful little piece of trivia: There is really no “He” in that passage. Jesus is actually saying, “For unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins.” This parallels verse 58 where He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” For those who are not familiar with this reference, it is an allusion to Exodus 3:14, wherein God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' (NASB). Now, those who deny that Jesus is God in the flesh would try to mistranslate John 8:58 to obscure the obvious. For example, if you’ve ever gotten your hands on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, you will find that they will make Jesus say “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” (NWT). They also mistranslate Exodus 3:14 by making God say, “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” (NWT). Makes no sense now, does it? If, however, you were able to check John 8:58 in the original Greek and compared it with the Greek Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14, you’ll find out that they use the exact same phrase: εγω ειμι, I AM. Besides, look at how the Jews respond to Him: “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:59, NASB). If there was no connection between what Jesus says in verse 58 and the “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14, then the response of the Jews would no longer make any sense in its context. This shows the futility of any attempt to escape the implications of Jesus’ clear statements concerning who He is and where He has come from.

And by the way, there are a few I am statements that appear in the synoptic gospels as well. For example, Jesus in the trial before the Sanhedrin, when asked if He is the son of God, says "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62, ESV). In the gospel of Luke, the statement is shortened to “It is just as you say; I AM.” (Luke 22:70, AMP). In both cases, the phrase for “I am” is the exact same phrase, εγω ειμι. This is significant, because no other character in the entire Bible utilizes the phrase “I am” in this exact same way. Anytime any other character in the bible says “I am…”, it is either phrased differently (such as in 1 Corinthians 15:10) or it is stated in such a way that it is obvious that the person in question is making no claims to deity (such as in 1 Timothy 1:15). This is significant, for how does the Sanhedrin respond to Jesus’ statements? They responded: “‘What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?’ And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the officers received Him with slaps in the face” (Mark 14:63-65, NASB).

Thus we see that these cults who deny that Jesus is truly God fall into the same fatal error that the Jewish people fell into back in Jesus’ own day. For unless we confess, as the apostle Thomas did, that Jesus Christ is “our Lord and our God” (John 20:28, paraphrased), how can His propitiatory sacrifice on the cross be infinitely sufficient to cover over all of our sins? See, our Soteriology hangs totally on our Christology (I’m assuming that you all still remember what those two terms mean): For Jesus to save us, He must be truly God, as well as truly man; otherwise His death cannot be sufficient to save us. This is not a minor issue. This is not theological nitpicking. This is at the very heart of the gospel, for the One who was nailed upon the tree, we proclaim to be “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13). Without this critical proclamation of the divinity of Jesus Christ, we shall be left without any gospel of grace at all.

And it is for this reason that we confess, in the words of the great Nicene Creed, that: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.” So, here I stand, I can do no other. Jesus Christ is the Lord of Glory, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. I stake my eternal destiny on Him, and I would dare not compromise on this great biblical truth. To those who deny this, or would think of even deserting this great confession of ours, it should suffice to point out the warning that Paul gave to the Galatians against those who would dare to pervert the Gospel: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment)! As we said before, so I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel different from or contrary to that which you received [from us], let him be accursed…” (Galatians 1:8-9, AMP).

Maranatha, our Lord Jesus come. Amen!

Refutations of Islamic apologist Zakir Naik

Zakir Naik, the world famous Muslim apologist who claims to be able to draw crowds of up to 300,000 people to his speeches and debates.

Introduction

For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

(Luke 8:17)

For those who are unfamiliar with who Zakir Naik is, he is an Islamic apologist and public speaker in the style of the late Ahmed Deedat *coughcopycatcough* and often borrows his arguments from the latter. He runs the Islamic Research Foundation is right now one of the most popular Islamic apologists out there, which is rather sad given the fact that though he is strong in polemics and public speaking, his claims and arguments are very weak and lacking in substance.

For this reason, I am here posting the responses of two very capable Christian scholars, Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam, who have both shown the serious problems with Zakir Naik's misrepresentations of Christianity and his faulty arguments for Islam. Anybody who thinks Mr. Naik has any substance would do well to pay attention to these carefully drawn-up rebuttals to his claims:

Dr. James White - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

Sam Shamoun - Responses to Zakir Naik

• Misquotations and Misinformation
• Misconception of God in Christianity
• Alleged "Contradictions" in the Bible
• On Polygamy

Dr. James White - Responses to Zakir Naik

• Part 1
• Part 2

Dr. White has sent out a debate challenge to Mr. Naik sometime last month. His response shows that the IRF is not really after accurate information, but is only seeking to draw large crowds that don't know any better. Read what the IRF has to say for yourself:

• Facts? Truth? Nah, We Want People!

Other stuff

• Zakir Naik on Water Evaporation in the Qur'an
• An Atheist Responds to Zakir Naik
• Another example of his egregious misuse of bible quotations
• Supporting terrorism

Conclusion

Despite his fame amongst Muslims, it can (and has) been demonstrated that Mr. Zakir Naik is *not* a careful or responsible scholar. His claims are easily shown to be false, and his arguments wanting. Anybody who would like to dispute the veracity of the Christian faith will need to try harder than this guy if they really want to make so much as a dent to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ

(2 Corinthians 10:5)

Ronald Nash - Apologetics and Philosophy

• Ronald Nash - Apologetics and Philosophy

On the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation

A couple of helpful articles on the Islamic concept of abrogation.

• Farooq Ibrahim - The Problem of Abrogation in the Quran
• Abdullah Al Araby - The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
(Surah Al Baqarah, 2:106)

And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
(Surah An Nahl, 16:101)

Deconstructing Darwin

I was recently in the Deconstructing Darwin Conference that was held in a nearby church that my cousin goes to. I am pleased to say that the speakers Calvin Smith and Dr. Emil Silvestru did a really good job of giving a coherent and well-researched case for Creation and against Evolutionary Naturalism. I especially like Dr. Silvestru's presentations. He obviously knows what he is talking about as a Geologist.

If anybody would like to know more, I would suggest checking out their organization, Creation Ministries International (link to their website), and see what kind of resources they have to offer. Also, here are a couple of clips of Dr. Silvestru (from elsewhere, not from the conference) to give a brief example of what he has to say, particularly on the topic of Noah's flood:

Knowledge of God and of Ourselves

By John Calvin

Our wisdom, insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts toward the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; no, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distill to us from heaven are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upward; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stripped of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties, every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us (cf. John 4:10) that in the Lord, and non but he, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also —He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of Judges and the Prophetical Writings (Judges 13:22; Isaiah 6:5; Ezekiel 1:28; 3:14; Job 9:4, etc.; Genesis 18:27; 1 Kings 19:18); so much so, that it was a common expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says (Isaiah 24:23), “The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign;” i.e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.

But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.

Source

• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (translated by Henry Beveridge). Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. pp. 4-6.

Jesus, the Gospels, Gnosticism and Historical Revisionism (Part 3)

(Continued from Part Two)

One common misconception about the Gnostic gospels is that they portray a purely human Jesus, whereas the four Canonical Gospels make Him more "godlike." This piece of historical revisionism is somewhat ironic given the actual facts regarding Gnosticism and the content of the Gnostic gospels

What must be remembered about the Gnostics is that they held to a dualistic view of the world; for them, physical matter is evil and spirit is good. Thus, when they wrote about Jesus, they actually tended to downplay His humanity or deny it altogether. Docetism, a heretical viewpoint that denies Jesus' humanity, claiming that He only appeared to have a physical body (hence the term Docetic, from the Greek δοκέω, meaning "to seem.") and thus incapable of feeling pain and other feelings. By contrast, the Canonical Gospels fully acknowledged Christ's human nature, while simultaneously affirming that He also has a divine nature.

Below are a couple of quotes from the Gospel of Thomas. It is to be noted that unlike the rest of the writings quoted, the Gospel of Thomas came much earlier than most of them and is not fully Gnostic. In fact, some of the sayings in Thomas are variations of what Jesus really said in the Canonical Gospels, and thus may be considered orthodox. Now, some people have erroneously claimed that Thomas presents an unadorned portrait of Jesus as being merely human. This, however, is not the case. There are statements in Thomas that portray Christ as being much more than an ordinary human being. For example, there is the exchange between Jesus and Thomas in saying 13:

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

(The Gospel of Thomas. Saying 13.)

And then there is this statement in saying 77:

Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

(The Gospel of Thomas. Saying 77.)

The Gnostic texts that come later than Thomas go even further than this. For example, in the Apocalypse of Peter, distinction is made between the human being who is nailed to the cross and the heavenly Christ. The former is nailed to the cross, while the latter raises Himself above the human being, laughing:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

(The Apocalypse of Peter.)

And then there is the Gospel of Philip. In this gospel, Jesus is portrayed as a shape-shifter who is able to change His appearance at will. This accords well with the Docetic view that Jesus didn't really have an actual physical body:

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.

(The Gospel of Philip.)

And there is the Gospel of Truth, which affirms the eternality of the Jesus as the Son, and bestows exalted titles upon Jesus, such as "the name:"

And the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who, in the beginning, gave a name to him who came forth from him - he is the same one - and he begat him for a son. He gave him his name which belonged to him - he, the Father, who possesses everything which exists around him. He possess the name; he has the son. It is possible for them to see him. The name, however, is invisible, for it alone is the mystery of the invisible about to come to ears completely filled with it through the Father`s agency. Moreover, as for the Father, his name is not pronounced, but it is revealed through a son. Thus, then, the name is great.

(The Gospel of Truth.)

There are many more such texts that present similar views, but it will suffice to present these as sufficient evidence that the Gnostic Gospels are too slender a reed to support the weight that is being accorded to them by modern conspiracy theorists and historical revisionists.

Conclusion

In summary, it has been shown that 1) the deity of Christ is not a late invention, but is an apostolic tradition dating to the earliest days of Christianity, 2) the fourfold Gospel is also an apostolic tradition, and cannot reasonably be said to have originated in Nicaea in any way, and 3) the so-called "Gospels" that were written by the Gnostics do not portray Christ in a the manner that popular conspiracies would have you think. It would do the reader well to do more careful research on this matter and see what the truth behind the Christian faith really is. For more information, books such as The Missing Gospels and Reinventing Jesus are very helpful in presenting clear and accurate information on these topics.

In Christ,

Fisher.