We began our study of the cults several weeks ago, a few months ago probably, when we had the first message on that, with general things about cults and all that, for three or four weeks probably, and then we went off and did some other things. The last message we had in this series, we talked about the Jehovah Witness group, and we looked at more of their history, They're the president that they've had some some just more general type stuff about the Jehovah Witnesses today I'd like to look more specifically at some of their doctrine. So hopefully you will do that We'll be turning to various verses and in a few moments But if you'll bear with me, I want to read you a few different things about some of these and then we'll We'll be delving into this just briefly today and then Probably next week as well look more at their doctrines some different issues okay so there's a lot of stuff written by them they are a major group and I think that they would be worthy of spending a few weeks on because if you do not live on base you have probably had your door knocked on by them at one time or another or maybe more than once alright so basically they see they do not think that Jesus has always existed they believe that Jesus is really Michael the Archangel. So they see him as Michael the Archangel, and that was the name given to him before he became Jesus Christ. They don't believe he even became Jesus Christ, the Messiah anyway, the Anointed One, until the age of 30. So up until that time he was I guess he was like Michael the Archangel, then he was born, he became Jesus, but not really the Messiah, and then at age 30 he became the Messiah, the Anointed One. They do not think he is equal to God, the Father. He is not eternal. He himself is a created being, they say. They say that he is God's first creation. looking at a whole bunch of different stuff I've got different articles and things here in front of me and different sets of notes so hopefully you'll bear with me they do not believe that he literally died on a cross anyway and therefore he did not literally physically resurrect either he only spiritually resurrected or came back to life so to speak I should say he didn't die on a cross as in what we think of as a cross they say he died on a stake, that's more accurate, of what they actually teach. But again, they do not believe he bodily rose from the dead, that sort of thing. And they also believe that his second coming will be in an invisible form, not something as of what we would teach, like in Revelation 4 through 22, all being future, when he comes back to the earth and all of that sort of thing, the second coming. Alright, let's look at some different, Docker and Zoe, in regards to the Trinity. They do not believe in the Trinity at all. They don't believe that Jesus is deity in that sense, or part of the Trinity. They don't believe the Holy Spirit is God either. Now, the part of the problem with the Jehovah Witnesses is they use the Bible a lot. to back up things that they teach, which sounds kind of good, but the problem is they a lot of times will take verses out of context, and that's a problem. You need to study things in their context, and sometimes they will only take a little verse and forget about the verse that's right next to it. Or they'll forget about other verses which would contradict the way they interpret that verse. You see, scripture interprets scripture. and contradicting himself. The Apostle Paul is not going to contradict himself, say one thing in this verse, and in the next verse say something totally different. I mean, let's give him credit beyond that. But that's what they like to do. We'll maybe point out a few of those things here today for you. So they say Jesus, again, is not God in human flesh, but he was really the second greatest personage of the universe. and they say he was a god, but not the almighty god. That's where they go in, to the differences and stuff. They of course believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and he was an angel, Michael, the archangel, brother of Lucifer, they say. Look at John 14, 28. Look at some verses that they throw out at you, and they use this verse here to say, again, in John 14, 28, it says, I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I." So they use that then to say he is distinct, he is separate, he is not really God Almighty. God Almighty is God Almighty and Jesus is somewhere other. So they do not equate him at all as part of the Trinity, like I said earlier. So what does it mean here, though? We're saying that He is greater than I. Again, this is referring, I believe, obviously, to something similar to what you might find in Philippians 2, for example, verses 6-8. It's talking about imposition, a willing subordination type of thing. So it's not greater in being or personage, but greater in position. Okay? Just like we don't really believe that a man is better than a woman, do we? Well, Dean does. But we believe that there's a difference in position within the family unit, right? Therefore, because it says very specifically that the man is the head of the household, it doesn't mean he's a better person, or closer to God, or any other such thing, really. That we're all equal in Christ. And there's no difference between the Master and Christ. That's another reason that the Romans did not like the Christians in the early church because they said basically all mankind is really equal before God and so they saw that as creating problems in their society anyway so again hopefully you see here this is not talking about greater in being or who he is but rather greater in position alright Philippians 2 6-8 we've studied this passage in the past this is that famous passage called the kenosis passage And again, it says, "...Jesus, who being in the form," we've talked about that in the past, the form, the morphe of God, "...that it not robbery to be equal with God," I saw it, "...equal in every way with God. But he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." So again, he is absolutely equal with God, yet he didn't hold on to that. He willingly became subservient, submissive, willing to obey the Father and do what he wanted, which was to come and die for mankind. So that's what he did. So again, if you interpret that in light of verses such as Philippians 2, you'll see very clearly, it's talking about greater only in position, not in personage. Revelation 3, verse 14, which obviously we haven't gotten there yet in our study of Revelation, but we will eventually, Lord willing, anyway. Revelation 3, verse 14, and it says, and unto the angel of the church of Laodiceans write these things, saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." So they really capitalized on this word beginning here, meaning in their mind that he was the first one to be created out of all of God's creation. Now is that what that means, the beginning? This is the word, arche, which really means the ruler or the first in importance, if you want to think of it that way. The source, it can be interpreted that way. I think that's really the essential meaning here, the ruler of all of God's creation. He's in charge, not us. He is the source, which is definitely taught in many other and scripture, that he is the source of creation. Can you think of a verse, such as maybe in another writing of John, that talks about Jesus creating things? Maybe John 1, 3? That he created all things, and without him nothing was made that was made. So he is the source of all creation, really. There's other verses, Hebrews 1-2. I'll put little notes out beside my Revelation passage there. Hebrews, turn over there, 1-2, it says, "...hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. So again, Jesus made the worlds, or God made the worlds through Jesus. You can say it that way. So he's the source of creation. Again, there's so many different things you can say about the JWs and some of their teachings, but I would encourage you to study Colossians 1, 15 through down about 18. as well kind of talks along these lines and people who are scholars in the Greek they don't interpret this verse anywhere like the JWs do or any such thing A.T. Robertson which is a famous Greek scholar and all he's written grammatical type books in the Greek and so forth he said this he had this to say so he says not the first of creatures as the Arians held and the Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works." That's what he has to say about this particular verse. So there's something they teach about Jesus. Also Colossians 1.15, another verse which they use And if you have them knock on your door and you spend much time talking to them, they're going to turn you to some of these passages that we're looking at. Colossians 1, if you'd like to turn there. So if you make some little notes or something right now, then maybe if they have you turn there, you say, no, no, no, you're interpreting that wrong. This means source, OK, or something. Cautions 115 talks about, "...who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature? For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." They interpret that verse 15 there as talking about, again, him being the first of God's creation. Does that say that he was a first-created person? It talks about being first-born. Scholars have studied the distinction, and they make a distinction, although the JWs don't. There is a difference in the meaning between first-created versus being the first-born. Firstborn is probably an allusion back to the incarnation, that he was one of a kind, the only begotten, just like in John 3.16, those kind of things. It also has to do, I think, with Remember back in the Old Testament, and when Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and da-da-da-da-da, and on down? What happened with the birthright went to typically who? The oldest or the firstborn? But not always did it go there, and there were some exceptions, you know, Jacob and Esau, and that whole story in the portage, and da-da-da. You can go on, when Joseph's sons were blessed, the birthright went to, not the oldest, but to the younger, Ephraim versus Manasseh, and so forth. So there are exceptions, but typically, the birthright, the blessings and all, went to the firstborn. And this is probably what is being referred to here, really, that he is the one to whom God gives all blessings and bestows every wonderful gift gives him a double portion, you know all the things like you talk about back in the Old Testament times. It's like the birthright type of thing. The one that's really his son. Alright? Not first created, because he wasn't created, he was the first or the only begotten son. Okay? Okay. So I think that's really what I was talking about there. And there's a whole lot again You can study some of this stuff on your own and I would encourage you to do so. I'm only really scratching the surface. I'm trying to move through a lot of stuff. Also, some of their teachings on the Holy Spirit. Again, they say the Holy Spirit is not part of the Godhead at all. They reject the fact that the Holy Spirit is a personality at all. So they don't see him as a person. or any such thing as that. And I think they don't like to capitalize Spirit at all, and you'll notice that. There's other groups, the Way International, for example, are big on making sure they do not capitalize Holy Spirit. So they'll put little h, little s for Holy Spirit and stuff to try to make distinctions and all. If you were to look in the like Ephesians 4.30. It says, And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. How can you grieve someone who is not a person? Right? You can't grieve the air You don't grieve the snow. You don't grieve things such as that, right? Only people or personages can be grieved. Things with personality. People, in other words. So again, that verse there would argue against it. There are others that would argue against it. John 14, 26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have commanded you." Now, of course, because of their beliefs, they translate this verse differently, and they want to take out the whom, because whom would indicate more of a person, right? and the he shall teach you they don't want to take the he but more of an it type approach type of thing so that's more the way they want to translate that verse but obviously a personage a personal being could only do this sort of thing so there's another verse for you about the Jehovah Witness and again if we have time will get off really maybe a whole message or something just on their translation of the Bible. I mean they really pervert the scriptures and hopefully I can show you some of that as well. Now they'll argue that it's the most accurate translation that there is and I asked the Jehovah Witness that I was talking to to prove that to me and they came back with some little statement that they had saying it's the most accurate translation that there is. I said, show me somebody that's an actual scholar out there that says that. They can't, because every Greek scholar that I've ever read, and that's because there's none on their side, put it that way, they all say that's a horrible translation, they abuse and misuse the Greek and stuff, and they will not even let you know who was on their translation committee. So you have no way to check into their background or their education. For all we know they were people like you and I sitting together looking up words in a book and trying to come up with a translation. That backed up their theology of course. What do they teach about salvation? They do not see salvation as a free gift from God based upon Jesus Christ's work on the cross. Rather, in their literature, they stress a works-oriented salvation. That is why they are so hard-working and knocking on doors over and over and over, because they want to make sure they earn their way into heaven, essentially, earn their salvation. Here's a quote, this is what Russell wrote, "...they must be recovered from blindness as well as from the death, that they each for himself may have a full chance to prove by obedience or disobedience their worthiness of eternal life." So you're proving whether you're worthy of going to heaven or not by your works. Now can you think of any verse that might contradict a works-oriented salvation? Wouldn't be informal here Okay, okay, you know where that's at Yeah, Ephesians 2 8 9 you can look at that if you'd like but it's totally we might as well look there Says for by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves? It is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast." Does anybody know another verse? Either quote it or we'll read it. Okay, good. Salvation only in Jesus Christ. That's right. Do you know of any other verses? Okay, you want to read that one? Save this not according to our works. Good. Any others you know? Dean? Okay. So if you want to work, then what's your reward? It's not of life, right? It's only through belief. Any other verses you have? Yeah, Titus 3.5 is one I have. Yeah, you want one? Good job. Alright, so good. There are some verses for you. Anybody, there's a lot of groups that teach works-oriented salvation. So you should be able to turn at least one or two of these kinds of verses and say, uh-uh, that ain't going to cut it. There's nothing I can do to earn salvation of myself. If there were, I would have room wherever to boast. There's other verses that talk about the law, the purpose of the law was really to reveal sin in our lives. not so that we could become good enough, because we can't, otherwise we could have kept all along and been saved, so to speak. Really, you could look at verses like that as well. I don't have any of those marked down, but it would probably be somewhere in Romans, I would assume, for those kinds of verses. Anyway, there are some verses, hopefully, you can look at and argue with them about that, if nothing else. Ask them. Sometimes that's a good question to ask people in the cult. Well, how does a JW go to heaven? How do you know if you're going to live in all eternity in Christ's presence? Or something, you know, ask them. And they'll go, well, you know, because I believe in the works of Charles Taze Russell, and I'm going out knocking on doors every day. Well, there's your problem right there. You can talk to them. Again, lots and lots of groups that teach a works-oriented salvation. Alright, how about everlasting punishment? What do they teach about that? They deny the existence of hell as a place of everlasting punishment for the wicked. And you may remember when I began talking about the JWs, they were really big on logic. If we can't figure it out, if it doesn't make good sense to us, it must be wrong. This is one of those areas, to them, it just doesn't seem to fit, because God is a God of love and compassion, that sort of thing, right? And how could someone who is love send people to hell? So therefore they wind up rejecting the teaching, even though it's clearly taught in many places in the Bible, about eternal torment, the lake of fire, right? Getting, throwing that whole thing out. They say that everlasting punishment is unscriptural, they say it is unreasonable, it is contrary to God's love, and it is repugnant to justice. That's what they say. They say therefore, for those four reasons, they discard that whole doctrine of everlasting punishment. Obviously, in response to that, we would say it is biblical. We may not even always understand everything God does, but that is what He says He does. He punishes people with everlasting punishment, so we have no choice but to believe it. I don't personally think it's necessarily contrary to God being a God of love. Myself, parents who love, sometimes punish. and chasing, the times it tells us in the scripture. You can look in various verses, such as Thessalonians 1, verses 7-9. which talks about when the Lord shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels and flaming fire dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus and these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power Matthew 25 verse 46 speaks of eternal punishment and eternal life all at the same time. Remember? Separating the sheep from the goats. Remember? Some to everlasting life, some to everlasting punishment. Remember? Same context. How can you believe one and not believe the other? In the same context, right? But that's what they do. There's lots of other verses that talk about everlasting life, for the wages of sin, death, but the gift of God is eternal life, right? And you can talk about lots and lots of different verses. False prophecies, are they known for their false prophecies? Oh, yes. Many, many different times they've prophesied certain things. I remember Darrell hit on this during his Sunday School series. What are you supposed to do with a false prophet? Stun them, destroy them, right? put them to death. That's what the Old Testament commanded people to do. They should be glad we're not living at that particular time, or we'd take them out and stone them. Obviously we can't get away with that at this point, can we? But anyway, the Bible makes it very clear that you shouldn't believe people that are speaking in God's name, and what they say doesn't come to pass. So therefore we should not believe them. It's interesting that they used to teach that Jesus was going to take up his kingdom that he would take up his kingdom power and begin to reign from or actually on the earth in 1914 they used to teach that he would literally reign on the earth starting in 1914 okay so 1914 came around And Jesus, did you see him? Did anybody read anything about him in 1914? Looking back at some old papers about him setting up a kingdom on the earth? No. So therefore then they said, ah, must be an invisible type reigning type of thing. And he did kind of come back in an invisible form and set up an invisible kingdom and all that in 1914. He's really reigning from heaven now, not on earth like we thought he was going to do. So they wind up changing their doctrines. Anyway, those sorts of things. But they used to say that in 1914, you may remember this from our study in Daniel, that His kingdom would come, and it would be like a big stone, and it would grow and fill up the whole earth. Remember the vision about the golden headed statue that Nebuchadnezzar had in Daniel chapter 2, and the stone would come out, hit strike the statue in the feet and then the stone would rise up and encompass the whole earth. So that's what they used to say would happen in 1914. Obviously it didn't happen. Anyway, you could go on and on talking about different verses, prophecies and things that they've made. Many different times they've predicted a more bodily return and of course those things have never happened of course. So I believe they fit the category of a false prophet, and therefore should not be totally discarded myself. Now, next week, Lord willing, I'll talk about the New World Translation a little more specifically. Is their translation of John 1.1, for example, an okay translation? You know how they translate that? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God. So we can talk about that and you'll see that there's no real reason to translate it that way. Anyway, give you something to think about and encourage you, I mean if you have time, maybe go on the internet and read about the Jehovah's Witnesses and some of their teachings and maybe put together like a little file and that way if they ever come knocking on your door you can say, here you go, read this and that way you don't have to sit there and argue with them it's not only your opinion versus their opinion but maybe you have some documentation to help you out and all written by someone that's maybe a little more scholarly than we might be able to present it ourselves so that might be a good thing to do all right well lord bless you let's close in prayer father in heaven we thank you so much again for your love for us for your goodness for your