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

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about sons?​

ANSWER

Son in the Bible is used in several different ways, but it always refers to a relationship or affiliation. In Hebrew, it is ben (think “Benjamin,” which means “son of my right hand”), in Aramaic bar (“Simon Bar-Jonah” of Matthew 16:17), and in Greek, auios. It is most often used to indicate a direct descendent—either a child or a grandchild. But son is also used as a metaphor to reflect a characteristic, profession, or citizenship.

Primarily, a “son” in the Bible is a direct male descendent. The word was not limited to the first generation; when Paul preached in Antioch, he called the Jews present “sons of the family of Abraham.” As we do now, people in that time used the word son to refer to someone who was younger or of inferior social status, like the priest Eli did with Samuel (1 Samuel 3:16) and Jesus with the paralytic (Matthew 9:2).

The term son often carries a deeper meaning, however, that intertwines with genealogy. When Jesus says of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:9, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham,” Jesus didn’t just mean that Zacchaeus was a Jew, a direct descendent of Abraham. He meant that Zacchaeus had faith. Galatians 3:7 elaborates: “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham”—Zacchaeus was a “son of Abraham” because he took part in the Abrahamic Covenant, which included accepting the blessing of Christ. And in Matthew 1:1, when Jesus was identified as the “son of David, the son of Abraham,” the terms don’t just mean that Jesus was directly descended from David and Abraham (which He was). In both cases, to be a “son” means to follow in someone’s footsteps; to emulate another’s actions; to carry on and, to an extent, fulfill the “father’s” life and purpose. We who are believers are “sons of Abraham,” because we fulfill God’s promise to Abraham that He would bless the world through Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 12:3). Jesus is the “Son of David” because He is the fulfillment of God’s promise that David would always have a descendant on the throne (2 Samuel 7:10–13). In these cases, Abraham and David become more than people or patriarchs; they become the embodiment of an idea—specifically, God’s work in humanity. To be a son is to partake in the grand purpose of another’s life (Matthew 13:38; Luke 6:35).

Son can also refer to a person’s character or identity. A “son of Aaron” was a priest, a “son of Asaph” was a musician and songwriter (2 Chronicles 35:14–15), and a “son of the prophets” was a prophet (2 Kings 2:3). “Son of” was also used metaphorically to identify one’s nature or a personality trait: Jesus is called the “Son of God,” a title communicating His divine nature (1 John 5:13); and the “sons of thunder”—James and John—were known for their somewhat outgoing personalities (Mark 3:17). Son could refer to nationality: a “son of Zion” was a Jew—a citizen of Israel or Jerusalem. Son also indicated religion: sons of Chemosh (Numbers 21:29) and sons of Belial (Deuteronomy 13:13). This is perhaps the most ominous use of the word, since it indicates that pagans followed in the purpose of these demon-gods.

So, to be a “son” is to be closely related to and allied with a person, place, or characteristic. This is true for biological sons, as well. Genesis 5:3 identifies Seth as Adam’s biological son, but more so a “son in his own likeness, after his image.” When Rebekah and Isaac had twins, Isaac identified more with Esau while Rebekah loved Jacob (Genesis 25:27–28). To be a son in Israel in Jesus’ day was to be an extension and representative of the parents, particularly the father (Mark 12:6).

The guidance given to parents regarding sons is universal for daughters, as well:

- Teach them about God (Deuteronomy 11:18–19)
- Teach them how to properly use their talents and gifts (Proverbs 22:6)
- Do not frustrate them to the point they become disrespectful (Ephesians 6:4)
- Properly discipline them (Proverbs 19:18)
- Provide for their needs (Matthew 7:9)
- Forgive them (Luke 15:24)
- Realize they are a blessing (Psalm 127:3–5)

The most important thing parents can do for their sons is lead them to be sons of God. Ultimately, our sons are not ours to keep. Romans 8:14 explains what our ultimate goal as parents should be: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” A son may inherit our eyes, our height, or our love of the outdoors, but the greatest thing he can inherit is our faith and our standing as sons of God: “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Galatians 4:6). When they are born again, they become more than our sons—they become our brothers (Romans 8:16–17).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Raising a Modern Day Knight: A Father’s Role in Guiding His Son to Authentic Manhood by Robert Lewis

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

​

 

[bic_cherry]

soliloquy thread...

 

[Patriot]

What is the emerging / emergent church movement?​

ANSWER

The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response. In this case, it is a response by various church leaders to the current era of post-modernism. Although post-modernism began in the 1950s, the church didn’t really seek to conform to its tenets until the 1990s. Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity." The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way.

The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture. This movement is still fairly new, though, so there is not yet a standard method of "doing" church amongst the groups choosing to take a post-modern mindset. In fact, the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology.

For example, because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. Relativism opens up all kinds of problems, as it destroys the standard that the Bible contains absolute truth, negating the belief that biblical truth can be absolute. If the Bible is not our source for absolute truth, and personal experience is allowed to define and interpret what truth actually is, a saving faith in Jesus Christ is rendered meaningless.

Another area where the emerging / emergent church movement has become anti-biblical is its focus on ecumenism. Unity among people coming from different religious backgrounds and diversity in the expression of corporate worship are strong focuses of the emergent church movement. Being ecumenical means that compromise is taking place, and this results in a watering down of Scripture in favor of not offending an apostate. This is in direct opposition to passages such as Revelation 2:14-17, Jesus’ letter to the church of Pergamum, in which the Church is warned against tolerating those who teach false doctrine.

False doctrine seems to abound within the emerging / emergent church movement, though, as stated previously, not within every group espousing emerging / emergent church beliefs. Because of this, care must be taken when deciding whether or not to become involved with an emergent church group. We all need to take heed of Matthew 7:15-20, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

While seeking new ways to witness to a changing culture is admirable, utilizing ways which compromise the Truth of the Gospel in any way is nothing more than promoting false doctrine and leading others away from Christ instead of to Him.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception by John MacArthur

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about good versus evil?​

ANSWER

Among the most universal beliefs across all humanity is the concept of “good versus evil.” Every culture in every era has held to some version of this struggle. The definitions of the terms good and evil vary wildly, as do opinions on how they interact. Still, belief in some difference between that which is “good” and that which is “evil” pervades all of mankind. When all options and ideas are compared, only the Bible provides a perspective on good and evil that is fully coherent and fully livable (Psalm 25:6–15).

According to the Bible, “good versus evil” is not a matter of opinion. Nor is it an evenly matched struggle between two beings or forces. Scripture does not indicate that the boundaries of good and evil change. Nor does it claim the conflict between them will last forever. Of special importance is that the Bible does not suggest some people are good, while other people are evil.

Rather, the Bible teaches that good and evil are defined in reference to a perfect and unchanging God. Every person must grapple individually with the presence and temptations of evil. Scripture notes that all evil, without exception, will ultimately be punished and defeated. And it tells us there is an ultimate standard of goodness to which we should aspire—a standard grounded in a person, rather than a theory.

Good and Evil Are Objectively Distinct

According to the Bible, there is a real difference between good and evil. Some worldviews claim all moral distinctions are based purely on preference. Atheism, for instance, allows no objective basis for defining anything as “good” or “evil.” In a godless universe, there are only things a person prefers and things a person does not prefer. This is a key reason why philosophies embracing atheism always tend toward violence and tyranny: there is no sense of higher authority and no reason to moderate the whims of those in power.

The idea that defining good and evil depends on preferences or situations is commonly called moral relativism. Scripture rejects this idea as false. The Bible defines some things as “good” and other things as “evil” (Isaiah 5:20; Romans 12:9). This dichotomy is reflected in the consistent use of themes such as light versus darkness (Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:16; John 1:5; Ephesians 5:8). The ultimate fate of all people depends on whether they are aligned with a good God or opposed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Revelation 21:8).

Discerning between good and evil is possible only in reference to a single, unchanging standard: the perfect nature of God. God is not subject to morality, since He is the source and benchmark for it. Nor is morality subject to change, since God’s perfect nature is eternal and unchanging. Counters such as Euthyphro’s dilemma fail, since they do not distinguish between an eternal, unchanging God and the fickle deities of ancient Greek religion.

Good and Evil Are Not Balanced

A frequent component of fiction and fantasy is the idea that good and evil are equally balanced, evenly matched forces. According to this view, neither is ultimately in control. Either may eventually win. This is the concept of dualism, which suggests a perpetual balance between the forces of good and evil. In some cases, dualism implies that opposing beings, such as God and Satan, are deadlocked in a struggle for control and power.

Some worldviews teach that all good and evil will eventually be balanced. This is related to Eastern ideas such as karma, which implies that good and evil are inherently imbalanced but will one day be evened out.

Scripture rejects dualism as false. The Bible indicates that God is absolutely supreme and in no danger whatsoever of being defeated (Job 42:2; Psalm 89:8; Galatians 6:7). What Satan does, he is “allowed” to do, but he cannot act to overpower God (Job 1:12; Revelation 9:1; 20:7). Biblically, evil is destined only for defeat and destruction. Not one single act of evil will escape judgment; every sin will either be paid for by Christ on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21) or by those who reject Christ (John 3:36) as they experience an eternity in hell (Revelation 20:11–15).

Good and Evil Are Not External

Evidence that humanity holds to a basic concept of good versus evil is obvious (Romans 1:18–20). This explains why moral reasoning—separating “what is” from “what ought to be”—is a universal facet of humanity. Of course, that does not mean all people hold the same views on good and evil. We are not examining morality from the outside, as neutral observers; all moral discussions by definition involve the person(s) who discuss them, as well.

A unique aspect of the Bible’s teaching on good and evil is that all people, without exception, are subject to sin and evil (Romans 3:10; 3:23). The biblical concept of a sin nature means that the line between good and evil cannot be drawn between people. Rather, it is drawn within every person. This fact of human nature is critical to understand (Matthew 15:19–20). As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said, “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

In simpler language, C.S. Lewis noted, “To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you” (see Matthew 6:14–15).

One truth found in the gospel is that all people, without exception, are sinners in need of a Savior. Biblical Christianity does not see good versus evil as a battle to be fought on earth (John 18:36), an issue to resolve by revenge or retribution (Romans 12:20–21), or a philosophical position to be considered. The Bible says every person is created for a good purpose (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28) but suffers from an evil heart (Romans 7:15–25), which can only be remedied by faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Redemption is available to anyone (Matthew 7:7–8; Revelation 22:15), regardless of his past or the depth of his sin (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

Good versus Evil Requires “Right Judgment”

Another key aspect of the Bible’s teaching on “good versus evil” is that no person is infallible, even on spiritual matters. Those who are guided by the Holy Spirit are better equipped to judge spiritual matters (1 Corinthians 2:14), and they ought to do so. Scripture is clear that all people are subject to sin, and it is just as clear that all people are subject to correction (Hebrews 12:5–11), learning (2 Timothy 2:15), and limitations (1 Samuel 16:7).

In Matthew 7 Jesus gives an extensive explanation of how to properly discern between good and evil: to “judge” in the correct way; that is, to use “right judgment” (John 7:24). The Bible commends examination (Acts 17:11), commands putting things to the test (1 John 4:1), and promotes accountability (1 Peter 3:15) and a commitment to truth (Galatians 1:8–9).

Scripture does not imply that “good versus evil” is a simplistic, binary concept. Since only God is ultimately perfect, the Bible allows for a “good versus better” spectrum. God called His initial creation “good” (Genesis 1:24), then after more creating called it “very good” (Genesis 1:28). Some of the good things God has given us have more than one use, and not all uses are automatically good or evil (1 Timothy 4:4). The biblical understanding of good versus evil does not imply that all things are either perfectly holy or wholly satanic. Rather, there can be good and bad aspects of many of the freedoms God gives us (1 Corinthians 6:12). Likewise, while all sin leads to separation from God, Scripture does speak of some sins as being more heinous than others.

The Bible acknowledges that not every moment in human experience will come with a clear, black-and-white moral answer. Scripture focuses only on the most important points we need to know, not every imaginable scenario (John 21:25). This means even the most sincere, Bible-believing, born-again Christians might disagree on an ethical question (1 Corinthians 10:23–33). The Bible’s answer—when the issue is not covered overtly in God’s Word (1 Corinthians 5:6)—is for tolerance and patience (Titus 3:9). We’re given a conscience for a reason (Romans 14:23).

Truth is objective; for any given opinion or interpretation, someone is right, and someone is wrong. But human beings lack the moral perfection of God; this is reflected in the Bible’s teaching on good versus evil and our role in applying good judgment.

Scripture encourages believers not to apply terms like good, evil, sin, and so forth to issues where there is room for doubt (Romans 14:1–12). Contrary to what some think, the Bible admits that human beings might not always be correct in our moral judgments. We are not to avoid all judgment (John 7:24), but the Bible teaches us to carefully consider when and how we judge (Ephesians 5:10).

Good versus Evil Demands a Response

The Bible’s teaching on good versus evil leads to a challenging conclusion: that every person is obligated to make a fundamental choice between the two. That choice is entirely determined by our response to God, who is both the definition of good and our Creator. Moment by moment, that means either following His will or rebelling and choosing to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). Eternally, this means we either choose to accept Him and His salvation (John 3:16; 14:6) or align ourselves against Him (John 3:36). While we may be imperfect and fallible, we cannot be neutral in our approach to good versus evil. Our hearts are either seeking the goodness of God (Matthew 7:7–8; Romans 2:4) or the selfishness of evil (1 Peter 3:10–12).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norman

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

 

[Patriot]

What is the difference between Christianity and Islam?​

ANSWER

While some similarities exist between Islam and Christianity (they are both monotheistic religions, for example), their differences are clear-cut, significant, and irreconcilable. For this article, we will survey four key areas: the founders of the two religions, the contrasting views of God, the sacred literature, and the means of salvation. We will see that Islam differs from Christianity in each of those four areas.

Islam and Christianity: Founders of the Religions

Islam was founded by an Arab merchant named Muhammed about AD 622. Muhammed claimed to have received a revelation from an angel of God, and, although he initially feared his revelation had come from Satan, Muhammed later claimed to be the last and greatest of all of God’s prophets. Muhammed had fifteen wives (although he limited other men to four wives apiece) and sanctioned the beating of wives (Sura 4:34). Muhammed was well known for spreading his new religion by force. He commanded, “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them” (Sura 9:5), and he specified the proper way to execute an unbeliever was to cut his throat (Sura 47:4). Muhammed led raids against caravans to plunder their goods, broke oaths, ordered the murder of those who mocked him, and wiped out the last Jewish tribe in Medina—he killed all the men and enslaved the women and children. Interestingly, Muhammed acknowledged his own need to seek God’s forgiveness on occasion (Sura 40:55).

In stark contrast to the moral depravity of Muhammed, Jesus Christ was above reproach in every way (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus never married, He defended and honored women (John 8:1–11), and His law was “love one another” (John 13:34). Accordingly, Jesus never assassinated anyone, never beat a woman, never enslaved a child, never broke a promise, and never plundered a caravan. On the cross, when Jesus was mocked by those nearby, His response was, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34).

Islam and Christianity: Views of God

Islam teaches that Allah, or God, is the sovereign Creator and Ruler of all that is. Muslims emphasize God’s absolute unity, which will admit of no division, and God’s will. In fact, the will of God is more basic to who He is than His love or mercy. God could choose not to be merciful, and He can choose not to love; thus, Allah’s mercy and love are not intrinsic to His nature but are choices He makes. More important than loving God—or even knowing Him—is submitting to His will. The word Islam means “submission.” According to Islam, God cannot be considered a “father” and He has no son. Allah does not love sinners (Surah 3:140).

Similar to Islam, Christianity teaches that God is the sovereign Creator and Ruler of all that is—but that is about where the similarity ends. Christians believe in one God who exists in three eternal, co-equal Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) who share the same indivisible essence. According to Christianity, God loves because His very nature is love (1 John 4:8)—not just because He happens to choose to love. God’s essence includes the attribute of mercy, so divine displays of mercy are more than choices God makes; they are extensions of His character. God is knowable and desires a relationship with us based on love (Mark 12:30). Obeying God is important, but obedience without a relationship based on love is worthless (1 Corinthians 13:3). According to Christianity, God the Father has an eternal relationship with God the Son. God does love sinners (Romans 5:8).

Islam and Christianity: Sacred Literature

Islam holds that the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), the Psalms, and the Gospels were given by God—with this caveat: Jews and Christians have corrupted God’s Word and therefore Bibles cannot be fully trusted. Muslims believe that God’s final Word, the Qur’an, was miraculously given to Muhammed over a period of twenty-three years. The Qur’an, which is perfect and holy, is divided into 114 chapters called suras. In addition to the Qur’an, the Muslims have the Hadith, a collection of Muhammed’s sayings, opinions, and actions as reported by those close to him.

Biblical Christianity holds that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are God’s inspired Word and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice. The Bible warns against adding to God’s Word (Revelation 22:18); Christians reject the Qur’an as an attempted addition to God’s Word and as a document that contradicts the Bible in many ways.

Islam and Christianity: Means of Salvation

Islam teaches a works-based salvation and in this way is similar to other man-made religions. A Muslim must keep the five pillars of Islam: he must confess the shahadah (“there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet”); he must kneel in prayer toward Mecca five times a day; he must fast during the daylight hours one month of the year (Ramadan); he must give money to the poor; and he must make a pilgrimage to Mecca sometime in his lifetime. Islam teaches that the day of judgment will involve a person’s good and bad deeds being weighed in a balance—so the standard for judgment is one’s own actions (Surah 7:8-9; 21:47). The Qur’an forbids anyone from bearing another’s burden of sin (Surah 17:15; 35:18) and pointedly denies the death of Jesus (or Isa) on the cross (Surah 3:55; 4:157–158). If you will be saved, you must save yourself.

Christianity teaches a grace-based salvation. A person is saved by the grace (the undeserved blessing) of God, through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10). The standard for judgment is absolute perfection—the righteousness of Christ. No one can measure up to perfection (Romans 3:23), but God in His grace and mercy has given His Son as the substitute for our sin: “When you were dead in your sins . . . God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 1:13–14). We cannot save ourselves, so we turn to Christ, our sinless Savior and the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Islam and Christianity, having different beliefs on essential doctrines such as God, Jesus, Scripture, and salvation, are irreconcilable. Both religions cannot be true. We believe that Jesus Christ, as presented in the Bible, is the true Son of God and Savior of mankind. “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is Christian atheism?​

ANSWER

Christian atheism, also called non-realistic Christianity, is a bizarre form of quasi-spiritual philosophy that keeps the forms and practices of Christianity while denying God’s existence. Christian atheists attempt to “de-mythologize” Christianity, doing away with all belief in the supernatural yet maintaining liturgies and corporate worship experiences as meeting humanity’s need for socialization and the communication of lofty ideas.

Christian atheism has roots in the 1960s’ “Death of God” movement, which claimed God actually did exist at one point, but died. According to “Death of God” proponents, when God became incarnate and died on the cross, God ceased to exist as a being independent of the universe. This was the position of Thomas Alitzer, one of the earlier proponents of Christian atheism. Modern adherents of Christian atheism generally believe in a more literal atheism in the sense that they disbelieve that God has ever existed. Of course, in Christian atheism, Jesus is not divine.

Christian atheism, like most esoteric spiritual approaches, can be difficult to explain in brief terms. There are multiple interpretations and no particular definition to bind them all together. In broad strokes, Christian atheism is a spiritual approach using the teachings and example of Jesus while denying the existence of a literal God. As a result, Christian atheism is entirely focused on earthly concerns and earthly justifications. Religion is a purely human endeavor, and God is simply a projection of a person’s mind. Belief in an afterlife is incoherent within a Christian atheist framework. In fact, Christian atheism generally holds that Christianity, like all religions, is nothing more than a “benevolent lie,” a fiction that makes life easier to understand and control.

All of this is interesting in theory, but, in practice, Christian atheism is really just atheism. Christian atheism is a non-religious, non-spiritual, and non-Christian worldview that borrows biblical terminology and ideas without actually believing in them. Non-realistic Christianity is not really Christianity at all.

What is concerning is the surprising number of people who identify as orthodox Christians yet hold beliefs similar to Christian atheism. It is easy to find clergy who do not believe that Jesus was actually God. Many churches teach that Jesus was merely a good example. Some churchgoers participate in religious practice while openly doubting that God exists. It seems that Christian atheism is not an uncommon approach today, and non-realistic Christianity has made inroads into the church.

The Bible warns against those who, in the last days, possess “a form of godliness but deny its power. Have nothing to do with such people” (2 Timothy 3:5). Christian atheism denies the Father and the Son, a rejection of truth that brings a stern scriptural rebuke: “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22; cf. 1 John 4:2–3).

Christian atheists see themselves as intellectual sophisticates who are smarter than your average churchgoer, who might actually believe that God is real and that the miracles in the Bible happened. But what Christian atheism rejects as “fairy tales” the Bible calls “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3). And what the Christian atheist considers an intellectually superior position the Bible calls foolish (Psalm 14:1).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

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 mythicism?​

ANSWER

Mythicism is the belief that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical figure but was derived from a group of mythical gods and demigods from Greek and Roman times. Mythicism claims that, since certain supernatural powers or feats were described prior to the rise of Christianity, then Christians could have simply incorporated them into their new religion.

For example, a mythicist might believe that followers of Christ “borrowed” the powers ascribed to Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine (Jesus is called the Great Physician), fathered by the god Apollo and his mother, a mortal woman (Jesus is the Son of the Father and was born of a virgin). The symbol of Asclepius was a serpent wound around a staff, and Jesus compared Himself to a serpent that was lifted up in the desert by Moses as a foreshadowing of His being raised up on the cross (Numbers 21:9; John 3:14–15). Mythicists use these examples and others to defend their beliefs.

Mythicism denies that Jesus has come in the flesh and is from God. But the apostle John warns against the empty philosophies that deny the One who came to save mankind. Such denials are of the devil. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:1–3a).

The truth is that Jesus really did exist. The truth is that the Gospels are not copies of ancient mythologies. The claims of mythicism are totally false, and, like all lies, they are designed to catch the unsuspecting and shipwreck the faith of immature believers. The only sure way to recognize the lies is to be intimately familiar with the Truth. We do this by seeking truth in everything and comparing everything we hear with the Word of God, just as the Bereans did. “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men” (Acts 17:11–12).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

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]

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 RESOURCES​

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 significance of the city of Jerusalem?​

For millennia, Jerusalem has been an important city, often commanding the attention of much of the world, and the city figures prominently in both biblical history and biblical prophecy. Jerusalem is central to many important events in the Bible.

The city of Jerusalem is situated on the edge of one of the highest tablelands in Israel, south of the center of the country, about thirty-seven miles east of the Mediterranean Sea and about twenty-four miles west of the Jordan River. Its situation, lined on two sides by deep ravines, provides a natural defense for the city. Jerusalem is called by various names in Scripture: “Salem,” “Ariel,” “Jebus,” the “city of God,” the “holy city,” the “city of David,” and “Zion.” Jerusalem itself means “possession of peace.”

Jerusalem in history. The first biblical reference to Jerusalem is found in the story of Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek, King of Salem (Genesis 14:18–24). The actual name Jerusalem first occurs in Joshua 10:5. Later, David marched on Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:6–10, c. 1000 BC), and he “captured the fortress of Zion—which is the City of David” from the Jebusites (verse 7). At that time, Jerusalem became the capital of Israel. It was in Jerusalem that Solomon built the temple and his palace (1 Kings 6–7). In 586 BC the Babylonians destroyed the temple and the city and deported the Jews to Babylon (2 Kings 24–25). After the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem, they rebuilt the temple, completed in 516 BC under Zerubbabel (Ezra 6). Under Nehemiah’s leadership the walls were rebuilt in 444 BC (Nehemiah 6).

During the intertestamental period, the Selucid king Antiochus IV (175–163 BC) desecrated the temple. In 165 Jerusalem was liberated by Judas Maccabeus, and the Jews cleansed and restored the temple. In 65 BC the Romans besieged the city and destroyed the walls. Herod the Great was made “king of the Jews” by Caesar Augustus in 40 BC. Twenty years later Herod began a massive remodeling of the Jewish temple, a project completed in AD 66. That temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and the Jews dispersed throughout the world.

In the seventh and eighth centuries, Islam came on the scene, and Muslims began building shrines and mosques in Jerusalem to commemorate certain events important in their religion. The Dome of the Rock is the most noteworthy shrine, built directly on the temple mount. Under Arab rule, Jerusalem prospered, and tolerance was at first extended to Christians. However, this tolerance began to wane over time. In the early eleventh century, a ruler of the Fatimid Dynasty ordered the destruction of all churches in Jerusalem. This outraged Christians throughout Europe and led to the First Crusade (1095–1099).

After World War II, on May 14, 1948, Israel once again became an independent state, and President Truman duly recognized Israel’s restored status as a national homeland for the Jewish people. On December 5, 1949, Israel declared Jerusalem to be its “eternal and sacred” capital. Unfortunately, other nations have been slow in facing the reality of Israel’s independence and its right to choose its own capital. In December 2017 the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Jerusalem in prophecy. The Bible predicted that the Jewish people would return to Israel, and Jerusalem figures prominently in prophecies concerning the end times (Joel 3:1; Jeremiah 23:3; 30:7; Ezekiel 11:17; 37:1–14). Someday, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt in the Holy City (Daniel 9:27; 12:11; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4).

In the early part of the tribulation, a combined military force, including Russia, will march against Jerusalem: this battle is outlined in Ezekiel 38–39 in the prophecy of Gog and Magog, and it will end in the destruction of those armies arrayed against Israel. During the tribulation, the two witnesses will be martyred in Jerusalem (Revelation 11). At the end of the tribulation, the nations of the world will mount a final assault on the city in the Battle of Armageddon (Joel 3:9–12; Zechariah 14:1–3; Revelation 16). That battle will be ended by the arrival of Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 19). “The Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. . . . The Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him” (Zechariah 14:3, 5).

Zechariah 12:2–4 refers to the futility of people attacking Jerusalem: “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness.”

During the Millennial Kingdom, the Lord Jesus Christ will reign over the earth from Zion, and the nations will come to Jerusalem for instruction and blessing (Isaiah 2:2–4; 35:10; Psalm 102:20–22; Revelation 20).

Jerusalem in the present. Israel is a sovereign nation, and it has chosen its capital to be Jerusalem. In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, requiring the U.S. embassy to be moved to Jerusalem. However, for over two decades, implementation of that law was delayed by U.S. Presidents. Now the United States has officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move that accords with thousands of years of history and the wishes of Israel itself.

Jerusalem is held in high regard by all three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jews consider the Temple Mount to be the holiest place on earth; it is the third holiest Islamic site. Christians value Jerusalem as the site of much of Jesus’ ministry, the place where He was crucified and rose again, and the church’s birthplace (Acts 2). Today the Temple Mount is under the control of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, a trust established to manage the Islamic structures in Jerusalem. Under their current rules, access to the holy sites is prohibited to all non-Muslims. The closest the Jews can get to their former temple site is the Western Wall.

Currently, Jerusalem is still experiencing what Jesus called “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This period began with the Babylonian Exile (or possibly with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70) and will continue through the tribulation period (Matthew 24; Revelation 11:2). Scripture tells us to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6).

The rebirth of Israel in 1948 was a vital step in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The dry bones of the prophecy in Ezekiel 37 began coming back together. The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is another important step. The stage is being set for other prophecies to be fulfilled. We may not know all the implications that current events have on the prophetic timeline, but we do know that Jerusalem is a special city. It is the only city in the world where God has put His Name (2 Kings 21:7). As for the temple, the Lord said, “I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there” (2 Chronicles 7:16). God has promised an everlasting covenant with Jerusalem (Ezekiel 16:60), and Zion has this promise:
“‘Though the mountains be shaken
and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
nor my covenant of peace be removed,’
says the Lord, who has compassion on you” (Isaiah 54:10).

At His second coming, Jesus will descend to the Mount of Olives, just outside of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4). Jerusalem will be the seat of authority in Jesus’ kingdom, and judgment will be meted out from Zion (Micah 4:7; Isaiah 33:5; Psalm 110). With every passing day, we are closer to the Lord’s fulfillment of His promises concerning Jerusalem and His reign of true justice and peace (Isaiah 9:7). “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20, KJV).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

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

 

[Patriot]

Is there a conclusive argument for the existence of God?​

ANSWER

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that causes invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 4:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

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

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

 

[Patriot]

Why do women have such a small role in the Bible?​

ANSWER

It is undeniable that relatively few women are mentioned in the Bible, and extremely few have what might be considered “major” roles. The reasons for this are mainly cultural. However, several women in the Bible had huge roles to play, and the honor they were given continues to this day.

During the historical periods covered by the Bible, most societies were patriarchal, meaning men held exclusive power with the rare exception of a ruling queen. These power dynamics extended to every part of life, including religion, government, and family. Since the Bible mainly records historical events, such as the rise of the nation of Israel, and the acts of leaders such as prophets and priests and kings, the vast majority of people mentioned are men.

Many Bible scholars point out that the number of women who are recorded in the Bible is unusual, given the male-dominated society in which the Bible was written. The inclusion of the stories of women, from Hannah and Ruth and Esther and Deborah in the Old Testament to Mary and Elizabeth and Priscilla in the New, seems to indicate that God values women more than society as a whole did. Of special note is the resurrection account. The disciples of Jesus, all male, were hiding in fear while the women went to the tomb, discovered it empty, met the risen Lord, and became the world’s first evangelists (Matthew 28).

During most of the world’s history, women played a smaller role than men, and that reality is accurately reflected in the Bible. The majority of kings and other leaders were men. Women were accustomed to being relegated to secondary roles. That’s part of why the woman at the well was shocked that Jesus spoke to her: “The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?’” (John 4:9). It wasn’t just that she was a Samaritan, but that she was a Samaritan woman that caused her to think Jesus would overlook her. But she was wrong; Jesus had come to seek and save all who were lost, women included. And, in Christ, men and women are absolutely equal (Galatians 3:28).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You by John MacArthur

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

​

 

[Patriot]

What is objective truth?​

ANSWER

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

Objective is the opposite of subjective. If a person says, “The 1966 Ford Mustang is the coolest car ever made,” he is making a subjective statement. It is simply the opinion of one person. There is no way to measure that statement against reality; it cannot be evaluated apart from the opinions of other people. Others will either support or oppose the statement depending solely on their own, equally subjective opinions. It’s really impossible to say that a subjective statement is true in any meaningful sense; however, in modern parlance, someone might say, “It is MY truth,” which introduces a brand-new spin on subjectivism. At one time “my truth” would have been more accurately labeled “my opinion.”

An objective statement is factual; it has a definite correspondence to reality, independent of anyone’s feelings or biases. If a person says, “I own a 1966 Ford Mustang,” he is making an objective statement. If that person owns such a car, then the statement is true. If a person does not own such a car, then the statement is false. The truth or falsehood of the claim does not depend upon subjective opinion.

In recent years there has been an attack upon the very concept of objective truth. Things that were once deemed to be objective have been labeled subjective. For instance, the simple statement “God exists” was, in the past, recognized as an objective statement. People might agree or disagree, but everyone considered it an objective statement regarding external reality. Most people agreed with the statement, but even atheists who disagreed treated it objectively—the statement was either true or false.

Within the past thirty years or so, a new response has become popular. Instead of treating the statement “God exists” as an objective statement, many began to treat it as subjective. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, the response might be something like “That is your truth. God may exist for you, but He doesn’t exist for me.” The focus has changed from objectivity (which seeks correspondence to objects in the real world) to subjectivity (which depends upon the subject who is making the statement). Today it is popular to view all statements regarding religion or theology as simply subjective statements of opinion—and, of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

In more recent years, we have seen subjective opinion elevated to the level of objective truth. If a person embraces “his truth” or “her truth,” then everyone else is supposed to embrace that as “truth” as well—at least in certain “politically correct” matters. We see this in recent developments in transgender issues. For millennia, gender was considered an objective issue—a person was male or female based on a set of external, objective, and verifiable criteria. Now, certain cultural forces are attempting to make gender subjective. A male who decides to be female is simply embracing “his truth” or as the cultural forces would have us say, “her truth.” And even though the transgender person’s gender is “subjective,” his or her subjective truth must be treated as objective, as if it fully conformed to reality. If a person hints that the chosen gender of a transgender person is merely “their truth,” then he has committed an almost unforgiveable sin. The subjective has been elevated to the level of the objective, and the objective has been denigrated to the level of the subjective. The world has been flipped upside down.

But reality has a way of encroaching on people’s opinions. Try as they might, it is impossible for people to get away from the concept of objective truth. A person who says that a person can choose his own gender is, in fact, making an objective statement. That statement is either true or false. The person who makes the statement will not be satisfied if you agree that this is only “their truth.” They will insist that this is an objective statement that is true for everyone. Even the statement “objective truth does not exist” is an objective statement. Those who make it will often try to argue that it corresponds to reality and is therefore objectively true, thus defeating their own argument.

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that does not deny the existence of objective truth, but it denies that we can ever know it for sure, because we are all swayed by various cultural forces that cloud our judgment. In postmodern thinking, it is only ignorance and pride that allows one to say, “I know this is true.” However, when postmodernists say, “It is impossible to know anything for sure,” they are making an objective statement. If it is impossible to know anything for sure, then it is impossible for them to know that it is impossible.

In short, facts and opinions are different. Objective truth is the opposite of (subjective) opinion. People may argue over whether a particular statement is objective or subjective. If it is objective, they may argue over whether or not it is true. But no matter what, it is impossible to escape the fact that objective truth does exist. At one time, the job of the Christian was to demonstrate the truthfulness of the biblical claims. Now, his job has been made more difficult because, before talking about the truth of the Bible, the Christian must often convince the listener that truth actually exists, especially touching religious claims.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World by Art Lindsley

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

 

[Patriot]

What is the Athanasian Creed?​

ANSWER

The Athanasian Creed (known in Latin as Quicumque vult) is an early summary of Christian doctrine. It is traditionally believed to have been written by Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century A.D. However, this traditional view of its authorship is challenged by some historians and scholars. The Athanasian Creed seems to have been written primarily to refute heresies involving the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, such as Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. The Athanasian Creed traditionally reads as follows:

“Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith:

“We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

“As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

“For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother—existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

“He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.”

While the Athanasian Creed is a good summary of Christian doctrine on the subjects of the Trinity, and the deity / humanity of Jesus Christ, there are a couple of issues that must be dealt with. First, in regards to the phrase “catholic church,” this does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The word catholic means “universal.” The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Please see our article on the universal church. Second, the Athanasian Creed demands belief in all of its tenets for salvation. While we agree with the tenets, we do not believe that all of them are mandatory for salvation.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns

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

​

 

[Patriot]

Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?​

ANSWER

Many Christians use the cliché “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” This saying is not found in the Bible in so many words; however, Jude 1:22–23 contains a similar idea: “Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” According to this, our evangelism should be characterized by mercy for the sinner and a healthy hatred of sin and its effects.

We are to have compassion on sinners for whom Christ died, and we are also to keep ourselves “from being polluted by the world”—part of what constitutes “pure and faultless” religion (James 1:27). But we also realize that we are imperfect human beings and that the difference between us and God in regard to loving and hating is vast. Even as Christians, we cannot love perfectly, nor can we hate perfectly (i.e., without malice). But God can do both of these perfectly, because He is God. God can hate without any sinful intent. Therefore, He can hate the sin and the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still lovingly forgive the sinner at the moment of repentance and faith (Malachi 1:3; Revelation 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9).

The Bible clearly teaches that God is love. First John 4:8–9 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” Mysterious but true is the fact that God can perfectly love and hate a person at the same time. This means He can love him as someone He created and can redeem, as well as hate him for his unbelief and sinful lifestyle. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot do this; thus, we must remind ourselves to “love the sinner; hate the sin.”

How exactly does that work? We hate sin by recognizing it for what it is, refusing to take part in it, and condemning it as contrary to God’s nature. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by showing them respect (1 Peter 2:17), praying for them (1 Timothy 2:1), and witnessing to them of Christ. It is a true act of love to treat someone with respect and kindness even though you do not approve of his or her lifestyle or sinful choices.

It is not loving to allow a person to remain stuck in sin. It is not hateful to tell a person he or she is in sin. In fact, the exact opposites are true. Sin leads to death (James 1:15), and we love the sinner by speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We hate the sin by refusing to condone, ignore, or excuse it.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

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]

Is Hate the Sin Love the Sinner …Biblical? | Are we to Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin?​

14,469 views
•Apr 30, 2019

Got Questions Ministries

Is hate the sin love the sinner …biblical? Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin? How do we hate sin but love the sinner? Does God hate and the sinner? In this video Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch answers those questions from a biblical perspective to reveal what God’s word says about hating sin and loving the sinner.

*** Check out, Bible Munch! https://www.youtube.com/BibleMunch

 

[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 Bock

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

 

[Patriot]

Does everyone have a "God-shaped hole"?​

ANSWER

The “God-shaped hole” concept states that every person has a void in his soul/spirit/life that can only be filled by God. The “God-shaped hole” is the innate longing of the human heart for something outside itself, something transcendent, something “other.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 refers to God’s placing of "eternity in man’s heart." God made humanity for His eternal purpose, and only God can fulfill our desire for eternity. All religion is based on the innate desire to “connect” with God. This desire can only be fulfilled by God, and therefore can be likened to a “God-shaped hole.”

The problem, though, is that humanity ignores this hole or attempts to fill it with things other than God. Jeremiah 17:9 describes the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Solomon reiterates the same concept: “The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live…” (Ecclesiastes 9:3). The New Testament concurs: “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7). Romans 1:18-22 describes humanity ignoring what can be known about God, including presumably the “God-shaped hole,” and instead worshiping anything and everything other than God.

Sadly, too many spend their lives looking for something other than God to fill their longing for meaning—business, family, sports, etc. But in pursuing these things that are not eternal, they remain unfulfilled and wonder why their lives never seem satisfactory. There is no doubt that many people pursuing things other than God achieve a measure of “happiness” for a time. But when we consider Solomon, who had all the riches, success, esteem, and power in the world—in short, all that men seek after in this life—we see that none of it fulfilled the longing for eternity. He declared it all “vanity,” meaning that he sought after these things in vain because they did not satisfy. In the end he said, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Just as a square peg cannot fill a round hole, neither can the “God-shaped hole” inside each of us be filled by anyone or anything other than God. Only through a personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ can the “God-shaped hole” be filled and the desire for eternity fulfilled.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Hard Questions, Real Answers by William Lane Craig

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 God dead?​

ANSWER

The technical term for the teaching that "God is dead" is theothanatology, a three-fold compound from the Greek: theos (god) + thanatos (death) + logia (word).

German poet and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is most famous for making the statement "God is dead" in the Nineteenth Century. Nietzsche, influenced by both Greek philosophy and the theory of evolution, wrote, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? . . . Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?" (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §125).

Nietzsche’s purpose was to abolish "traditional" morality-Christianity, in particular-because, in his mind, it represented an attempt of self-serving religious leaders to control the weak and unthinking masses. Nietzsche believed that the "idea" of God was no longer necessary; in fact, God was irrelevant because man was evolving to a place where he could create a deeper and more satisfying "master morality" of his own.

Nietzsche’s “God is dead” philosophy has been used to advance the theories of existentialism, nihilism, and socialism. Radical theologians such as Thomas J. J. Altizer and Paul van Buren advocated the "God is dead" idea in the 1960s and 1970s.

The belief that God is dead and religion is irrelevant naturally leads to the following ideas:

1) If God is dead, there are no moral absolutes and no universal standard to which all men should conform.

2) If God is dead, there is no purpose or rational order in life.

3) If God is dead, any design seen in the universe is projected by men who are desperate to find meaning in life.

4) If God is dead, man is independent and totally free to create his own values.

5) If God is dead, the "real" world (as opposed to a heaven and hell) is man’s only concern.

The idea that "God is dead" is primarily a challenge to God’s authority over our lives. The notion that we can safely create our own rules was the lie that the serpent told Eve: "ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Peter warns us that "there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1).

The "God is dead" argument is usually presented as a rational, empowering philosophy for artists and intellectuals. But Scripture calls it foolish. "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). Ironically, those who hold to the “God is dead” philosophy will discover the fatal error in the philosophy when they themselves are dead.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

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]

Are Mormons Christians?​

ANSWER

Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from God’s Word, they are not.

Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185). Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, New York, 1861; and Mormonism Unveiled, Painesville, Ohio, 1834), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.

The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible (History of the Church 4:461, 8th Article of Faith). Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism (see http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture). These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).

Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547; Articles of Faith, p. 35; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372). It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).

Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).

Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church. Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes

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