With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?

[Patriot]

What is a spiritual breakthrough?

​

Question: "What is a spiritual breakthrough?"

Answer: The idea of a “spiritual breakthrough” is subjective, and the term itself is not found in the Bible. Generally speaking, a spiritual breakthrough is an experience of having reached a new level of spirituality, whatever that means to the person who is “breaking through.” The experience will be different depending on the person (and the religion) in question.

In Christian circles, a spiritual breakthrough can be defined as a time when a person is saved, gains a deeper understanding of biblical truth, receives an answer to prayer, or wins the victory over a besetting sin. Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road could be considered a spiritual breakthrough, as he saw for the first time who Jesus really is (Acts 9). Peter’s experience on the rooftop in Joppa could be considered a spiritual breakthrough, as he learned that the gospel was for all people, Gentiles included (Acts 10). The conversion of Lydia on the outskirts of Philippi could be seen as a spiritual breakthrough, as she was the first person saved on European soil (Acts 16). The idea of a “breakthrough” suggests a preceding struggle that finally peaks and finds resolution.

Believers might seek a spiritual breakthrough when they are feeling far away from God. Many believers feel that they need a regular emotional experience during worship or prayer and that, if they don’t feel that emotion, there is something wrong with them or God has walked away for some reason. However, this is wrong thinking. The Bible says that God is always with those who trust in Him, guiding them (Proverbs 3:5–6), that we are never separated from His love (Romans 8:37–39), and that we can rest contentedly in His promise, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).

Should we seek a spiritual breakthrough? We can and should pray for wisdom (James 1:5), victory over sin (Ephesians 6:18), and the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). But intimacy with God does not require a series of “spiritual breakthroughs.” Working under the assumption that a connection with God already exists (that is, a person has faith in Jesus Christ for salvation), spiritual growth occurs in that person as naturally as a tree growing in the soil and sun. The tree grows because of its placement—its nearness to God (Psalm 1). How do we achieve nearness to God? It happens exactly as it would in a human-to-human relationship: spending time together, knowing one another’s thoughts, making choices that please the other person. We read the Bible (which is the sum of His revealed thoughts to man); pray to Him, trusting that He is faithful to do what He promises (2 Corinthians 1:19–20; Deuteronomy 7:9; Hebrews 11:6); and choose to think and act according to what is good (Philippians 4:8; Galatians 5:16–24).

The healthiest human relationships are not based on breakthroughs or emotional highs but on steady, patient growth through faithfulness and love. It is no different in our relationship with God. Emotional and spiritual highs do occur—we sometimes receive amazing answers to prayer or times of extraordinary insight or periods of intense joy. But these are frosting—delicious, but not to be sought as the substance of our relationship. If we focus only on the highs, we might miss the beautiful, quiet moments in the valley when God works unseen and we experience no thrilling epiphany. Rather than focus on our own experience, we should pray in patience and perseverance that God will complete the good work He began in us, however He sees fit (Philippians 1:6).

Recommended Resource: OneCry: A Nationwide Call for Spiritual Awakening by Paulus & Elliff

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Are many practices and traditions in Christianity actually pagan in origin?

Question: "Are many practices and traditions in Christianity actually pagan in origin?"

Answer: In their 2008 book Pagan Christianity, authors Frank Viola and George Barna present the surprising origins of many of the practices commonly found in churches today. The authors of Pagan Christianity claim that many common church practices / traditions actually have their roots in paganism (non-Christian religions), not in the Bible. But is it accurate to claim that the practices of modern Christianity are pagan? Is what typically occurs in a church supported by what the Bible teaches about the church?

Many Christians recognize that some pagan ideas and practices have infiltrated the Christian church. Sadly, much of what Jesus Christ abolished by His death and resurrection, the early Christians re-established. Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled God’s requirements, ending the need for any further sacrifices (Hebrews 7:27; 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). The early church, due to pagan influences, warped the celebration of the Lord’s Supper into a re-sacrifice / re-offering of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. Jesus’ perfect sacrifice abolished the need of a formal priesthood (Hebrews 10:12-14), creating instead a “kingdom of priests” (Revelation 1:6; 5:10). The early church, again influenced by paganism, re-established a priesthood that added a barrier between the “ordinary” believer and God (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15). These are just two of many possible examples.

Most Christians wholeheartedly agree that beliefs / practices such as these need to be rejected and the biblical truth upheld. Following are the primary issues Pagan Christianity raises.

(1) The Church Building. The New Testament records the early Christians meeting in homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19). Neither Jesus nor the Apostles encourage Christians to build temples / church buildings. In John 4:21-24, Jesus declares that a time is coming where worship will not be tied to any particular location or building. For the first few hundred years of the Christian faith, church buildings were very rare. It was not until Constantine and his succeeding Roman Emperors made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire that Christians began to build temples. In some instances, Christians, with the aid of Roman soldiers, took over pagan temples and “Christianized” them into churches.

Christians building church buildings resulted in multiple problems. First, people began to think of a church building as “sacred space.” This resulted in a separation between what goes on inside a church building, and what takes place outside of a church building. Among some, blatant evil and immorality was tolerated outside of the church as long as behavior inside the church was proper. Second, some people lost the idea of God’s omnipresence. The biblical fact that fellowship with God could be had anywhere was lost, and replaced with the idea that a church building and/or the altar inside a church building was the only place one could connect with God. Third, some people lost sight of the fact that believers in Christ are the church, and instead began to think of the church as the building.

But is the idea of a church building pagan? Since the Bible does not instruct Christians to build church buildings, does that mean it is wrong to have a church building? The fact that the Bible does not command something does not mean the Bible is opposed to that something. The Bible neither encourages nor discourages the idea of Christians meeting in buildings that are specifically designed for corporate worship. The question of a church building is one where it is crucially important to recognize the difference between description and prescription. The New Testament describes the early Christians meeting in homes. The New Testament does not prescribe that Christians should only meet in homes. A church building in which the biblical truth about the church is declared is in no sense unbiblical. The building is not what is unbiblical. It is the beliefs that are often attached to the building that are unbiblical.

(2) The structure of the church. In many churches today, there is a “set in stone” structure for how a service will proceed. The structure changes somewhat from church to church, but the core items remain the same: announcements, corporate worship, meeting and greeting, prayer, the sermon, a closing song. In some churches, the order of service is absolutely unbendable. In other churches, there is some flexibility. Whatever the case, the idea of a church meeting having such a rigid structure is not presented in the New Testament. When a church has such a rigid structure, it can stifle, rather than promote, true worship and fellowship.

First Corinthians 14:40 teaches, “but everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” Order and structure are not unbiblical. Rigidity and legalism are unbiblical. While a church should ensure that its services are reasonably organized, it is unbiblical for a church service to be so structured that it prevents any participation, freedom, or moving of the Spirit.

(3) Church leadership. The Bible undeniably teaches that the church is to have godly leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:17-20; Titus 1:6-9; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Sadly, the early church took the concept of church leadership, and due to pagan influences, molded it into a priesthood. While most Protestant and Evangelical churches do not refer to its leadership as priests, in some instances, the pastor/preacher serves in much the same role as a priest. Pastors are expected to do all, or nearly all, of the ministry work. In some churches, the re-introduction of the idea of a priest into Christianity resulted in the biblical identity of all believers being saints, ministers, and priests, being lost. In church leadership, the result can be burnt-out pastors or overly authoritative pastors. The result in the congregation can be passivity and inactivity.

The idea that a Christian can unenthusiastically sing a few songs, lackadaisically shake a few hands, inattentively listen to a sermon, and reluctantly give an offering – and thereby fulfill his/her role in the church – is completely unbiblical. The church is intended to be a place of healthy fellowship, active participation, and mutual edification. First Corinthians chapter 12 likens the church to a human body. All of the parts of the body must be functioning for the body to do what it is intended to do.

(4) The sermon. The Bible clearly declares that God’s Word is to be taught (1 Timothy 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:2). There is undeniably a place for a godly man teaching other believers in a sermonic / oratory format. One problem is that many churches fall into the trap of one man being the sole teacher. Another problem is when churches, whether intentionally or unintentionally, convey the idea that passively listening to a sermon is all that God expects. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul encourages Timothy to entrust teaching to others who are gifted by the Holy Spirit for teaching. The presence of a non-participatory sermon is not the problem. The lack of opportunities for others to teach and/or the lack of willingness to teach can be a problem. One of the goals of the church is to make disciples, not pew-warmers. Many churches could do a much better job at recognizing the gift of teaching in others and training and encouraging them to use that gift. At the same time, no one should seek the position of teacher unless he really has been gifted by the Holy Spirit, a fact which can be verified by the testimony of others who can give witness to the presence of this gift. In fact, James 3:1 warns us, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

For other issues raised by Pagan Christianity, please read the following articles:
https://www.gotquestions.org/dress-up-church.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/tithing-Christian.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/pastors-paid-salary.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-baptism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/communion-Christian.html

It is undeniable that pagan ideas and practices have crept their way into the Christian church. To varying degrees, every church has practices that are not completely based in Scripture, either in the practice itself or in the understanding of the practice. But again, this does not mean these practices are pagan or wrong. Churches would do well to continually re-evaluate their methods and motivations, to make sure they are biblically solid. While no church practice should contradict Scripture, a church practice does not have to be explicitly biblical to be a viable choice. Nor does a practice not being taught in the Bible make it pagan. A practice having a pagan origin does not necessarily make it unbiblical. The key to avoiding “pagan Christianity” is comparing every belief and practice with Scripture and removing anything that contradicts what the Bible prescribes for the church. For those issues on which the Bible is silent, the church leadership should prayerfully consider whether or not to continue them.

Recommended Resource: Pagan Christianity: Exposing the Roots of Our Church Practices by Frank Viola & George Barna

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Is there evidence for the existence of God?

​

Question: "Is there evidence for the existence of God?"

Answer: There is evidence for the existence of God. Not everyone finds that evidence compelling or convincing; this does not mean such evidence is nonexistent. Most who deny evidence for God demand forms of proof—or levels of certainty—that are either irrelevant or unreasonable. Looking at logic, experience, and empirical observations, there is much evidence for the existence of God.

Assessing evidence includes properly categorizing it. Some balk at the idea of “evidence” for a God who is invisible and immaterial. However, even hardened skeptics accept the meaningful existence of many such things, such as the laws of logic. Logic is neither material nor visible, yet it’s legitimately considered “real” and can be both perceived and examined. One cannot see logic or mechanically quantify it, but this does not justify any useful claim that logic does not exist. The same is true, to varying degrees, with other concepts such as morality.

This point also establishes that logic and philosophy are relevant when discussing evidence for the existence of God. As demonstrated in the case of the laws of logic, even if empirical proof is unconvincing, that does not mean the subject in question cannot be “real.” The probability that God exists is in no way reduced simply because empirical evidence is subject to interpretation; it is at least possible that something intangible, non-material, and meaningful actually exists.

With that in mind, there are several broad categories of evidence for the existence of God. None are self-sufficient to prove that God exists or that the Bible’s description of Him is accurate. Combined, however, they form a compelling argument that the God described in Scripture is real.

Human beings have a natural “sense” of God. Historians and anthropologists alike recognize belief in some supernatural reality as common to almost all human beings who have ever lived. The number of people who categorically reject every form of higher power or spirit is vanishingly small. This is true even in profoundly “secular” cultures. Even further, secular fields of study such as cognitive science of religion suggest that such beliefs are ingrained in the natural state of the human mind. At the very least, this suggests there is something real to be perceived, just as senses like sight and hearing are targeted at actual phenomena.

Logic points to the existence of God. There are several logic-based arguments indicating that God exists. Some, like the ontological argument, are not considered especially convincing, though they’re hard to refute. Others, such as the kalam cosmological argument, are considered much more robust. Continuing along the same spectrum, concepts such as intelligent design—teleological arguments—make logical inferences from observations to argue for the existence of God.

General observations support the existence of God. Teleological arguments arise because so many aspects of reality appear to be deliberately arranged. That evidence, in and of itself, is often extremely indicative of a Creator. The Big Bang is a classic example. This theory was initially resisted by atheists for being too “religious.” And yet the idea of a non-eternal universe, as demonstrated by secular science, is strongly supportive of the claims made in the early chapters of the Bible.

History, literature, and archaeology support the existence of God. Whether critics like it or not, the Bible is a valid form of evidence for the existence of God. Not merely “because the Bible says so,” but because the Bible has proved to be so reliable. Dismissing it as biased, simply because it says things skeptics do not accept, is not a rational response. That would be as irrational as dismissing every book describing Julius Caesar and then claiming there are no records describing Julius Caesar. The reliability of the Bible and its coordination with secular history and archaeology are reasonable points to raise when it comes to discussing the existence of God.

Personal experiences support the existence of God. Obviously, these are compelling only for those particular persons. Yet many people have come to know and understand God in a deeply personal way. So far as those experiences coordinate with other evidence, they’re reasonable to consider as part of the evidence for the existence of God.

Evidence will never overcome obstinance. Perhaps the weakest response to evidence of God’s existence is ignoring it: claiming “there is no evidence.” Closely related is the suggestion that a skeptic finds the evidence uncompelling. This kind of claim often comes with an ever-shifting threshold for proof. As happened with the Big Bang Theory, even when a position is effectively “proved,” the committed skeptic can always pivot to claim that this proof actually supports his fundamental views. Just as one person’s belief is not hard evidence regarding God’s existence, one person’s disbelief is not hard evidence of the opposite. This is especially true given that God’s existence touches on issues like personal morality and autonomy. Both in Scripture and in daily life, it’s common to see examples of those presented with more than enough evidence, yet who choose to stubbornly ignore it (Romans 1:18–20; Psalm 19:1; John 5:39–40; Luke 16:19–31; James 2:19).

Combining what we know of experience, logic, history, science, and other disciplines, there is more than enough evidence that God exists. Thankfully, we aren’t expected to find all that evidence in order to have a right relationship with Him. Rather, we are obligated to absorb what we can see and understand and follow the process of “ask . . . seek . . . knock” (Matthew 7:7–8).

Recommended Resource: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the qi in traditional Chinese medicine and philosophy?

​

Question: "What is the qi in traditional Chinese medicine and philosophy?"

Answer: Qi (chi, ch’i, or ki, pronounced “chee”) literally translated is “air,” but in the religious/philosophical sense it has come to mean “life force” or “energy.” According to some, qi is the animating principle of the universe and goes right down to the sub-atomic level. Qigong (also called inner alchemy) is the practice of manipulating the qi. The concept of the qi has come to us in a more popular form in the Star Wars movies as the Force and is also featured prominently in Kung Fu Panda 3.

The manipulation of the qi is the underlying principle behind traditional martial arts and Chinese medicine. In traditional Chinese medicine, there are various kinds of qi including the ancestral qi, which we are born with, and other qi, which we absorb over time from the environment.

Manipulation of this energy is said to effect cures or alleviate various physical symptoms. For instance, acupuncture is supposed to help the qi flow between various pressure points where the needles are inserted, eliminating imbalances. Feng shui is the practice of orienting a building and its interior features to allow for a more propitious flow of energy within the building to the benefit of those who occupy it, thus eliminating spiritual imbalances.

The philosophy/religion behind the concept of qi is Taosim. The Tao is said to be the universal energy from which all things come. From this energy, the One emerges, but the One is divided into yin and yang. There is a continual flow of energy between the yin and the yang. This transfer of energy brings about the physical/material universe.

How should a Christian view Chinese medicine? With caution.

The religious/philosophical principles behind Chinese medicine are clearly anti-biblical. Eastern philosophy does not recognize a personal God as Creator and does not recognize people as made in God’s image. According to Eastern philosophy and the concept of qi or chi, everything is simply part of the “one energy” of the universe. To the extent that the practitioner is trying to balance the qi, the practice is unbiblical and the Christian should avoid it.

Having said that, just as Chinese martial arts may be an effective means of self-defense, even when separated from manipulation of the qi, it is possible that some practices in Chinese medicine like acupuncture may have medical benefits that are derived from the stimulation of nerves and muscles through the placement of needles. This physical benefit has nothing to do with any supposed qi. Whether or not there is any real benefit to acupuncture and similar practices is debated in the scientific community. Chiropractic medicine originally started as something that was heavily spiritual/metaphysical but has come to be accepted because the physical manipulation of the body yields physical benefits. Traditional Chinese medicine has not yet proved to be as successful. In the end, what procedures we subject ourselves to in search of healing is a matter of spiritual discernment and godly conviction.

Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

In what ways is the Christian life like the Olympics?

Question: "In what ways is the Christian life like the Olympics?"

Answer: The Olympics represent the pinnacle of athleticism, training, and competitiveness, going all the way back to ancient times. The apostle Paul used illustrations from the world of athletics in several of his letters. In three Epistles, he used the image of all-out racing to urge vigorous and lawful pursuit of spiritual growth and service. Four times Paul spoke of his own growth and service in terms of his own such race.

To the gifted but immature believers in Corinth, Paul wrote, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:24). Here, Paul compares the disciplined effort necessary for spiritual growth to an Olympic athlete’s effort to win the prize that awaits only the winner of a race. Growing Christlikeness does not just happen on its own. God certainly “works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (Philippians 2:13), but the believer must cooperate with God by exerting responsible and serious effort to follow what the Holy Spirit teaches. “Anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules” (2 Timothy 2:5). For the disciplined believer, the prize is the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14, ESV). To what does God call the believer? It is to become like Jesus Christ in heart and lifestyle (Romans 8:28–30).

The true believer demonstrates the reality of God’s work in his heart by enduring all sorts of tests in the development of Christlikeness. The believer is in training, much as an Olympic athlete must train for a race. No pain, no gain. That is why the writer of Hebrews exhorted, “Let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (Hebrews 12:1–3). Jesus is portrayed as the finest runner, the One who set the pace, our model and hero in life’s race. Just as a runner in the Olympics must dispense with anything that would hinder his running, we must disentangle ourselves from sin. As a runner in the games must keep his eyes on the finish line, so we must keep our eyes on Christ and His joyful reward.

Some believers in Galatia had lost faith in God’s grace and were returning to a legalistic, performance-based religion. Paul wrote strong words to them: “You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you” (Galatians 5:7–8). The true Christian life can be lived only by faith—faith in the pure Word of God and faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. To follow Satan’s deceitful advice to try to earn God’s grace and free gift of salvation is to stumble in our race. Trusting our own works only insults God and does us no good.

Paul wrote with similar urgency to believers in Philippi, “Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, ‘children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.’ Then . . . I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain” (Philippians 2:14–16). Paul encouraged the Philippians’ pure faith and likened his own labor on their behalf to running a race. He had invested hard work and deep suffering in teaching them God’s story, and he wanted his exertion to pay off—much like an Olympic athlete deeply desires his sacrifices to result in victory.

Another passage in which Paul uses the metaphor of a race is Galatians 2:1–2. There Paul tells how he had visited Christian leaders in Jerusalem in order to check with them the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. What was his reason for taking such care? “For fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (NAS). It was vital to Paul that he knew, believed, and taught God’s truth. This was the way that he “ran his race.”

It was in peaceful confidence that Paul approached the end of his life. Anticipating his impending martyrdom in Rome, he wrote to his young protégé, Timothy, “The time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:6–8).

We don’t know if Paul had been an athlete in his younger years. In these references to the Olympic races, he certainly showed deep interest in and understanding of competitive running. He used that understanding of the Olympic races to illustrate the basics of the Christian life.

A runner must train for his race, know the rules, and commit to winning. A believer must endure hardship, exercise absolute and enduring faith in the Word of God, and keep his eyes on the goal. In the power of the cross, the believer grows more and more like the Savior. Despite obstacles, challenges, temptations, and even the threat of death, the Christian continues to run the race Christ has marked out for him.

Recommended Resource: Run to Win: How to Finish Strong in the Race of Life by Greg Laurie

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about sharing?

​

Question: "What does the Bible say about sharing?"

Answer: Starting in early childhood, people are taught to share with others. Sharing is a recognized virtue in most civilized cultures because we understand instinctively that selfishness and a lack of sharing are wrong. Whether we acknowledge God or not, we are still created in His image and are more like Him than any other created being (Genesis 1:27). Because of this, we recognize that other people are important, too. Most civilized people groups gravitate toward similar laws in response to God’s moral law written on our hearts (Romans 1:20, 32; Ecclesiastes 3:11). We each have a God-given conscience. Since part of God’s nature is to share with us (2 Corinthians 8:9), people naturally know that sharing is good.

However, due to the sinful natures we all possess (Romans 2:10, 23), we often allow selfishness to rule instead of sharing and generosity. Regardless of chronological age, we can still be toddlers in our attitudes. We don’t want to share. Beneath our plastic smiles and socialized responses, our sinful hearts may be thinking, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours should be mine.” Sharing is seen as a nice concept, but a little too uncomfortable to put into practice.

The first-century church set the bar high when they demonstrated biblical sharing. As the church grew rapidly, many new believers from other regions lingered in Jerusalem, hungering to be near their new brothers and sisters in Christ. In order to finance this exploding family, those who owned valuables sold them and donated the money for the common good (Acts 4:32–37). “They shared everything they had” (verse 32), and “there were no needy persons among them” (verse 34). Later on, as churches were established in other places, the apostles gathered financial gifts from various churches and delivered them to the Judean church, which was struggling (Acts 11:27–30; Romans 15:26).

The New Testament equates sharing with real faith. In his explanation of how faith is to be lived out in good works, James says that true religion is “to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). John likewise emphasizes the necessity of sharing: “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:17–18).

Christian sharing can take many forms, but it is the heart attitude that matters to God (Matthew 6:2–4). We who have been bought and set apart by the blood of Jesus must be eager to share what He has entrusted to us, whether it be time, energy, or resources. Sharing reminds us that we are not to set our affections on things of this earth, nor store up treasures that have no eternal value (Colossians 3:2; Matthew 6:20). Sharing also keeps us humble, frees us from the love of money, and teaches us to die to ourselves (Romans 6:6; 1 Timothy 6:10). We are most like Jesus when we freely share ourselves with those He brings into our lives.

Recommended Resource: The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D.A. Carson

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is dogma?

​

Question: "What is dogma?"

Answer: Dogma is defined as “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.” In Christianity, dogma is the body of biblical doctrines proclaimed by and accepted by Christians. The dogma of the Christian religion is that which is preached from the pulpit, taught by Christian leaders, and believed by followers of Christ. To be orthodox, Christian dogma must align with the teaching of the Word of God.

The three most basic dogmas of the Christian faith, those which all Christians are taught and must believe, are what separate Christianity from all other religions. The three are the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 14), His substitutionary death and resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:21), and salvation from sin by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9). All other religions reject Christ’s deity and teach that salvation is achieved and/or retained by some form of human works.

There are many other Christian dogmas, including the doctrines of the Trinity; the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture; the virgin birth; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and others. But the three doctrines mentioned above are the core doctrines of the faith, for upon them rests the eternal destiny of every human being. We may differ on the role of the Holy Spirit or misunderstand the Trinity, but denying the nature of Christ and His sacrifice for sin rejects the only hope we have for eternal life (Acts 4:12).

To be “dogmatic,” that is, to have a strong set of beliefs about faith and doctrine, is often frowned upon in today’s pluralistic culture. Yet believers in Christ are commanded to be dogmatic: “Brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings [the dogma] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Being dogmatic about Christianity is seen by many as divisive, unloving, and closed-minded. Let’s examine those charges in light of the undeniable dogmas of the faith.

Is Christian dogma divisive? Definitely. It divides truth from error, sound doctrine from heresy, and spiritual reality from wishful thinking. Dogma also recognizes and accepts as true the divisions that exist in the many opposites of Scripture: light and darkness, good and evil, law and grace, faith and works, sheep and goats, wisdom and folly, life and death. Christian dogma is also divisive in that it separates those who accept by faith Christianity’s basic tenets from those who deny them. As Christians, we are not to be divisive in our attitudes toward others, but we must cling to truth. Clinging to truth requires rejecting falsehood. “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1Thessalonians 5:21, ESV).

Is Christian dogma unloving? Far from it. In fact, it is the epitome of love. It begins with God, who so loved the world that He sent His Son to provide salvation from sin (John 3:16). Christian dogma is based on the love of Christ, who died on the cross out of love for His people (John 15:13). Furthermore, it manifests itself in the love of Christians for God (Mark 12:30) and for one another, as commanded by Jesus (John 13:34). To clearly proclaim Christian dogma is the most loving thing we can do because it shares with others the only means of escaping an eternity in hell.

Are those who believe in Christian dogma closed-minded? Dogmatic Christians are often called closed-minded or narrow-minded. But Christianity, by its very nature, is a closed and narrow faith (see Matthew 7:13–14). Jesus declared Himself to be the only Way, Truth, and Life and that no one comes to God except by Him (John 14:6). This statement eliminates all other faiths and religions from consideration.

Dogma is important; it does make a difference what we believe. The key to being dogmatic without being abrasive is, first of all, to carefully choose which dogmas are worth debating and which ones are not, and, second, to always speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.”

Recommended Resource: Bible Doctrine by Wayne Grudem

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Who was Charles Wesley?

​

Question: "Who was Charles Wesley?"

Answer: Charles Wesley (1707–1788) has sometimes been referred to as “the forgotten Wesley.” Though famous in his own right, Charles Wesley is often overshadowed by his older brother, John Wesley, considered the founder of the Methodist denomination. Charles established his own legacy as the author of some of the most memorable and lasting hymns of the church. Some of his 8,989 hymns include “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing,” “O for a Thousand Tongues,” “Christ the Lord Is Risen Today,” and “Jesus, Lover of My Soul.”

Charles was born prematurely in 1707 as the eighteenth of nineteen children born to Samuel and Susannah Wesley. Only ten of those children lived to adulthood, and it looked as though Charles would not be counted among them. As an infant, he lay ill for weeks, wrapped in a wool blanket. But God’s hand was upon him, and he lived, soon joining his brothers and sisters in their daily studies of Greek, Latin, and French taught by Susannah. He then spent thirteen years at Westminster in his native England, followed by another nine at Oxford where he earned a master’s degree.

While at Oxford, Charles was bothered by the worldly atmosphere. In response, he and a handful of classmates formed what other students called the “Holy Club.” Together, Wesley and his friends observed communion weekly and held themselves to a rigorous schedule of spiritual pursuits that included early rising, Bible study, and prison ministry. Because of this strict, self-imposed schedule, peers began calling them “Methodists.”

After graduation, Charles Wesley, an Anglican, was ordained into the ministry, as was his brother John, and the two Wesley brothers set out to evangelize the colony of Georgia in America. But this venture pummeled them with such overwhelming opposition, pain, and defeat that they returned to England after one year. John wrote in his journal of this disappointment: “I went to America to convert the Indians, but, O! Who will convert me?”

That turned out to be a pivotal question in both of their lives. Charles dove more deeply into the Scriptures for his own spiritual nourishment, rather than using Bible reading as a discipline or a means by which he could earn God’s favor. It was after reading Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians that Charles’ eyes were opened to the truth of justification by faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). At last he had found the doorway to peace with God. Two days after his conversion, Charles Wesley wrote his first hymn celebrating the joy that filled his heart. Through the influence of evangelist George Whitefield, John, too, found peace with God through faith in Christ alone (Titus 3:5). The zealous evangelistic brothers had been delivered from religion and were finally saved.

At the age of 40, Charles married 20-year-old Sally Gwynne. He continued traveling, preaching, and penning the lyrics to passion-filled, doctrine-rich hymns of faith that have defined Protestant Christianity for decades. Although John is the better-known itinerant preacher, Charles also preached to nearly 150,000 people. He gradually withdrew from traveling and spent the remainder of his years writing music until he died in 1788 at the age of 81.

Charles and John Wesley’s story reflects the truth of Romans 10:2–3, which says, “They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.” Their brilliant minds sought to understand and master Christianity as a discipline rather than seeing it as a relationship made possible only through grace. We can learn from Charles Wesley that true power and fruitfulness only come when we exhaust our efforts to serve God and simply allow His Holy Spirit to live through us (Galatians 2:20).

No condemnation now I dread,
I am my Lord’s and He is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine.
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
(Charles Wesley, “And Can It Be?” 1738).

Recommended Resource: A Heart Strangely Warmed: John and Charles Wesley and Their Writings by Jonathan Dean

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the Lord’s day?

​

ANSWER

The Lord’s day (as distinguished from the day of the Lord) is Sunday. The term Lord’s day is used only once in Scripture. Revelation 1:10 says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.” Since the apostle John does not elaborate on the meaning of “Lord’s day,” we can assume that his target audience, first-century Christians, were already familiar with the expression.

Some have assumed that the Lord’s day is the New Testament equivalent of the Sabbath. The Sabbath day was instituted by God for the nation of Israel to commemorate His deliverance of them from Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15). Sabbath began Friday at sunset and ended Saturday at sunset and was to be a day of complete rest from all labor, symbolic of the Creator’s resting on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2–3; Exodus 20:11; 23:12). The Sabbath was a special sign to the Israelites that they had been set apart as followers of the most High God. Their keeping of the Sabbath would help distinguish them from the nations around them. However, nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath ever referred to as the Lord’s day. The term Sabbath was still in use within the Jewish community in New Testament times and is referred to as such by Jesus and the apostles (Matthew 12:5; John 7:23; Colossians 2:16).

Sunday was the day that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, an act that forever separated Christianity from any other religion (John 20:1). Since that time, believers have gathered on the first day of the week to celebrate His victory over sin and death (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Even though the Sabbath day was designated by God as a holy day, Jesus demonstrated that He was Lord over the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8). Jesus stated that He had come not to abolish but to fulfill the whole Law. Rule-keeping could not justify anyone; only through Jesus could sinful humanity be declared righteous (Romans 3:28). Paul echoes this truth in Colossians 2:16–17 when he writes, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

The Lord’s day is typically thought of as Sunday, but it is not a direct counterpart to the Jewish Sabbath—in other words, Sunday is not the “Christian Sabbath.” Although we should set aside a day for rest and honoring the Lord who died and rose for us, we are not under the Law (Romans 6:14–15). As born-again followers of Jesus, we are free to worship Him on any day that our conscience determines. Romans 14 gives clear explanation of how Christians are to navigate those subtle gray areas of discipleship. Verses 4 and 5 say, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Some Messianic Jews want to continue regarding the Sabbath day as holy because of their Jewish heritage. Some Gentile Christians join their Jewish brothers and sisters in keeping the Sabbath as a way to honor God. Worshiping God on the Sabbath is acceptable—again, the day of the week is not the most important issue—but the heart motivation behind that choice is crucial. If legalism or law-keeping motivates the choice to observe the Sabbath, then that choice is not made from a right heart condition (Galatians 5:4). When our hearts are pure before the Lord, we are free to worship Him on Saturday (the Sabbath) or Sunday (the Lord’s day). God is equally pleased with both.

Jesus warned against legalism when He quoted Isaiah the prophet: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” (Matthew 15:8–9; cf. Isaiah 29:13). God is not interested in our keeping of rituals, rules, or requirements. He wants hearts that are on fire with His love and grace on the Sabbath, on the Lord’s day, and on every other day (Hebrews 12:28–29; Psalm 51:15–17).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology by Jason MeyerMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What are the apocryphal gospels?

​

ANSWER

The word apocrypha is from the Greek word for “obscure” or “hidden.” The apocryphal gospels are so named since they were not prominent in the early church.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are known as the canonical gospels because they were recognized by the early church as being accurate, authoritative, and inspired accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. However, in addition to these four works, there were a great number of other works that purported to record other words and deeds of Jesus. These works are not authoritative or inspired and sometimes not even accurate records of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Many of the apocryphal gospels were considered by the early church to be useful but not inspired. In the years since, more works such as the Gnostic gospels have come to light, which the early church would have considered heretical. Currently, the term apocryphal gospel applies to any non-canonical early work that purports to record the life and teaching of Jesus. Neither Roman Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox nor Protestants accept any of the apocryphal gospels as authoritative or inspired. However, modern scholarship (such as applied in the Jesus Seminar) generally accepts these “gospels” as accurate records needed to give us a full picture of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Some of the apocryphal gospels are lost to us but are mentioned in other early Christian writings and would have been considered helpful though not inspired. These works include the Gospel of Andrew, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Barnabas, and Memoirs of the Apostles.

Some of the apocryphal gospels are the work of heretical groups that attempted to co-opt the teachings of Jesus for their own purposes. Among these works are the Gospel of Marcion, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the best-known because it was popularized by Princeton University Professor of Religion Elaine Pagels in her 2004 best-seller Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas.

Some of the apocryphal gospels, like the Gospel of Peter, are just bizarre. In this work, we encounter an actual talking cross.

The Secret Gospel of Mark has only recently come to light and suggests that Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with Mark. Further investigation suggests that this find was a hoax perpetrated by Morton Smith, the man who claimed to have discovered it. However, modern critical scholarship uncritically accepted it as genuine for a time.

Because of the wide variety of teaching in these apocryphal gospels, some scholars prefer to speak of “early Christianities,” implying that there was never a single, unified, accurate, authoritative teaching about Jesus but that each group collected partial truth to suit their own needs. The group that we now call orthodox was the group that eventually gained prominence; thus, the gospels that they preferred (the canonical gospels) were accepted as authoritative while the others were suppressed. This is essentially the premise behind Dan Brown’s novel The DaVinci Code. Such theories contradict the fact that the early church received “the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3).

On further investigation, we find that the apocryphal gospels that present some of the most divergent views on who Jesus was and what He taught were written much later than the canonical gospels. There is no evidence for the views they present in other writings of the early church. Scholars who put all the gospels on equal footing tend to be hypercritical of the canonical gospels and overly accommodating to the apocryphal gospels.

The extant apocryphal gospels are all readily available online for whoever wants to read them. For a scholarly evangelical analysis of the apocryphal gospels, we recommend Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholarship Distorts the Gospels by Craig Evans, and for a more popular-level explanation we recommend Chapter 1 of The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News by Darrell BockMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Who was Nicodemus in the Bible?


All that we know of Nicodemus in the Bible is from the Gospel of John. In John 3:1, he is described as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a group of Jews who were fastidious in keeping the letter of the Law and often opposed Jesus throughout His ministry. Jesus often strongly denounced them for their legalism (see Matthew 23). Saul of Tarsus (who became the apostle Paul) was also a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5).

John 3:1 also describes Nicodemus as a leader of the Jews. According to John 7:50–51, Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling body of the Jews. Each city could have a Sanhedrin, which functioned as the “lower courts.” Under Roman authority in the time of Christ, the Jewish nation was allowed a measure of self-rule, and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the final court of appeals for matters regarding Jewish law and religion. This was the body that ultimately condemned Jesus, yet they had to get Pilate to approve their sentence since the death penalty was beyond their jurisdiction under Roman law. It appears that Nicodemus was part of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

John reports that Nicodemus came to speak with Jesus at night. Many have speculated that Nicodemus was afraid or ashamed to visit Jesus in broad daylight, so he made a nighttime visit. This may very well be the case, but the text does not give a reason for the timing of the visit. A number of other reasons are also possible. Nicodemus questioned Jesus. As a member of the Jewish ruling council, it would have been his responsibility to find out about any teachers or other public figures who might lead the people astray.

In their conversation, Jesus immediately confronts Nicodemus with the truth that he “must be born again” (John 3:3). When Nicodemus seems incredulous, Jesus reprimands him (perhaps gently) that, since he is a leader of the Jews, he should already know this (John 3:10). Jesus goes on to give a further explanation of the new birth, and it is in this context that we find John 3:16, which is one of the most well-known and beloved verses in the Bible.

The next time we encounter Nicodemus in the Bible, he is functioning in his official capacity as a member of the Sanhedrin as they consider what to do about Jesus. In John 7, some Pharisees and priests (presumably with authority to do so) sent some of the temple guard to arrest Jesus, but they return, unable to bring themselves to do it (see John 7:32–47). The guards are upbraided by the Pharisees in authority, but Nicodemus presents the opinion that Jesus should not be dismissed or condemned until they have heard from Him personally: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51). However, the rest of the Council rudely dismisses Nicodemus’s suggestion out of hand—they appear to have already made up their minds about Jesus.

The final mention of Nicodemus in the Bible is in John 19 after Jesus’ crucifixion. We find Nicodemus assisting Joseph of Arimathea in Jesus’ burial. Joseph is described in John as a rich man and in Mark 15:43 as a member of the Council. He is also described in John 19:38 as a disciple of Jesus, albeit a secret one because he was afraid of the Jews. Joseph asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Nicodemus brought 75 pounds of spices for use in preparing the body for burial and then assisted Joseph in wrapping the body and placing it in the tomb. The sheer amount of burial spices would seem to indicate that Nicodemus was a rich man and that he had great respect for Jesus.

The limited account in John’s Gospel leaves many questions about Nicodemus unanswered. Was he a true believer? What did he do after the resurrection? The Bible is silent on these questions, and there are no reliable extra-biblical resources that give answers. It would appear that Nicodemus may have been similar to Joseph of Arimathea in that perhaps he, too, was a disciple of Jesus but had not yet mustered the courage to declare his faith openly. Perhaps Nicodemus’s final recorded act was his declaration of faith—although we are not told how public it was. His presentation in the Gospel of John is generally favorable, which suggests that his faith was indeed genuine.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
The Great Lives from God’s Word Series by Chuck SwindollMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Why are there so many atheists?


ANSWER

Before we can discuss atheism, we need to define it. According to an official atheism website, atheists define themselves this way: “Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” Those who identify as atheists prefer to emphasize their lack of belief rather than the refusal to believe. They consider atheism to be intellectually superior to faith in God. However, this definition clashes with the biblical worldview, which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). Since atheists can agree with people of faith that every human being has the freedom to choose what he or she thinks or believes, we will define atheism here as the choice to disbelieve in any kind of Supreme Being to which mankind is accountable.

Statistics show that atheism is on the rise in countries that have historically had a strong Christian influence. These statistics include those raised in godless homes, but they also show an alarming increase among those who once held to some form of religious faith. When we hear of a prominent figure in Christianity renouncing the faith he or she used to claim, we are left wondering, “Why?” Why would so many people stop believing in God when His handiwork is everywhere (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Romans 1:20)? Every culture on earth recognizes some form of deity, so why are so many people claiming they do not believe in any god at all?

There are several reasons people may define themselves as atheists. The first is ignorance. Due to lack of correct information, a person may conclude that nothing exists beyond this universe and man’s experience of it. Since there remains a great deal we do not know, ignorance often invents ideas to fill in the blanks. This often results in either false religions or atheism. Sketchy information about God is often tainted by mythology or religious superstition to the extent that anything supernatural sounds like a fairy tale. Exposed to a mishmash of confusing claims, some people decide there is no truth to any of it and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Disillusionment is another reason some people become atheists. Due to negative experiences, such as having a prayer go unanswered or seeing hypocritical behavior in others, a person may conclude that God does not exist. This response is often fueled by anger or hurt. These people reason that, if God existed, He would behave in ways they could comprehend or agree with. Since He did not respond the way they wanted Him to, they conclude that He must not exist at all. They may stumble over complicated concepts such as hell, Old Testament genocide, or eternity and conclude the God of the Bible is too confusing to be real. Disillusionment propels people to find comfort in what is seen and known, rather than an invisible deity. To avoid the possibility of more disappointment, they abandon any attempt at faith and find a measure of comfort in deciding that God simply does not exist.

Closely linked to the disillusioned are those who call themselves “atheists” when, in fact, they are anti-God. Atheist is a label some hide behind to mask a deep hatred toward God. Often due to childhood trauma or abuse in the name of religion, these people are consumed by an antipathy toward all things religious. The only way they can retaliate against a God they consider cruel is to deny Him vehemently. Events of the past have left wounds so deep that it is easier to deny the reality of God than admit that they hate Him. True atheists would not include this group in their numbers, as they recognize that to be angry with God is to acknowledge His existence. But many people do, in fact, call themselves atheists while simultaneously expressing outrage toward a God whose existence they deny.

Still others reject the idea of God because they want Him to be easier to find. When well-known atheist Richard Dawkins was asked, “What would you say if you faced God after death?” he responded, “I would say to Him, ‘Why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself?’” Some people frown at the fact that God is Spirit, invisible, and found only through faith (Hebrews 11:6; Jeremiah 29:13). They adopt the attitude that the Creator of the universe owes them evidence of His existence beyond what He has already lavishly given (Psalm 19:1; 102:25; Romans 1:20). Jesus dealt with this mindset when He walked the earth. In Mark 8, Jesus had just fed four thousand people with a sack lunch, but the intellectual elites came to Him demanding that He perform a sign to “prove” He was the Messiah (verse11). Jesus illustrated this hardness of heart in His parable about the rich man in hell who longed to warn his brothers about what awaited them after death (Luke 16:19–31). From heaven, Abraham answered, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

The most likely explanation for the continuing rise of atheism has not changed since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6; Romans 3:23). The very essence of all sin is self-determination. By denying the existence of a Creator, atheists can do whatever they please without concern for future judgment or eternal consequences (Matthew 12:36; Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 4:5; Hebrews 4:13). In the twenty-first century, self-worship has become culturally acceptable. Atheism appeals to a generation raised on evolutionary theory and moral relativism. John 3:19 says, “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” If human beings are self-created, self-determined, and self-centered, then there is no moral law or lawgiver to whom they must submit. There are no absolutes and no one to whom they are ultimately accountable. By adopting such a mindset, atheists can focus on seeking pleasure in this life alone.

As long as scientists, professors, and philosophers peddle their atheistic viewpoints as truth and wisdom, people will continue to buy it because the idea of self-determination appeals to our rebellious natures. The attitude is nothing new, but the changing cultural norms are making it more openly acceptable. Romans 1:18–31 details the results of this rejection of God’s authority. Verse 28 says, “God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” Our world is seeing the results of that depravity. What atheists call “enlightenment,” God calls foolishness. Verses 22–23 say, “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Since the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10), then the denial of the Lord (atheism) is the beginning of foolishness.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Inside the Atheist Mind by Anthony DeStefanoMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the heart?


ANSWER

First, we’ll state the obvious: this article is not about the heart as a vital organ, a muscle that pumps blood throughout the body. Neither is this article concerned with romantic, philosophical, or literary definitions.

Instead, we’ll focus on what the Bible has to say about the heart. The Bible mentions the heart almost 1,000 times. In essence, this is what it says: the heart is that spiritual part of us where our emotions and desires dwell.

Before we look at the human heart, we’ll mention that, since God has emotions and desires, He, too, can be said to have a “heart.” We have a heart because God does. David was a man “after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22). And God blesses His people with leaders who know and follow His heart (1 Samuel 2:35; Jeremiah 3:15).

The human heart, in its natural condition, is evil, treacherous and deceitful. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” In other words, the Fall has affected us at the deepest level; our mind, emotions and desires have been tainted by sin—and we are blind to just how pervasive the problem is.

We may not understand our own hearts, but God does. He “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21; see also 1 Corinthians 14:25). Jesus “knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man” (John 2:24-25). Based on His knowledge of the heart, God can judge righteously: “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings” (Jeremiah 17:10).

Jesus pointed out the fallen condition of our hearts in Mark 7:21-23: “From within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.” Our biggest problem is not external but internal; all of us have a heart problem.

In order for a person to be saved, then, the heart must be changed. This only happens by the power of God in response to faith. “With the heart one believes unto righteousness” (Romans 10:10). In His grace, God can create a new heart within us (Psalm 51:10; Ezekiel 36:26). He promises to “revive the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah 57:15).

God’s work of creating a new heart within us involves testing our hearts (Psalm 17:3; Deuteronomy 8:2) and filling our hearts with new ideas, new wisdom, and new desires (Nehemiah 7:5; 1 Kings 10:24; 2 Corinthians 8:16).

The heart is the core of our being, and the Bible sets high importance on keeping our hearts pure: “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Created in God’s Image by Anthony HoekemaMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the mind, biblically speaking?


ANSWER

There are a great many words in both Hebrew and Greek that are translated “mind.” In the Old Testament, the word that is often translated “mind” is the word for “heart.” Sometimes the word heart refers to the actual physical organ, but many times it refers to the inner being—the seat of the will and the emotions. In the New Testament, the word kardia, the Greek word for “heart,” can also refer to the physical organ but is often translated “mind” as well. Today, we often set the mind and heart against each other, as in “Even though he knew in his mind that it was a bad idea, he had to follow his heart.” Likewise, sometimes we speak of “head knowledge” versus “heart knowledge.” These are simply modern conventions that differentiate intellect from emotions. In ancient times, the distinction seems to have been less emphasized.

In the New Testament, the Greek word phroneo is often translated “mind” and most often refers to a person’s understanding, views, or opinions, as in “But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ he said. ‘You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns’” (Mark 8:33). Another example: “But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect” (Acts 28:22). Here, “your views” is the translation of the word in question.

There are several other words that are often translated “mind.” Perhaps the most important for theological purposes is the one found in Matthew 22:37: “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’” The word dianoia is a compound word that combines dia, which might be translated “through,” and the word nous, which is another word for “mind.” This word is used many times in the New Testament. It would seem that we would have to know what the mind is in order to love God with all of it.

We should not attempt to import modern notions of mind, brain, and intellect into the ancient text. The people in Old and New Testament times seem to have had a much more integrated view of humanity. There was much less emphasis on the distinction between the material and the immaterial. When Jesus says to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, He is not highlighting various aspects of personality. He is not differentiating between emotion and intellect; rather, He is saying that our love for God should be all-inclusive. The mind is simply one more way to identify the inner being—all that we are. In fact, in Matthew 22:37, Jesus uses the word kardia (“heart”), which in other contexts is translated “mind.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, “We look in vain in the Old Testament and New Testament for anything like scientific precision in the employment of terms which are meant to indicate mental operations.” Biblically, the mind is simply the “inner being” or the sum total of all our mental, emotional, and spiritual faculties, without drawing fine distinctions between them.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Created in God’s Image by Anthony HoekemaMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is absolute reality?


ANSWER

“What is reality?” is one of the great philosophical questions. To be fair, one could argue that it’s the core question of philosophy, religion, science, and so forth. To refine the question slightly, “Is there such a thing as ‘absolute’ reality, and, if so, what exactly it is?” Of course, trying to define reality is beyond a brief discussion, a single article, or even an entire ministry. It’s a subject literally beyond any one person. That being said, there are unique Christian perspectives on the nature of reality. These may not answer every question, but they can point us in better directions.

First of all, a common term used to reference reality is truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality—it is the word used to describe things that actually are as opposed to those things that are not. This is important in the context of discussing “absolute” reality, which is inevitably the same thing as absolute truth. Reality (truth) must, eventually, be absolute, or else there is no such thing as reality at all. If reality is not absolute—if there is no ultimate, single, all-encompassing truth—then there is literally nothing else to discuss. All statements of all kinds would be equally valid or wholly invalid, and there would be no meaningful difference.

The very nature of the question “what is reality (truth)” assumes a subject that can be defined by statements that are either true or false—accurate or inaccurate—real or unreal—actual or nonexistent. Even those who claim everything is relative must make an absolute statement about the way all things are. In other words, there is absolutely no escape from absolute reality and no denying some form of absolute truth. A person who chooses to jettison that idea is simply operating outside of the bounds of logic.

With that in mind, we can refer to “absolute reality” either as “reality” or “truth” and go from there. The Bible clearly espouses a belief in reality vs. fiction (Psalm 119:163) and that we can in fact know the difference (Proverbs 13:5; Ephesians 4:25). This has applications in spirituality, philosophy, and daily life. Some things are (they are true, they are real), and some things are not (they are false, they are not real) beyond personal opinion or knowledge.

Spiritually speaking, the idea of “truth” implies that not all religious ideas can be true. Christ said He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6), and that statement necessarily means that claims contradictory to His cannot be true. This exclusivity is further supported by passages such as John 3:18 and John 3:36, which clearly state that those who reject Christ cannot hope for salvation. There is no “reality” in the idea of salvation apart from Christ.

Philosophically, the fact that the Bible references truth is useful. Certain philosophical views question whether or not human beings are capable of really knowing what is real. According to the Bible, it is possible for a person to know the difference between truth and falsehood (Zechariah 10:2) and between fact and fiction (Revelation 22:15). In particular, this is knowledge at an “ultimate” level, not merely on a personal, experiential level. We can, in fact, have insight into some aspect of absolute reality. Contrary to philosophies that claim man cannot know, such as solipsism, Scripture says we have a means to see at least some of the critical truths of absolute reality.

In daily life, the Bible’s stance on reality precludes ideas such as moral relativism. According to Scripture, moral truth exists, and anything opposed to it is sin (Psalm 11:7; 19:9; James 4:17). One of the longest-running philosophical debates is over the difference between “abstract” realities and “concrete” realities. Concepts such as “length,” “happiness,” or “the number four” are not concrete themselves. However, they do have a meaningful connection to concrete things. Biblically speaking, the same is true of concepts such as justice, good, sin, and so forth. You cannot fill a jar with “good” in the same way you can fill a jar with sand, but that does not mean “good” is not true—or “real”—in a meaningful way.

With that idea in mind, we can also distinguish between abstractions that exist and those that technically do not exist. Evil is one such abstraction. Sin is “real” in the same sense that “good” is real—but neither of them is concrete. That is, there is no physical particle or energy that God created as a unit of good or of sin. However, both are “real.” The difference is that sin, in and of itself, is defined only in terms of the absence of goodness. In other words, sin is only “real” in the sense that goodness is real, and sin is the lack of goodness.

In other words, God can create “good,” as an ideal or an abstraction, and sin can “exist” where there is a lack of goodness. This is not as convoluted as it sounds—we make the same distinction in physics. “Darkness” is an abstraction, but it corresponds to something real: the absence of light, which (depending on the sense we are using) is a real, physical thing made of photons. “Cold” is an abstraction, but it corresponds to the absence of heat—heat being a “real” thing. Neither darkness nor coldness exist in and of themselves; they are both defined entirely as a lack of something else. “Length” is not a substance or a concrete thing but is an abstraction with implications for the concrete world. “Shortness,” then, is only real in that it’s the lack of “length.”

As part of understanding the Bible’s stance on absolute reality, it’s critically important to separate the “reality” of experiences from the “reality” they are caused by. Human beings have the ability to use their minds to parse the difference between experiences and thoughts, in order to compare them to a more objective “reality.” This is not entirely intuitive; part of the uniqueness of human beings is the knowledge that our feelings and experiences are not always reliable (Jeremiah 17:9) and thus need to be compared to something objective (Romans 12:2; 1 John 4:1). This is not the same as solipsism, of course, since Christianity presumes that there is some actual, real point of comparison that we can know.

That, more or less, brings the idea of truth, or “reality,” full-circle. According to Christianity, “absolute reality” is truth, “truth” is what actually exists and that corresponds to what is real, and the most important aspects of truth are given to us by God. Reality can be known, and it applies to all aspects of our lives, according to the Bible.

There may not be a uniquely Christian definition of absolute reality, because virtually all people agree on what the term means. There is, however, a uniquely Christian perspective on reality, because not all people agree on what reality itself is.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World by Art LindsleyMore insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

How does psychology work with Christian counseling?


ANSWER

Psychology and Christianity often find themselves at odds. Some have promoted psychology as a complete answer to the human condition and the key to living a better life. Some psychologies consider faith in God as an illusion created as a sort of coping mechanism. In reaction to these unbiblical ideas, some Christians discount all psychology. Some fear using a soft science to help people with emotional or psychological disturbances, believing psychology to be too subjective and that man’s problems are better addressed spiritually. Some Christians, especially those involved in biblical counseling, believe the Bible contains all that is necessary to overcome any issue, psychological or otherwise; psychology is unnecessary because the Bible alone is our life manual. On the one hand, we have Christians believing that a person’s struggles are primarily spiritual and that God alone can heal, and on the other hand, secular psychologists claiming all struggles are biological or developmental disruptions that man can fix himself. Despite this polarization, psychology and biblical counseling need not be at war.

It is important to recognize that psychology is not monolithic; there are many different theories of psychology, some of them even contradicting the others. The concepts of human nature, life struggles, health, and treatment modality in psychology span a broad spectrum. The majority of counselors and psychologists today practice somewhat eclectically; they are not strictly Freudian or Jungian but are versed in several theories and employ different parts of the theories for different presenting issues. For instance, a counselor may gravitate toward existential theory when counseling for grief, but bring in cognitive behavioral theory when counseling for behavioral issues. In other words, a counselor may cherry-pick what he thinks will help the most. A psychologist is free to use certain person-centered techniques without accepting theories concerning self-actualization. It is common to work out of one or two primary theories and use a variety of techniques from myriad theories.

Christian counselors often adopt certain psychological theories in part, but they do not embrace any underlying philosophies that deny God or biblical truths. In essence, Christian counselors use psychology as a tool, but they do not view it as absolute truth. Psychology is not a competing religion, but a field of study that could actually lead to a deeper understanding of humanity and, therefore, of God as Creator, Savior, and Healer.

Nouthetic counseling, or biblical counseling, is a form of counseling that relies solely on Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit to achieve results. Rather than promote any psychological theory, nouthetic counselors state that Scripture is sufficient for all human difficulties. Certainly, the Bible speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform our lives. The Word is powerful (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; Isaiah 55:11) and allows the godly person to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). Plus, God is our ultimate healer (Exodus 15:26; Matthew 8:17). However, it is interesting to note that those who ascribe to Bible-only counseling do not necessarily ascribe to Bible-only medical treatment or Bible-only education. The question becomes what parts of life are to be led only by Scripture and what aspects can be informed by secular learning.

Paul spoke of becoming all things to all men for the sake of evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). When people are seeking psychological treatment, it may be helpful for a Christian to use psychological theories as corrected by biblical truth. A Christian counselor can use the tools of psychology to reveal to people their need for a deeper healing than what psychology can provide. Spiritual discussions are not rare in counseling rooms. A counselor is expected not to impose his or her values or beliefs upon a client, but often just opening the topic leads a client to search. And we know that when people search for God, they find Him (Jeremiah 29:13; Proverbs 8:17; Matthew 7:7).

More practically speaking, many instructions or concepts in the Bible do not seem easily applicable. For instance, we know that we should abstain from immorality, but other than through prayer and “fleeing” it (1 Corinthians 6:18), we do not know how. Psychology might provide practical techniques to overcome the struggle with lust. Knowledge gleaned from psychology may provide insight into what is encouraging a person to remain in sin, and if we can identify internal proclivities to sin, we can strip those things of their power.

Psychology may also help people become aware of the importance of expressing their emotions and bringing them to God, much like we see happening in the Psalms. Ultimately, psychology may help open the door to an understanding of our deepest needs. We will not experience full satisfaction or fullness of life through therapy, but we will increase our hunger for fullness of life. In turn, we can take our hunger to God, for life comes from Him alone (John 14:6).

Nouthetic counseling is opposed to psychology. However, there can be genuine Christian counseling that is biblical and also uses psychological theories. If well-trained Christian counselors are able to integrate their faith with their education, they can remain faithful to biblical standards but also avail themselves of the science of psychology.

Solid counseling should recognize that neither the counselor nor the client is the healer. Only God can truly heal. Counseling is one tool that can help us come to an understanding of who we are in Christ and find meaning in our lives. However, it is not a quest to find worth in and of ourselves or to find healing apart from God. Nouthetic counseling is correct in stating that the deepest problem is in the soul, and only the Holy Spirit can truly transform that.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Christian Counseling, Revised and Updated Third Edition by Gary Collins

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the image of the beast?


ANSWER

The book of Revelation contains an apocalyptic vision of two beasts emerging from the sea and land to take control of the world. It’s in this vision (in Revelation 13) that the image of the beast is first mentioned.

The first beast is a ten-horned, seven-headed monstrosity empowered and given authority by a dragon (Revelation 13:1–2). One of the heads is mortally wounded but is healed (verse 3). The beast is blasphemous against God and actively persecutes God’s people on earth (verses 5–7). It not only rules the world but receives the worship of the world’s inhabitants (verses 4, 7–8). The first beast is a symbolic picture of the Antichrist, and the dragon is Satan (cf. Revelation 12:9).

The second beast is a two-horned, deceptively benign creature that shares authority with the first beast (Revelation 13:11–12). The task of the second beast is to cause everyone to worship the first beast. As the second beast deceives the world with miracles, it orders that everyone “set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived” (verse 14). It also requires that everyone receive the mark of the beast in their forehead or right hand (verses 16–17). The second beast is a symbolic picture of the false prophet.

The Bible does not provide many details concerning the image of the beast. We know this, however: the false prophet will have “power to give breath to the image of the first beast so that the image could speak” (Revelation 13:15). This breathing, speaking image of the beast will then demand worship. Anyone who refuses to worship the image of the beast will be killed. Revelation 20:4 says that the mode of execution for those who do not worship the image of the beast is beheading. It is likely that the image of the beast is the “abomination that causes desolation” in the rebuilt temple, mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15.

What exactly is the nature of the image of the beast? The Bible does not say. The old speculation was that the image of the beast is a statue given the appearance of life. With the rise of new technologies come new theories, including a hologram, an android, a cyborg, a human-animal hybrid, or a human clone. Whatever it is, the image of the beast is the focal point of worship in the “religion of the beast” during the second half of the tribulation. Paying obeisance to the image of the beast is how the deceived people of the world will worship the “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:3) who sets himself up as a god in the temple of Jerusalem.

Those who do not worship the image of the beast will suffer the wrath of the Antichrist. But those who do worship the image of the beast will suffer the wrath of God, which is far worse: “If anyone worships the beast and its image . . . they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur. . . . And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image” (Revelation 14:9–11). The first of God’s bowl judgments is aimed specifically at the worshipers of the image of the beast: “The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image” (Revelation 16:2).

Those who refuse to bow the knee to the Antichrist and the image of the beast may be persecuted on earth, but they will be rewarded in heaven: “I saw what looked like a sea of glass glowing with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and its image and over the number of its name. They held harps given them by God and sang” (Revelation 15:2–3). The image of the beast is front-and-center in the nightmarish kingdom of Satan, but it will not last. The Bible specifies forty-two months, or three-and-a-half years, that the Antichrist will have worldwide influence (Revelation 13:5). After that, the image of the beast will be destroyed, the two beasts will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20), Satan will be bound (Revelation 20:1–3), and the Lord Jesus will establish His unending kingdom of perfection (Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32–33).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

How should a Christian view socialism?


ANSWER

Socialism is a societal system in which property, natural resources, and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state rather than by individuals or private companies. A basic belief of socialism is that society as a whole should share in all goods produced, as everyone lives in cooperation with one another. Various theories of socialism have been put forward from ancient times, including a form of Christian socialism.

The most prominent philosopher to argue in favor of socialism was Karl Marx, who taught that the driving factor behind all of human history is economics. Marx was born to German Jewish parents in 1818 and received his doctorate at age 23. He then embarked on a mission to prove that human identity is bound up in a person’s work and that economic systems totally control a person. Arguing that mankind survives by labor, Marx believed that human communities are created by the division of labor.

Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as changing the basic lifestyle of humanity, because, in Marx’s mind, those who had freely worked for themselves were now forced by economics to work in factories instead. This, Marx felt, stripped away their dignity and identity, and now they were reduced to mere slaves controlled by a powerful taskmaster. This perspective made the economics of capitalism the natural enemy of Marx’s brand of socialism.

Socialism seeks to do away with private property. Karl Marx surmised that capitalism emphasizes private property and, therefore, reduced ownership to the privileged few. Two separate “communities” emerged in Marx’s mind: the business owners, or the bourgeoisie; and the working class, or the proletariat. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use and exploit the proletariat with the result that one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Moreover, Marx believed that the business owners influence lawmakers to ensure their interests are defended over the workers’ loss of dignity and rights. Last, Marx felt that religion is the “opiate of the masses,” which the rich use to manipulate the working class; the proletariat is promised rewards in heaven one day if they keep working diligently where God has placed them (subservient to the bourgeoisie).

In the socialism Marx envisioned, the people own everything collectively, and all work for the common good of mankind. Marx’s goal was to end the ownership of private property through the state’s ownership of all means of economic production. Once private property was abolished, Marx felt that a person’s identity would be elevated and the wall that capitalism supposedly constructed between the owners and working class would be shattered. Everyone would value one another and work together for a shared purpose. Government would no longer be necessary, as people would become less selfish.

There are at least four errors in Marx’s thinking, revealing some flaws in socialism. First, his assertion that another person’s gain must come at another person’s expense is a myth; the structure of capitalism leaves plenty of room for all to raise their standard of living through innovation and competition. It is perfectly feasible for multiple parties to compete and do well in a market of consumers who want their goods and services.

Second, Marx was wrong in his socialist belief that the value of a product is based on the amount of labor that is put into it. The quality of a good or service simply cannot be determined by the amount of effort a laborer expends. For example, a master carpenter can more quickly and beautifully make a piece of furniture than an unskilled craftsmen can, and therefore his work will be valued far more (and correctly so) in an economic system such as capitalism.

Third, Marx’s theory of socialism necessitates a government that is free from corruption and negates the possibility of elitism within its ranks. If history has shown anything, it is that power corrupts fallen mankind, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People do not naturally become less selfish. A nation or government may kill the idea of God, but someone will take God’s place in that government. That someone is most often an individual or group who begins to rule over the population and seeks to maintain their privileged position at all costs. This is why socialism has led to dictatorships so often in world history.

Fourth and most importantly, socialism is wrong in teaching that a person’s identity is bound up in the work that he does. Although secular society certainly promotes this belief, the Bible says that all have equal worth because all are created in the image of the eternal God. True, intrinsic human value lies in God’s creation of us.

Was Marx right in saying that economics is the catalyst that drives human history? No, what directs human history is the Creator of the universe who controls everything, including the rise and fall of every nation. God also controls who is put in charge of each nation: “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17). Further, it is God who gives a person skill at labor and the wealth that comes from it, not the government: “Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:18–19).

Socialism, for all its popularity in some circles, is not a biblical model for society. In opposition to socialism, the Bible promotes the idea of private property and issues commands to respect it: commands such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. Unlike what we see in failed experiments in socialism, the Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth foundational to socialism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Is it allowable for a Christian to have a life partner without a civil marriage?


ANSWER

There are several things to consider in this question. First of all, let’s define “Christian.” Many people assume they are Christians simply because they are not affiliated with any other religion. They go to church and agree with most of what the Bible says. However, the Bible defines a Christian as a disciple, or follower, of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26). A Christian is someone who has accepted the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as the payment for his or her own sin (John 1:12; Acts 16:31). A disciple of Christ has chosen to "deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow" Jesus (Luke 9:23). Therefore, whatever Jesus says to do through His Word, a Christian seeks to do. We do not become Christians by doing good things; but, because we are Christians, we want to obey Jesus in all things (Ephesians 2:8-9; James 2:26). In John 15:14, Jesus said, "You are my friends if you do what I command you."

So a Christian makes life choices based on what glorifies Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:31). Better than asking whether a situation is "allowable" is asking "How will this honor my Lord?" God created marriage, and it is His definition we should use as our foundation. God defines marriage as a lifelong relationship in which a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife. The two become “one flesh,” and the union must not be dissolved by human will (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:7-9; Ephesians 5:31). Malachi 2:14 tells us that one reason God hates divorce is that He is present when a couple takes the vows. Biblically, marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in a spiritual and physical covenant for life. That joining is cause for celebration and deserves our respect.

Some couples today, particularly among seniors, want to cohabit as “married” couples without being legally married. Often, this is done for some perceived financial benefit or for simplicity’s sake. Some of these couples undergo a religious ceremony in a church and consider themselves married before God. However, a couple seeking a "spiritual marriage" while avoiding a legal marriage is seeking to escape the requirements of the law, and that causes a new set of problems for the Christian (Romans 13:1-7). If a senior couple believes it is God’s will for them to be together, they should marry in accordance with the laws of the land, and trust God for the finances.

There is no scriptural basis for a live-in situation, even when the two involved intend to be monogamous for life. Intentions fail, and the lack of a real marriage commitment makes it easier to part ways. Without marriage, the relationship is sexually immoral and is condemned in Scripture (Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). The term "life partner" has a tentative sound and a questionable history. It implies that the relationship is not legally or morally sanctioned and that it may not last. It bypasses the covenant that God created marriage to be. For a Christian couple, such a term would cast immediate suspicion on their reputation and, ultimately on Christ’s reputation. Any Christian couple considering a “life partnership” should ask, “How will our bypassing of traditional marriage glorify the Lord Jesus?”

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Why True Love Waits by Josh McDowell

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Should Christians try to evangelize atheists?


ANSWER

As Christians who know the love of God and have the assurance of eternity in heaven, it’s hard to understand why anyone would want to be an atheist. But when we realize the sin nature and its strong influence on the mind and the heart, we begin to understand where the atheist is coming from. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an atheist. Psalm 19:1-2 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. We see His creative power in all that He has made. Romans 1:19-20 follows up on this idea, telling us that what may be known about God has been made plain to us through the creation, and anyone who denies this is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18). Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 declare that those who deny the existence of God are fools. So the atheist is either lying or he is a fool or both. So, what is it that causes someone to deny God?

The main goal of those under the influence of the sin nature is to make himself a god, to have complete control over his life, or so he thinks. Then religion comes along with obligations, judgments, and restrictions, while atheists presume to define their own meaning and morality. They do not want to submit to God because their hearts are at “enmity against God,” and they have no desire to be subject to His Law. In fact they are incapable of doing so because their sin has blinded them to truth (Romans 8:6-7). This is why atheists spend most of their time complaining and arguing not about the scriptural proof texts, but about the “dos and don’ts.” Their natural rebelliousness detests the commandments of God. They simply hate the idea that anything—or any One—should have control over them. What they do not realize is that Satan himself is controlling them, blinding them, and preparing their souls for hell.

In terms of evangelizing atheists, we should not hold back the gospel from someone just because he or she claims to be an atheist. Do not forget that an atheist is just as lost as a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. God certainly wants us to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:19) and to defend the truths of His word (Romans 1:16). On the other hand, we are not obligated to waste our time trying to convince the unwilling. In fact, we are warned not to expend excessive effort on those who are clearly disinterested in any honest discussions (Matthew 7:6). Jesus told the apostles to go and preach the Word, but He did not expect them to stay anywhere until every last person had been converted (Matthew 10:14).

Perhaps the best tactic is to give each person the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. Every question, honestly and truthfully answered, gives that person a chance to hear the gospel. But if that person is just arguing, being hostile, or otherwise not listening, it’s probably time to go somewhere else. Some people are totally and absolutely hardened to the gospel (Proverbs 29:1). They may be rational or irrational, but there are scriptural reasons to believe that some people are willingly immune to the influence of the Holy Spirit (Genesis 6:3). When we have made a good-faith effort to talk to someone, and he or she is unreachable, then we are commanded to “shake the dust off” of our shoes (Luke 9:5) and spend our time talking to those who are more spiritually open. As in all things, the wisdom of God is crucial. God has promised that wisdom to us if we ask (James 1:5), and we should pray for it and trust God’s prompting to know how and when to end the dialog with a hostile atheist.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Inside the Atheist Mind by Anthony DeStefano

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!