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

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about child sexual abuse?​

ANSWER

Sexual abuse perpetrated against a child is a deplorable reality of living in a sin-stricken world. The psychological, emotional, spiritual, and physical damage of the abuse remain long after molestation has ended. The Bible speaks vehemently against hurting children and against sexual sins and perversions of all kinds. It also offers hope for healing and forgiveness.

Why does child sexual abuse happen?

The short answer to “why” abuse happens is that we live in a world marred by sin. Often, those who molest children have themselves been molested. They may have been hurt in some other way as well and choose to victimize children in an attempt to regain a sense of power or worthiness. Sexual abuse can be the result of anger or selfishness or narcissism. Sometimes, it can even stem from a misguided attempt to find intimacy. Whatever the emotional, familial, or psychological history of the molester, sexual abuse is evil.

Molestation or sexual abuse is NEVER the fault of the abused child. Many victims of abuse experience shame and guilt. But children cannot be held responsible for crimes perpetrated against them. This is not to say that victims of abuse are absolved of responsibility for their own actions, including those prompted by scars of the abuse. But there is nothing shameful about having been abused. The shame belongs to the abuser alone.

What does the Bible say about sexual abuse against children?

Caring for children is spoken of highly in the Bible. For example, James 1:27 says that caring for children in need pleases God: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Ephesians 6:4 says, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” Psalm 127:3 calls children “a heritage from the Lord.” Jesus’ interactions with children (notably in Matthew 18) demonstrate the value God places on them. The Bible speaks often about caring for the weak, poor, and needy—and this would include at-risk children (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 31:8–9). Followers of Christ are consistently called to love others. Molesting a child can in no way be mistaken for love.

The Bible also speaks strongly against sexual sin. Sex is a gift given by God meant for marriage. Sexual perversion of all kinds is soundly condemned. Sexually assaulting a child is never justifiable; it is always wrong.

How can I heal from being sexually abused?

If you or someone you know is being molested, or you suspect abuse, you must contact the appropriate authorities. If you were abused as a child and suspect that your abuser is still harming others, please report it. Medical, legal, and psychological intervention are likely necessary. Children should never be left in abusive situations. Check with your local department of human services for reporting procedures.

There is hope and healing in Christ, even for those who have been sexually abused as children. The journey to healing will look different for each person. It begins with a recognition of the abuse and the damage it has done. Healing continues as the abused person learns to trust Jesus and release the pain to Him. The road is long and will require safe companions, such as a counselor, a pastor, and loving family members.

Our Savior, Jesus, said that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19). Meditate on those words.

Psalm 72:12–14 encourages those in pain to call on the Lord: “For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight” (see also Psalm 22:24 and Psalm 34:18). It requires faith to believe that God sees and that He cares. Coming to a place of acceptance and even forgiveness for one’s abuser will take time, God’s grace, and exerted effort. But it is possible. In Jesus there is healing and freedom. Call out to God in your distress.

Can I be forgiven if I have sexually abused a child?

Yes. God is gracious and merciful. No sin is beyond His ability to forgive (see Romans 5:20). Jesus came to cleanse all sin: “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins” (Mark 3:28). When we recognize our sin, turn from it, and cry out to God, He forgives. Often, abusers have been abused themselves. In addition to God’s forgiveness, they require professional assistance in stopping their behaviors, healing from their own past wounds, and seeking forgiveness from those they have injured.

Child molestation is a sad reality, but it is not beyond God’s ability to overcome. God can redeem and restore. We praise Him “who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20). The “more than we can imagine” includes healing and forgiveness.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

The Wounded Heart: Hope for Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Dan Allender

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

 

[Patriot]

What is the image of the beast?​

ANSWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware

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

 

[Patriot]

What sort of interfaith ministries are appropriate?​

ANSWER

In a time of limited resources, many churches and Christian organizations seek ways to make an impact by working with other organizations on a wide array of issues such as disaster relief, poverty and education. But many have concerns regarding our responsibility to defend “the faith . . . once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Is cooperating with a non-Christian group acceptable, according to the Bible? Can a Christian organization join forces with a Muslim or Hindu group to minister to others? What sorts of interfaith ministries are appropriate?

Let us be clear: Christians are to care for the needy in tangible ways (Luke 10:25–37). But what is the best way to go about providing that care? Are interfaith ministries and cooperation with other religions necessary or effective? Is an interfaith alliance to feed the hungry tantamount to ecumenism and doctrinal compromise?

When considering interfaith ministries, a primary question to consider is, “Will this particular partnership cause me to compromise a core Christian belief?” If God and His Word are to be honored above all, we must be able to clearly answer this question. Regardless of the social good that could result from a partnership, if a Christian or a church is forced to accept a different view of God, Jesus Christ, Scripture, salvation, or other essential teaching of Scripture, then that partnership is unacceptable. The deed should not undermine the creed.

For example, some social organizations will not accept a group unless it adopts a policy of non-discrimination in hiring, promotion, and firing, including a statement that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age, nationality, or marital status. In other words, in order to cooperate, a church would be required to employ anyone who applies, even those in disagreement with the church’s beliefs.

Another policy sometimes forced upon a church concerns the use of “coercive practices,” such as requiring clients to participate in religious classes. Agreeing to an interfaith ministry’s “non-coercive” program would be difficult for most Christian organizations seeking to honor God’s Word. If a Christian rescue mission cannot evangelize those who enter its doors, then that mission will not be effective. Churches should be wary of any affiliation that requires the signing of such a policy.

Another question to consider is, “Will this particular partnership honor God?” Participating in an interfaith ministry may not require acceding to a different belief, but it could associate a Christian organization with those who dishonor God. Even if a church is allowed to maintain its own doctrinal statement and hiring policy, it may need to think twice about inferences others make based on the partnership. Sometimes the particular name of a project could raise questions; if a Bible-believing church joins “The Ecumenical Consortium of the Friends of Allah,” then there is a problem. Honoring God must remain top priority, and our testimony is important.

A third important question concerning interfaith ministries is, “Will our work be better together in this matter?” Some projects work better with one group in leadership. A smaller scale is sometimes more efficient. Other projects require a large group from a wide variety of backgrounds. This is more a matter of logistics than of doctrine, but is important to consider as the goal is to help others, not simply to partner for the sake of unity.

So, as long as biblical doctrine is not compromised, Christian testimony is not sullied, and resources are not squandered, then, yes, a Christian organization is free to partner with other groups in interfaith ministries to accomplish a God-honoring project.

Our goal must always be to love God and love others. If an interfaith ministry can help in this mission, then there is no reason not to at least consider it. No single group can do all things, but together much good can be accomplished. In certain social issues, such as fighting poverty and providing disaster relief, there are many opportunities to cooperate with other groups to help those in need. When we do, we honor our Lord, show love to others, and make a meaningful difference in the lives of many.

As Jesus said, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Sojourners and Strangers by Gregg Allison

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

 

[Patriot]

Should churches be seeker-friendly?​

ANSWER

Of course churches should be friendly toward seekers. We are to be friendly to seekers no matter the location. But, being friendly, even welcoming, to seekers, is not what the seeker-friendly church movement is all about. Many evangelical church leaders these days have redesigned both their church buildings and their services in an effort to bring more people through their doors. This is, in a nutshell, the essence of a “seeker-friendly” church—offering worldly allurements to attract the multitudes. The proponents of the seeker-friendly church claim to be doing whatever is necessary to “reach the lost.” The fallacy with that kind of thinking is that “the lost” are not seeking God at all. The Bible says that “no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11). This means there is no such thing as an unbeliever who is truly seeking for God on his own. Furthermore, man is dead in his sin (Ephesians 2:1), and he can’t seek God because he doesn’t recognize his need for Him.

But there are lots of people who are seeking to be entertained and assured that God loves them, despite their sin and ungodly lifestyles. There are many who seek a form of religion, and if the goal of the seeker-friendly churches is to fill seats with these people, it appears to be working. Growth in many of these establishments is staggering indeed. Some of the larger ones will usher in tens of thousands of attendees for weekend services alone. With annual budgets reaching well into the millions of dollars, many of these edifices are more likely to resemble a large corporate office than a church. That is why you’re less likely to find stained glass windows than a coffee shop, gift shop, bookstore or even a basketball court. Some even have swimming pools and bowling alleys! To leaders of these churches, the Great Commission has essentially become more of a marketing scheme, with the use of surveys and studies to determine which enticements are needed to “reel them in,” and then to cater to their appetites by giving them what they want.

Another problem with the seeker-friendly movement is that in their desire to please every itching ear, these churches have relegated God and His Word to the back pews, ensuring that no one is offended by the truth. The great doctrines of the faith have been deemed “divisive” and shelved. Sadly, many of these churches are flourishing these days because they have reshaped the gospel into the kind of “product” buyers are willing to tolerate. The bottom line is that these churches have placed the focus on man, not on God where it belongs. And God’s Word cannot be recast to conform to the needs of a consumer-driven culture. God never intended for His Church to be cozy and comfortable. But there is nothing comfortable about the truth, which Hebrews 4:12 describes as “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

The message received by those attending seeker-friendly churches too often is that the Christian life is one of ease and comfort and free from conflict. However, this is certainly not the life that Christ’s followers are to expect. Jesus told us “in this world we would have trouble” (John 16:33) and that we could expect to be persecuted (Matthew 5:11–12, 44; 10:23; 13:21; Mark 10:30; John 15:20) and even hated (John 15:18) on account of following Him. And when Jesus said, “Anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23), He meant that one must be willing to give his life in order to follow Him. Look at what preaching the truth of Christ got Paul—flogged, beaten, stoned, imprisoned, and run out of the country many times! Yet this devout servant of Christ still said, “We are hard pressed on every side but not crushed; perplexed but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8–9). He further taught us to “press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14).

The apostle Paul told us the time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3). However, with over 70 percent of adults under age 25 thinking all beliefs are equally valid (according to Barna Research), sound doctrine is exactly what is needed. It is the Word of God that plants the seed for the new birth (1 Peter 1:23), and the Word must be taught for the purpose of “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17) and for taking the true message out into the world (Matthew 28:19–20).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Biblical Church Growth: How You Can Work with God to Build a Faithful Church by Gary McIntosh

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

 

[Patriot]

Is christening in the Bible?​

ANSWER

Christening is defined as “a Christian sacrament signifying spiritual cleansing and rebirth.” The christening ceremony, usually done to small children and babies, and most common in Catholic and Episcopal churches, is more than simply infant baptism. The christening ceremony includes giving the baby his/her “Christian” name, sprinkling water on the head of the child, and welcoming him/her into the congregation. The ceremony can be private (family/friends only) or public (entire congregation.) Some parents prefer to make the christening a simple naming ceremony without committing the baby, or themselves, to the religion.

The concept of christening (literally “to bring to Christ”) is a religious practice that developed gradually over the first couple hundred years of the church. Scripture teaches that all since the time of Adam have a sin nature, and because of that, individuals began thinking that there needed to be a method for cleansing an infant from his original sin. There is no biblical prohibition against christening an infant as a simple naming ceremony. If the ceremony involves baptism from sin, however, it is not biblical. As christening is something that is done to infants, and since infants are not capable of understanding sin or their need to be cleansed from it, christening is not scriptural.

The fact that all are born with a sin nature in need of a Savior is found in passages such as Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” and Paul’s teaching in Romans 5:12-21 that all people are in sin through Adam and can be forgiven of sin through faith in the Second Adam, or Jesus Christ.

In contrast, biblical baptism (the term literally means “to dip or plunge”) is taught in the New Testament to be a step of obedience after a person has come to understand sin and its eternal consequences, his or her need to be saved from sin, and trusted Christ as Savior. Notably, Jesus gave a command to His disciples in Matthew 28:19-20 about baptism. They were told to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The steps were to (1) make disciples (this happens when a person trusts Jesus Christ as his Savior); (2) baptize them (this is an outward step of obedience following inward faith); and (3) teach these disciples to follow God’s commands.

The tradition of christening an infant is absent from the Scriptures, although there is no biblical prohibition against it. At best, this teaching can confuse individuals about what biblical baptism means, and at worst, it can leave people believing that, if they were christened, they are already right before God, which may lead to their neglecting the recognition of their sin and subsequent need to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ for salvation from sin.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Baptism: The Believer’s First Obedience by Larry Dyer

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Nestorianism?​

ANSWER

The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

In the first few centuries of the church, a great debate arose: what is the exact nature of Christ? How can a being be completely divine and completely human? In the West, the Roman Catholic Church decreed Jesus to be “two natures in one person,” and went on to other things. In the East, the definition of Christ’s nature was as much about politics as it was about religion, and the discussion went on far longer.

The Alexandrines, so named because the political loyalties of most who held the view were Alexandrian, were “monophysites.” They insisted that Jesus was, above all, divine. He was the teacher of divine truth and, in order to have had that truth, must have been primarily divine. To emphasize His humanity over His deity led to unthinkable assertions like “God got tired, injured, hungry, thirsty, and then died.” Apollinaris of Laodicea summarized the thought by saying the Word of God took the place of a rational soul so that a human body could preach the truth of God; the body was a mouthpiece.

The Antiochenes from Antioch thought this was ridiculous. A sacrifice that was not fully human could not redeem humans. Antiochenes were “dyophysites.” The Godhead dwelt in Jesus, no doubt, but not in any way that undermined His humanity. Jesus’ two natures were distinct from one another—although no one could precisely explain what that meant.

When Constantine had moved the political capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the church of the West centralized into the religious and political power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church of the East didn’t have that chance. They had several important churches spread throughout the region, each led by their own bishops. Alexandria and Antioch were two of the oldest and most important, but the church in Constantinople was considered as close to Rome as the East had. The clergy of Alexandria and Antioch constantly fought over the bishopric in Constantinople in hopes of uniting the scattered churches into a regional powerhouse.

In AD 428, Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople. He was from Antioch, and his theological (and political) leanings became clear when he declared Mary to be Christotokos (“bearer of Christ”), not theotokos (“bearer of God”). In so doing, he said more about Jesus than Mary. He said that, above all else, the humanity of Jesus must be emphasized, His nature firmly divided, and that He was comprised of “two natures and two persons.” The human nature and person were born of Mary. The divine were of God.

The Bishop of Alexandria, among others, didn’t agree. He and his supporters marched into Constantinople and held a trial that relieved Nestorius of his position. Shortly after, Nestorius’s supporters finally arrived and held a smaller trial that convicted the Bishop of Alexandria. After much theological debate and political wrangling, Nestorius was exiled back to Antioch.

The Alexandrians exerted more pressure on the Antiochenes. The Antiochenes were forced to leave Antioch; Nestorius lived out his days in Egypt. But many of the Antiochenes fled east into Persia, where they were called “Nestorians” whether they had politically supported Nestorius or not.

The church already in Persia had its own problems. The rulers in Persia were quite religiously tolerant, but politically they hated Rome and anything that came out of Rome. The church in Persia carefully explained that they were not the same church as in Rome, and the Persians alternated between persecuting them and leaving them alone. Several Nestorian theologians settled in Persia, where the Persian church heard their thoughts on the two natures of Christ and told them, “Yes, of course, we’ve believed that all along.” So Nestorians were readily absorbed into the local church there.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Christian revival?​

ANSWER

Revival refers to a spiritual reawakening from a state of dormancy or stagnation in the life of a believer. It encompasses the resurfacing of a love for God, an appreciation of God’s holiness, a passion for His Word and His church, a convicting awareness of personal and corporate sin, a spirit of humility, and a desire for repentance and growth in righteousness. Revival invigorates and sometimes deepens a believer’s faith, opening his or her eyes to the truth in a fresh, new way. It generally involves the connotation of a fresh start with a clean slate, marking a new beginning of a life lived in obedience to God. Revival breaks the charm and power of the world, which blinds the eyes of men, and generates both the will and power to live in the world but not of the world.

In the USA, the first revival, also called the First Great Awakening, produced an upsurge of devotion among Protestants in the 1730s and 1740s, carving a permanent mark on American religion. It resulted from authoritative preaching that deeply moved the church members with a convicting awareness of personal guilt and the awesome nature of salvation through Christ. Breaking away from dry ritual and rote ceremony, the Great Awakening made Christianity intensely personal to the average person, as it should be, by creating a deep emotional need for relationship with Christ.

Revival, in many respects, replicates the believer’s experience when he or she is saved. It is initiated by a prompting of the Holy Spirit, creating an awareness of something missing or wrong in the believer’s life that can only be righted by God. In turn, the Christian must respond from the heart, acknowledging his or her need. Then, in a powerful way, the Holy Spirit draws back the veil the world has cast over the truth, allowing the believers to fully see themselves in comparison to God’s majesty and holiness. Obviously, such comparisons bring great humility, but also great awe of God and His truly amazing grace (Isaiah 6:5). Unlike the original conversion experience that brings about a new relationship to God, however, revival represents a restoration of fellowship with God, the relationship having been retained even though the believer had pulled away for a time.

God, through His Holy Spirit, calls us to revival in a number of situations. Christ’s letters to the seven churches reveal some circumstances that may necessitate revival. In the letter to Ephesus, Christ praised the church for their perseverance and discernment, but He stated that they had forsaken their first love (Revelation 2:4-5). Many times as the excitement of acceptance to Christ grows cold, we lose the zeal that we had at first. We become bogged down in the ritual, going through the motions, but we no longer experience the joy of serving Christ. Revival helps restore that first love and passion for Christ. Revelation 2:10-11 refers to the church at Smyrna, which was suffering intense persecution. The cares and worries of life can beat us down, leaving us emotionally, physically, and spiritually exhausted. Revival can lift us up to new hope and faith.

Revelation 2:14-16 talks about the problem of compromise with the world and incorporating worldly values into our belief systems. Revival helps us to rightly discern what values we should hold. Revelation 2:20-23 discusses the problem of tolerating false teaching in our churches. We need to examine the messages that we hear and compare them to the message of the Bible. Revival helps us to find the truth. Revelation 3:1-6 describes a dead church, a church that goes through the motions outwardly, but there is nothing underneath. Here is a picture of nominal Christianity, outwardly prosperous, busy with the externals of religious activity, but devoid of spiritual life and power. Revival helps to resuscitate spiritual life. In Revelation 3:11, we are further warned against complacency, a life that does not bear fruit. All of these scenarios call for revival.

The evidence of revival, a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon believers, is changed lives. Great movements toward righteousness, evangelism, and social justice occur. Believers are once again spending time in prayer and reading and obeying God’s Word. Believers begin to powerfully use their spiritual gifts. There is confession of sin and repentance.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Biblical Christian revival: How You Can Work with God to Build a Faithful Church by Gary McIntosh

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

 

[Patriot]

What does it mean to have left your first love (Revelation 2:4)?​

ANSWER

Revelation 2:1-7 contains Jesus’ message to the church in Ephesus, the first of seven exhortations to various churches in the Roman Empire. Ephesus had some unique challenges for a Christ-follower in that it was home to the Emperor’s cult and the worship of the Greek goddess Artemis (Acts 19:23-40). Because of these influences, the Ephesian believers had developed great discernment when it came to false teachers and heresy. Christ commended them for this discernment, but He faulted them for having lost their “first love.”

The first love which characterized the Ephesians was the zeal and ardor with which they embraced their salvation as they realized they loved Christ because He first loved them (1 John 4:19) and that it was, in fact, His love for them that had made them “alive together with Christ.” So overwhelmed were they by the joy that came from understanding their former state—dead in trespasses and sins—and their new life in Christ, that they exhibited the fruit of that joy (Ephesians 2:1-5). Because of God’s great love for the Ephesians, they were “made alive in Christ” and that new life was exhibited in the passion of gratitude. That passion for the Savior spilled over onto one another and out to those in the culture they inhabited, corrupt as it was.

Jesus commends the Ephesians for their many good works and hard work. They tested teachers to see whether their professions were real; they endured hardship and persevered without growing weary. But they had lost their warmth and zeal for Christ, and when that happened, they began to “go through the motions” of good works, motivated not by the love of and for Christ, but by the works themselves. What was once a love relationship cooled into mere religion. Their passion for Him became little more than cold orthodoxy.

Surrounded by paganism and false teachers, the Ephesian church would have had ample opportunity to correct false doctrine and confront heretical teachers. If they did so for any reason other than love for Christ and a passion for His truth, however, they would have lost their way. Instead of pursuing Christ with the devotion they once showed, much like a bride who follows her groom “through the desert” (Jeremiah 2:2), the Ephesians were in danger of falling away from Christ completely. This is why He warns those who have “ears to hear” to prove the reality of their salvation by returning to Him and rekindling the love that had begun to cool. No doubt there were among the Ephesians those whose profession was false and whose hearing had become dulled. He warns the rest not to follow them, but to repent and return to Him with the passion they once had for Him.

We face the same challenges in the twenty-first century. There are few churches that aren’t subject to, and in danger of, a certain amount of false teaching. But Jesus calls us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), and to not let the frustration of false teaching overpower the love of Christ in us (Ephesians 4:31-32). Our first love is the love Christ gives us for God and each other. We should be zealous for the truth, but that zeal should be tempered so that we are always “speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:15).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware

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

 

[Patriot]

How should a Christian view Planned Parenthood?​

ANSWER

Believers in Jesus Christ enjoy broad freedom in our spiritual lives. Certain issues see sincere, God-honoring Christians agreeing to disagree. However, there are sensible limits to any freedom. Christian liberty does not extend to endorsement of sin (Romans 1:32). Agreeing to disagree does not require acceptance of evil (Isaiah 5:20). When it comes to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, there is absolutely no biblical justification for Christian support (Proverbs 6:16–19). Those who find that statement offensive should consider the ghastly alternative: claiming the name of Christ while endorsing an organization that profits from the murder of the innocent.

Ultimately, one single concept provides ample evidence proving Christians are morally obligated to reject Planned Parenthood. That, of course, is the issue of abortion itself. Scripture is clear: deliberately ending the life of an unborn child is no different than deliberately ending the life of a newborn, toddler, or any other child. Every conceivable excuse for Planned Parenthood, including health care, legal rights, other services, and such, are entirely irrelevant in light of the moral evil of abortion.

This is a point on which there can be no reasonable dissent for a believer in Jesus Christ. Those who seek to defend abortion, from a Christian standpoint, are entirely and completely in contradiction to God and His Word.

The fact that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider should be reason enough for Christians to withhold support (see Deuteronomy 27:25). That the organization pushes extreme views of abortion and does so dishonestly is reason enough to condemn it. That the group’s origins are grounded in eugenics and an anti-Christian worldview should cause believers in Jesus Christ to denounce it using the only term that makes any sense: evil. One would hope that even non-believers would recognize those disqualifications, as well.

Margaret Sanger founded the organization later re-named Planned Parenthood with the intent of promoting birth control. In fact, Sanger was adamantly opposed to abortion, calling it “evil.” In her view, open access to contraception would make abortion entirely unnecessary—a prediction modern groups like Planned Parenthood have deliberately stymied.

Sanger is rightly condemned for her association with eugenics: the idea that a culture’s breeding ought to be controlled with the intent of reducing “undesirables” and promoting “superior” heritages. Despite what many think, Sanger herself did not hold what modern people would consider especially racist views. Her stance on eugenics was mostly class-based: to Sanger, the “unfit” meant poor people, the disabled, and the less-intelligent. However, she also long held associations with people whom even that era considered flagrantly racist, such as white supremacist author Lothrop Stoddard.

Where Sanger was legitimately venomous was toward social and religious groups she saw as polluting the culture’s purity. Among them, for example, were those for whom religion led to excessive breeding—this is a group Sanger thought should be prevented from procreating.

Fellow eugenicists of Sanger’s era also felt it was important to slow the breeding of “undesirables” and the “unfit.” For most, this was defined very much by ethnicity. Overwhelmingly, in practice, groups targeted for reduction by eugenicists were almost exclusively non-whites, Jews, the poor, immigrants, and so forth. Even though Sanger’s personal views were—in theory—based on class, not race, she and her organization were steeped in a worldview that denied the inherent equality of all people.

After Sanger’s death, Planned Parenthood continued to move further and further into the extremes of abortion advocacy. Today, Planned Parenthood has lobbied for the most radical procedures, such as late-term abortions. The organization has opposed parental consent laws and supports legislation that would force health workers to violate their conscience in providing abortion drugs and services. Even from a non-Christian perspective, these are deeply troubling attitudes that ought to be opposed.

The foundation of racial and social prejudice is reflected in Planned Parenthood and their fellow abortion providers today. Minorities in the USA obtain abortions at a grossly disproportionate rate to whites. African-Americans, by some measures, abort five times as many pregnancies as whites. In areas like New York, there are routinely more abortions than live births in black communities. This is largely due to rhetoric claiming that abortion is the only reasonable or moral option available.

It would be fair to say that the voice of “minorities” in America would be far more powerful had they not been disproportionately targeted for population control in the decades since Roe vs. Wade. Many who politically support abortion reflexively claim any racial disparity is proof of racism, yet groups like Planned Parenthood are literally suppressing the growth of non-white populations in the name of “reproductive rights.”

An infamous defense of Planned Parenthood has been that abortion is “only 3 percent” of what they do. Christian and non-Christian, pro-life and pro-abortion groups alike have denounced that statement as profoundly dishonest. This figure was calculated by counting every possible transaction as a “service.” According to such math, for a woman who went to Planned Parenthood for condoms, was given a pregnancy test and STD test, then came back for an abortion, and then a mandatory follow-up exam, the abortion would have “only” been 20 percent of the “services.” Clearly, not all “services” are the same, and some are necessary parts of the abortion process. To claim otherwise can’t be anything other than a deliberate lie.

Further, estimates of Planned Parenthood’s income from abortions suggest that almost 40 percent—or more—of their income is from abortion services. And literally every “service” they provide, other than abortion, can be obtained at numerous health clinics and hospitals.

Even if the 3 percent claim were true, it would still be an insultingly poor defense. A man who beats his wife “only 3 percent of the time” is still an abuser. A judge who sells rulings for cash in “only 3 percent of his cases” is still corrupt. And even if an organization used “only 3 percent” of its services directly in the act of killing innocents, they are still morally and spiritually bankrupt (Proverbs 1:15–16).

Planned Parenthood can and should be denounced by followers of Christ due to two facts that are plain, beyond debate, and beyond question:

• Biblical Christianity denounces abortion as the murder of the innocent.
• Planned Parenthood engages in abortion, even the most extreme, radical aspects of abortion.

Therefore, it is true beyond reasonable debate to state that Christian believers cannot, in good conscience and in good faith, support Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form. Those who endorse the organization are deeply misled or deliberately ignorant or morally bankrupt. A person cannot legitimately claim to follow Christ while deliberately enabling a child molester, willingly funding a brothel, or knowingly aiding a serial killer. In the same way, and for the same reasons, tolerance of Planned Parenthood is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader by Abby Johnson

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

 

[lianbeng]

How should a Christian view Planned Parenthood?​

ANSWER

Believers in Jesus Christ enjoy broad freedom in our spiritual lives. Certain issues see sincere, God-honoring Christians agreeing to disagree. However, there are sensible limits to any freedom. Christian liberty does not extend to endorsement of sin (Romans 1:32). Agreeing to disagree does not require acceptance of evil (Isaiah 5:20). When it comes to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, there is absolutely no biblical justification for Christian support (Proverbs 6:16–19). Those who find that statement offensive should consider the ghastly alternative: claiming the name of Christ while endorsing an organization that profits from the murder of the innocent.

Ultimately, one single concept provides ample evidence proving Christians are morally obligated to reject Planned Parenthood. That, of course, is the issue of abortion itself. Scripture is clear: deliberately ending the life of an unborn child is no different than deliberately ending the life of a newborn, toddler, or any other child. Every conceivable excuse for Planned Parenthood, including health care, legal rights, other services, and such, are entirely irrelevant in light of the moral evil of abortion.

This is a point on which there can be no reasonable dissent for a believer in Jesus Christ. Those who seek to defend abortion, from a Christian standpoint, are entirely and completely in contradiction to God and His Word.

The fact that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider should be reason enough for Christians to withhold support (see Deuteronomy 27:25). That the organization pushes extreme views of abortion and does so dishonestly is reason enough to condemn it. That the group’s origins are grounded in eugenics and an anti-Christian worldview should cause believers in Jesus Christ to denounce it using the only term that makes any sense: evil. One would hope that even non-believers would recognize those disqualifications, as well.

Margaret Sanger founded the organization later re-named Planned Parenthood with the intent of promoting birth control. In fact, Sanger was adamantly opposed to abortion, calling it “evil.” In her view, open access to contraception would make abortion entirely unnecessary—a prediction modern groups like Planned Parenthood have deliberately stymied.

Sanger is rightly condemned for her association with eugenics: the idea that a culture’s breeding ought to be controlled with the intent of reducing “undesirables” and promoting “superior” heritages. Despite what many think, Sanger herself did not hold what modern people would consider especially racist views. Her stance on eugenics was mostly class-based: to Sanger, the “unfit” meant poor people, the disabled, and the less-intelligent. However, she also long held associations with people whom even that era considered flagrantly racist, such as white supremacist author Lothrop Stoddard.

Where Sanger was legitimately venomous was toward social and religious groups she saw as polluting the culture’s purity. Among them, for example, were those for whom religion led to excessive breeding—this is a group Sanger thought should be prevented from procreating.

Fellow eugenicists of Sanger’s era also felt it was important to slow the breeding of “undesirables” and the “unfit.” For most, this was defined very much by ethnicity. Overwhelmingly, in practice, groups targeted for reduction by eugenicists were almost exclusively non-whites, Jews, the poor, immigrants, and so forth. Even though Sanger’s personal views were—in theory—based on class, not race, she and her organization were steeped in a worldview that denied the inherent equality of all people.

After Sanger’s death, Planned Parenthood continued to move further and further into the extremes of abortion advocacy. Today, Planned Parenthood has lobbied for the most radical procedures, such as late-term abortions. The organization has opposed parental consent laws and supports legislation that would force health workers to violate their conscience in providing abortion drugs and services. Even from a non-Christian perspective, these are deeply troubling attitudes that ought to be opposed.

The foundation of racial and social prejudice is reflected in Planned Parenthood and their fellow abortion providers today. Minorities in the USA obtain abortions at a grossly disproportionate rate to whites. African-Americans, by some measures, abort five times as many pregnancies as whites. In areas like New York, there are routinely more abortions than live births in black communities. This is largely due to rhetoric claiming that abortion is the only reasonable or moral option available.

It would be fair to say that the voice of “minorities” in America would be far more powerful had they not been disproportionately targeted for population control in the decades since Roe vs. Wade. Many who politically support abortion reflexively claim any racial disparity is proof of racism, yet groups like Planned Parenthood are literally suppressing the growth of non-white populations in the name of “reproductive rights.”

An infamous defense of Planned Parenthood has been that abortion is “only 3 percent” of what they do. Christian and non-Christian, pro-life and pro-abortion groups alike have denounced that statement as profoundly dishonest. This figure was calculated by counting every possible transaction as a “service.” According to such math, for a woman who went to Planned Parenthood for condoms, was given a pregnancy test and STD test, then came back for an abortion, and then a mandatory follow-up exam, the abortion would have “only” been 20 percent of the “services.” Clearly, not all “services” are the same, and some are necessary parts of the abortion process. To claim otherwise can’t be anything other than a deliberate lie.

Further, estimates of Planned Parenthood’s income from abortions suggest that almost 40 percent—or more—of their income is from abortion services. And literally every “service” they provide, other than abortion, can be obtained at numerous health clinics and hospitals.

Even if the 3 percent claim were true, it would still be an insultingly poor defense. A man who beats his wife “only 3 percent of the time” is still an abuser. A judge who sells rulings for cash in “only 3 percent of his cases” is still corrupt. And even if an organization used “only 3 percent” of its services directly in the act of killing innocents, they are still morally and spiritually bankrupt (Proverbs 1:15–16).

Planned Parenthood can and should be denounced by followers of Christ due to two facts that are plain, beyond debate, and beyond question:

• Biblical Christianity denounces abortion as the murder of the innocent.
• Planned Parenthood engages in abortion, even the most extreme, radical aspects of abortion.

Therefore, it is true beyond reasonable debate to state that Christian believers cannot, in good conscience and in good faith, support Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form. Those who endorse the organization are deeply misled or deliberately ignorant or morally bankrupt. A person cannot legitimately claim to follow Christ while deliberately enabling a child molester, willingly funding a brothel, or knowingly aiding a serial killer. In the same way, and for the same reasons, tolerance of Planned Parenthood is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader by Abby Johnson

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

lianbeng asked you why must have religion leh?

 

[Patriot]

Does the name “Jesus” actually mean “Hail, Zeus”?​

ANSWER

There are several strange and misleading teachings that make their rounds concerning the name of God and of Jesus Christ; one such false doctrine is the idea that the name of Jesus actually means “Hail, Zeus.” Promoters of this bizarre concept claim that anyone who uses the name Jesus is offering praise to a false god and is not saved. They go so far as to say a person must use only the Hebrew name for Jesus, since there is only one name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12).

First, we will explain the “Jesus-means-hail-Zeus” theory, the best we can. Then we will look at the truth of the matter from a biblical perspective.

Those who teach that the name Jesus means “Hail, Zeus” usually start with the name of God, YAH (see Isaiah 26:4, NET). From that name of God, they take the Messiah’s name to be YAHSHUA, which they say means “YAH Is Salvation.” They contend that is the name used by the apostles and by the Messiah Himself; however, after the apostles were dead and gone, the Roman Church took over Christianity. In order to make their brand of religion more palatable to the pagans, the Roman leaders changed the name of the Messiah into a Greek/Latin hybrid, Iésous, which (supposedly) means “Hail, Zeus.” Since Zeus (or Jupiter) was the chief god in the Greco-Roman pantheon, the pagans had little trouble accepting this new demigod. By changing the Savior’s name, Christianity had been effectively stripped of its Hebrew roots, and the melding with paganism was a success. The Greeks’ savior could still be Zeus. In time, the word Iésous was further corrupted into Jesus in English.

As “proof” for their conspiracy theory that Jesus means “Hail, Zeus,” advocates point to the fact that the second syllable of Jesus (-sus) sounds similar to the name of the chief Greek god. Especially when Jesus is pronounced in Spanish, it becomes “evident” that people are “actually” saying “Hey, Zeus.” Added to these “proofs” is the fact that ancient sculptures of Zeus show him with a beard—just like modern-day pictures of Jesus!

What can we say to such far-fetched nonsense? First, not everyone who has a beard is trying to take the place of Jesus. Second, just because a certain word or word part sounds like another word is no proof of commonality. Basing theories of word origin on pronunciation is preposterous. Humorous sounds exactly like humerus, but there’s nothing particularly funny about the bone that goes from the shoulder to the elbow. Third, the Messiah’s Hebrew name is Yeshua, not Yahshua—the latter being a fabrication in order to make the name sound more like YAH.

Fourth, the Hebrew name Yeshua translates into Greek as Iésous. This is the name that the angel Gabriel commanded Joseph to name Mary’s child: “You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The name Jesus is a simply a Greek form of Joshua, a common name among Jews. The same verse also alludes to the meaning of the name: the Lord was to be named Jesus because “he will save his people from their sins.” The name Jesus means “The Lord Saves” or “The Lord Is Salvation.” Whether you spell it Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua, the meaning stays the same, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus.

Names can and do translate. Changing a name from one language to another does not change the meaning of the name, nor does it change the character or identity of the person. Elizabeth becomes Elixabete, Isabella, Zsoka, or Eliska, depending on the language. But she remains the same girl. A man named Stephen can be called Stephanos, Stefan, Estevao, Teppo, or Estebe, depending on where in the world he is. But he is the same person, regardless of what we call him. Similarly, Jesus and Yeshua refer to the same Person—and it’s not Zeus.

We use the name Jesus, an Anglicized transliteration of the Greek, because Greek is the language that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John wrote their Gospels in and because English is the language we speak. The best translation of Iésous into modern English is “Jesus.”

Part of Timothy’s work as a pastor was to “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths” (1 Timothy 1:3–4). Paul was concerned that “such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith” (verse 4). Conspiracy theories and myths regarding the etymology of Jesus’ name are distractions from the true work of God. We should not pay any heed to claims that the name Jesus means anything but what Scripture says it means: “The Lord Saves.”

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

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

 

[Patriot]

What is the critical race theory?​

ANSWER

Critical race theory is a modern approach to social change, developed from the broader critical theory, which developed out of Marxism. Critical race theory (CRT) approaches issues such as justice, racism, and inequality, with a specific intent of reforming or reshaping society. In practice, this is applied almost exclusively to the United States. Critical race theory is grounded in several key assumptions. Among these are the following:

• American government, law, culture, and society are inherently and inescapably racist.
• Everyone, even those without racist views, perpetuates racism by supporting those structures.
• The personal perception of the oppressed—their “narrative”—outweighs the actions or intents of others.
• Oppressed groups will never overcome disadvantages until the racist structures are replaced.
• Oppressor race or class groups never change out of altruism; they only change for self-benefit.
• Application of laws and fundamental rights should be different based on the race or class group of the individual(s) involved.

In short, critical race theory presupposes that everything about American society is thoroughly racist, and minority groups will never be equal until American society is entirely reformed. This position is extremely controversial, even in secular circles. Critical race theory is often posed as a solution to white supremacy or white nationalism. Yet, in practice, it essentially does nothing other than inverting the oppressed and oppressor groups.

From a political standpoint, critical race theory closely aligns with concepts such as communism, Marxism, nationalism, progressivism, intersectionality, and the modern version of social justice. Strictly speaking, the Bible neither commands nor forbids Christians regarding specific political parties or philosophies. However, believers are obligated to reject any aspect of a philosophy that conflicts with biblical ideals. Critical race theory is deeply rooted in worldviews that are entirely incompatible with the Bible.

Spiritually, some have attempted to apply critical race theory principles to Christianity. This even includes suggestions that the Christian church must adopt the critical race theory approach to society, or else it is not really preaching the gospel. In applying critical race theory to faith, some have gone even further, suggesting that “whiteness,” defined in a unique sense, is a type of sin and incompatible with salvation. In other words, critical race theory implies that those in certain ethnic/social economic groups must “repent” of such status, above and beyond other sins, in order to be truly Christian. Less inflammatory uses of critical race theory echo older claims that biblical faith is often presented as a “white man’s religion,” or that Christianity ought to follow a progressive theology, especially with respect to gender and sexuality.

While not necessarily embracing critical race theory, some Christian groups have embraced the modern approach to social justice. This raises the concern that non-biblical preferences will crowd out legitimate commands from Scripture. While critical race theory is not identical to social justice, the two philosophies are closely linked in modern American culture. Christian organizations that speak about social justice should be cautious about the terms and assumptions those discussions entail.

So far as it applies to faith, Christianity, or spirituality, there is no truth whatsoever to critical race theory. This is not to say that self-labeled Christians have never perpetrated racism. Nor does it mean every Christian in America is innocent of overlooking suffering people. It certainly does not mean that believers in the United States have no need to self-examine or seek change.

Critical race theory entirely violates a biblical worldview, however, by suggesting that people are essentially defined by their race or class, rather than by their individual acts and attitudes (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Revelation 20:11–13). Critical race theory incorrectly emphasizes intersectional categories such as gender, race, sexual preference, and economic status above and beyond a person’s own choices and responsibilities (Galatians 3:28). Critical race theory also conflicts with a biblical approach to objective, absolute truth. In no small part, this includes suggesting that an “oppressed” person’s feelings matter more than what the “oppressor” has actually done or intended (1 Corinthians 4:4; 10:29).

As applied to spiritual matters, critical race theory effectively replaces an individual, personal relationship with God with a tribalistic, ethnocentric, collectivistic system. It also greatly overemphasizes material and social concepts to the detriment—or even the exclusion—of the true gospel. When and where prejudices are found in the church, they should be addressed according to sound doctrine, not according to an inherently unbiblical approach such as critical race theory.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe by Voddie Baucham

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

 

[septuagint]

 

[Patriot]

What does it mean to be born of the Spirit?​

ANSWER

The Bible uses several metaphors involving birth to help explain what it means to have a saving relationship with Jesus. We find terms such as born again (John 3:3), born of God (John 1:13), and born of the Spirit (John 3:6). They all mean the same thing. Birth metaphors are used because we all understand physical birth. When a baby is born, a new person emerges into the world. The new life will grow, and the young person will come to resemble his or her parents. When we are born of the Spirit, a “new person” arrives with a new spiritual life. And as we grow, we come to resemble our Father in heaven (Romans 8:29).

People try to know God through a variety of means: some try religion or following an ethical code; some turn to intellect or logic; others try to find God in nature; and others through emotional experiences, believing that God inhabits whatever feelings they can muster when they think about Him. None of those bring us one step closer to actually communing with the God of the Bible because He cannot be known through our moral codes, our minds, our environment, or our emotions. He is Spirit, and those who would worship must worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Imagine trying to paint a portrait using a hammer and nails or trying to bake a meal using pen and paper. It would not help to try harder or cry over it because both tasks are impossible given the tools mentioned. So it is with the flesh and the Spirit. We cannot commune with a holy, incorporeal Being using sinful, fleshly means. Unless our spirits are reborn with life from God’s Spirit, we simply do not have the capability to fellowship with Him. We must be born of the Spirit.

God has instituted a way for fallen human beings to enter His holy presence, and it is the only way we can come to Him. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). When Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin (John 10:18) and rose again, He opened a door that had been locked. When He died on the cross, the veil of the temple was torn in two, symbolizing the fact that He has made a way to enter God’s presence. God has opened the door to heaven so that whoever trusts in His Son’s sacrifice can be born again in his or her spirit (Mark 15:38).

When we place our faith in the risen Christ, a divine transaction takes place (2 Corinthians 5:21). God removes from us the sin, guilt, and condemnation we deserved because of our rebellion against Him. He throws our sin as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12). At the moment of repentance and faith, the Holy Spirit breathes new life into us, and our bodies become His temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). Our spirits can now commune with God’s Spirit as He assures us that we belong to Him (Romans 8:16).

We might think of the human spirit like a deflated balloon that hangs lifeless inside our hearts. We are scarcely aware of its existence until God calls our names and an awakening begins. When we respond to God’s call with repentance and faith in what Jesus Christ has done for salvation, we are born of the Spirit. At that point the balloon inflates. The Holy Spirit moves into our spirits and fills us. He begins His transforming work so that we begin to resemble Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 8:29).

There are only two types of people in the world: those who are born of the Spirit and those who are not. In the end, only those two categories matter (John 3:3). Our earthly lives are extended opportunities for us to respond to God’s call and become born of the Spirit (Hebrews 3:15).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Making Sense of Salvation by Wayne Grudem

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

 

[Patriot]

Why is being a good person not enough to get you into heaven?​

ANSWER

If you ask most people what you have to do to get into heaven (assuming they believe in heaven or an afterlife), the overwhelming response will be some form of “be a good person.” Most, if not all, religions and worldly philosophies are ethically based. Whether it’s Islam, Judaism, or secular humanism, the teaching is common that getting to heaven is a matter of being a good person—following the Ten Commandments or the precepts of the Quran or the Golden Rule. But is this what Christianity teaches? Is Christianity just one of many world religions that teach that being a good person will get us into heaven? Let’s examine Matthew 19:16–26 for some answers; it is the story of the rich young ruler.

The first thing we note in this story is that the rich young ruler is asking a good question: “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” In asking the question, he acknowledges the fact that, despite all his efforts to be a good person thus far, there is something lacking, and he wants to know what else must be done to obtain eternal life. However, he is asking the question from the wrong worldview—that of merit (“What good deed must I do?”); he has failed to grasp the true meaning of the Law, as Jesus will point out to him, which was to serve as a tutor until the time of Christ (Galatians 3:24).

The second thing to note is Jesus’ response to his question. Jesus asks a question in return: why is he inquiring into what is good? Jesus gets to the heart of the matter, namely, that no one is good and no one does good except God. The young man is operating under a false premise: that a good person is able to earn his way into heaven. To make His point, Jesus says that, if the young man wants eternal life, he should keep the commandments. In saying this, Jesus is not advocating a works-based righteousness. Rather, Jesus is challenging the young man’s suppositions by showing the man’s shallow understanding of the Law and human ability.

The young man’s response is telling. When told to keep the commandments, he asks Jesus, “Which ones?” Jesus continues to gently show the man the error of his ways by giving him the second table of the Law, i.e., the commandments that deal with our relationships to other people. You can almost sense the frustration in the young man’s response when he tells Jesus that he has kept all of these since his youth—he insists that he’s been a good person. The young man’s response is ironic. In saying he has kept all those commandments since his youth, he has broken the commandment regarding false witness. If he were truly being honest, he would have said that, as hard as he has tried to keep the commandments, he has failed. He has not been a totally good person. He has a shallow understanding of the Law and an inflated opinion of his own ability. Also, he has that feeling that he is not a good enough person, and he asks Jesus, “What do I still lack?”

Jesus then confronts the young man’s self-righteousness. He tells him that, if he wishes to be perfect—a truly good person—he must sell all that he has and come follow Him. Jesus has perfectly diagnosed the man’s “lack”—his attachment to his wealth. The man’s great wealth has become an idol in his life. He claimed to have kept all the commandments, but in reality he couldn’t even keep the first one, to have no other gods before the Lord! The young man turned his back on Jesus and walked away. His god was his wealth, which he chose over Jesus.

Jesus then turns to His disciples to teach them a principle: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” This was shocking to the disciples, who held the common idea that riches were a sign of God’s blessing. But Jesus points out the obstacle that riches often are, in their tendency to fuel self-sufficiency. His disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus answers by reminding the disciples that salvation is of God: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Who can be saved? If left up to man alone, no one! Why is being a good person not enough to get you into heaven? Because no one is a “good” person; there is only One who is good, and that is God Himself. No one can keep the Law perfectly. The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The Bible also says that the wages of our sin is death (Romans 6:23a). Fortunately, God did not wait until we somehow learned to be “good”; while we were in our sinful state, Christ died for the unrighteous (Romans 5:8).

Salvation is not based on our goodness but on Jesus’ goodness. If we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved (Romans 10:9). This salvation in Christ is a precious gift, and, like all true gifts, it is unearned (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8–9). The message of the gospel is that we can never be good enough to get to heaven. We must recognize that we are sinners who fall short of God’s glory, and we must obey the command to repent of our sins and place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Christ alone was a “good person”—good enough to earn heaven—and He gives His righteousness to those who believe in His name (Romans 1:17).

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?​

ANSWER

Yes, Jesus is the only way to heaven. Such an exclusive statement may confuse, surprise, or even offend, but it is true nonetheless. The Bible teaches that there is no other way to salvation than through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He is not a way, as in one of many; He is the way, as in the one and only. No one, regardless of reputation, achievement, special knowledge, or personal holiness, can come to God the Father except through Jesus.

Jesus is the only way to heaven for several reasons. Jesus was “chosen by God” to be the Savior (1 Peter 2:4). Jesus is the only One to have come down from heaven and returned there (John 3:13). He is the only person to have lived a perfect human life (Hebrews 4:15). He is the only sacrifice for sin (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:26). He alone fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He is the only man to have conquered death forever (Hebrews 2:14–15). He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only man whom God has “exalted . . . to the highest place” (Philippians 2:9).

Jesus spoke of Himself as the only way to heaven in several places besides John 14:6. He presented Himself as the object of faith in Matthew 7:21–27. He said His words are life (John 6:63). He promised that those who believe in Him will have eternal life (John 3:14–15). He is the gate of the sheep (John 10:7); the bread of life (John 6:35); and the resurrection (John 11:25). No one else can rightly claim those titles.

The apostles’ preaching focused on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Peter, speaking to the Sanhedrin, clearly proclaimed Jesus as the only way to heaven: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul, speaking to the synagogue in Antioch, singled out Jesus as the Savior: “I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin” (Acts 13:38–39). John, writing to the church at large, specifies the name of Christ as the basis of our forgiveness: “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name” (1 John 2:12). No one but Jesus can forgive sin.

Eternal life in heaven is made possible only through Christ. Jesus prayed, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). To receive God’s free gift of salvation, we must look to Jesus and Jesus alone. We must trust in Jesus’ death on the cross as our payment for sin and in His resurrection. “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

At one point in Jesus’ ministry, many of the crowd were turning their backs on Him and leaving in hopes of finding another savior. Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” (John 6:67, ESV). Peter’s reply is exactly right: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69, ESV). May we all share Peter’s faith that eternal life resides only in Jesus Christ.

Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.

If you have any questions, please use the question form on our Bible Questions Answered page.

​

 

[Patriot]

Is Jesus the only way to Heaven | How to get to Heaven | GotQuestions.org​

18,941 views
Jun 22, 2017



Got Questions Ministries


Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? How to get to heaven, is no secret. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only way to heaven. In this video, Pastor Nelson not only shares that Jesus is the only way to God, but he points out why Jesus is the only way using the Bible. Don't miss this powerful short video! "I have just put my faith in Jesus...now what?"

Click here: https://www.gotquestions.org/video-pr...

*** Curious about Bible Munch? Go check them out! https://www.youtube.com/BibleMunch

 

[Patriot]

What is a kundalini spirit?​

ANSWER

Kundalini spirit, or the spirit of kundalini, is a term linked to some versions of the Charismatic faith and associated with beliefs related to demonic oppression. In these highly speculative spiritual approaches, demons are considered the cause of almost every malady, particularly spiritual ones. This feeds the stream of so-called deliverance ministries, which seek to exorcise those evil spirits. By taking vague references to certain words in Scripture badly out of context, such beliefs invent an entire mythology of specific, unique demonic entities that actively cause their associated effects.

The term kundalini originally comes from Eastern mythology and religion. In Hinduism, kundalini is a serpent-like energy that supposedly rests in three-and-one-half coils at the base of the human spine. When a person performs the proper spiritual techniques, this spirit is stretched throughout the body in an “awakening.” This supposedly results in dramatic occurrences including out-of-body experiences, physical movements and sensations, hallucinations, and so forth.

Those who believe in a demonic oppression version of kundalini reference those effects. They then extrapolate the existence of a unique demonic entity, “the kundalini spirit,” or “the spirit of kundalini,” which is most often associated with ostentatious spiritual experiences. Some believers in this “spirit of kundalini” point to practitioners of holy laughter, drunkenness in the Spirit, or being slain in the Spirit as being under its oppression.

Some others suggest the “kundalini spirit” is one that tempts people to practice yoga, dabble in Eastern mysticism, practice Buddhist meditation, undergo acupuncture, or do just about anything associated with Eastern societies. In keeping with the concept of demonic oppression, many who believe in the “spirit of kundalini” suggest that contact with those ideas invites the attention and influence of that spirit.

Still others suggest that Kundalini is the name of the demonic being placed “in charge” by Satan over Eastern cultures such as in India or that kundalini spirit generically refers to any temptation to seek other gods, false teachers, and spiritual distractions.

There is a deep irony in this last interpretation. In and of itself, this approach to demons and demonic oppression is an unbiblical one. There is an extraordinary variety of beliefs about what a “kundalini spirit” is and what it does. This is a common feature of deliverance and demonic oppression “ministries.” The beliefs are based on so little (if any) Scripture and so much speculation and fantasy that there is no coherent or consistent teaching to be found. The functions of the “spirit of kundalini” as held by one person might entirely overlap with the behavior of other spirits, given names such as Leviathan, Python, or Jezebel, or assigned categories such as “water spirits.”

Scripture gives us no reason to believe there is any specific entity named Kundalini or that Christians have some specific ability to rebuke or exorcise it. Nor does the Bible indicate that we’re meant to diagnose spiritual problems in such a way. Whether or not some demonic entity is directly involved in a person’s spiritual struggle is irrelevant. Remedying the situation is not helped by inventing a mythology of demons and turning God’s Word into a sourcebook of wild speculations. Prayer, discipleship, and obedience to God are the only meaningful answers to spiritual problems.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

Angels: Elect & Evil by C. Fred Dickason

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

 

[Patriot]

Is God man-made?​

ANSWER

Some people argue that God is man-made; that is, the concept of God is merely a human fabrication handed down through the generations from those who didn’t know any better. They claim that the idea of a God or gods is simply the way human beings explain things that are too difficult to understand. Some state that belief in the supernatural ignores science and embraces superstition. So, is the idea of God a fantasy based on ignorance and concocted by our forefathers before science proved it to be false?

No, God is not man-made; rather, God made man. Even skeptics agree that there is a beginning for every created thing, including man. So, in order for man to have a beginning, there must be a “first cause” that existed before him. Evolutionists argue that the first cause was an impersonal force, a “big bang,” that started the universe. But even that explanation leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The logical response to this line of thinking is, “What caused the Big Bang? What or who put those forces into motion?” No reasonable answer, outside of the Bible, has been offered.

The Bible starts with the fact of God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God . . . .” When we set aside prejudice, the Bible’s answer seems to be the most logical explanation for that first cause. In the beginning was God. He was not created and therefore needs no first cause. He has always been and always will be, apart from time and space (Psalm 90:2). He introduced Himself to Moses as I AM (Exodus 3:14). The meaning of His name signifies the eternal aspect of His nature. He always was and always will be the Eternal, Self-existent One (Revelation 1:8; 4:8).

A second consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the nature of God as He has revealed Himself through the pages of His Book. Many attributes of God are not those that human beings would necessarily think to include if they had invented Him. God’s character includes omniscience (Isaiah 46:9–10), omnipotence (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 18:2), patience (2 Peter 3:9), and consistency (Malachi 3:6). He is described as loving (Psalm 25:10), faithful (Psalm 31:23), and desirous of having a relationship with us (Jeremiah 29:13; James 4:8). But He is also perfectly just, and that justice requires payment for man’s high treason against his Creator (Zephaniah 3:5; Romans 6:23). Rather than hand down a list of requirements we must meet in order to gain His favor (as all other religions include), the God of the Bible took on human flesh, lived among us, and then allowed the people He created to torture Him to death while He forgave them (Luke 23:34; Philippians 2:5–11). That kind of selfless, sacrificial love is outside human experience and not present in any man-made religion. Grace is a concept exclusive to the God of the Bible.

Man-made gods are usually fashioned in the image of man. The gods of pagan cultures are fraught with flaws, inconsistencies, and human-like weaknesses. They are petty, selfish, cruel, and capricious; in short, they behave as man-made gods would behave, with the same sins and jealousies found in the human heart. In order for God to be man-made, His nature could only extend as far as man’s imagination. The God of the Bible far surpasses our understanding, yet He leaves hints, like a trail of spiritual breadcrumbs, for us to follow as we come to know Him better.

A third point to consider in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the spiritual quality of the human soul. Every human being is unique and possesses an innate sense of “me.” We have an inborn understanding of the eternal (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and the sense that there is more beyond this world. Genesis 1:27 says that human beings were fashioned in the image of God; Colossians 1:16 says we were created for His purposes and His pleasure. We were created like Him in some ways, but He is not necessarily like us (Numbers 23:19). If God were merely a human fabrication, then many new questions arise: What makes human beings different from animals? Where do humans get the ideas of justice, benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love—abstract qualities not found in the animal kingdom? Such traits, found in every culture in the world, would never have survived the evolutionary process. However, when we see those traits showcased within the character of God Himself, we understand why we possess them.

Another consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the trustworthiness of the Bible. In order to contend that God does not exist, one must deal with the accuracy of the Book that tells about Him. Within the pages of the Bible, God has revealed Himself to us and given us hundreds of examples of His dealings with man through the centuries. Many who staunchly argue against the reality of God are also blindly ignorant about the Bible. They often claim it is “an ancient book written by a bunch of Jews.” Statements like that demonstrate the flawed foundation upon which they have constructed their arguments. The Bible is a collection of books written by over 40 different authors, over a 1,500-year time span, from three continents, and in three different languages. Yet it weaves together the pieces of a single story like a jigsaw puzzle fits together. The Bible is God’s story of His relentless pursuit to redeem His fallen creation.

Those who believe that the idea of God is man-made must also consider the manner in which the Bible portrays mankind, especially the Jews. If the Jews wrote the Bible to honor themselves, they failed miserably. Even the Lord Himself is clear that He chose the Israelites for His own reasons, not because they were deserving of special treatment (Deuteronomy 7:7). The failures of the Israelite nation are showcased again and again, right up to the crucifixion of the Son of God (Isaiah 65:2; Mark 15:9–15). Humanity is portrayed realistically, complete with sin, rebellion, and punishment. No group or individual is exalted. This raises the obvious question: if man fabricated the idea of God, what was his motive? Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the only hero is God. Rather than pave the way for personal gain, the truths of the Bible lead to self-sacrifice and surrender. Rather than instruct us how to earn God’s favor, the Bible warns us that no one is righteous (Romans 3:10, 23). Throughout history, those proclaiming the Bible’s truths have been martyred, stoned, and driven into hiding (1 Kings 19:10; Acts 7:58; 2 Corinthians 11:25).

If the idea of God is man-made, then there is no God, really, and the biggest question left unanswered relates to the complexity and apparent design of the universe. A single strand of DNA shows such intricate brilliance that random chance cannot come close to explaining it. Beyond that, the billions of perfectly synchronized atoms, molecules, systems, and universes shout to us about a Designer. Removing God from the realm of possible explanations gives rise to many unanswerable questions. No other explanation makes sense. Theories abound, but none can claim definitive scientific evidence for the startling harmonization of the universe’s complexity. Even Charles Darwin had to admit, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. 167).

We cannot simply remove the idea of God without replacing that idea with a more reasonable explanation. Questions do not disappear by eliminating the possibility of God. However, when we remove the prejudices and presuppositions that refuse to allow God to be considered, He remains the only logical explanation for this amazing world. Those who have decided that God cannot exist build their worldview around that idea and pretend that their fallible answers fill in the blanks. Denial of God is a strong, almost religious assumption that taints their so-called search for truth. However, those who truly desire to be open-minded and pursue truth wherever it may lead find that the evidence always leads to God.

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 are the seven woes of Matthew 23?​

ANSWER

In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces seven “woes” on the religious leaders of His day. A “woe” is an exclamation of grief, similar to what is expressed by the word alas. In pronouncing woes, Jesus was prophesying judgment on the religious elite who were guilty of hypocrisy and sundry other sins.

The King James Version and some other translations list eight woes in Matthew 23, but older manuscripts leave out verse 14, in which the scribes and Pharisees are condemned for taking advantage of widows and making lengthy prayers for show. Elsewhere, Jesus speaks against those very sins (Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47); most likely, however, Matthew did not include them among the other woes of chapter 23.

The seven woes are addressed to the teachers of the law and Pharisees; in one of the woes, He calls them “blind guides” (Matthew 23:16). At the end of His denunciations, He calls them “snakes” and “brood of vipers” (verse 33). Prior to Jesus’ condemnation of the religious hypocrites, they had been following Him to test Him and try to trick Him with questions about divorce (Matthew 19:3), about His authority (Matthew 21:23), about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:17), about the resurrection (verse 23), and about the greatest commandment of the law (verse 36). Jesus prefaced His seven woes by explaining to the disciples that they should obey the teachings of the Jewish leaders—as they taught the law of God—but not to emulate their behavior because they did not practice what they preached (Matthew 23:3).

The first of Jesus’ seven woes condemned the scribes and Pharisees for keeping people out of the kingdom of heaven: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matthew 23:13). Jesus is the only Savior and the only way to heaven. In their rejection of Jesus Christ, the Pharisees were effectively refusing to enter the kingdom of heaven. They also hindered the common people from believing in Him, thereby blocking the way to heaven for others. Repentance and faith in Christ is the door of admission into this kingdom, and nothing could be more disagreeable to the Pharisees, who saw no need for repentance in their own lives and attempted to justify themselves by strict adherence to the law.

In the second of the seven woes, Jesus condemned the leaders for teaching their converts the same hypocrisy that they themselves practiced. They led their converts into a religion of works, but not into true righteousness, making them “twice as much a child of hell” (Matthew 13:15).

The third woe Jesus pronounced referred to the religious elite as “blind guides” and “blind fools” (Matthew 23:16–17). The hypocrites fancied themselves guides of the blind (see Romans 2:19), but they themselves were blind and therefore unfit to guide others. Their spiritual blindness caused them to be ignorant of many things, including the identity of the Messiah and the way of salvation. They were blind to the true meaning of Scripture and to their own sin. They purported to guide the people into the truth, but they were incapable of doing so because they had no personal knowledge of the truth. Instead of teaching spiritual truth, they preferred to quibble over irrelevant matters and find loopholes in the rules (Matthew 23:16–22).

The fourth of the seven woes called out the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy in the practice of tithing. They made a big deal of small things like tithing spices, while they ignored crucial matters. They diligently counted their mint leaves to give every tenth one to the temple, but they “neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). Turning to hyperbole, Jesus said, “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (verse 24). In other words, they were careful to avoid offense in minor things of little importance (straining gnats), while tolerating or committing great sins (swallowing camels).

In the fifth, sixth, and seventh woes, Jesus further illustrated the different aspects of hypocrisy that characterized the religious leaders. In the fifth woe, Jesus likened them to dishes that were scrupulously cleaned on the outside but left dirty inside. Their religious observances made them appear clean and virtuous, but inwardly their hearts were full of “greed and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25).

In the sixth woe, Jesus compared them to “whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean” (Matthew 23:27). The rotting corpse inside a tomb was like the hypocrisy and lawlessness in the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees. They appeared righteous on the outside, but they were just beautified tombs; inwardly, they were spiritually dead.

The hypocrisy Jesus addressed in the seventh woe was directed to those who erected monuments and decorated the tombs of the prophets of old. Jesus points out that those prophets had been slain by the Pharisees’ own ancestors. They imagined themselves much better than their fathers, saying, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets” (Matthew 23:30). But in that very statement they acknowledged their lineage: Jesus says they were truly their fathers’ sons; they had inherited their ancestors’ wickedness and were following in their steps. Jesus knew their evil hearts, which would soon plot to murder Him (Matthew 26:4) just as their ancestors had murdered the righteous men of old.

The seven woes of Matthew 23 were dire warnings to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. But they also serve to warn us against religious hypocrisy today. We are called to true godliness, sincere love, and enduring faith. Pretension, affectation, and hypocrisy will only lead to woe.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES​

The Quest Study Bible

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