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

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about conscientious objection?​

ANSWER

A conscientious objector is a person who, on moral grounds, refuses to fight and kill in wartime. Conscientious objectors believe that all taking of human life is wrong, even in self-defense or in a just war. Conscientious objection is not cowardice or rebellion against governmental authority. While the levels of pacifism can vary from person to person, most conscientious objectors simply do not believe that they personally can or should take a life, even to defend themselves.

A person may be a conscientious objector and not be a Christian. Some objectors do so based on the belief that all people are good and therefore should be able to peacefully resolve conflicts. Some follow the teachings of a particular religion or of pacifist leaders such as Gandhi or Bertrand Russell. Still other conscientious objectors refuse to participate in war based on hatred for the government and its control over its citizens. For them, war is simply organized violence, and they want no part of it.

However, many conscientious objectors base their resistance on Scripture and their commitment to the teachings of Jesus. They have a strongly held conviction that in order to follow Jesus they must forsake any and all physical violence. They cite passages such as some found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 5:28–31). Christian conscientious objectors take these words to mean it is wrong to kill anyone, even in wartime.

Christian conscientious objectors reject the prevailing view that a war is justified when it is to protect life and liberty. They disagree with the viewpoint of most Evangelicals that sometimes war is necessary and righteous. They point out that the Christian justification of righteous killing is based on Old Testament principles, not Jesus’ teachings. They cite Jesus’ many uses of the formula, “You have heard it said . . . but I say to you” (Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28, 31–32) as proof that He changed the old way of doing things. In establishing a new covenant, Jesus did away with the old one and its allowances (Luke 22:20). He commanded His followers to “put your sword back in its place . . . for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Conscientious objectors take the position that there will never again be justification for killing now that the New Covenant has been established.

While it is honorable and right to follow deeply held convictions based on our understanding of Scripture, we must be careful in our application. It is common to hear the Bible quoted as though Jesus were setting governmental policies. Many jump on the Bible bandwagon to insist that a nation function like a church and the President like a pastor. But establishing a government was never Jesus’ intent. He stated clearly, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36). Jesus came to establish a church made up of individuals whose citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). His commands were for individuals, not nations. His words about turning the other cheek had to do with taking personal vengeance, not defending the life and liberty of an innocent person or of fellow citizens in a sovereign nation.

God established authority, and even the New Testament commands us to live under its rule whenever possible (Romans 13:1–7). Verse 4, in particular, seems to condone physical violence by legitimate authorities when necessary: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” The phrase bear the sword suggests killing. Without the threat of death, evil people will dominate, terrorize, and murder the innocent. One reason conscientious objectors have the freedom to follow their consciences is that others are defending that freedom. Police, border agents, bodyguards, and soldiers must have the legal authority to “bear the sword,” or there would be no life or liberty for anyone.

Taking up arms to defend one’s nation should never be an excuse to murder. Conscientious objectors are right to wrestle through the moral implications of taking a life, and it is wise to treat war with the gravity it deserves. But we must be careful not to misapply Scripture. We can take any Bible verse out of context and build a false doctrine around it. So, before building a case for conscientious objection based on some of Jesus’ words, it is vital that we study the context, the original audience, and the rest of Scripture. God does not change (Psalm 55:19). The God who commanded war in the Old Testament is the Jesus of the New (1 Samuel 15:3; Deuteronomy 20:1). If God does not find legitimate war morally wrong, then we shouldn’t, either.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

War: Four Christian Views by Robert G. Clouse

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

 

[Patriot]

Should Christians engage in interfaith dialogue?​

ANSWER

The answer depends on what exactly is meant by “interfaith dialogue.” On one hand, dialogue is good. When a Christian dialogues with someone of a different faith, he or she can often gain greater understanding and useful insight. Learning through dialogue is better than ignorance. Asking questions about what a person believes is a great way to build a bridge. Too many Christians do not really understand the beliefs of those around them and are therefore unable to relate to them and share the gospel effectively.

Where the problem lies in “interfaith dialogue” is that, to most people, interfaith dialogue starts with the premise that no religion is “superior” and that all faiths are equal. Evangelization or proselytizing is inherently arrogant and disrespectful, since all roads lead to God. To many, interfaith dialogue involves various religious adherents looking for common ground that will give them a foothold for combating societal and human ills together. The sole purpose of such dialogue is to unite enough to attack the “real” problems facing humanity, which have to do with human relationships and human suffering.

Some nominal Christians embrace the compromise of interfaith dialogue because they think that the central message of Christianity is love. These people see all other doctrinal issues as unimportant as long as a person lives a good life and is attempting to help others. What does it matter what minor details people believe about God or the resurrection or the Bible, as long as they agree to love each other and work together to solve humanity’s most pressing problems? What does it matter if a person does not believe in Jesus, as long as he or she lives the kind of life that Jesus lived?

For biblical Christians, however, the primary problem is not horizontal (man to man) but vertical (man to God). While sin involves mistreatment of other people and interpersonal alienation, the greatest problem is that sin alienates us from God and puts us under His righteous condemnation. (This is the premise that promoters of interfaith dialogue deny.) Solving the sin problem is of primary importance. Jesus claimed to be the ONLY solution. “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

At one interfaith memorial service after the attacks of September 11, 2001, several adherents of different “faiths” (religions) were involved. The “real problem” was identified as religious extremism and violence and human suffering. One person read a passage of comfort from the Bible: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:38–39). The passage, as read, fit well within the interfaith environment. However, the passage, as read, was out of context, because the last few words of verse 39 were omitted. The promise is that nothing can separate us from the love of God “which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Those last few words, as well as the whole context of the chapter (which begins, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”) is off limits in interfaith dialogue. The truth of Christ divides (see Matthew 10:34).

In the final analysis, Christians should be involved in dialogue with non-Christians to understand what other people believe and to build bridges. The goal is to share the gospel effectively. Addressing a humanitarian problem is also good, but humanitarian efforts should always be done with a view to earning a hearing for the gospel. The mission of the Christian, in obedience to Christ, is to make disciples (Matthew 28:19). If the rules of the dialogue forbid pressing the claims of Christ, then the Christian should opt out. In most cases, this is exactly the situation found in formal interfaith dialogue.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

What was the Holy Roman Empire?​

ANSWER

The Holy Roman Empire was a loosely joined union of smaller kingdoms which held power in western and central Europe between A.D. 962 and 1806. It was ruled by a Holy Roman Emperor who oversaw local regions controlled by a variety of kings, dukes, and other officials. The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to resurrect the Western empire of Rome.

Many people confuse the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire that existed during the New Testament period. However, these two empires were different in both time period and location. The Roman Empire (27 B.C. - A.D. 476) was based in Rome (and, later, Constantinople) and controlled nations around the Mediterranean rim, including Israel. The Holy Roman Empire came into existence long after the Roman Empire had collapsed. It had no official capital, but the emperors—usually Germanic kings—ruled from their homelands.

In the fourth century, Christianity was embraced by the emperor and was pronounced the official religion of the Roman Empire. This blending of religion and government led to an uneasy but powerful mix of doctrine and politics. Eventually, power was consolidated in a centralized Roman Catholic Church, the major social institution throughout the Middle Ages. In A.D. 1054, the Eastern Orthodox Church separated from the Western (Roman) Church, in part due to Rome’s centralized leadership under the Pope.

Pope Leo III laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire in A.D. 800 when he crowned Charlemagne as emperor. This act set a precedent for the next 700 years, as the Popes claimed the right to select and install the most powerful rulers on the continent. The Holy Roman Empire officially began in 962 when Pope John XII crowned King Otto I of Germany and gave him the title of “emperor.” In the Holy Roman Empire, civil authority and church authority clashed at times, but the church usually won. This was the time when the Catholic Popes wielded the most influence, and the papacy’s power reached its zenith.

During the Middle Ages, a wide variety of new church traditions became official doctrine of the Roman Church. Further, the church-state engaged in many military conflicts, including the Crusades.

Late in the period of the Holy Roman Empire, a growing number of Christians grew uneasy with the dominance, teaching, and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 1500s, Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin became a Reformation leader based in Geneva, Switzerland, and others, including Ulrich Zwingli and a large Anabaptist movement, helped reform religion in the Western world.

The major theological issues in the Reformation focused on what are known as the five solas (five “only’s”), which expressed the primacy of biblical teaching over the authority of the Pope and sacred tradition. Sola gratia, the teaching of salvation by “grace alone” through faith alone in Christ alone, empowered a new era of evangelistic outreach in Europe that extended to those who would later colonize North America. Sola scriptura, or “Scripture alone,” taught that the Bible was the sole authority on matters of faith. This teaching led to the development of new churches outside of the Catholic system and the development of new statements of faith for the many Protestant groups founded during this time. The Holy Roman Empire continued to hold power after the Reformation, but the seeds of its demise had been sown; after the Reformation, the Church’s imperial influence waned and the authority of the Pope was curtailed. Europe was emerging from the Middle Ages.

In summary, the Holy Roman Empire served as the government over much of Europe for the majority of medieval history. The Roman Catholic Church, melded in a church-state alliance with the emperor, was the major religious entity. The Church encountered numerous changes even as it amassed land and political clout. Late in this period, Martin Luther and other Reformers transformed the way religion was practiced in central Europe, and their work continues to influence many around the world today.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about education?​

ANSWER

Solomon wrote, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Any student who has pulled an all-nighter, crammed for a test, memorized an equation, or pored over a textbook can verify the truth of that statement. Solomon’s point was that there are more important things than simply amassing knowledge—namely, fearing God and obeying Him (verses 13-14).

That is not to say that education is unimportant. In fact, Jesus Himself learned. One of the only things we know of His childhood is that He “grew in wisdom” as He grew “in stature” (Luke 2:52). That is, the Son of God voluntarily put Himself in a position where He needed to assimilate knowledge as a man. Education was part of the process.

The church has historically promoted education and the improvement of the mind. The Reformer John Calvin was a strong advocate for universal education, believing that every child should be trained in reading, writing, math, and grammar, as well as religion. Martin Luther taught that education was essential, “both to understand the Word of Scripture and the nature of the world in which the Word would take root.” The modern Sunday school movement began in 1780 when Robert Raikes began educating poor children who were otherwise overlooked by society. Most universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, and Cambridge, were founded by Christians as religious schools.

In the book of Proverbs, a son is exhorted to heed his father’s instruction, and the application of the knowledge learned is called wisdom. The word education may not appear in the English form in the Bible, but Scripture does say a lot about the process of education, and it begins with the parent and child. The command to parents is to nurture their children in the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), and the Greek word paideia, translated “nurture” in the KJV, carries with it the idea of training, education, instruction and discipline.

Solomon tells us that the basis of all true knowledge is the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). The word fear here does not carry the idea of terror or dread; rather, it is awe and reverence for the holiness and majesty of God and a reluctance to disappoint or disobey Him. Jesus said that when we know the truth, the truth will make us free (John 8:32). Freedom from fear comes from being educated in Truth.

In Romans, the apostle Paul uses the word know or knowing eleven times. What are we to know? God’s Word. When we acquire spiritual knowledge and apply it to our lives, we serve the Lord in spirit and truth (Romans 6:11-13). Theology has been called “the queen of the sciences” because our knowledge of God informs every other area of erudition.

The Christian is to “study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV). The NIV renders this verse, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” The Greek word translated “study” means “to give diligence, to exert oneself, or to make haste to apply oneself.” Therefore, in order to educate ourselves, we must apply ourselves to study with diligence the Word of God.

Some people see education as a cure-all for society’s ills. However, education, in and of itself, does nothing to combat ungodliness. In fact, knowledge, apart from the love of God, leads to pride (1 Corinthians 8:1). Nicodemus was “Israel’s teacher,” yet he did not understand even the basics of spiritual life (John 3:10). Paul was a highly educated man, having been trained in the best Jewish school of his day (Acts 22:3), and he used his education to communicate effectively to people of many cultures (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Yet Paul’s education certainly did not make him holy (1 Timothy 1:16), and he warned of those who were “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). Simply knowing facts does not make one a better person, and it is indeed possible to be a highly educated fool.

Education begins with the reality of God’s existence and the fact that He has communicated to us through creation, His Word, and His Son. As we learn more of God’s creation, our understanding of God’s wisdom and power deepens. As we study God’s Word, we become more equipped for God’s work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). As we grow in our knowledge of God’s Son (2 Peter 3:18), our love for Him increases and our service for Him intensifies.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Handbook on Choosing Your Child’s Education: A Personalized Plan for Every Age and Stage

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

 

[Patriot]

Can you lose the Holy Spirit?​

ANSWER

The Holy Spirit is the third Person in the triune Godhead. The Holy Spirit indwells believers at the moment of salvation. We know from 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19–20 that the bodies of Christians are the Spirit’s temple. The teaching of the New Testament is that the Holy Spirit’s indwelling is permanent. We cannot lose the Holy Spirit.

The Old Testament relates occasions in which the Spirit left someone, such as King Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) or Samson (Judges 16:20). However, in those days the Holy Spirit worked differently than He does since the time Jesus rose from the dead. In the Old Testament, the Spirit is never said to “indwell” anyone; rather, He “came upon” people for a time to accomplish specific purposes (Judges 3:10; 1 Chronicles 12:18). The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets to proclaim truth to the people (Ezekiel 11:1–2). He instructed the leaders of Israel (1 Samuel 16:13). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). But He did not indwell those people as He now does with believers in Christ.

Before Christ’s finished work and ascension, the Holy Spirit came and went, but He no longer works that way. He does not come and go in the lives of believers today. Just before His arrest, Jesus promised His disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit, who “lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:17). The Amplified Bible emphasizes the permanency of the Spirit’s presence: “He lives with you [constantly] and will be in you.”

Acts 2 describes the transition from the Old Testament economy to the New as it pertains to the Holy Spirit. The disciples were gathered for prayer, waiting for the promise of the Father, in obedience to Jesus (John 14:26; Acts 1:4, 8). As they prayed, the Holy Spirit fell upon them all and filled them (verse 3–4). Jesus’ promise was fulfilled, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit came upon all who had trusted in Christ. That outpouring resulted in courage in the face of opposition, love for all humanity, and supernatural gifts and abilities to further the gospel (1 Corinthians 12:4; Hebrews 2:4).

Salvation is impossible without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). Jesus explained this to Nicodemus in John 3:1–21. Nicodemus, a leader of the Jewish religion, wanted to know what laws he could keep or additional actions he could perform that would guarantee eternal life. Jesus responded that there was nothing Nicodemus could do and that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit’s work in a repentant heart, no one can be born again, regardless of how many “sinner’s prayers” he prays or Christian actions he performs. It is the Holy Spirit who regenerates and renews a heart (Titus 3:5).

An issue related to losing the Holy Spirit is eternal security. There is debate among Christians about whether or not someone can lose his or her salvation. To lose salvation would be to lose the Holy Spirit who provides it. In fact, Scripture says that the Holy Spirit “seals” our salvation until we experience its completion in the presence of God (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). For the Holy Spirit to vacate a heart that He had promised to seal would make Him unfaithful. One of the Holy Spirit’s tasks, after moving into a believing heart, is transforming that person into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 8:29), and we have the promise that “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion” (Philippians 1:6). We do not believe the Spirit will undo His work of regeneration, give up on His transformative work, or redefine eternal life to mean “temporary life.”

Since we did not “find” the Holy Spirit, it is doubtful that we can “lose” Him. Some take issue with the word lose and say that, while a Christian cannot lose the Holy Spirit, he or she can forfeit the gifts and salvation He brings by a willful renouncement of Him. However, Ephesians 1:13 says, “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” Can a believer truly break the seal placed on him by God? The Holy Spirit is the mark of a true believer; therefore, to lose Him would be to lose any hope of salvation in the future.

Ephesians 4:30 warns us not to “grieve the Holy Spirit.” And 1 Thessalonians 5:19 says that we can “quench the Spirit.” These passages do not imply that the Holy Spirit has left us, only that He is sorrowful because of our sinful actions. The grieving and quenching of the Spirit hinders our fellowship with Him but does not nullify our salvation, in much the same way that a rebellious child may lose the fellowship of a parent but is not kicked out of the family.

What causes confusion on this issue is that we cannot know whether someone else has truly been born of the Spirit or whether he is the “shallow soil” as Jesus described in Luke 8:1–15. Some people seem excited to follow Jesus and may exhibit what appear to be supernatural gifts, but they were never truly born again. Jesus addresses those people with a stern warning in Matthew 7:21–23. Many people profess to have the Holy Spirit but eventually prove that they were imposters when their lives turn away from following Him (see Romans 8:14). Such people did not lose the Holy Spirit; He was never theirs at all (1 John 2:19).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Holy Spirit by Charles Ryrie

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

 

[Patriot]

Can you lose the Holy Spirit? | GotQuestions.org​

Got Questions Ministries

Is it possible to lose the Holy Spirit? Can one, be filled with the Spirit then emptied? Is that what happens when we grieve the Holy Spirit or quench the Spirit? Do we lose the Spirit? If so, knowing how to be filled with the Holy Spirit is of great importance! The doctrine of eternal security ( once saved always saved ) is also on the line. For example, can you lose your salvation? In this video, Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch answers the question, “Can you lose the Holy Spirit?”

*** Source Article: https://www.gotquestions.org/lose-the...

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

 

[Patriot]

How do God’s mercy and justice work together in salvation?​

ANSWER

God’s justice and mercy are seemingly incompatible. After all, justice involves the dispensing of deserved punishment for wrongdoing, and mercy is all about pardon and compassion for an offender. However, these two attributes of God do in fact form a unity within His character.

The Bible contains many references to God’s mercy. Over 290 verses in the Old Testament and 70 in the New Testament contain direct statements of the mercy of God toward His people.

God was merciful to the Ninevites who repented at the preaching of Jonah, who described God as “a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2). David said God is “gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in loving-kindness. The LORD is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:8–9, NASB).

But the Bible also speaks of God’s justice and His wrath over sin. In fact, God’s perfect justice is a defining characteristic: “There is no God apart from me, a righteous [just] God and a Savior; there is none but me” (Isaiah 45:21). “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

In the New Testament, Paul details why God’s judgment is coming: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).

So the Bible showcases the fact that God is merciful, but it also reveals that He is just and will one day dispense justice on the sin of the world.

In every other religion in the world that holds to the idea of a supreme deity, that deity’s mercy is always exercised at the expense of justice. For example, in Islam, Allah may grant mercy to an individual, but it’s done by dismissing the penalties of whatever law has been broken. In other words, the offender’s punishment that was properly due him is brushed aside so that mercy can be extended. Islam’s Allah and every other deity in the non-Christian religions set aside the requirements of moral law in order to be merciful. Mercy is seen as at odds with justice. In a sense, in those religions, crime can indeed pay.

If any human judge acted in such a fashion, most people would lodge a major complaint. It is a judge’s responsibility to see that the law is followed and that justice is provided. A judge who ignores the law is betraying his office.

Christianity is unique in that God’s mercy is shown through His justice. There is no setting aside of justice to make room for mercy. The Christian doctrine of penal substitution states that sin and injustice were punished at the cross of Christ and it’s only because the penalty of sin was satisfied through Christ’s sacrifice that God extends His mercy to undeserving sinners who look to Him for salvation.

As Christ died for sinners, He also demonstrated God’s righteousness; His death on the cross showcased God’s justice. This is exactly what the apostle Paul says: “All are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus (Romans 3:24–26, emphasis added).

In other words, all the sin from Adam to the time of Christ was under the forbearance and mercy of God. God in His mercy chose not to punish sin, which would require an eternity in hell for all sinners, although He would have been perfectly just in doing so. Adam and Eve were not immediately destroyed when they ate the forbidden fruit. Instead, God planned a Redeemer (Genesis 3:15). In His love God sent His own Son (John 3:16). Christ paid for every single sin ever committed; thus, God was just in punishing sin, and He can also justify sinners who receive Christ by faith (Romans 3:26). God’s justice and His mercy were demonstrated by Christ’s death on the cross. At the cross, God’s justice was meted out in full (upon Christ), and God’s mercy was extended in full (to all who believe). So God’s perfect mercy was exercised through His perfect justice.

The end result is that everyone who trusts in the Lord Jesus is saved from God’s wrath and instead experiences His grace and mercy (Romans 8:1). As Paul says, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Romans 5:9).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation by Bruce Demarest

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about energy healing?​

ANSWER

In a world where people are constantly grasping for deeper meaning, deeper spirituality, and a higher purpose, energy healing is one more New Age philosophy that presents itself as very desirable to human beings. Born with sin, we all come into the world with the strong belief that we are the center of the universe—that we are in control of our health, our bodies, our lives, our circumstances, and our destinies. Those who have not turned to God for Truth have no choice but to search for it within themselves.

The practice of energy healing is not in itself a religion, but it is a pathway to one’s own spirituality. It leads us on a personal journey that encourages us to focus on ourselves and how our energy is in sync with the energies of the cosmos, the earth, and all other life. Through this, we can supposedly be taught to heal ourselves by using clairvoyance to “visualize” where the negative energy is in order to determine the cause of the problem, whether it is physical, emotional or spiritual.

Reiki, a widely used energy healing technique, was said to have been developed by a Buddhist monk who used cosmic symbols for healing. Reiki claims to work by removing obstructions to the flow of life force energy throughout the body. These obstructions are allegedly caused by negative thoughts, actions, or feelings, which some believe are the fundamental cause of illness. Many even claim that employing this method is the way Jesus obtained His healing power, rather than attributing His power to the fact that He is God.

The use of energy healing encourages us to put our full trust in ourselves and our own bodies, which is a form of worship. For most who participate in energy healing, no recognition is given to the one true God, nor does He receive any praise for healing. The person using these methods of healing has made himself into his own god. Getting involved in energy healing is spiritually dangerous, to say the least.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the One who came to heal. “Then Jesus said, 'Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest'” (Matthew 11:28). God does not want or expect us to help ourselves. He is the source of life, of all that is good and true. Those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus will never come to a place of spiritual healing. “For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them” (Matthew 13:15).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

Does the “God gene” disprove God?​

ANSWER

Dean Hamer’s 2004 book, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes, in no way disproves God. Hamer’s theory – that the VMAT2 gene in humans is responsible for producing a belief in God – has been widely criticized both in secular scientific circles and in the theological world. There is virtually no serious scientific or theological scholar who backs Hamer’s hypothesis.

This raises the question as to why Hamer would propose such a thing to begin with. Actually, he answers the question himself: “Proponents of this view often are called ‘materialists’ because they believe that all mental processes can ultimately be accounted for by a few basic physical laws. Most scientists, including myself, are materialists” (emphasis added).

Therein lies Hamer’s motivation. Materialists or philosophical naturalists believe God does not exist and there is no supernatural component to life. To materialists, everything has a purely natural explanation; their worldview dictates that they exclude any rationale that hints at the supernatural. It’s an a priori judgment and not scientific at all, but when scientists begin expounding on philosophy and religion, their bias usually starts to show.

In reality, a true, absolute materialist probably does not exist. A materialist may say to his wife, “Sweetheart, I love you,” but a more accurate statement—from his standpoint—would be, “Sweetheart, I’m having a chemical reaction.” Love, to the true materialist, is nothing more than a serendipitous mix of hormones.

Materialist thought is nothing new. In Acts 17, the apostle Paul confronts the philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens. Among them were the Epicureans, who believed life was nothing more than a random composition of atoms. Like Hamer, they were materialists, and they believed nothing existed beyond physical life and the natural processes that comprise it.

The Bible says that all people intuitively know there is a God, not because of a specific gene they possess but because they were made in the image of God (the imago dei; cf. Genesis 1:26). “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (Romans 1:21). Reformer John Calvin referred to this knowledge as the sensus divinitatis (“sense of divinity”).

While materialists like Hamer espouse a reductionist view of humanity, the Bible gives humanity a special place in creation. According to Scripture, we are more than just matter + time + chance. We carry a living soul, created in us by God’s very breath (Genesis 2:7).

Further, Hamer’s book does nothing to answer the sound philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which have endured centuries of scrutiny and debate. The cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God, as well as the historicity of Jesus Christ’s life, drown out any assertion by philosophical naturalists that God does not exist.

In the end, the God gene theory fails to make even the smallest dent in the truth claims of Christianity.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

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]

Who were the Sadducees?​

ANSWER

During the time of Christ and the New Testament era, the Sadducees were a religiopolitical group that held a great deal of power among the Jews in Israel. The Sadducees confronted Jesus on occasion, attempting to trip Him up (Matthew 16:1; Mark 12:18), and they later opposed the preaching of the apostles (Acts 4:1–2).

The Sadducees, sometimes historically called “Zadokites” or “Tzedukim,” are thought by some to have been founded by a man named Zadok (or Tsadok) in the second century BC. Another school of thought is that the word Sadducee is related to the Hebrew word sadaq (“to be righteous”). The Sadducees were an aristocratic class connected with everything going on in the temple in Jerusalem. They tended to be wealthy and held powerful positions, including that of chief priests and high priest, and they held the majority of the 70 seats of the ruling council called the Sanhedrin.

The Sadducees worked hard to keep the peace by agreeing with the decisions of Rome (Israel at the time was under Roman control), and they seemed to be more concerned with politics than religion. Because they were accommodating to Rome and were the wealthy upper class, they did not relate well to the common man, nor did the common man hold them in high opinion. The commoners related better to those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. Though the Sadducees held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin, history indicates that much of the time they had to go along with the ideas of the Pharisaic minority, because the Pharisees were more popular with the masses.

Not all priests were Sadducees, but many of them were. The Sadducees preserved the authority of the written Word of God, especially the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). While they could be commended for this, they definitely were not perfect in their doctrinal views. The following is a brief list of Sadducean beliefs that contradict Scripture:

1. The Sadducees were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God’s involvement in everyday life.

2. They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8). Due to this belief, the Sadducees strongly resisted the apostles’ preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.

3. They denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life.

4. They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).

Because the Sadducees were basically a political party rather than a religious sect, they were unconcerned with Jesus until they became afraid He might bring unwanted Roman attention. At that point the Sadducees joined with the Pharisees and conspired to put Christ to death (John 11:48–50; Mark 14:53; 15:1). Other mentions of the Sadducees are found in Acts 4:1 and Acts 5:17, and the Sadducees are implicated in the death of James the brother of John in Acts 12:1–2. The historian Josephus also connects the Sadducees to the death of James, the half-brother of Jesus.

Since the Sadducees left no written description of themselves, all we know about what they believed or what they did is what is found in the Bible and secondhand sources. According to most historical records, including those of Josephus, the Sadducees were rude, arrogant, power-hungry, and quick to dispute with those who disagreed with them.

The Sadducees ceased to exist as a group in AD 70, when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Quest Study Bible

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

 

[Patriot]

Why do Jews and Arabs / Muslims hate each other?​

ANSWER

First, it is important to understand that not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. While a majority of Arabs are Muslims, there are many non-Muslim Arabs. Further, there are significantly more non-Arab Muslims in areas such as Indonesia and Malaysia than there are Arab Muslims. Second, it is important to remember that not all Arabs hate Jews, not all Muslims hate Jews, and not all Jews hate Arabs and Muslims. We must be careful to avoid stereotyping people. However, generally speaking, Arabs and Muslims have a dislike of and distrust for Jews, and vice-versa.

If there is an explicit biblical explanation for this animosity, it goes all the way back to Abraham. The Jews are descendants of Abraham’s son Isaac. The Arabs are descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael. With Ishmael being the son of a slave woman (Genesis 16:1–16) and Isaac being the promised son who would inherit the blessings of Abraham (Genesis 21:1–3), obviously there would be some animosity between the two sons. As a result of Ishmael’s mocking Isaac (Genesis 21:9), Sarah talked Abraham into sending Hagar and Ishmael away (Genesis 21:11–21). Likely, this caused even more contempt in Ishmael’s heart toward Isaac. An angel told Hagar that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation (Genesis 21:18) and, interestingly, that Ishmael would be “a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers” (Genesis 16:12).

However, the ancient root of bitterness between Isaac and Ishmael does not explain all of the hostility between Jews and Arabs today. The religion of Islam, which a majority of Arabs follow, has made the hostility predicted of Ishmael more profound. The Qur’an contains somewhat contradictory instructions for Muslims regarding Jews. At one point it instructs Muslims to treat Jews as brothers and at another point commands Muslims to attack Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. The Qur’an also introduces a conflict as to which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Hebrew Scriptures say it was Isaac. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael whom Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (in contradiction to Genesis 22). This debate over who was the son of promise further contributes to today’s hostility.

Another root of the conflict between Jews and Arabs is political. After World War II, when the United Nations gave a portion of the land of Israel to the Jewish people, the land was ruled by the British and primarily inhabited by Arabs (although one third of the population was Jewish). Most Arabs protested vehemently against the new Israeli state, even as they refused an Arab Palestinian state offered as part of the UN plan. Arab nations including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria attacked Israel in an attempt to drive them into the sea, but they were defeated. The defeat of the Arab forces soon became a human tragedy when the surrounding Arab nations refused to absorb the Arab refugees from Israel.

Ever since 1948, there has been great hostility between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The tensions have been stoked by political rhetoric and the existence of groups such as Hamas with their continuing obsession with wiping out “the Zionist entity” and “reversing the results of 1948.”

Israel exists on one tiny piece of land surrounded by much larger Arab nations such as Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt. It is our viewpoint that, biblically speaking, Israel has a right to exist as a nation in its own land that God gave to the descendants of Jacob, grandson of Abraham (Genesis 12:7). While there is no easy solution to the conflict in the Middle East, Psalm 122:6 declares, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May those who love you be secure.”

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Headlines Haven't Told You, Revised and Updated, by Michael Rydelnik

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

 

[Patriot]

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

ANSWER

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

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

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

 

[Patriot]

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

Got Questions Ministries


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

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

 

[Patriot]

Who were the Edomites?​

ANSWER

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, the firstborn son of Isaac and the twin brother of Jacob. In the womb, Esau and Jacob struggled together, and God told their mother, Rebekah, that they would become two nations, with the older one serving the younger (Genesis 25:23). As an adult, Esau rashly sold his inheritance to Jacob for a bowl of red soup (Genesis 25:30-34), and he hated his brother afterward. Esau became the father of the Edomites and Jacob became the father of the Israelites, and the two nations continued to struggle through most of their history. In the Bible, “Seir” (Joshua 24:4), “Bozrah” (Isaiah 63:1) and “Sela” (2 Kings 14:7) are references to Edom’s land and capital. Sela is better known today as Petra.

The name “Edom” comes from a Semitic word meaning “red,” and the land south of the Dead Sea was given that name because of the red sandstone so prominent in the topography. Esau, because of the soup for which he traded his birthright, became known as Edom, and later moved his family into the hill country of the same name. Genesis 36 recounts the early history of the Edomites, stating that they had kings reigning over them long before Israel had a king (Genesis 36:31). The religion of the Edomites was similar to that of other pagan societies who worshiped fertility gods. Esau’s descendants eventually dominated the southern lands and made their living by agriculture and trade. One of the ancient trade routes, the King’s Highway (Numbers 20:17) passed through Edom, and when the Israelites requested permission to use the route on their exodus from Egypt, they were rejected by force.

Because they were close relatives, the Israelites were forbidden to hate the Edomites (Deuteronomy 23:7). However, the Edomites regularly attacked Israel, and many wars were fought as a result. King Saul fought against the Edomites, and King David subjugated them, establishing military garrisons in Edom. With control over Edomite territory, Israel had access to the port of Ezion-Geber on the Red Sea, from which King Solomon sent out many expeditions. After the reign of Solomon, the Edomites revolted and had some freedom until they were subdued by the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser.

During the Maccabean wars, the Edomites were subjugated by the Jews and forced to convert to Judaism. Through it all, the Edomites maintained much of their old hatred for the Jews. When Greek became the common language, the Edomites were called Idumaeans. With the rise of the Roman Empire, an Idumaean whose father had converted to Judaism was named king of Judea. That Idumaean is known in history as King Herod the Great, the tyrant who ordered a massacre in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill the Christ child (Matthew 2:16-18).

After Herod’s death, the Idumaean people slowly disappeared from history. God had foretold the destruction of the Edomites in Ezekiel 35, saying, “As you rejoiced over the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so I will deal with you; you shall be desolate, Mount Seir, and all Edom, all of it. Then they will know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 35:15). Despite Edom’s constant efforts to rule over the Jews, God’s prophecy to Rebekah was fulfilled: the older child served the younger, and Israel proved stronger than Edom.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible by Geisler & Holden

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

 

[Patriot]

How should a Christian view tradition?​

ANSWER

The word tradition can have two meanings, one secular and one religious. The secular understanding is that tradition is a long-established ritual, custom, or belief that is passed down from one generation to the next. For example, families have certain traditions in the way they celebrate holidays, birthdays, or vacations. Family traditions can be a healthy and positive way to maintain family cohesiveness. Social traditions can help create a sense of belonging within a community. A school may have a tradition that each year the incoming freshmen are escorted to the first football game by the seniors. Following those traditions builds unity and helps maintain social norms. In the religious arena, however, tradition can blur the line between God’s truth and man’s invention, thereby confusing many. Christians should view religious tradition with caution.

Religious tradition was in full force during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He often scolded the religious leaders, saying, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13). The scribes and the Pharisees had added so many of their own ideas to God’s Law that the common people were confused and felt helpless to obey it all. In Mark 7:6–8, Jesus quoted from Isaiah to reprimand the religious leaders, saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” Notice that the “commandments of men” were being taught as if they were divinely inspired “doctrines.” And that was the problem.

One of the many traditions kept by the Pharisees of Jesus’ day involved a ritualistic hand-washing before meals. The observance of this tradition had nothing to do with cleanliness; the Pharisees’ concern was ceremonial purity. Once, when a Pharisee invited Jesus to eat with him, Jesus bypassed the tradition: “His host was amazed to see that he sat down to eat without first performing the hand-washing ceremony required by Jewish custom” (Luke 11:38, NLT). Jesus had broken no law—nothing in the Mosaic commandments required such hand-washing—but the Pharisee expected conformity to the custom nonetheless. Jesus’ outright disregard of that manmade tradition sets up a clear distinction between what is binding (God’s commands) and what is not binding (human tradition).

Religious traditions that supersede or displace God’s law have been around since the earliest days. They are still in full force within every religion as well as most Christian denominations. The liturgical branches of Christianity have the most obvious traditions, but more relaxed worship venues can have them as well. Most of us have our favorite style of music, method of preaching, organizational structure, and serving routines that we accept without question. When faced with change, we might even feel a sense of moral outrage, as though changing the service format or adding a bass guitar were a direct violation of God’s commands. What we’re really doing, perhaps without even realizing it, is guarding our own pet traditions, just as the Pharisees did. We can even become offended at Jesus, as the Pharisees did, when He disrupts our traditional view of what we think Christianity should look like (see John 9:16).

Scripture has layers of meaning. The more we delve into God’s Word, the more we learn about God, and it often upsets our own ideas. Just when we think we have things figured out and we are certain that we are theologically, morally, and socially right about it all, we uncover another layer that shatters those confidences. When we cling to tradition—whether denominational, theological, or structural—as if it were God’s Word, we keep the door closed on God’s revelation of truth to us. He wants to keep surprising us with Who He is as we continue to pursue Him (Jeremiah 29:13). But religious tradition is often in the way. “That’s not how we’ve always done it,” is the battle cry of the traditionalists. Breaking tradition can be uncomfortable for many, just as it was for the Pharisees (Matthew 5:33–34; Luke 6:26–27). But when we can clearly see the dividing line between our own traditions and God’s truth, we stay humble and pliable as God continues to transform us into the image of His Son (Romans 8:29).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

40 Questions About Roman Catholicism by Gregg Allison

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

 

[Patriot]

Who was Paul in the Bible?​

ANSWER

There is much we can learn from the life of the apostle Paul. Far from ordinary, Paul was given the opportunity to do extraordinary things for the kingdom of God. The story of Paul is a story of redemption in Jesus Christ and a testimony that no one is beyond the saving grace of the Lord. However, to gain the full measure of the man, we must examine his dark side and what he symbolized before becoming “the Apostle of Grace.” Paul’s early life was marked by religious zeal, brutal violence, and the relentless persecution of the early church. Fortunately, the later years of Paul’s life show a marked difference as he lived his life for Christ and for the advancement of His kingdom.

Paul was actually born as Saul. He was born in Tarsus in Cilicia around AD 1–5 in a province in the southeastern corner of modern-day Tersous, Turkey. He was of Benjamite lineage and Hebrew ancestry (Philippians 3:5–6). His parents were Pharisees—fervent Jewish nationalists who adhered strictly to the Law of Moses—who sought to protect their children from “contamination” from the Gentiles. Anything Greek would have been despised in Saul’s household, yet he could speak Greek and passable Latin. His household would have spoken Aramaic, a derivative of Hebrew, which was the official language of Judea. Saul’s family were Roman citizens but viewed Jerusalem as a truly sacred and holy city (Acts 22:22-29).

At age thirteen Saul was sent to Judea to learn from a rabbi named Gamaliel, under whom Saul mastered Jewish history, the Psalms, and the works of the prophets. His education would continue for five or six years as Saul learned such things as dissecting Scripture (Acts 22:3). It was during this time that he developed a question-and-answer style of teaching known in ancient times as “diatribe.” This method of articulation helped rabbis debate the finer points of Jewish law to either defend or prosecute those who broke the law. Saul went on to become a lawyer, and all signs pointed to his becoming a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court of 71 men who ruled over Jewish life and religion. Saul was zealous for his faith, and this faith did not allow for compromise. It is this zeal that led Saul down the path of religious extremism.

In Acts 5:27–42, Peter delivered his defense of the gospel and of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin, which Saul would have heard. Gamaliel was also present and delivered a message to calm the council and prevent them from stoning Peter. Saul might also have been present at the trial of Stephen. He was present for his stoning and death; he held the garments of those who did the stoning (Acts 7:58). After Stephen’s death, "a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1). Saul became determined to eradicate Christians, ruthless in his pursuit as he believed he was acting in the name of God. Arguably, there is no one more frightening or more vicious than a religious terrorist, especially when he believes he is doing the will of the Lord by killing innocent people. This is exactly what Saul of Tarsus was: a religious terrorist. Acts 8:3 states, “He began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.”

The pivotal passage in Paul’s story is Acts 9:1–22, which recounts Paul’s meeting with Jesus Christ on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, a journey of about 150 miles. Saul was angered by what he had seen and filled with murderous rage against the Christians. Before departing on his journey, he had asked the high priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, asking for permission to bring any Christians (followers of “the Way,” as they were known) back to Jerusalem to imprison them. On the road Saul was caught in a bright light from heaven that caused him to fall face down on the ground. He heard the words, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” He replied, “Who are you Lord?” Jesus answered directly and clearly, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (verses 4–5). As an aside, this might not have been Saul’s first encounter with Jesus, as some scholars suggest that young Saul might have known of Jesus and that he might have actually witnessed His death.

From that moment on, Saul’s life was turned upside down. The light of the Lord blinded him, and as he traveled on he had to rely on his companions. As instructed by Jesus, Saul continued to Damascus to make contact with a man named Ananias, who was hesitant at first to meet Saul because he knew Saul’s reputation as an evil man. But the Lord told Ananias that Saul was a “chosen instrument” to carry His name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15) and would suffer for doing so (Acts 9:16). Ananias followed the Lord’s instructions and found Saul, on whom he laid hands, and told him of his vision of Jesus Christ. Through prayer, Saul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17), regained his sight, and was baptized (Acts 9:18). Saul immediately went into the synagogues and proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 9:20). The people were amazed and skeptical, as Saul’s reputation was well known. The Jews thought he had come to take away the Christians (Acts 9:21), but he had in fact joined them. Saul’s boldness increased as the Jews living in Damascus were confounded by Saul’s arguments proving that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 9:22).

Saul spent time in Arabia, Damascus, Jerusalem, Syria, and his native Cilicia, and Barnabas enlisted his help to teach those in the church in Antioch (Acts 11:25). Interestingly, the Christians driven out of Judea by the persecution that arose after Stephen’s death founded this multiracial church (Acts 11:19–21).

Saul took his first of three missionary journeys in the late AD 40s. As he spent more time in Gentile areas, Saul began to go by his Roman name Paul (Acts 13:9). Paul wrote many of the New Testament books. Most theologians are in agreement that he wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. These thirteen “letters” (epistles) make up the “Pauline Authorship” and are the primary source of his theology. As previously noted, the book of Acts gives us a historical look at Paul’s life and times. The apostle Paul spent his life proclaiming the risen Christ Jesus throughout the Roman world, often at great personal peril (2 Corinthians 11:24–27). It is assumed that Paul died a martyr’s death in the mid-to-late AD 60s in Rome.

So, what can we learn from the life of the apostle Paul? First, we learn that God can save anyone. The remarkable story of Paul repeats itself every day as sinful, broken people all over the world are transformed by God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. Some of these people have done despicable things to other human beings, while some just try to live a moral life thinking that God will smile upon them on the day of judgment. When we read the story of Paul, we are amazed that God would allow into heaven a religious extremist who murdered innocent women and children. Today, we might see terrorists or other criminals as unworthy of redemption because their crimes against humanity are just too great. The story of Paul is a story that can be told today—he isn’t worthy in our eyes of a second chance, yet God granted him mercy. The truth is that every person matters to God, from the “good, decent,” average person to the “wicked, evil,” degenerate one. Only God can save a soul from hell.

Second, we learn from the life of Paul that anyone can be a humble, powerful witness for Jesus Christ. Arguably, no other human figure in the Bible demonstrated more humility while sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ as Paul. Acts 20:19 tells us that he “served the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to [him] through the plots of the Jews.” In Acts 28:31, Paul shares the good news of Jesus Christ: “Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul was not afraid to tell others what the Lord had done for him. Paul spent all his days, from conversion to martyrdom, working tirelessly for the kingdom of God.

Finally, we learn that anyone can surrender completely to God. Paul was fully committed to God. In Philippians 1:12–14, Paul wrote from prison, “I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.” Despite his circumstances, Paul praised God and continually shared the good news (see also Acts 16:22–25 and Philippians 4:11–13). Through his hardships and suffering, Paul knew the outcome of a life well lived for Christ. He had surrendered his life fully, trusting God for everything. He wrote, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). Can we make the same claim?

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Great Lives from God’s Word Series by Chuck Swindoll

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

 

[Patriot]

What can we learn from the life of Apostle Paul? | GotQuestions.org

Got Questions Ministries

The life of Apostle Paul changed history. In the Bible, from the Apostle Paul conversion, to the Apostle Paul death, Saint Paul lived a life with the sole mission to tell the world about Jesus. This Apostle Paul biography with, Pastor Nelson from Bible Munch, details the Apostle Paul story as told in the Bible.

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about worldliness?​

ANSWER

The dictionary definition of “worldly” is “relating to, or devoted to, the temporal world.” Worldliness, then, is the condition of being concerned with worldly affairs, especially to the neglect of spiritual things. The Bible has a great deal to say about worldliness, none of it good.

Paul equates worldliness with spiritual immaturity in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, where he addresses the believers in the church of Corinth in regard to their worldly behavior. Though they were believers—he calls them “brothers”—they were spiritual babies who could not understand the deep things of God that Paul wished to share with them. They had never progressed past learning the basics of the faith and were seemingly content to remain there. This lack of maturity led to their behaving as though they were still part of the unsaved world. They quarreled among themselves as to which of them was greater because of which of the apostles they followed (1 Corinthians 1:11-13; 3:4), when in reality they followed none of them, following instead their own lusts and desire to elevate themselves above others. Paul exhorted them to grow up and mature in the faith so they would cease from worldly behavior.

The epistles depict worldliness as the exact opposite of godliness. The world’s wisdom is not wisdom at all (1 Corinthians 3:18-19). Rather, it is foolishness, especially the world’s wisdom on the subject of religion. We see that today in the endless discussions of “spirituality” by men whose spiritual wisdom is based on nothing more than worldly illusions. True wisdom that comes from God is juxtaposed against the foolish “wisdom” of the world throughout Scripture. The message of the cross is foolishness to those with worldly wisdom who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18) because true wisdom comes not from man’s philosophies, but from God’s Word. True godliness is always opposed by the world.

Furthermore, Paul refers to a “worldly sorrow” (2 Corinthians 7:10) which is the opposite of the godly sorrow that comes from true repentance. Godly sorrow is what we feel over our sin when we come to see it as God sees it and when our view of it is in accord with His. Worldly sorrow, on the other hand, does not stem from the knowledge of sin against a holy God, but rather from circumstances in which the worldly find themselves. Worldly sorrow stems from a love of self and may arise from the loss of friends or property, from disappointment, or from shame and disgrace. But once the circumstances right themselves, worldly sorrow disappears. Godly sorrow, however, is only alleviated by turning to Christ, who alone provides freedom from the sorrow, the penalty and the power of sin.

Finally, Scripture draws a clear distinction between friendship with God and friendship with the world. James 4:4 tells us that “friendship with the world is hatred toward God.” He goes on to say that “anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.” The apostle James uses the strong words “hatred” and “enemy” to drive home the point that we can be in the world or in the kingdom, but not both because they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Those who choose worldliness choose to live in the enemy’s camp because all that is of the world is under the control of Satan (1 John 5:19). He is the ruler of this world, and when we choose the world, we enlist in his evil army and become enemies of God.

For the Christian, the choice is clear. To avoid worldliness, we must mature in the faith, growing up in all things in Christ so that we are no longer spiritual infants, tossed about by the lies of the world (Ephesians 4:14-15). We must come to know the difference between the wisdom of God and the foolishness of worldly wisdom, and that is only achieved by careful and diligent study of the Word, seeking God’s wisdom in prayer (James 1:5), and enjoying the fellowship of other mature believers who can encourage us to reject worldliness and embrace godliness.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

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

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

 

[Patriot]

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

ANSWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion

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

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

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]

Knowing Jesus vs. knowing about Jesus—what is the difference?​

ANSWER

Fan sites and magazines help us answer this question. Adoring fans of movie, TV, music, or sports stars spend money and time obtaining information, photos, and tidbits about their favorite stars. After poring over such material, the fans feel as if they really know their heroes. But do they? They may know certain facts about their chosen hero. They may be able to cite birth date, favorite color, and childhood pets, but, if they were to meet that person face to face, what would the hero say? Does the fan really know the hero?

Jesus responded to this question in Matthew 7:21–23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" There were people in Jesus’ day who thought they were friends of His because they knew the Law, made strict rules for themselves (and for others), and listened to His teaching. They followed Him, applauded the miracles, and liked some of what He said. But Jesus calls them “evildoers” and states, “I never knew you.”

Today there are thousands who know about Jesus—that is, they know some facts about Him, they might commit some Bible verses to memory, and perhaps they even attend church. But they have never allowed the facts to become their personal reality. They hold knowledge in their heads without allowing the truth to penetrate their hearts. Jesus explained the problem: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules" (Matthew 15:8–9; Mark 7:6).

It can be easy to substitute religion for a real relationship with Jesus. We often think that, if we are doing “Christian things,” that’s all that counts. We can appreciate the facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but until we have made Him our Lord, the facts do us no good (John 3:16–18; Acts 10:43; Romans 10:9). There is a difference between intellectual assent and saving faith. Knowing Jesus means we have accepted His sacrifice on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). We ask Him to be the Lord of our lives (John 1:12; Acts 2:21). We identify with Him in His death and consider our old selves to have died with Him (Colossians 3:3; Romans 6:2, 5; Galatians 6:14; 2:20). We accept His forgiveness and cleansing from sin and seek to know Him in intimate fellowship through His Holy Spirit (John 17:3; Philippians 3:10; 1 John 2:27).

When we repent of our sin and surrender our lives to Him, Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; John 14:26; 16:13). The Holy Spirit comes to live inside us, changing us forever (1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 John 3:9). The facts we know about Jesus come alive as we get to know Him personally. Let’s say you’ve read that your favorite movie star has green eyes and a dimple in her chin. Those traits are merely facts on paper until you meet her face to face. Then, suddenly, those green eyes are looking at you, and the dimple springs to her chin when she smiles. She tells you about her day, her fears, and her inner thoughts. You may recall that you had heard those facts before, but now you are experiencing them. You knew about her before, but now you know her. The abstract has become concrete. Things you thought you knew start to make sense as you enter into a relationship.

Jesus is a Person. To know Him is to enter into a relationship. The greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). It’s hard to love someone you don’t know. Loving Him starts with surrendering to His plan for your life. That’s what it means to make Him Lord (Matthew 6:33; Romans 10:9–10; Psalm 16:8). The nature of God is so vast and complex that no human being can fully know everything there is to know about Him. But life is about continually seeking Him, learning more about Him, and enjoying His fellowship (Jeremiah 29:13; Philippians 3:8).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Knowing Jesus: 150 Reflections on the Life and Teaching of Christ by Jim Reapsome

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