Home  About Us   Doctrinal Statement   Scheduling Seminars   Products  Contact Us  

 

 

Articles
 

By Edward Dalcour

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

 

  Ø The Trinity and the Early Church: Debunking the Oneness Myth
 

 

 

  Ø How to share your faith with Jehovah’s Witnesses
 

  Ø Definite Atonement


  Ø The Rise of False Teachings within the Church

 

  Ø  John 1:1 and the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation

 

  Ø  Colossians 1:15-17 and the Jehovah Witnesses’ NWT

 

  Ø     The term "Jehovah" and the Jehovah's  Witnesses

 

Ø     A Concise look at Roman Catholicism and the worship of Mary

 

 

Ø     Most utilized Unitarian Objections to the Trinity

 

Ø     The Do’s and Don’ts of Effective Witnessing

 

Ø     Unconditional Election
 

Ø    A Biblical Look at Forgiveness

 

Ø     Irresistible Grace: The Effectual Calling of God

 

Ø     Mormonism and Black Skin
 

Ø  Responding to the Mormon Assertion of God the Father
 

Ø  Jesse Duplantis and Mormonism

 

Ø  Tota Scriptura: All of Scripture and Acts 20:28 

 

Ø   Questions and Answers from readers 
 

Ø     The Sovereignty of God in ALL Things
 

Ø     The Oneness Pentecostals & Acts 2:38 : "In the Name of Jesus" only Formula

 

Ø     God the Holy Spirit: The Third Person of the Trinity

 

Ø     Sola Fide: The Foundation of Protestantism: An Exegetical Look at Romans 4:4-8

 

Ø     The Multi-Personal God in the Old Testament and Oneness Theology

 

Ø      The Birth of Christ: Taking the nature of a Servant
 

Ø     A Biblical Look at Forgiveness
 

Ø     Who Can you Trust: Is the New World Translation Reliable?

 

Ø     The Biblical Illiteracy in the Christian Church

 

Ø     Quick Answers for the Jehovah's Witnesses: The deity of Christ

 

Ø     What People are saying about Jesus Christ

 

Ø     The Preexistence of Jesus Christ in the Face of Unitarianism

 

Ø     HEBREWS 1:8:
 Responding to the unitarian denial of Jesus being addressed as the o qeoj (ho theos, "the God")

 

Ø     The Security of the Believer: Perseverance of the Saints
 

Ø     The Soteriological Trinity 
 

Ø     Sociological Cults: Morning Star International (now called Every Nation)

 

Ø     A Question Regarding Proverbs 8:22 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

 

 

 

  •  

    Scripture teaches that because of the Fall of Adam (original sin), man has lost his ability to make spiritually good choices. He cannot to come to Christ unless the Father draws him (cf. John 6:44, 65)—for the unregenerate man wills to do the desires of the devil (cf. John 8:44). Thus, his will is “held captive by him [the devil] to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:26). He cannot submit to or please God unless God gives him a new heart and puts a new spirit within him. It is God, not man’s self-determination, who performs spiritual circumcision on the heart. For a spiritually dead[1] man does not have the ability to make himself alive. Unregenerate man has no righteousness in him to make a spiritually good choice—he never seeks for God (cf. Rom. 3:11). Thus, only God can make a dead sinner alive. He does not have to show mercy to anyone, He has that freedom: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and hardens whom He desires” (Rom. 9:18). That God is not obligated to provide salvation to anyone sets forth the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. That God grants mercy and thus salvation to some and not to others is not unfair unless, of course, it was shown that God was indeed under obligation to grant salvation for every single person. This, the Bible flatly rejects (cf. Luke 10:21-22; John 5:21; esp. Rom. 9:11-23)

     The doctrine of unconditional election should be viewed in light of the total depravity and inability of man. For if unregenerate man is not totally depraved and hence “able” to choose Christ, then, he would be able, while in the flesh, to make a righteous decision to believe in Christ. In that sense, man is elected conditionally; since he first loved God (i.e., the faith-act is the condition) and subsequently, God loved him back giving him the “reward” of salvation.[2] For the Arminian view of election is that before time God simply peered into the future to see who would make a “righteous choice” to choose Him. Hence, in this view, God’s election was squarely based on the “self-determination” of man—synergistic. Arminians are convinced, therefore, that “the only reasonable answer is that those God knew from eternity past would believe the gospel were predestined to blessings.”[3]

     

    Scripture, however, rejects the Arminian notion of synergism. Because He is sovereign over all things (not all other things; cf. Eph. 1:11), salvation is completely monergistic—God’s work alone, not synergistic—the self-determination or cooperation of man and God. Most arguments put forward by contemporary leading Arminian writers[4] are philosophical and/or lacking in exegetical interaction.[5] The biblical evidence for the biblical teaching of unconditional election is as follows:

     

    1. Jesus rejoices that the Father has hidden things from the wise and intelligent and has revealed them to infants (cf. Luke 10:21; John 12:39-41; 2 Cor. 4:4). For it was pleasing to the Father that “no one knows the Son except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Luke 10:22). The Father gives life, “the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” (John 5:21).

     

    2. God has elected a people that He has chosen[6] for salvation before the foundation of the world (cf. Deut. 10:14-15; Ps. 33:12; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:1ff.; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 1:1; James 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:8-9; Rev. 13:8).

     

    3. The elect were born of God (regenerated) prior to believing (esp. John 1:13;[7] 1 John 5:1;[8]cf.

    also Eph. 1:5, 11). “Election itself saved no one; it only marked out particular sinners for salvation.”[9] Speaking of God’s unconditional election and sovereign purpose, the apostle points to Jacob and Esau: “even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election [lit., “God’s purpose according to election”][10] would stand, not by works but by his calling” (Rom. 9:11 NET;[11] emphasis added).

     

    God’s elect are chosen, not based on any foreseen goods works (such as a faith-act), but chosen by God in His sovereignty. That God’s choice was a response to a foreseen act of righteousness on the part of man is biblically vacuous. Nowhere in Scripture is man’s faith-act the basis or ground of God’s election. To assert that God merely presented a plan or possibility of salvation in which He really tries hard to save all men, but cannot because many men reject His plan utterly turns salvation into a great theory: in theory, men can be saved only if they accept the plan or offer, but if no one accepts, then, no one will be saved. Conversely, Scripture presents Jesus as infallibly saving those whom the Father gives Him.

     

    1. Jesus infallibly, not theoretically, saves His people. Those that “had been appointed [tetagmenoi][12] to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48; cf. Eph. 1:12).

    2. The elect, the believing ones, “were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13;[13] cf. 15:16). God’s choosing did not “depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16; cf. Exod. 33:19; Deut. 7:6-7; Rom. 11:4-6; 33-36; 2 Tim. 1:9).

     

    Simply stated, unconditional election is God marking out particular individuals for salvation, those whom He fore-loved according to His sovereign purpose, not according to the faith-act of the individual. He predestined them to an effectual call. All of these whom He called will be declared righteous and these whom He justified will be glorified (note: it would be extraordinarily beneficial to examine a scholarly and exegetical presentation of Rom. 8:28-30; and chap. 9; e.g., John Piper, The Justification of God; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans; etc.).

     

    But we ought to give thanks for you always, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth (2 Thess. 2:13).

     

    He is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began [pro chronōn aiōniōn, lit. “before eternal times”] (2 Tim. 1:9).

     

    NOTES


     

    [1] Paul says that the unregenerate man is nekros (“dead”), which carries the lexical meaning of “corpse” (e.g., Acts 13:34; Rom. 10:9) that is, really dead, not really sick or terminally ill, but dead in the truest sense (e.g., Eph. 2:1-5; Col. 2:13).

    [2] By definition, a “gift” is undeserved whereas a faith-act (i.e., belief) is a meritorious action deserving a reward. In Romans 4:4, Paul clearly differentiates these two aspects (an undeserving gift vs. wages resulting from works): “Now to the one who works, his wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

    [3] Dave Hunt and James White, Debating Calvinism, 156. Once Hunt viewed the straightforward exegesis of Romans 8:29-30 (viz. the golden chain of redemption) provided by White, all Hunt could say in response was, “such attempts are completely without foundation” (ibid., 157). Hunts provided absolutely no exegetical interaction—only denials and philosophical assertions. These kinds of non-exegetical responses are very typical among Arminians. Further, After painfully examining Norman Geisler’s book, Chosen but Free, I objectively concluded that “Geisler leaps out of his area and swims in unfamiliar waters in his treatment of Reformed Theology” (cited from my theological endorsement in White, Potter’s Freedom, 348).

    [4] E.g., Norman Geisler, Clark Pinnock, Dave Hunt.

    [5] Esp. in Geisler, Chosen but Free and Hunt, What Love is This?).

    [6] In Ephesians 1, all verbs that express the choosing of God’s elect (vv. 4-5, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18) have God as the subject of the choosing (and/or calling and predestining) and man as the object.

    [7] See n. 13 below.

    [8] 1 John 5:1 says that “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. . . .” The Greek reads, Pas ho pisteuōn hoti Iēsous estin ho Christos, ek tou theou gegennētai (lit., “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ, from the God has been born”). Note the following details: The word translated “believes” is from the present active participle pisteuōn, which indicates that the “believing” is active and ongoing. And the verb, gegennētai (lit., “has been born”) is a perfect passive indicative.

     

     

     The perfect tense indicates a completed past action with continuous effects (cf. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 218). Grammatically, the action the perfect tense (being “born of God”) was prior to the action of the present participle (“believing”). 1 John 2:29 uses the same verb (in the same form): “everyone also who practices righteousness is born [gegennētai, lit., “has been born”] of Him” (emphasis added). The continuous practice (due to the present participle, poiōn, lit., “practicing”) of righteousness was the result of the sinner being born of God. Just as no one can practice righteousness before being “born of God,” one cannot believe before being “born of God.” The next point to consider is that verb gegennētai is in the passive voice, not active (this is a key component regarding the meaning of the verse). Therefore, John is saying that the being born of God was not of the one believing, for the action of the verb (i.e., the being born) was done to the subject (before believing)—any acts of man are totally excluded (cf. Rom. 5:1). If John had wanted to teach that regeneration (i.e., being born of God) was the result and not the cause of faith (the Arminian assertion) he would not have used passive voice, but rather the active.

    [9] David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented, 38.

    [10] Hina hē kat’ eklogēn prothesis tou theou menē.

    [11] New English Translation Bible, ed. [NT] Daniel B. Wallace.

    [12] The verb here, tetagmenoi is the pluperfect passive participle of tassō. Hence, the appointing was a past action, prior to belief (due to the pluperfect tense). Hence, the reason why they believed was that they were first “appointed” (as rendered in most translations) by God to eternal life. Thus, they “belonged to” (BDAG, 991) Him prior to their belief—regeneration precedes faith.

    [13] Note first that John 1:12 does not indicate as to why they receive Him and believe in His name. It is in verse 13, where the answer is found: the ones who believe in His name were born of God. Notice first that the phrase “were born” is from one Greek verb egennēthēsan, which is the aorist passive indicative of gennaō. The aorist indicates that the being born was a past event, which preceded the act of “believing in His name” (v. 12). Second, the verb is passive, which indicates that the being born of God was an act of God done to the subject—the unregenerate man. Hence, as with 1 John 5:1, the being born of God was an action in which man’s participation was completely excluded: “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis added). Thus, in verse 12, the believing ones are those who first “were born,” not of blood, nor their own will or flesh, but of God alone. Nothing is said that would indicate that the being born of God was an act of man’s self-determination or independent free will. In fact, the opposite is clearly stated: not of the will of man, but of God.

     

    Back to the Top

     

     

     

     

    Irresistible Grace:

     

    The Effectual Calling of God

     

     

     

    The biblical doctrine of irresistible grace (or effectual calling) cannot be fully apprehended unless the condition of man is biblically understood.

     

               Scripture clearly presents that unregenerate man is totally depraved due to his enslavement to sin, thus, the spiritually dead man is totally unable to make a spiritually good decision to choose Christ  (esp. Rom. 8:7-8). He does not seek for God nor does he do any good in God’s sight (cf. Rom. 3:10-19). Further, Paul uses the term nekros (literately, “a corpse”)[1] to describe the condition of the unsaved/unregenerate man (cf. Eph. 2:1, 5, Col. 2:13). For if the unregenerate man is not actually spiritually dead, and only sick or very ill, then, he is certainly capable, based on his self-determination, to make a righteous decision to do a *spiritually good* deed (viz. to believe in Christ).

    However, Scripture does not teach that a “faith-act” is the *cause* of one’s salvation (which would make “faith” a meritorious work), rather the cause of salvation is the sole work of the Lord, “it is by His doing,” says Paul, “that you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30). The elect, then, “were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”[2] (John 1:13; cf. 15:16).

    Hence, God’s choosing does not “depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16; cf. Exod. 33:19; Deut. 7:6-7; Rom. 11:4-6; 33-36; Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9). Therefore, the calling of God is, by necessity, effectual and irresistible. Namely, the inward call—that which guarantees the coming to Christ (cf. John 6:37-39), which is theologically distinguished from the outward call (e.g., though preaching), which can be rejected (cf. Acts 17:51; also see Matt. 22:14; and esp. 1 Cor. 1:18, 22-31).

     

    The biblical doctrine of irresistible grace is the Holy Spirit *irresistibly* drawing sinners to Christ

     

    The doctrine of irresistible grace explores the sovereign work of the triune God to prevail over the rebellion in man’s heart[3] and bring him to Christ. It is when the Spirit gives life (regenerates) to the dead, rebellious sinner (cf. Eph. 2:2-5); hence opening his spiritually blind eyes (cf. John 12:29-41; 2 Cor. 4:4) enabling him to come to life in Christ.[4]

     

    The biblical data for irresistible grace is overwhelming

     

    1. God the Holy Spirit regenerates the dead sinner, which causes him to walk in the ways of the Lord. He becomes a new species in Christ Jesus (cf. Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36-36-37; Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17-18).

     

    2. The God the Holy Spirit makes the dead sinner alive (cf. John 5:21; 2 Cor. 3:6; Eph. 2:2-5; Col. 2:13).

     

    3. Through the Spirit, the hidden things of God are revealed (cf. Matt. 13:10-11, 16; 16:15-17; John 10:3-6, 16, 26-29; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 16:14; 18:27; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:17-18; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25-26): In Luke 10:21-22, Jesus rejoiced and praised the Father saying,

     

     “You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. . . . no one knows the Son except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” 

     

    4. God irresistibly calls, which always and effectually results in salvation (cf. Rom. 1:6-7; 8:29-30; 9:23; 1 Cor. 1:1-2, 9, 23-31; Eph. 4:4; 1 Pet. 1:15; 2:9; 5:10; Rev. 17:14).

     

    “For God has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works [i.e., faith-acts, obedience, etc.], but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9; emphasis added).

     

    5. God grants faith, repentance, the ability to believe, and regeneration to only the elect (cf. Eph. 2:8; 1 Cor. 12:8-9; Phil. 1:29; Acts 5:31; 16:14; 2 Pet. 1:1). Note that these *gifts* are granted to the elect—they are not mere possibilities or opportunities that can be rejected: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me. . . . For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:37, 65).

     

    The doctrine of irresistible grace is taught explicitly in Scripture. In the gospels, Jesus clearly and unambiguously taught irresistible grace especially in John 6 (cf. vv. 37-40, 44, and 65). Note the words of Christ in John 6:37-40:  

     

    “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it[5] up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (emphasis added).


    Passages such as John 6:37-40 and verse 44[6] indicates that the Father personally gives the elect to Christ—in which they all effectually come to Him. This beautiful act of the sovereign grace of God is not resisted—they all come. For Jesus says, “all that He has given [dedōken—perfect tense][7] Me I lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day.” No one is lost, no one resists; they all are raised up at the last day, Jesus’ work does not fail. “God’s saving grace and effectual calling are irresistible, not in the sense that they are never resisted, but in the sense that they are never successfully resisted.”[8]

    For God has the right to effectually call and give life “to whom He wishes” (John 5:21). As John Piper biblically observes, “Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign, creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness, but as the power and wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed.”[9] God does what He pleases and His purpose will be established according to His sovereign will—He has that freedom:

     

    “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’ (Isa. 46:9-10).


     

    Notes

    [1] The term nekros has the limited lexical meaning of a “corpse” or a dead person and thus does not mean not “sick” or “ill.”

    [2] Note that John 1:12 does not indicate as to why they receive Him and believe in His name. It is in verse 13, where the answer is found: the ones who believe in His name were born of God.   Notice first that the phrase “were born” is from one Greek verb egennēthēsan, which is the aorist passive indicative of gennaō. The aorist indicates that the being born was a past event, which preceded the act of “believing in His name” (v. 12). Second, the verb is passive, which indicates that the being born of God was an act of God done to the subject—the unregenerate man. Hence, as with 1 John 5:1, the being born of God was an action in which man’s participation was completely excluded: “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis added). Thus, in verse 12, the believing ones are those who first “were born,” not of blood, nor their own will or flesh, but of God alone. Nothing is said that would indicate that the being born of God was an act of man’s self-determination or independent free will. In fact, the opposite is clearly stated: not of the will of man, but of God.

     

    [3] Man’s heart is by nature resistant to God; he does not seek nor desire God. His “free will” always rejects Christ. It cannot do otherwise. It is in bondage to sin—he is totally depraved, unable to come to Jesus Christ.

    [4] Irresistible grace does not mean that God forces someone to come to Christ against his or her will. Rather, God, in regeneration, changes the sinner’s enslaved will (cf. 2 Tim. 2:26). Thus, the sinner, with a new heart of flesh, uses his free liberated (from sin) will to come to Christ. Everyone who receives a new heart (regeneration), that is, “drawn by the Father,” will come to Jesus Christ; Jesus loses none of them and raises them up at the last day (cf. John 6:37ff.; as discussed below). The regenerated sinner with a new heart does freely what is right, for he is made alive by the grace of God.

    [5] Rather than using the masculine pronoun auton, “him,” Jesus here uses the neuter pronoun auto, “it” to describe the elect as a whole or, as F. F. Bruce says, “the sum-total.”     

    [6] “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” Note that Jesus sets the condition of coming to Him: “unless the Father . . . draws him.” The verb translated “draws” is from helkō. The drawing is more than a wooing or mere encouragement, as Arminians would like to believe. Lexicographically, this word means, “to compel by an inward power, irresistible superiority” (G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, 47; cf. BDAG, 318). Note how the verb is used in Acts 21:30: “taking hold of Paul they dragged [eilkon] him out of the temple. . . .” (emphasis added). In James 2:6, the verb is also used in the same fashion: “Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag [elkousin] you into court?” The verb is used eight times in the New Testament: John 6:44; 12:32; 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6. The force of helkō cannot be denied.

    [7] The verb dedōken (“has given”) is a perfect tense, hence, a completed action in the past with continuous effects. Hence, the ones the Father gives (didōsin) to Christ are those whom He foreknew (dedōken, “has given”) before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4).

    [8] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 793.

    [9] John Piper, Pleasures of God, 142, n. 19.

     

    Back to the Top

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Mormonism and Black Skin

     

    Mormons claim that they represent Jesus Christ believing that they are members of the only true Church on earth (as with virtually every non-Christian cult). However, from their origins (1830) to present-day, Mormonism has been demonstrably identified as one of the most racist groups that ever emerged: The LDS Church sees black skin as a “curse” from the Lord. Speaking of the origins of the “curse” in the so-called “preexistence,” ninth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith explains:

     

    There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. . . . The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

    LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie furthers this teaching:

     

    Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin. . . . the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern. . . . (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed.; changed in the current ed.; emphasis added).

     

     

     

    Joseph Smith first president, prophet, and founder of the Mormon Church:

     

    Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization (History of the Church, 5:218; emphasis added).

     

     

     

    Brigham Young second president and prophet:

     

    Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be (Journal of Discourses [hereafter JD], 10:110; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

    Note that Young stated that his sermons are as good as Scripture:

     

    I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).

     

     

     

     In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates (i.e., those who leave the LDS Church) would “become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil (JD, 5:332).

     

     

     

    John Taylor, third president and prophet:

     

     

    after the flood we are told that the curse that had been

    pronounced upon. . . . And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. . . . (JD, 23:304; emphasis added).

     

    When he [Satan] destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian worlds, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth (ibid., 336; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

     

    Wilford Woodruff, fourth president and prophet:

     

    What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rest upon them (Millennial Star, 51:339; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

     

    In 1963, Look magazine interviewed LDS President, Joseph Fielding Smith in which he bodily stated:

     

    I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church (Look magazine, October 22, 1963, 79; emphasis added).

     

     

     

    Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that “Negroes” were inferior to other races:

     

    but because of his [Cain] wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was place upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning. . . . (The Way to Perfection, 101-02; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

     

    Orson Pratt, LDS Apostle:

     

    the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations of the earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage [African negroes] upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being (JD, 1:63; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Mark E. Peterson, LDS Apostle:

     

    the Lord said, ‘I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon every face of every Negro, upon the face of the earth.’ And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the blood of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood" (Race Problems-- As They Affect the Church, address given by Mark E. Peterson at BYU; emphasis added)

     

    If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would be cursed as to the Priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the Priesthood? If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. . . . We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that that they have all the advantages as they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change it?" (ibid.; emphasis added).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Bruce R. McConkie, LDS Apostle and prolific writer:

     

    Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood. . . . The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned. . . . (Mormon Doctrine, [hereafter Doctrine] 477, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current).

     

    Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through that lineage (ibid., 109; 1966 org. ed., changed in the current ed.; emphasis added)

     

    Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry (ibid., 114; current ed.; emphasis added).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    LDS Scriptures

     

     

     

    Book of Mormon (Note: many of these passages in the BOM were changed in the 1981 ed.):

     

    1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites) “became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations” (cf, 2 Nephi 5:21).

                   

    2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented) “scales of darkness shall begin to fall . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people” (emphasis added; changed to “white and delightsome" in the 1981 ed.; cf. 3 Nephi 2:14-16).

     

    3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “they were as white as the countenance . . . and behold they were white, even as Jesus” (emphasis added).

    Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites) “shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people. . .”  (emphasis added).

     

     

     

    Pearl of Great Price

     

    Moses 7:22 “for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them” (emphasis added).

     

    Abraham 1:27 “Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood. . . . ” (emphasis added).

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1978, the LDS god changed his mind

     

    In June 8 1978, LDS President, Spencer W. Kimball, after spending many hours in the “Upper Room” of the LDS Temple, claimed that God had removed the curse. Thus, all “worthy” black men could now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.

     

     

     

     

    Contradictions

     

    But early LDS doctrine says that the cures will never be removed until the white people are first saved. Young asks,  

     

    How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood . . .  until all the other descendants of Adam [white skin] have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. . . . When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed. . . .  (JD, 7: 290-291; emphasis added).

     

     

    LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson agrees:

     

    And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption (Race Problems; emphasis added; see above).

     

    LDS Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie also teaches that

     

    Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority. . . . (Doctrine, 477, 527-28; 1966 org. ed., changed in the current).

     

    As observed, and with virtually all non-Christian cults, the god of Mormonism is a changing god. It changes its mind and doctrines—but the God of the Bible never changes (cf. Ps. 102:25-27; Mal. 3:6). The only color that God sees is red—the red of the blood of Jesus Christ.  

     

    For more information on this topic see our expanded article here

     

    Back to the Top

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Sociological Cults: Morning Star International

     

    NOTE:  As a result of this article below, Justyn Martyr, of The Bereans: Apologetics Research Ministries (www.TheBereans.net), who ironically is a member of MSI (now called  “Every Nation”), wrote a short letter in response (read here). He demanded of me to produce more factual evidence to support the claims contained in the article (for he was quite unaware of the predominance of evidence that existed, which is typical among current members). 

    Thus, after explaining that the article was not intended to provide an exhaustive presentation, but rather basic facts, I then provided Justyn with documented official MSI teachings, which demonstrate beyond doubt the false and sociologically cultic teachings of MSI. Read it Here 

     

     

    At face, the term “cult” can be viewed by some as quite pejorative, to be sure. In any normal English dictionary, several different meanings to the term are provided. However, from an evangelical/theological point of view, the term “cult,” that is, “non-Christian cult” is used to signify groups that consider and call themselves “Christian,” but denies or rejects an aspect of essential biblical theology.

     For instance, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals all reject the biblical doctrine of the Trinity; Catholics reject justification through faith alone; etc. Hence, these groups would be classified as theological non-Christian cults due to their denial of these essential doctrines (cf. John 8:24; Gal. 1:6-9).

    However, there is another category of “cult” that, unfortunately, some Christian churches are regarded as. By way of doctrinal definition, this category is known as a “sociological cult.” A “sociological cult” is a group(s) that holds to essential biblical theology, but in terms of leadership and organizational construct they are sociologically abusive, promoting “elitism,” and teach a very unbiblical concept of church authority. For example, to support the false notion that water baptism is a necessity for justification, Kip McKean, founder of the sociological cult, International Church of Christ (ICC), teaches his biblically unstudied followers:

     

    I do not know of any church, group or movement that teaches and practices what we teach as Jesus taught in Matthew 28:18-19: one must make the decision to be a disciple, then be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins to be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. When one is born again at baptism (First Principles, 34).

     

    Hence, the ICC teaches that in order for one to have salvation, it is not faith alone, but rather: first, the candidate must become a disciple, which is a process, then assuming the candidate is worthy (i.e., a “true disciple”), then he or she must be water baptized (only in the ICC), and only then are they accepted as true Christians. Further in the ICC publication, The Disciple’s Handbook, they explain that salvation is a developmental: 

     

    we believe and expect every member of the church to be fully committed to living according to that truth. . . . To our knowledge, we are the only group that teaches the biblical principle of discipleship as a necessary part of the salvation process (120; emphasis added).

     

    This is only one of countless false teachings that the ICC forcefully teach. Note the utter elitism that is slipped in the above statements that produce an atmosphere of fear, which then causes members to “submit” unconditionally. Thus, the ICC is both a theological cult (for denying justification through faith alone) and a sociological cult (for holding to an unbiblical view of authority and church discipleship). For more information on the ICC see: www.christiandefense.org/ICC_.htm#n1

            

       

    Morning Star International (now called Every Nation)

     

    Virtually identical to that of the ICC’s teaching on discipleship and authority is Morning Star International (MSI; now called “Every Nation”). Even though MSI is not theologically branded as “non-Christian cult,” MSI does, in fact, fall unequivocally in the category of “sociological cult.” This should not be at all surprising since they stemmed out of Maranatha Ministries. The leadership of MSI consists of Rice Broocks, Phil Bonasso, and Steve Murrell, all whom are self-appointed Apostles, thus referring to themselves as the “Apostolic Board.” Of course, the only church that I can think of that has a governing Board of so-called “Apostles” is The LDS (i.e., the Mormons), which they call the “Quorum of the Apostles.”

    Note that when leaders of groups insist that they are “Apostles” or as with MSI, an “Apostolic Board,” it creates an illusion in which they are seen by members as God’s infallible mouthpiece determining what is “best” for their devotees. Hence, the result is that members of these kinds of organizations fearfully submit unconditionally. In fact, there are literally hundreds of Christian counter-cult ministries that speak out against the cultic practices, theological falsities and abusive teachings of MSI. Further, there are hundreds of internet posts from ex-MSI members who have written much of the spiritual abuse and crass authoritarianism that they have experienced. This perpetual teaching of “unconditional authority” keeps MSI leadership in full control of their non-questioning members. In the end, many ex-MSI members come out spiritually, and at times, mentally damaged. Physiologically, spiritual abuse is one of the most damaging abuses. A simple Google search on MSI will produce scores of websites exposing MSI. I have personally interfaced with the so-called Apostles (viz. Broocks and Bonasso) and many members of MSI. In evaluating official MSI literature, shown to me by former MSI leaders and carefully listening to MSI sermons throughout the years, I see a virtual exactness with the ICC (see: www.christiandefense.org/ICC_.htm#n1

     

    Not surprising, both ICC and MSI utilize the same passages (e.g., Heb. 13:17) to teach that members should submit to “God’s delegated leaders” without question! Although, they both, with no regard for the exegesis of the text, read their own a priori assumptions into these passages. Further, both hold to an unbiblical concept of discipleship. Hence, both churches are filled with sheepish terrified members who would never dream of questioning their “covering” that, according to MSI leadership, are God’s delegate authority.

     

    To maintain a rigid control, leaders of these Discipleship or “Authoritarian” movements, claim that the authority of the leaders is “God-given” or “God-delegated.” Thus, any disobedience to the leaders is direct disobedience to God. They emphasize heavy authority and relentless submission in the relationships between the leaders and ones under them.  

     

    Space precludes me to go into every aspect of teaching on key issues of Authoritarianism such as MSI’s biblically-unbalanced doctrine on discipleship, submission, etc. that they reign over unassuming members. However, if you are a current member of MSI consider the following:

    1. The New Testament does teach that church leaders are authoritative on issues of (i) directing church affairs (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5); (ii) teaching sound doctrine (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-4); and (iii) correcting those who sin and disciplinary action if they refuse to repent (cf. Titus 3:10-11). In these cases, church authority exits. This kind of biblical authority will help, rather than obstruct, the Christian to submit to Christ.

    2. Scripture indicates that the pastoral ministry is noticeably, “marked by a servants attitude,” not a weighty emphasis on authority and submission (see Matt. 20:25-28; 2 Cor. 1:24; and esp. 1 Pet. 5:1-3).


    3. Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, not church leadership, for they can err (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). 

      4. God, not man or a church leader determines one’s destiny, (cf. Ps. 139:16; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

      5. Scripture indicates that Christians should “obey God and not man” (cf. Acts 5:29).

      6. Studying God’s Word will help the Christian develop a maturity to discern what God’s will is or is not for his or her life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 5:8-10).

      7. The first and final authority—above all—is Scripture (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:21).

     

    Writing against Authoritarian groups, apologist, E. Miller, pointed out that “Leaders who put heavy emphasis on authority and submission typically seek to make themselves indispensable to others’ spiritual growth and well-being” (CRI Journal, Spring, 1985, 15).

               

    Because of MSI’s over emphasis on submission and unconditional authority, which naturally flows from their roots, Maranatha, MSI is not a biblically based or exegetically sound organization. There are far too many churches that do not view members as “rebellious” merely for asking questions or pointing out theological error. Among the many, MSI is a typical Discipleship/Authoritarian movement that seeks to control and ultimately intimidate its trusting members.           

     

    The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) proclaimed: “If we have love for Jehovah and for the organization of his people we shall not be suspicious, but shall, as the Bible says, ‘believe all things,’ all the things that The Watchtower brings out. . . . ” (Qualified to be Ministers [WT pub.], 156).

     

    Scripture alone is the only sole infallible authority and rule of faith for the church—our ultimate freedom is in Christ Jesus, our great God and Savior.

     

     

    For documented official MSI teachings, which demonstrate beyond doubt the false and sociologically cultic teachings of MSI,  Read  Here 

     

     

    Back to the Top

     

     

     

    The Preexistence of Jesus Christ

    in the Face of Unitarianism

     

     

     

                Unitarianism asserts that God is unipersonal; i.e., one Person, hence rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., three distinct Persons). However, there are many, who although are not part of the official Unitarian religion, hold to the Unitarian belief—namely that God is one Person. Thus, “unitarian” (in lower case) is used to characterize any belief or group that holds to the basic premise of unitarianism (i.e., a unipersonal God) such as Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and of course, Oneness believers.

     

     

     

    All unitarian arguments against the deity of Christ and/or the Trinity starts with a prior theological commitment: monotheism means God is one Person. However, monotheism simply means, “one” (fr. mono) “God” (fr. theos), thus “only one true God or Being.” In fact, there is no place in Scripture that says God is one Person, but rather He is one Being (Isa. 44:6-8).

               

                So, how does a Christian accurately communicate the Person of Christ to a JW or a Oneness believer, who, because of their unitarian starting point, denies that Jesus Christ is God the Son distinct from the Father? For Jesus said, “Unless you believe that I AM (egō eimi) you will die in your sins.” Thus, only by embracing the Jesus of biblical revelation is salvation a reality. Either God is unitarian (one Person) or trinitarian (three distinct Persons)—they both cannot be right. Scripture however, clearly presents the Tri-Unity of God (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess. 1:3-5; 1).

     

    The Christian must be equipped to establish from Scripture that Jesus Christ eternally existed with the Father. When that is accomplished, the unitarian concept of God is proven false. In both the OT and NT, there are numerous passages that clearly demonstrate the preexistence of the Son. Aside from that of Colossians 1:16-17, Philippians 2:6ff., and Hebrews 1:1ff., John 1:1 and 17:5 clearly and exegetically demonstrate the preexistence of Jesus Christ, God the Son.

     

     

    JOHN 1:1

     

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God, and the Word was God.

     

                From a theological and grammatical standpoint, John 1:1 sharply refutes the theology of every non-Christian group that denies the full deity of the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ. But what is especially relevant to the preexistence of the Son is John 1:1a and b: En archē ēn ho logos . . . kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, lit. “In [the] beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was with the God.”

     

                First in John 1:1a, the Greek verb ēn, “was” is the imperfect tense of eimi. The force of an imperfect tense indicates a continuous action normally occurring in the past. Hence, the Word did not originate at a point in time, but rather in the beginning of time the Word ēn already existing. Note in verse 3 the contrast between ēn and egeneto, “became” (or “created,” “emerged,” “born,” etc.). The aorist indicative egeneto indicates a punctiliar action normally occurring in the past. Thus, in the prologue of John, ēn is exclusively applied to the eternal Word (vv. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10) and egeneto is applied to everything created (cf. vv. 3, 6, 10). It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is applied to the Word denoting His new nature—“the Word became [egeneto] flesh [sarx].” This clearly shows the preexistence of the Word—God the Son.

     

    To highlight the intimate loving fellowship that the Word shared with the Father, the Apostle John specifically used the preposition pros in John 1:1b: “and the Word was with [pros] God.” The preposition pros, “with” has various meanings depending on the context. When applied to persons, however, pros regularly denoted their intimate fellowship and always their distinction. Pros expresses the intimate and special relationship that Christians will experience “at home with [pros] the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). A. T. Robertson rightly notes, “It is the face-to-face converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. So, John thus conceives the fellowship between the Logos and God” (Grammar, 625).

               

                Notwithstanding the mass of biblical scholarship, unitarians postulate a unitarian assumption denying the appropriate and natural meaning of ēn in John 1:1a—denoting the Word’s eternality (as God, John 1:1c: “the Word was God”) and pros in John 1:1b—denoting the Word’s ontological distinction from His Father. Thus, the eternal Word, God the Son, ēn pros (lit. eternally in intimate fellowship with) the Father. Moreover, in verse 3, John identifies the Word as the Agent of creation, not merely an instrument. This is indicated by John’s use of dia (“through”) followed by the genitive autou (“Him”; as in Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; and Heb. 1:2). In point of fact, there is no stronger way in which Scripture could have communicated that the Son was the real and actual Agent of creation—clearly denoting the Son’s preexistence.

     

     

    JOHN 17:5

     

    “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, [para seautō] with the glory which I had [eichon] with You [para soi] before the world was” (emphasis added).

     

    In Jesus’ high Priestly prayer to the Father, He says that He had or shared (eichon) glory with (para) the Father (soi, “You”) before the world was (pro tou ton kosmon einai). Grammatically, when the preposition para, “with” is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para soi, “with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in presence of.” Noted Greek scholar Daniel Wallace provides the precise meaning of the preposition para followed by the dative: “In general, the dative uses suggest proximity or nearness. a. Spatial: near, beside. b. Sphere: in the sight of, before (someone). c. Association: with (someone/something)” (Beyond the Basics, 378). In the exhaustive BDAG (Lexicon), the preposition para with the dative is well defined:

     

    [para] w.[ith] the dat., the case that exhibits close association . . . marker of nearness in space, at/by (at the side of), beside, near, with, acc. to the standpoint fr. which the relationship is viewed (757).

     

    Even so, unitarian groups such as Oneness Pentecostals argue (to avoid the plain meaning of the text) that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father only signified the future glory or plan in the Father’s mind. In this way of thinking, Oneness teachers often assert that Christians were also foreknown before the world was—before they existed. They usually point to Ephesians 1:4: “just as He chose us before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.”

     

                This kind of clumsy interpretation, though, demonstrates unfamiliarity with the normal meaning of words, the plain reading of the passage, and the grammar of the text. Jesus was clear: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Jesus had or shared (eichon) glory with (para) the Father before time. Christians cannot make this claim. Christians cannot say they had, shared, or possessed something with the Father before the world was. Ephesians 1:4 speak of God’s election, not possession. To take this verse any other way is blatant eisegesis.

     

                Even more, how dishonoring it is Jesus to turn His high Priestly prayer to the Father to a mere un-intimate illusion: Jesus as the non-divine Son praying to His own divine nature (the Father), only pretending to be numerically distinct. And yet, Oneness teachers assert this very notion.