A sermon on two destinies

I had the privilege of filling the pulpit in my home church today. Here is the recording of the sermon. The primary text is John 5:28-29.

The Stewardship of Pain

Tomorrow I will be completing my adult Sunday School series based on Jerry Bridges' book The Joy of Fearing God. Although I have previously mentioned his book in the blog, it merits one more appearance. Brothers and Sisters, here is a practical guide for living.

Bridges writes of a duty in the Christian life that is rarely seen as a stewardship - the stewardship of pain.

“It often seems more difficult to trust God than to obey Him. The moral will of God given to us in the Bible is rational and reasonable. The circumstances in which we trust God often appear irrational and inexplicable.” —Jerry Bridges

Typical reactions when encountering adversity:

• God didn’t have anything to do with this
• Get angry with God
• Bear it in our own strength
  

Another path—the stewardship of pain

• Trust Him in your pain
• Ask for His sustaining grace
• Testify to the sufficiency of His sustaining grace
• Ask God for opportunities of ministry that our pain may bring up

If there is something this old world never seems short of, it is pain. That the Lord would have a purpose for it is one of the great sources of strength and endurance for the pilgrim walking the rocky path. If you are not in the midst of trouble now, you will be. When it comes, how will you greet it? How will you endure its visit, whether protracted or extended?

I cannot do Bridges justice in this small space. I can only hand it to the next weary walker of this guilty sod.

Stepping back in time

I had planned on reading Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. This is a new book on the atonement. I'm backpedaling for a few months to read a handful of foundational books on the doctrine by Smeaton and Morris. As some reviewers have mentioned, Morris gets no mention in their book at all. I would be better served personally by investing the time in both Smeaton and Morris, so I'll forego the opportunity to read Pierced for Our Transgressions first.

Bruce Ware - Father, Son, & Holy Spirit

I finally completed reading Bruce Ware's book on the Trinity, which is focused (as the subtitle suggests) on the relationships, roles, and relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity on the church and world today. I'm working on the review, but the ground is rocky and it's taking quite a bit longer than it should. Ware says many helpful things, but one concern he raises similarly raises a concern on my part about what he says and how he says it. I'm doing background research before saying much more. I hope to be done in the next couple of weeks, God willing.

It's starting to get warmer here in the Midwest so my evenings are filling up with less cerebral but more physically active pursuits. I have read most of Ware's works on the openness issue. He's always been helpful there. This is why I believe it's best to be prudent and patient with my concerns. I respect Ware as a theologian. He has proven himself to be a friend of the evangelical and apologetics community with his 'openness' critiques. When I find myself differing with him, it is best to spend some time meditating on the question rather than firing off a half-baked critique that misses the mark.

Living In Dependence or Living Independence?

I have been teaching through Jerry Bridges' book The Joy of Fearing God in my adult Sunday school class for several months. Mr. Bridges has distinguished himself as a helpful author for many years. This is another fountain of life. If you are walking a desert in the Christian life and need water from the rock, here is a spring of fresh water to slake your thirst.

Do you need 'practical Christianity'? Bridges points out many facets of the Christian life and they are practical indeed. One point the author makes repeatedly continues to impact my thinking and devotional life, namely dependence. The Christian walk is a walk of dependence. I'm still working out what to do with this, both privately and publicly. I hesitate with anything public, but I'm wondering if that isn't because of my own independence (which is obviously opposed to the life of dependence that Bridges draws so vividly). Pride is a huge issue with me. At times I am caught up in doubt about saying anything. How can I talk about dependence in a helpful manner when it is such a struggle for me to live consistently in it? Instead of living in dependence, I feel many times that I am living independence. I know I'm not. I can't. Yet, there it is, lurking in my internal life, ready to spring into action with the slightest provocation.

I am thankful to Jerry Bridges for writing this book, and even more thankful to the Lord for showing me where one of the front lines lies in the battle of my life.

Clones and Confusion, Watchtower Style

Ok... this is a theoretical circumstance and I know some of you won't like it. But whether you like it or not, we're staring down the barrel of modern medicine and questions like this need to be discussed.

Concerning the resurrection, the Watchtower holds that there is no continuity of existence from one plane to the next. In other words, if a Jehovah's Witness (we'll call him Joe) dies today he completely and totally ceases to exist. Joe is no more. There is nothing left of Joe. There are only fond memories... or not-so-fond memories, depending on your relationship with Joe.

At a future time, Jehovah decides to 'resurrect' Joe. To do this, he creates a physical body, breathes life into it, and infuses it with all of the memories, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, and somesuch that Joe had when he was alive the first time around. This new creature is now considered to be Joe, although he is not directly connected to the first existence of Joe in any way. In other words, he is a really good copy of Joe. In today's technospeak, we could call him Joe v2.0. According to the Watchtower, Joe v2.0 is as Joe as he can be. He is exactly like the original Joe. This constitutes a 'resurrection' of Joe in the Watchtower vernacular.

Which leads me to the theoretical scenario. Let's say that sometime in the next 50 years, human cloning is achieved. Through a rigorous selection process, they select someone who has led an exemplary life concerning their physical body and habits. That someone could be named Sally. Sally is a Jehovah's Witness. What if... and this is a huge 'what if', Sally v2.0 has the same memories, mannerisms, habits, physical tics, etc as Sally?

According to the Watchtower, has Sally been resurrected? What if Sally is still alive? If the definition the Watchtower articulates regularly concerning resurrection is the true biblical picture, then I believe we will have a real dilemma on our hands. Sally will be resurrected in Sally v2.0, whether or not Sally is dead and resurrection will have been accomplished by science apart from Jehovah's raising of Sally.

Theoretical? Undoubtedly. Confusing? Again, undoubtedly.

Anyone have any input they would be willing to share? Please, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Mahaney for $3

CBD is closing out one of CJs books for $3. It is Christ Our Mediator: Finding Passion at the Cross. Check it out here.

Take Heed How You Hear - Free Offer

I have prepared a tri-fold brochure of John Piper's helpful instruction on hearing the Word of God profitably on Sunday morning. It can easily fit in your Bible and serve you, your family, and your church with helpful and practical preparations. You can receive this brochure free by emailing your snail-mail address to me at daveatjude3@msn.com I will not share your address (snail or otherwise) with anyone.

Get it. Got it?

Bowman and Komoszewski are burning up the Amazon checkout lanes with this fire sale on their book. Here is my review of the book. Get it. Now.

Revised: The fire has been put out. Nevertheless, it's still a great deal. Check it out.

The Life and Works of Horatius Bonar

I have found the writings of pastor Horatius Bonar to be extremely helpful. Now his collected works are available on CD. I don't have direct experience with this collection, but am planning on getting it this year.

You can find three of his works on my classics page, including several audio chapters of his classic study on justification, The Everlasting Righteousness.

The Problem of Busyness

The Bible.org website has been majorly reworked. I like the results. One of their featured articles hits me at a personal level. Dr. Ken Boa writes on The Problem of Busyness. I know how busy my life has become. It is far beyond what I ever expected at this stage in my life, and I even try to intentionally avoid overcommitting myself. If being deliberate put me in this position, I can only imagine the treadmill that more ambitious souls are running on.

One of the reasons I am so thankful for my godly wife is her steadying influence on my commitments. She helps keep me grounded.

Jesus and JW Angels

A friend wrote:

I am talking to a JW that tells me that Jesus and the angels (Lucifer) are all called "morning star[s]". Jesus is called the [Bright] morning star in Rev 22 and he is (I think) called "morning star" in Rev 2:28. I have looked on the web, but I can't find a good answer to give him that Jesus isn't an angel even though he is called a morning star too. Can you help me on this?

To which I replied:

Dear Friend,
Thank you for writing. I can offer some comments that might help you. However, I also must pause to reflect that there is rarely 'a good answer' to give to someone who is committed to a religion. Since Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses both hold to the Bible as their source for religious truth, there are precious few arguments you could present that the JW isn't already prepared for. Given that... onward and upwards.

The references in Rev 22 and Rev 2 could be taken to be a reference to Christ. The JW will be quick to group all the angels in with this and try to draw a strong inference that this indicates Jesus is also an angel. It is common for sound Christian commentators to see a reference to Jesus and to angels in these and other verses. Take note that it does not say in these verses that 'Jesus is an angel' or that 'Jesus is one of many angels'. The JW tries to frame their argument to make it appear to be that clear and strong, but it isn't. This is figurative language so we need to be cautious about pressing figurative descriptions as if they were explicit declarations.

Then how do you know that Jesus is not just another one of the angels?

• John 1:1 affirms that he is God, not merely an angel.
• John 1:3 affirms that Jesus made everything that has been created, again affirming that he is God and not a creature (angel or otherwise).
• Colossians 1:16 affirms that Christ created ALL things, visible and invisible, affirming that he is God and not a creature.
• Hebrews chapter 1 in it's entirety contrasts Christ with the angels profoundly, indicating that he is above them as God.

The strength of these clear and explicit affirmations concerning Jesus is more than enough to destroy all speculation founded upon interpretations of implicit verses that utilize figurative imagery.

I hope this helps answer your question. You can certainly study up on these verses and prepare yourself to dialog with your Jehovah's Witness friend but do not be surprised if they are able to shrug off these clear statements as if they were less than worthy of consideration. After all, to do so would overturn their commitment to the JW religion. False religion ensnares people in complex ways. There can be components of pride (I know I'm right this time), fear (if I leave, I will lose my family/job/home/etc.), loyalty (they have helped me through so much) and many other factors. Pray for your friend. Only our Triune God can set them free from this blinding spiritual darkness.

The dust has settled

I think I have figured out my jude3.net issues. I'm back in business.

Please pardon the mess

The web hosting provider for my jude3.net website recently 'upgraded' my service. Of course, this means that several things are now broken and I must engage their support to help fix... I mean 'take advantage of all the new features'.

How to Knock Down A Tower

The book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes is THE best refutation of the Jehovah's Witnesses between two covers. I turn to it repeatedly to answer questions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Rhodes does a good job taking a fairly wide view of the Watchtower religion and not focusing on only one or two problem areas. The chapters cover such topics as: the divine name, the Deity of Christ, Michael the archangel, the Trinity, the 144,000, salvation, soul-sleep, prophecy, and more. Rhodes includes observations about the original Biblical language and contrasts its meaning with the spin put on it by the Watchtower. He also includes suggested questions which you can use to confront Jehovah's Witnesses. Once again, this is the single best resource on refuting the Jehovah's Witnesses in one book. There are other important works which deal with specific Watchtower doctrines but this is the best broad treatment of them that I have found.

The Doctrine and Duty of Self Examination

Pastor James Haldane offers up good advice on how we should examine ourselves to ensure we are in the faith. He writes:

In self-examination, therefore, we ought to attend to our inward feelings, as well as to the general tenor of our conduct. In this respect many have erred. While some have considered true religion as consisting almost exclusively in certain emotions of mind, without paying due attention to the conduct; others, observing how little the practice of some professors corresponds with what they profess to feel, discard the consideration of inward emotions entirely, and look only to the outward behavior. Both are in error. By attending to the workings of our minds, as well as to our practice, we are in less danger of being deceived. The one is a check upon the other. Our conduct may in many respects appear good, while it proceeds from a corrupt principle. And in judging of our feelings, without bringing them to the test of practice, we are ever apt to impose upon ourselves, and to cherish, those feelings which give us pleasure, without considering whence they spring. It is only when our feelings and practice correspond that we can have well-grounded satisfaction.

A Hearty "Howdy Doo" To You

About CR and E

One Goal
I want to glorify God in everything, primarily by presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ accurately and faithfully. He is the one hope for the world and the one reason I am here.

Tell Me About Yourself
Where to start? As funny as it sounds, I would like to start with you. The online medium leaves a lot to be desired concerning connecting at a personal level. One small bridge we can build is through email. Please grant me this one indulgence and email me. Tell me a little something about yourself, offer an insight, ask a question, or just say hello. I enjoy people and would enjoy getting to know you, even if only in a small way. For us tentmaker ministries, a brief word of encouragement goes a long way.

Who We Are
Essentially, "we" at CR and E is me. My name is Dave Sherrill. I am a conservative evangelical Christian with a deep interest in theology and apologetics. The Lord has blessed me with a wonderful Christian wife and three great kids (who are all growing up WAY too quickly). My regular job is a project leader in the computer department of a national food manufacturer. I describe the CR and E website as a tentmaker ministry. For those of you unfamiliar with the term tentmaker, Paul worked sometimes as a tentmaker while ministering the gospel. I'm not Paul, but I do have a regular job offline (what we used to call the real world before the internet came along).

History
I have had an online presence responding to the Jehovah's Witnesses since the early 1990's. My research began as the result of a family member becoming involved with the religion. Since that time I have collected and read a fair library of original Watchtower books and magazines, along with many Christian books and commentaries. One personal benefit for me has been a strengthening of my own faith through the challenges raised by critics and skeptics.

Theology
I have been called an informed layman by some of my friends. I have not had any formal schooling in theology through Bible school or seminary. I hope to pursue those studies at a distance in the next few years. Although focusing primarily on refuting the Watchtower Society (also known as Jehovah's Witnesses), I have growing concerns about movements within or impacting the evangelical world (i.e. Open Theism, Post Modernism, Emergent Church). Special areas of study include the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, Justification, Apologetics, Systematic Theology, and Biblical Greek (boy, has Greek drug out ad infinitum).

I characterized myself above as a "conservative evangelical". I hate to die the death of a million qualifications but I find that 'evangelical' is used very loosely these days. There are liberal evangelicals, 'evangelical catholics', post-evangelicals, and who knows what else will be coming around the corner (if you throw them all in a blender, you might get a postevangeliberaholic??). The list continues to grow. I describe my faith as:

• inerrantist concerning bibliology
• trinitarian concerning theology proper
• calvinistic concerning soteriology
• baptistic concerning the sacraments
• elder/congregational rule concerning church polity.

Hopefully that adequately fleshes out what I mean by 'conservative evangelical'.

My favorite authors and preachers (living and dead) include Charles Spurgeon, Horatius Bonar, Abraham Booth, James White, Ed Komoszewski, Rob Bowman, Robert Morey, John Piper, John Murray, John Calvin, B. B. Warfield, and William Hendriksen.

Church
I am an active member of the First Evangelical Free Church of Sioux City, Iowa. I have served in many capacities there, including Overseer, Church Chairman, Adult Sunday School Teacher, and volunteer webmaster of their site, blog, and podcast. One of the greatest privileges I have ever had has been the opportunity to fill the pulpit in my pastor's absence.

Thank you for stopping by the blog. I hope you will find helpful information here and through the links provided to other ministries. And don't forget to drop me a line, ok?

I love Spurgeon

Many times I have let loose a raucous laugh and wide smile for dear old Spurgeon. The Pyromaniacs have posted another excellent excerpt that applies so well to our "creative" times.

"As Martin Luther said of certain in his day, these inventors of new doctrines stare at their discoveries like a cow at a new gate, as if there were nothing else in all the world but the one thing for them to stare at. We are all expected to go mad for their fashions, and march to their piping. To whom we give place; no, not for an hour."

Pyromaniacs: Needed: Old Soldiers to Defend Old Truths in the New Year

Sing along... "We are a sacrifice of praise..."

Even though the late Pastor James Boice's book Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age is a short read, there are numerous gems in it. His thoughts here brought to mind the chorus "We bring a sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord." As Boice explains, we are not bringing the sacrifice of praise - we are the sacrifice of praise to the Lord.

In the Old Testament the priests made different kinds of sacrifices. There were sacrifices for sin, of course. These looked forward to the death of Jesus Christ and explained it as a substitutionary atonement. They were fulfilled by Jesus' death and are not repeatable. In this sense "we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," as the author of Hebrews says (Heb. 10:10). But in addition to the sacrifices for sin there were also what were called "sacrifices of thanksgiving," which were exactly what they sound like - sacrifices by worshippers who simply wanted to thank God for some great blessing or deliverance. It is this kind of sacrifice that we offer when we offer God ourselves.

What to do with your life? How many times do we evangelicals say "Oh if I could only be used by God. ...To feel useful and fruitful in my Christian walk." Jesus offered himself in a sense that we cannot (as a sin offering). But he did offer himself. We are to follow his example in this sense, in giving ourselves as a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

Hold on... this is gonna hurt

Later on in Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age, Boice writes:

Sociologists tell us that by the age of twenty-one the average young person has been bombarded by 300,000 commercial messages, all arguing from the assumption that personal gratification is the dominant goal in life. Our modern means of communication put the acquisition of "things" before godliness. In fact, they never mention godliness at all. How are you going to grow in godliness if you are constantly watching television or reading printed ads or listening to secular radio?

I am not advocating an evangelical monasticism in which we retreat from the culture, though it is far better to retreat from it than perish in it. But somehow the secular input must be counterbalanced by the spiritual. Another simple goal might be for you to spend as many hours studying your Bible, praying, and going to church as watching television.

Ouch! Something to consider very seriously.

Comments are now open

I'm opening up the comments section on the posts as an experiment. I'll try to get the settings right so we can interact and encourage one another without letting in too much blogspam.

Dying to Live or The Sin of Christian Life-Support Considered

I've been reading the late pastor James Montgomery Boice's book Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age. He makes an observation about the Christian life today that strikes home in my own heart. As I contemplate what he wrote, I am forced to ask why I insist on keeping my life on 'life support' instead of embracing the truth as Dr. Boice writes below.

"Dying to Live - I do not think there is any difficulty in understanding what this means. We understand only too well that dying to self means putting personal desires behind us in order to put first (1) the desires of God for us and (2) the needs of other people. And we understand the underlying promise, too. The promise is that if we do this, we will experience a full and rewarding life. We will be happy Christians. The problem here is not with our understanding. The problem is that we do not believe it. Or, if we do believe it in a general way, we at least do not believe it in regard to ourselves. We think that if we deny ourselves, we will be miserable. Yet this is nothing less than disbelieving God. It is a failure of faith.

Leon Morris On Post-Evangelical Skepticism

Well, Morris wasn't writing directly about that. Yet, reading the following certainly made a connection in my thought with the current challenges facing the church in the form of po-mo 'faith'.

Several times John (in his gospel) speaks of believing that (hoti) something that follows is true. Indeed, his whole Gospel is written "in order that you may believe that (hoti) Jesus is the Christ..." (20:31). The construction is important, for it underlines the truth that for John faith has content. He is not writing in order that his readers may somehow become trustful people, that and no more. He wants them to be trustful, but in such a way that their trust is directed to the Christ. So it is that throughout his Gospel we keep coming across statements that emphasize the importance of a right content in faith. (Jesus Is The Christ, p.174-175)

Bowman to teach online Apologetics Course, Feb 2008

Rob is working on offering an online apologetics course that will be held in the evenings this coming February, 2008.

Salvation: Christian and Jehovah's Witness

The OT system of sacrifice prefigures Christ’s sacrifice. The OT sacrifices are not presented as the atonement for the sin of Adam alone. Rather, they were a substitution of the animal in the place of the sinner, bearing the sinner’s guilt and suffering the sinner’s justice. No reference is made tying the animal sacrifices to Adam’s sin. Thus, the Watchtower’s position on Christ’s ransom being a corresponding sacrifice for (and only for) the sin of Adam is patently discontinuous with the pattern established in the OT.

After further reading, it appears that the Watchtower’s position is more nuanced than I previously understood. It is not that Jesus’ death was an atonement for Adam’s sins, rather, it was a corresponding ransom of a perfect human life (Jesus’) in exchange for the imperfect human life of Adam (who could have had a perfect human life and thus a rightful claim to everlasting life). So is this imputation of sin and of righteousness? Well, the evidence for that within Watchtower literature is pretty slim. Though they mention imputation of sin in a couple of places, they speak of the ransom sacrifice as the grounds of their salvation, rather than specifically defining the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Considering that justification is not final for the “great crowd” until the end of the millennium, it would appear that they are justified by their own perfected humanity which is effected throughout the millennium. This is manifestly NOT a justification by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is a self-wrought justification. The Watchtower will probably not appreciate this description of their salvation, saying that it is only the result of undeserved kindness, but I think it is probably pretty accurate.

It still remains a mystery to me how JWs derive any sense of peace out of their system of salvation, since the atonement is NOT for their own individual sins. How are their own sins expiated? Where is the meeting of God’s justice regarding their own sins? To say that Christ has paid the price for Adam’s sin does not speak peace to my heart when my conscience constantly indicts my every act as sin-soaked.

In a search of the 1993 Watchtower reference CD, I could find “imputation” mentioned only a very few times and then only in reference to the imputation of remnant’s sins to Jesus. I could find no indication of a concept of imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us. This raises the question, “What, then, is the grounds, the basis, of God’s declaration of righteousness?” Here is a very significant difference between Watchtower soteriology and evangelical soteriology. The protestant concept does not create a discontinuity between God’s holiness and righteousness and his declaration of justification for the believing sinner. The protestant concept embraces the fact that God’s declaration of righteousness is based on a true and perfect righteousness. He declares the sinner “just” on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to the sinner. This is not a legal fiction where God is found to relax his requirements of perfect righteousness by substituting faith in the place of true obedience. Faith is not a substitute for real righteousness nor is it an opiate for God to cause Him to relax his holiness in favor of justifying sinners. God’s declaration of righteousness is a recognition of the true and actual righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to the sinner, thus rendering him or her as actually and truly righteous in the eyes of God.

Since the Watchtower only rarely mention the concept of imputation, I can only assume that it is absent from the theological system. Thus, the Watchtower must attempt to come up with a coherent doctrine of salvation that does not impugn the holiness of God. But by every appearance they have failed to accomplish this. It is no wonder, since the failure to recognize one of the key components of Biblical salvation would fatally weaken any approach.

When we consider the Watchtower's presentation of salvation, there appears to be a breakdown in the system which does not account for how God could rightfully declare a sinner to be justified. Even with the frequent mention of the ransom sacrifice and it’s effect of removing sin from the remnant sinner (though it is not even briefly explored how this occurs), there appears to be no reasoning presented which explains why God could declare the sinner “righteous” and have it based on a true foundation.

Another weakness appears along the same lines. It relates to the nature of God’s law and sin. The Watchtower view of salvation could be described as “mere pardon” and not real justification based on perfect righteousness. The odd thing about the Watchtower presentation of salvation has to do with the repeated mention of Jesus ransom sacrifice. They say the ransom sacrifice is the grounds of their forgiveness with God. But they omit any discussion of the grounds of justification before God. Grounds for forgiveness and grounds for justification are not the same thing. Their presentation ignores the forensic character of justification. If justification is a declaration on the part of God concerning righteousness, it is not progressive in character. It is instantaneous. If justification is a declaration on the part of God concerning righteousness, it must find its basis in some objective reality. This reality must be either an infused righteousness or an imputed righteousness. A sinner, considered in and of themselves, does not possess any grounds for such a declaration by God. The righteousness which God bases his declaration on must come from outside the sinner. The classical evangelical position is that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner through faith alone. Strictly speaking, faith is not viewed as a meritorious work as a replacement for true righteousness. Rather, faith is the means of connecting with the real and meritorious righteousness of Christ. This imputed righteousness is real, being Christ’s. That it is received by faith alone and not by works is the crowning glory of the gospel. The evangelical position maintains the glory of God in consistently upholding his holiness, righteousness, and justice. Sin is not ignored. It receives its just reward. It is either dealt with on the cross of Christ or in the eternal punishment of the unrepentant sinner.

When the Watchtower says that the ransom sacrifice is the basis of forgiveness with God, it would appear to only be adequate to deal with the prohibitive parts of the law since there is no imputation to provide for the positive commands which are present in the law also. God’s declaration of righteousness cannot be met fully by the ransom of Jesus apart from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness on the part of the sinner.

In other words, if all that is accomplished is the covering of my sins, then where is the active righteousness which I need to fulfill the holy judgment of God to be declared truly justified? It makes God’s declaration of justification a legal fiction (the same charge which the Protestants suffered under during the Reformation). However, the issues have been dealt with adequately within the realm of Protestant theology. A solution does not appear to be possible within the Watchtower’s existing system of salvation.

Sproul’s book Justification by Faith is a helpful treatment of the doctrine of justification. He has a chapter dealing specifically with the imputed righteousness of Christ which explains the evangelical view quite clearly. When contrasted with the presentation of the Watchtower, their view appears bankrupt of meaning.

There are some sections of the Watchtower's presentation where they sound fairly evangelical, however I do not believe this is due to an overlap in theological conviction between Watchtower and evangelical theology. Instead, it would seem more an occurrence where the phraseology of popular evangelical speech has been imported into the Watchtower scheme without retaining the meaning which would come to mind commonly among evangelicals. It is quite easy to read a sentence or two in the Watchtower and misread it due to the familiar phraseology which they employ. We must be diligent in our analysis not to overlook those sections which sound familiar, for the possibility is all too likely that an entirely different meaning is intended by the organization. I do not know if this borrowing of vocabulary is intentional in order to deceive unwary readers.