What does the Bible say about karma?
18,511 views
•Aug 20, 2019
LIKEDISLIKE
SHARESAVE
Got Questions Ministries
182K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
What does the Bible say about karma? Is the concept of you reap what you sow the same thing as karma?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
What does the Bible say about karma?
18,511 views
•Aug 20, 2019
LIKEDISLIKE
SHARESAVE
Got Questions Ministries
182K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
What does the Bible say about karma? Is the concept of you reap what you sow the same thing as karma?
What does the Bible say about reincarnation?
Question: "What does the Bible say about reincarnation?"
Answer: To reincarnate is, literally, to “incarnate again”; that is, reincarnation is a “rebirth” into a new body of flesh and blood. In most contexts, reincarnation refers to the process, after death, of a soul returning in a new body. Claims of remembering a “past life” imply reincarnation.
According to some religious and philosophical systems, reincarnation involves more than human souls and bodies: a dog’s spirit can reincarnate as another dog, for example, or a human soul can reincarnate as a cow. Reincarnation, also referred to as the transmigration of the soul, rests on concepts such as the eternal, uncreated nature of the soul and the need for the soul to “mature,” grow, transform, and evolve.
Of course, there is no “proof” for reincarnation. Any evidence put forward is entirely subjective: feelings of déjà vu, recurring dreams, feeling one has an “old soul,” irrational phobias, and an affinity for other cultures and eras are all interpreted, by some, as confirmation that they are living another life in a different body.
The concept of reincarnation, in any of its forms, is completely without foundation in the Bible. The truth is that we die once and then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The Bible never even remotely suggests that people have a second chance at life or that they can come back as different people or animals. Reincarnation has been a popular belief for thousands of years, but it has never been accepted by Christians or followers of Judaism because it is contradictory to Scripture.
Several passages in Scripture refute the idea of reincarnation. Jesus told the criminal on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43)—not “You will have another chance to live a life on earth.” Matthew 25:46 tells us that, upon death, believers go on to eternal life while unbelievers go on to eternal punishment. We are created as individuals, and our identity does not change after death (see Luke 9:30).
Some who believe in reincarnation point to Matthew 17:10–12 as biblical support for reincarnation. The disciples ask Jesus about the commonly taught prophecy that Elijah must come before the Messiah (verse 10; cf. Malachi 4:5), and Jesus responds by identifying the “Elijah” of the prophecy as John the Baptist (Matthew 17:11–13). However, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. For one thing, Elijah did not die; he was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11), so the literal “coming” of Elijah would have been a descent from heaven, not a reincarnation. Jesus calls John the Baptist “Elijah” because he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), not because he was Elijah in a literal sense. Also, Elijah himself had just appeared, talking with Jesus (Matthew 17:3), which shows that Elijah had not changed his identity—he had not become John. Finally, the people had earlier asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah, and he said, “No, I am not” (John 1:21).
Belief in reincarnation is a central tenet in the majority of Indian religious traditions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Many modern pagans also believe in reincarnation, as do some New Age movements, along with followers of Spiritism. For the Christian, however, there can be no doubt: reincarnation is unbiblical and must be rejected as false.
Recommended Resource: I’m Back Again???: A Christian Analysis of Reincarnation in Contemporary American Society by Mark Tabata
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: To reincarnate is, literally, to “incarnate again”; that is, reincarnation is a “rebirth” into a new body of flesh and blood. In most contexts, reincarnation refers to the process, after death, of a soul returning in a new body. Claims of remembering a “past life” imply reincarnation.
According to some religious and philosophical systems, reincarnation involves more than human souls and bodies: a dog’s spirit can reincarnate as another dog, for example, or a human soul can reincarnate as a cow. Reincarnation, also referred to as the transmigration of the soul, rests on concepts such as the eternal, uncreated nature of the soul and the need for the soul to “mature,” grow, transform, and evolve.
Of course, there is no “proof” for reincarnation. Any evidence put forward is entirely subjective: feelings of déjà vu, recurring dreams, feeling one has an “old soul,” irrational phobias, and an affinity for other cultures and eras are all interpreted, by some, as confirmation that they are living another life in a different body.
The concept of reincarnation, in any of its forms, is completely without foundation in the Bible. The truth is that we die once and then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The Bible never even remotely suggests that people have a second chance at life or that they can come back as different people or animals. Reincarnation has been a popular belief for thousands of years, but it has never been accepted by Christians or followers of Judaism because it is contradictory to Scripture.
Several passages in Scripture refute the idea of reincarnation. Jesus told the criminal on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43)—not “You will have another chance to live a life on earth.” Matthew 25:46 tells us that, upon death, believers go on to eternal life while unbelievers go on to eternal punishment. We are created as individuals, and our identity does not change after death (see Luke 9:30).
Some who believe in reincarnation point to Matthew 17:10–12 as biblical support for reincarnation. The disciples ask Jesus about the commonly taught prophecy that Elijah must come before the Messiah (verse 10; cf. Malachi 4:5), and Jesus responds by identifying the “Elijah” of the prophecy as John the Baptist (Matthew 17:11–13). However, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. For one thing, Elijah did not die; he was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11), so the literal “coming” of Elijah would have been a descent from heaven, not a reincarnation. Jesus calls John the Baptist “Elijah” because he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), not because he was Elijah in a literal sense. Also, Elijah himself had just appeared, talking with Jesus (Matthew 17:3), which shows that Elijah had not changed his identity—he had not become John. Finally, the people had earlier asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah, and he said, “No, I am not” (John 1:21).
Belief in reincarnation is a central tenet in the majority of Indian religious traditions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Many modern pagans also believe in reincarnation, as do some New Age movements, along with followers of Spiritism. For the Christian, however, there can be no doubt: reincarnation is unbiblical and must be rejected as false.
Recommended Resource: I’m Back Again???: A Christian Analysis of Reincarnation in Contemporary American Society by Mark Tabata
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What does the Bible say about reincarnation? | GotQuestions.org
3,757 views
•Jan 16, 2021
LIKEDISLIKE
SHARESAVE
Got Questions Ministries
182K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
Is there evidence for reincarnation in the Bible? Does the idea of soul reincarnation have any biblical support? What is reincarnation, and what proof of reincarnation do some use to prove one can be reincarnated? In this video, Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch answers the question, “What does the Bible say about reincarnation?”.
*** Source Article: https://www.gotquestions.org/reincarn...
What is nominal Christianity?
Question: "What is nominal Christianity? What is a nominal Christian?"
Answer: Outside of arcane discussions in medieval philosophy, nominalism is the possession of a baseless name, title, or description. A nominal presidency, for example, is one in which the president is nothing more than a figurehead. A nominal vacation is one in which the vacationers must still work. Nominalism has to do with empty formalities, things so-called, and meaningless labels.
Nominalism exists in religious circles. Nominal Christians are church-goers or otherwise religious people whose “faith” does not go beyond being identified with a church, Christian group, or denomination. They are Christians in name only; Christ has no bearing in their lives. Nominal Christians may attend church and Christian functions, and they self-identify as “Christians,” but it is just a label. They view religion primarily as a social construct, and they do not allow it to require much of them in terms of morality or responsibility. Nominalists take a minimalist approach to their faith.
Nominalism is of concern to many pastors, preachers, and Christian theologians, as it appears to be on the rise today. Many identify themselves as Christians, but the overall impact of Christianity in the West is not what it once was. But what causes nominalism? Why do people prefer a nominal or in-name-only type of Christianity? One possible reason is that nominal religion is easy. It does not require a changed life. A nominal Christian can point to membership in a church as evidence of his salvation. Church attendance and participation in routines, activities, and programs become the measuring stick rather than a changed life, a new heart, a love for God, and obedience to the Word (see 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 14:23).
Another cause of nominal Christianity is the habit of declaring oneself a Christian because of custom or culture. Whole countries, including Costa Rica, Norway, Denmark, and England, have a form of Christianity as the official state religion. This allows a Norwegian, for example, to culturally identify as a Christian—he is a member of the Church of Norway by default, having been registered in infancy when he was baptized. Even in countries with no state religion, such as the United States, cultural Christianity can lead to nominalism. Someone who was reared in a Christian family, attended church all his life, was baptized, lives in the Bible Belt, etc., often claims allegiance to the Christian faith, in spite of evidence in his life to the contrary.
Another cause of nominalism within the church is legalism, the attempt to transform oneself (or others) inwardly by working on the outward behavior. Some people, especially those raised in the church, conform to standards imposed upon them by parents, other Christians, or the church hierarchy without the inner transformation that can only be produced by the Spirit through the Word (Galatians 6:15). Legalists substitute good deeds for saving faith and compliance for conversion. This naturally leads to nominal Christianity, as church-goers and rule-keepers claim the label “Christian” but have no relationship with Christ.
Jesus dealt with nominal Christianity in one of His letters to the churches. The church in Sardis wore a Christian label, but Jesus saw the truth behind the label: “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1). Or, as the KJV says, “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” God is not interested in the labels we tag ourselves with. Having a “name” that we belong to Christ is not enough. Nominal faith is not faith.
Recommended Resource: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Outside of arcane discussions in medieval philosophy, nominalism is the possession of a baseless name, title, or description. A nominal presidency, for example, is one in which the president is nothing more than a figurehead. A nominal vacation is one in which the vacationers must still work. Nominalism has to do with empty formalities, things so-called, and meaningless labels.
Nominalism exists in religious circles. Nominal Christians are church-goers or otherwise religious people whose “faith” does not go beyond being identified with a church, Christian group, or denomination. They are Christians in name only; Christ has no bearing in their lives. Nominal Christians may attend church and Christian functions, and they self-identify as “Christians,” but it is just a label. They view religion primarily as a social construct, and they do not allow it to require much of them in terms of morality or responsibility. Nominalists take a minimalist approach to their faith.
Nominalism is of concern to many pastors, preachers, and Christian theologians, as it appears to be on the rise today. Many identify themselves as Christians, but the overall impact of Christianity in the West is not what it once was. But what causes nominalism? Why do people prefer a nominal or in-name-only type of Christianity? One possible reason is that nominal religion is easy. It does not require a changed life. A nominal Christian can point to membership in a church as evidence of his salvation. Church attendance and participation in routines, activities, and programs become the measuring stick rather than a changed life, a new heart, a love for God, and obedience to the Word (see 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 14:23).
Another cause of nominal Christianity is the habit of declaring oneself a Christian because of custom or culture. Whole countries, including Costa Rica, Norway, Denmark, and England, have a form of Christianity as the official state religion. This allows a Norwegian, for example, to culturally identify as a Christian—he is a member of the Church of Norway by default, having been registered in infancy when he was baptized. Even in countries with no state religion, such as the United States, cultural Christianity can lead to nominalism. Someone who was reared in a Christian family, attended church all his life, was baptized, lives in the Bible Belt, etc., often claims allegiance to the Christian faith, in spite of evidence in his life to the contrary.
Another cause of nominalism within the church is legalism, the attempt to transform oneself (or others) inwardly by working on the outward behavior. Some people, especially those raised in the church, conform to standards imposed upon them by parents, other Christians, or the church hierarchy without the inner transformation that can only be produced by the Spirit through the Word (Galatians 6:15). Legalists substitute good deeds for saving faith and compliance for conversion. This naturally leads to nominal Christianity, as church-goers and rule-keepers claim the label “Christian” but have no relationship with Christ.
Jesus dealt with nominal Christianity in one of His letters to the churches. The church in Sardis wore a Christian label, but Jesus saw the truth behind the label: “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1). Or, as the KJV says, “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” God is not interested in the labels we tag ourselves with. Having a “name” that we belong to Christ is not enough. Nominal faith is not faith.
Recommended Resource: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Is Scientology Christian or a cult?
Question: "Is Scientology Christian or a cult?"
Answer: Scientology is a difficult religion to summarize. Scientology was founded in 1953 by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard and has gained popularity due to some Hollywood celebrities who have embraced it. Hubbard became a multi-millionaire as a result of creating Scientology. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of Scientology is that it is nothing more than a complex money-making scheme. The LA Times reported that the financial policy of Hubbard’s organization was, in Hubbard’s own words, “MAKE MONEY, MAKE MORE MONEY, MAKE OTHERS PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY” (Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos. “The Scientology Story, Part 2: The Selling of a Church.” latimes. Monday, 6/25/1990, page A1:1. Los Angeles Times. WEB. 11/23/2015).
Scientology teaches that mankind is an immortal being (called a Thetan) not originally from this planet, and that man is trapped by matter, energy, space, and time (MEST). Salvation for a scientologist comes through a process called ”auditing,” whereby ”engrams” (basically, memories of past pain and unconsciousness that create energy blockage) are removed. Auditing is a lengthy process and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. When all engrams are finally removed, the Thetan can once again control MEST instead of being controlled by it. Until salvation, each Thetan is constantly reincarnated.
Scientology is a very expensive religion to pursue. Every aspect of Scientology has some sort of fee associated with it. This is why Scientology’s “pews” are filled only with the wealthy. It is also a very strict religion and very punitive against those who would try to leave behind its teachings and membership. Its “scriptures” are limited solely to the writings and teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.
Though scientologists will claim that Scientology is compatible with Christianity, the Bible counters each and every belief they hold to. The Bible teaches that God is the sovereign and only creator of the universe (Genesis 1:1); mankind was created by God (Genesis 1:27); the only salvation available to man is by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:8); salvation is a free gift that mankind can do nothing to earn (Ephesians 2:8-9); and Jesus Christ is alive and well and is seated at the right hand of God the Father even now (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3), awaiting the time when He will gather His people to Himself to reside with Him for eternity in heaven. Everyone else will be cast into a very real hell, separated from God for eternity (Revelation 20:15).
Scientology categorically denies the existence of the God of the Bible, heaven, and hell. To a scientologist, Jesus Christ was simply a good teacher who unfortunately was wrongfully put to death. Scientology differs from biblical Christianity on every important doctrine. Some of the most important differences are summarized below:
God: Scientology believes that there are multiple gods and that some gods are above other gods. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, recognizes the one and only true God who revealed Himself to us in the Bible and through Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him cannot believe the false concept of God as taught in Scientology.
Jesus Christ: Like other cults, Scientology denies the deity of Christ. Instead of having a biblical view of who Christ is and what He did, they assign to Him the characteristics of some sort of lesser god who has obtained legendary status over the years. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh and through His incarnation He could act as a sacrifice for our sins. It is through Christ’s death and resurrection that we can have the hope of eternal life with God (John 3:16).
Sin: Scientology believes in the inherent goodness of man and teaches that it is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he must repent or that he is evil. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that man is a sinner and the only hope for him is that he receive Christ as his Lord and Savior (Romans 6:23).
Salvation: Scientology believes in reincarnation and that personal salvation in one’s lifetime is freedom from the cycle of birth and death associated with reincarnation. They believe that religious practice of all faiths is the universal way to wisdom, understanding, and salvation. In contrast, the Bible teaches that there is only one way of salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Comparing the teachings of Scientology with the Bible, we see that the two have very little, if anything, in common. Scientology only leads away from God and eternal life. Scientology, while sometimes disguising its beliefs in Christian-sounding language, in fact diametrically opposes Christianity on every core belief. Scientology is clearly, and most definitely, not Christian.
Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Scientology is a difficult religion to summarize. Scientology was founded in 1953 by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard and has gained popularity due to some Hollywood celebrities who have embraced it. Hubbard became a multi-millionaire as a result of creating Scientology. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of Scientology is that it is nothing more than a complex money-making scheme. The LA Times reported that the financial policy of Hubbard’s organization was, in Hubbard’s own words, “MAKE MONEY, MAKE MORE MONEY, MAKE OTHERS PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY” (Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos. “The Scientology Story, Part 2: The Selling of a Church.” latimes. Monday, 6/25/1990, page A1:1. Los Angeles Times. WEB. 11/23/2015).
Scientology teaches that mankind is an immortal being (called a Thetan) not originally from this planet, and that man is trapped by matter, energy, space, and time (MEST). Salvation for a scientologist comes through a process called ”auditing,” whereby ”engrams” (basically, memories of past pain and unconsciousness that create energy blockage) are removed. Auditing is a lengthy process and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. When all engrams are finally removed, the Thetan can once again control MEST instead of being controlled by it. Until salvation, each Thetan is constantly reincarnated.
Scientology is a very expensive religion to pursue. Every aspect of Scientology has some sort of fee associated with it. This is why Scientology’s “pews” are filled only with the wealthy. It is also a very strict religion and very punitive against those who would try to leave behind its teachings and membership. Its “scriptures” are limited solely to the writings and teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.
Though scientologists will claim that Scientology is compatible with Christianity, the Bible counters each and every belief they hold to. The Bible teaches that God is the sovereign and only creator of the universe (Genesis 1:1); mankind was created by God (Genesis 1:27); the only salvation available to man is by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:8); salvation is a free gift that mankind can do nothing to earn (Ephesians 2:8-9); and Jesus Christ is alive and well and is seated at the right hand of God the Father even now (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3), awaiting the time when He will gather His people to Himself to reside with Him for eternity in heaven. Everyone else will be cast into a very real hell, separated from God for eternity (Revelation 20:15).
Scientology categorically denies the existence of the God of the Bible, heaven, and hell. To a scientologist, Jesus Christ was simply a good teacher who unfortunately was wrongfully put to death. Scientology differs from biblical Christianity on every important doctrine. Some of the most important differences are summarized below:
God: Scientology believes that there are multiple gods and that some gods are above other gods. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, recognizes the one and only true God who revealed Himself to us in the Bible and through Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him cannot believe the false concept of God as taught in Scientology.
Jesus Christ: Like other cults, Scientology denies the deity of Christ. Instead of having a biblical view of who Christ is and what He did, they assign to Him the characteristics of some sort of lesser god who has obtained legendary status over the years. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh and through His incarnation He could act as a sacrifice for our sins. It is through Christ’s death and resurrection that we can have the hope of eternal life with God (John 3:16).
Sin: Scientology believes in the inherent goodness of man and teaches that it is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he must repent or that he is evil. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that man is a sinner and the only hope for him is that he receive Christ as his Lord and Savior (Romans 6:23).
Salvation: Scientology believes in reincarnation and that personal salvation in one’s lifetime is freedom from the cycle of birth and death associated with reincarnation. They believe that religious practice of all faiths is the universal way to wisdom, understanding, and salvation. In contrast, the Bible teaches that there is only one way of salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Comparing the teachings of Scientology with the Bible, we see that the two have very little, if anything, in common. Scientology only leads away from God and eternal life. Scientology, while sometimes disguising its beliefs in Christian-sounding language, in fact diametrically opposes Christianity on every core belief. Scientology is clearly, and most definitely, not Christian.
Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?
Question: "Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?"
Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.
One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.
The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally “true,” even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite “truths.” People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is all right to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.
The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”
The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.
The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.
Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth.
Recommended Resource: True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World by Art Lindsley
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.
One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.
The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally “true,” even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite “truths.” People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is all right to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.
The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”
The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.
The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.
Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth.
Recommended Resource: True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World by Art Lindsley
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What does the Bible say about Voodoo?
Question: "What does the Bible say about Voodoo? How should a Christian view Voodoo?"
Answer: Voodoo is a name for several religious practices derived from West African Voodoo. The original West African Voodoo is a polytheistic religion called Vodon (also spelled Vodun, Voudoun, Vodou, Vaudoux, Vodoun or Voudou). This religion honors a god with a dual nature, both masculine and feminine, and spirits that rule nature as well as spirits in rocks, rivers, trees, etc. These spirits are the vodon or vudu. This form of Voodoo also includes animal sacrifices and ancestor worship.
Voodoo in Haiti and Louisiana (as well as in Haitian communities in Miami and New York City) is derived from West African Voodoo but blended with the superficial aspects of Roman Catholicism. This came about when slaves were brought to the New World and pressured to convert to Roman Catholicism. They mixed West African Voodoo with Roman Catholicism, thus forming an underground type of Voodoo found in Latin America, Cuba, Haiti, and Louisiana. In Cuba, this blend is usually called Santeria; in Brazil, it is Candomble (other terms may be used as well). In Haitian Voodoo, worship is directed to the loa, deities who serve the one god. The loa became associated with Catholic saints.
Louisiana Voodoo has a strong emphasis on belief in spirits that supervise everything. Slaves changed the African names of these spirits to the names of Catholic saints as part of the blending of West African Voodoo with Roman Catholicism. Women in Louisiana Voodoo who presided over rituals and ceremonies and used charms and magical potions became known as Voodoo Queens. The most well-known Voodoo Queen was Marie Laveau of New Orleans who also considered herself a devout Catholic. Because of this, further syncretization between Voodoo and Roman Catholicism ensued.
Because it is based primarily on oral tradition, Voodoo can vary from person to person. There is belief in one god, called Bondye, but this god is remote and is not active in daily life. Voodoo worshipers connect with the spirits through singing, ecstatic dancing in which the worshipers invite the spirits to “ride” them, and the use of snakes. Additionally, there are special diets, ceremonies, rituals, spell casting, potions, and talismans and amulets (charms) for healing and aiding followers.
Voodoo involves the worship of spirits and occult practices such as divination (fortunetelling) and sorcery. These practices are strongly condemned by God throughout the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy 18:9-13, where God forbids consulting anyone who practices “divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead” (also see Leviticus 19:26, 31, 20:6; 2 Kings 17:17; Acts 19:18-19; Revelation 21:8, 22:15).
The god of Voodoo is not the biblical God but a remote god who is not involved with humanity or nature. The worship of the Voodoo spirits is the worship of false gods, and as such is condemned throughout the Bible. Not only is Voodoo a religion that is incompatible with Christianity, but its practices and beliefs are against God’s Word. Moreover, the occult practices of Voodoo are dangerous because they open people up for the influence of demons.
By blending polytheistic spirit worship with a superficial form of Christianity, Voodoo has effectively denied the primacy of Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross and the need for redemption solely through faith in Christ. Voodoo, therefore, is incompatible with God’s Word in three ways: the true God is not worshiped, Jesus is secondary to the spirits, and occult practices prevail.
Recommended Resource: The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Voodoo is a name for several religious practices derived from West African Voodoo. The original West African Voodoo is a polytheistic religion called Vodon (also spelled Vodun, Voudoun, Vodou, Vaudoux, Vodoun or Voudou). This religion honors a god with a dual nature, both masculine and feminine, and spirits that rule nature as well as spirits in rocks, rivers, trees, etc. These spirits are the vodon or vudu. This form of Voodoo also includes animal sacrifices and ancestor worship.
Voodoo in Haiti and Louisiana (as well as in Haitian communities in Miami and New York City) is derived from West African Voodoo but blended with the superficial aspects of Roman Catholicism. This came about when slaves were brought to the New World and pressured to convert to Roman Catholicism. They mixed West African Voodoo with Roman Catholicism, thus forming an underground type of Voodoo found in Latin America, Cuba, Haiti, and Louisiana. In Cuba, this blend is usually called Santeria; in Brazil, it is Candomble (other terms may be used as well). In Haitian Voodoo, worship is directed to the loa, deities who serve the one god. The loa became associated with Catholic saints.
Louisiana Voodoo has a strong emphasis on belief in spirits that supervise everything. Slaves changed the African names of these spirits to the names of Catholic saints as part of the blending of West African Voodoo with Roman Catholicism. Women in Louisiana Voodoo who presided over rituals and ceremonies and used charms and magical potions became known as Voodoo Queens. The most well-known Voodoo Queen was Marie Laveau of New Orleans who also considered herself a devout Catholic. Because of this, further syncretization between Voodoo and Roman Catholicism ensued.
Because it is based primarily on oral tradition, Voodoo can vary from person to person. There is belief in one god, called Bondye, but this god is remote and is not active in daily life. Voodoo worshipers connect with the spirits through singing, ecstatic dancing in which the worshipers invite the spirits to “ride” them, and the use of snakes. Additionally, there are special diets, ceremonies, rituals, spell casting, potions, and talismans and amulets (charms) for healing and aiding followers.
Voodoo involves the worship of spirits and occult practices such as divination (fortunetelling) and sorcery. These practices are strongly condemned by God throughout the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy 18:9-13, where God forbids consulting anyone who practices “divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead” (also see Leviticus 19:26, 31, 20:6; 2 Kings 17:17; Acts 19:18-19; Revelation 21:8, 22:15).
The god of Voodoo is not the biblical God but a remote god who is not involved with humanity or nature. The worship of the Voodoo spirits is the worship of false gods, and as such is condemned throughout the Bible. Not only is Voodoo a religion that is incompatible with Christianity, but its practices and beliefs are against God’s Word. Moreover, the occult practices of Voodoo are dangerous because they open people up for the influence of demons.
By blending polytheistic spirit worship with a superficial form of Christianity, Voodoo has effectively denied the primacy of Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross and the need for redemption solely through faith in Christ. Voodoo, therefore, is incompatible with God’s Word in three ways: the true God is not worshiped, Jesus is secondary to the spirits, and occult practices prevail.
Recommended Resource: The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What is feng shui?
Question: "What is feng shui? Should a Christian practice feng shui?"
Answer: Feng shui, which literally means “wind-water,” is an ancient Chinese system of aesthetics believed to use the laws heaven and earth (astronomy and geography) to help one improve life by receiving positive “qi” or energy flow. Feng shui has a long and complex history as to its uses, techniques, and instruments—particularly prior to the invention of the magnetic compass. The goal of feng shui as practiced today is to situate the human-built environment on spots with good qi. The "perfect spot" is believed to be a location and an axis in time. The discovery and use of energy forces are also foundational in the Chinese martial arts such as kung fu. Also part of feng shui is the Chinese philosophy of yin yang, the theory of the effect of opposing forces on human existence. Many natural dualities—dark and light, female and male, low and high—are viewed in Chinese thought as manifestations of yin and yang. The most popular use of feng shui in the West is in the areas of interior decoration of rooms and homes and exterior design of buildings.
The forms and methods of feng shui are too varied and complex for a complete description, but an important element to consider, for the Christian, is the fact that ancient Chinese feng shui has been reinvented by New Age practitioners and incorporated into their practices. While many people dismiss feng shui as superstitious nonsense and pseudoscience, others can and do become so enamored of the philosophy that it exerts enormous influence on their life decisions, even going to the extreme of using it for healing purposes in place of modern medicine. For Christians, the question is whether we believe that harmony, peace, and order in life can be achieved by manipulating elements and external “forces” around us. The Bible tells us that our heavenly Father is the source of peace which is available only through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). In fact, no amount of appealing to inanimate forces will produce tranquility and harmony if our lives are out of sync with the Savior. It is only through Him that we can have the peace of God which “passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:4-7).
Christians should be aware that some of the principles of feng shui, including the “I Ching,” are based on Taoist philosophy used to determine which area of a home is positive/negative and/or how decor and furniture should be arranged. While Christians may incorporate principles of feng shui into their decorating plans, despite the dubious value such principles have, Christians should never do so with the goal of feng shui, which is the manipulation of their environment to produce in their lives those things that only Christ provides. To do so is to border on idolatry. For the Christian, there is no such thing as the “perfect spot” on earth, because our home is not in this world and the kingdom of God is not this life in this place (John 18:36; 1 Corinthians 7:31). Rather, Christians should be concerned with glorifying God in their homes by submitting their thoughts, words, and deeds to Him and endeavoring to grow in Christ-likeness. Only then can we hope to achieve the peace and harmony that eludes so many today.
Recommended Resource: Neighboring Faiths by Winfried Corduan
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Feng shui, which literally means “wind-water,” is an ancient Chinese system of aesthetics believed to use the laws heaven and earth (astronomy and geography) to help one improve life by receiving positive “qi” or energy flow. Feng shui has a long and complex history as to its uses, techniques, and instruments—particularly prior to the invention of the magnetic compass. The goal of feng shui as practiced today is to situate the human-built environment on spots with good qi. The "perfect spot" is believed to be a location and an axis in time. The discovery and use of energy forces are also foundational in the Chinese martial arts such as kung fu. Also part of feng shui is the Chinese philosophy of yin yang, the theory of the effect of opposing forces on human existence. Many natural dualities—dark and light, female and male, low and high—are viewed in Chinese thought as manifestations of yin and yang. The most popular use of feng shui in the West is in the areas of interior decoration of rooms and homes and exterior design of buildings.
The forms and methods of feng shui are too varied and complex for a complete description, but an important element to consider, for the Christian, is the fact that ancient Chinese feng shui has been reinvented by New Age practitioners and incorporated into their practices. While many people dismiss feng shui as superstitious nonsense and pseudoscience, others can and do become so enamored of the philosophy that it exerts enormous influence on their life decisions, even going to the extreme of using it for healing purposes in place of modern medicine. For Christians, the question is whether we believe that harmony, peace, and order in life can be achieved by manipulating elements and external “forces” around us. The Bible tells us that our heavenly Father is the source of peace which is available only through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). In fact, no amount of appealing to inanimate forces will produce tranquility and harmony if our lives are out of sync with the Savior. It is only through Him that we can have the peace of God which “passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:4-7).
Christians should be aware that some of the principles of feng shui, including the “I Ching,” are based on Taoist philosophy used to determine which area of a home is positive/negative and/or how decor and furniture should be arranged. While Christians may incorporate principles of feng shui into their decorating plans, despite the dubious value such principles have, Christians should never do so with the goal of feng shui, which is the manipulation of their environment to produce in their lives those things that only Christ provides. To do so is to border on idolatry. For the Christian, there is no such thing as the “perfect spot” on earth, because our home is not in this world and the kingdom of God is not this life in this place (John 18:36; 1 Corinthians 7:31). Rather, Christians should be concerned with glorifying God in their homes by submitting their thoughts, words, and deeds to Him and endeavoring to grow in Christ-likeness. Only then can we hope to achieve the peace and harmony that eludes so many today.
Recommended Resource: Neighboring Faiths by Winfried Corduan
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What is the meaning of the yin and the yang?
Question: "What is the meaning of the yin and the yang?"
Answer: The concept of yin yang (often called “the yin and the yang”) is a Chinese philosophical idea used to explain how opposite forces are interconnected and interdependent upon each other. In other words, black could not exist without white, dark without light, cold without heat, etc. The yin yang concept is the basis of many branches of classical Chinese science and philosophy, traditional Chinese medicine, and different forms of Chinese martial arts and exercise, including tai chi.
As with much of Chinese philosophy and culture, the concept of yin yang is mysterious and complex, and a full treatment of it is not possible here. The connection between yin yang and Taoism, however, is undeniable. Tao deals with the flow of the universe, or the force behind natural order that keeps all things balanced and in order. It is considered to be a source of existence and "non-existence." Most adherents of Taoism believe anything from polytheism (belief in many gods) to ancestor worship. Taoists tend to worship mostly on holidays in their calendar when food is set out as a sacrifice to the gods or the spirits of departed ancestors. Other forms of sacrifice include burning paper money so it will rematerialize in the spirit world for a departed ancestor to use. A number of martial arts disciplines such as T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Bagua Zang have their roots in Taoism.
Taoism and the yin yang concept are directly contradictory to biblical Christianity. While it is true that evil would not exist without goodness, the converse is not true. Goodness can and does exist without evil. Evil is not required to understand good or to have good. A doctor does not have to have asthma, in order to know how to treat asthma. Rape does not have to exist in order to understand the joy and intention that God has for sex. DaVinci’s mural The Last Supper is an example of terrific workmanship, yet today it is faded, chipped, and marred by decay. Must the decay exist in order to appreciate the beauty of the art? Not at all.
The holiness of God is eternal, complete, and undivided. God’s righteousness admits no admixture of sin; there is no “balance” or “integration” or “interdependence” between the holiness of God and the evil that exists in the world.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The concept of yin yang (often called “the yin and the yang”) is a Chinese philosophical idea used to explain how opposite forces are interconnected and interdependent upon each other. In other words, black could not exist without white, dark without light, cold without heat, etc. The yin yang concept is the basis of many branches of classical Chinese science and philosophy, traditional Chinese medicine, and different forms of Chinese martial arts and exercise, including tai chi.
As with much of Chinese philosophy and culture, the concept of yin yang is mysterious and complex, and a full treatment of it is not possible here. The connection between yin yang and Taoism, however, is undeniable. Tao deals with the flow of the universe, or the force behind natural order that keeps all things balanced and in order. It is considered to be a source of existence and "non-existence." Most adherents of Taoism believe anything from polytheism (belief in many gods) to ancestor worship. Taoists tend to worship mostly on holidays in their calendar when food is set out as a sacrifice to the gods or the spirits of departed ancestors. Other forms of sacrifice include burning paper money so it will rematerialize in the spirit world for a departed ancestor to use. A number of martial arts disciplines such as T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Bagua Zang have their roots in Taoism.
Taoism and the yin yang concept are directly contradictory to biblical Christianity. While it is true that evil would not exist without goodness, the converse is not true. Goodness can and does exist without evil. Evil is not required to understand good or to have good. A doctor does not have to have asthma, in order to know how to treat asthma. Rape does not have to exist in order to understand the joy and intention that God has for sex. DaVinci’s mural The Last Supper is an example of terrific workmanship, yet today it is faded, chipped, and marred by decay. Must the decay exist in order to appreciate the beauty of the art? Not at all.
The holiness of God is eternal, complete, and undivided. God’s righteousness admits no admixture of sin; there is no “balance” or “integration” or “interdependence” between the holiness of God and the evil that exists in the world.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What is the Christian view of Tai Chi (TaiChi)?
Question: "What is the Christian view of Tai Chi (TaiChi)?"
Answer: Tai Chi is more specifically called Tai Chi Chuan, which can be translated as “supreme ultimate fist.” Tai Chi is a martial art, though it’s often called a “moving meditation” since the movements are done slowly and deliberately, and it is taught more as a meditative and health-enhancing practice than as a martial art. Though its origins are unclear, the foundation of Tai Chi is the Taoist belief in a universal energy called chi (also spelled qi or ki depending on the language of origin). Chi is believed to be the binding life force in the universe, existing both externally and internally, moving through invisible channels in the body called meridians.
Taoism teaches that strengthening and reinforcing one’s inner chi will bring good health and long life as well as spiritual benefits. Certain breathing techniques, meditations, and bodily movements are taught to cultivate and enhance the chi. This belief is the basis of Tai Chi. There is no supreme God or Creator in Taoism; all originated from the Tao, which is an impersonal principle or source of creation.
From the Tao came yin and yang, two forces that manifested in creation. These forces appear opposite but actually are in a state of constant flux, merging with each other. The chi flows more harmoniously when yin and yang are balanced; this balance is brought about through special diets, herbs, exercises, breathing techniques, and bodily movements. Tai Chi, therefore, has a worldview at odds with the Christian worldview. Tai Chi is based on a Taoist spiritual view of the body and the chi, and how to enhance the chi, a view incompatible with how the Bible tells us we were made—in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).
Jesus Christ created and holds the world together, not the Tao or an invisible force called chi: “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17). Doing Tai Chi, even for physical purposes, is paying homage to a spiritual belief system at odds with God’s Word.
Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Tai Chi is more specifically called Tai Chi Chuan, which can be translated as “supreme ultimate fist.” Tai Chi is a martial art, though it’s often called a “moving meditation” since the movements are done slowly and deliberately, and it is taught more as a meditative and health-enhancing practice than as a martial art. Though its origins are unclear, the foundation of Tai Chi is the Taoist belief in a universal energy called chi (also spelled qi or ki depending on the language of origin). Chi is believed to be the binding life force in the universe, existing both externally and internally, moving through invisible channels in the body called meridians.
Taoism teaches that strengthening and reinforcing one’s inner chi will bring good health and long life as well as spiritual benefits. Certain breathing techniques, meditations, and bodily movements are taught to cultivate and enhance the chi. This belief is the basis of Tai Chi. There is no supreme God or Creator in Taoism; all originated from the Tao, which is an impersonal principle or source of creation.
From the Tao came yin and yang, two forces that manifested in creation. These forces appear opposite but actually are in a state of constant flux, merging with each other. The chi flows more harmoniously when yin and yang are balanced; this balance is brought about through special diets, herbs, exercises, breathing techniques, and bodily movements. Tai Chi, therefore, has a worldview at odds with the Christian worldview. Tai Chi is based on a Taoist spiritual view of the body and the chi, and how to enhance the chi, a view incompatible with how the Bible tells us we were made—in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).
Jesus Christ created and holds the world together, not the Tao or an invisible force called chi: “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17). Doing Tai Chi, even for physical purposes, is paying homage to a spiritual belief system at odds with God’s Word.
Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Is the idea of chi compatible with the Christian faith?
Question: "Is the idea of chi compatible with the Christian faith?"
Answer: Chi (also spelled ch’i or qi) can be defined as “the energy force that gives life to all things.” The idea of chi comes from Taoism, which teaches that there are spiritual and health benefits to developing and strengthening one’s inner chi. This is done through meditation, exercise, and other techniques. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and some martial arts like Tai Chi have an ultimate purpose of balancing and enhancing one’s chi on physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual levels.
By definition alone, the idea of chi is not compatible with the Christian faith. A foundational doctrine of Christianity is that God created all things through Jesus (see Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1–4). It is God who gives life, and by God, through Jesus, all things are sustained (see Psalm 147:9 and Colossians 1:16–17).
Some may argue that chi is just a different term for the “life” that God breathed into Adam (Genesis 2:7). But we can’t transplant the term chi into the Christian faith because the philosophy behind chi (Taoism) is also incompatible with Christianity. For example, the Taoist view of “God” is that each person has his or her own definition of what “god” is, and each definition is perfectly acceptable—neither right nor wrong. In the Christian faith, God is not defined by people’s perceptions. Rather, He reveals who He is to us (see Jeremiah 29:13–14). While God is infinite and beyond full human understanding, He has revealed certain things about Himself and is able to be known personally. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is the only way to a real relationship with God (see John 14:5–7).
The idea of chi cannot be separated from the spiritual realm. When one engages with the spiritual realm, he or she will either encounter God or the demonic. In the Old Testament, God forbade Israel to engage in certain occult practices. This was for their own protection; the forbidden practices would have put them in contact with demonic forces (see Deuteronomy 18:9–13).
Seemingly innocent practices, like trying to balance or strengthen one’s chi, may in fact produce some perceived benefits—or at least no “bad” effects—but if those practices are not in line with a biblical worldview, then they are to be avoided. Chi is a counterfeit of the kind of life offered by Christ (see John 10:10).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Chi (also spelled ch’i or qi) can be defined as “the energy force that gives life to all things.” The idea of chi comes from Taoism, which teaches that there are spiritual and health benefits to developing and strengthening one’s inner chi. This is done through meditation, exercise, and other techniques. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and some martial arts like Tai Chi have an ultimate purpose of balancing and enhancing one’s chi on physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual levels.
By definition alone, the idea of chi is not compatible with the Christian faith. A foundational doctrine of Christianity is that God created all things through Jesus (see Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1–4). It is God who gives life, and by God, through Jesus, all things are sustained (see Psalm 147:9 and Colossians 1:16–17).
Some may argue that chi is just a different term for the “life” that God breathed into Adam (Genesis 2:7). But we can’t transplant the term chi into the Christian faith because the philosophy behind chi (Taoism) is also incompatible with Christianity. For example, the Taoist view of “God” is that each person has his or her own definition of what “god” is, and each definition is perfectly acceptable—neither right nor wrong. In the Christian faith, God is not defined by people’s perceptions. Rather, He reveals who He is to us (see Jeremiah 29:13–14). While God is infinite and beyond full human understanding, He has revealed certain things about Himself and is able to be known personally. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is the only way to a real relationship with God (see John 14:5–7).
The idea of chi cannot be separated from the spiritual realm. When one engages with the spiritual realm, he or she will either encounter God or the demonic. In the Old Testament, God forbade Israel to engage in certain occult practices. This was for their own protection; the forbidden practices would have put them in contact with demonic forces (see Deuteronomy 18:9–13).
Seemingly innocent practices, like trying to balance or strengthen one’s chi, may in fact produce some perceived benefits—or at least no “bad” effects—but if those practices are not in line with a biblical worldview, then they are to be avoided. Chi is a counterfeit of the kind of life offered by Christ (see John 10:10).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Is Eckhart Tolle’s "New Earth" compatible with Christianity?
Question: "What is the 'church of Oprah'? Is Eckhart Tolle’s 'New Earth' compatible with Christianity?"
Answer: Oprah Winfrey is arguably one of the most influential women in the world. With a daily viewership that has peaked around 10 million, The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely has the potential to impact the lives of many people. The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely promotes much that is good. However, there is another side of Oprah that has only recently become an integral part of her show—and that is her rejection of biblical Christianity. Oprah has made statements on her show in the past that have given a small glimpse into her personal spiritual beliefs, speaking mostly about her belief that there are many ways, millions even, for a person to "get to what some call God."
This more recent exposure of her beliefs revolves around the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, which she helped to make a best-seller by promoting it on Oprah’s Book Club and on her website. Beyond simply promoting the book, Oprah has partnered with Tolle in presenting weekly online webcast classes in order to explore the ideas and principles expressed in A New Earth.
Some have gone as far as labeling Oprah a cult leader—and with good reason. She is a figurehead for the promotion and propagation of anti-biblical beliefs which deny every foundational truth of historical Christianity. Her webcasts have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants with the promise of gaining new perspectives on how to live a life of enrichment, peace, newfound self-worth, and spiritual freedom.
Eckhart Tolle, a well-known New Age author and speaker, promotes nothing short of personal divinity in his teachings. In an attempt to deceive people into thinking that his religion is compatible with Christianity, Tolle occasionally quotes from the Bible and refers to biblical principles. The problem is that Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth, is in complete opposition to biblical Christianity from cover to cover. Nearly every reference to, or quote of, Scripture is twisted by Tolle’s consistent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Consider what can be found in just the pages of the first chapter: evolution of life over millions of years is accepted, assumed, and understood to be fact; Jesus is misquoted; flowers, crystals, precious stones, and birds are believed to be temporary manifestations of the Universal Consciousness and are themselves considered enlightened life forms; the definition of sin is misinterpreted; Jesus Christ is thought of as just one of those rare people who, like the Buddha, achieved divine consciousness; other religions, such as Buddhism, are considered just as valid and true as Christianity; an early Christian cult, Gnosticism, is portrayed as one of the few groups who actually understood the teachings of Jesus; original sin was simply a forgetting of the connectedness and oneness with the Source, along with everything else connected with the Source—a delusion of separateness; heaven is portrayed as merely an "inner realm of consciousness."
These teachings are found in just the first chapter. Obviously, Eckhart Tolle is promoting a new religion, one which combines the most mystical aspects of every major religion. The first chapter, of course, sets the tone and direction for the rest of the book. This direction happens to be as far from biblical truth as is possible. If you are concerned at all with whether or not this book is compatible with the Christian faith, you need not read any further than the first chapter to understand what Tolle believes and what Oprah is encouraging others to believe.
Tolle ends the book writing about the new heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21. He states near the end of chapter 10:
The only existence the future actually has is as a thought form in your mind, so when you look to the future for salvation, you are unconsciously looking to your own mind for salvation. You are trapped in form, and that is ego. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” writes the biblical prophet. [T]he foundation for a new earth is a new heaven - the awakened consciousness. The earth - external reality - is only its outer reflection. The arising of a new heaven and by implication a new earth are not future events that are going to make us free. Nothing is going to make us free because only the present moment can make us free. That realization is the awakening. Awakening as a future event has no meaning because awakening is the realization of Presence. So the new heaven, the awakened consciousness, is not a future state to be achieved. A new heaven and a new earth are arising within you at this moment, and if they are not arising at this moment, they are no more than a thought in your head and therefore not arising at all. What did Jesus tell his disciples? “Heaven is right here in the midst of you.”
In line with chapter 1, chapter 10 places the final stamp of approval on a belief system completely void of biblical truth. Salvation is presented as a state of being, achieved through one’s own power; heaven is referred to as simply a state of consciousness; and Jesus Christ is relegated to a spiritual master who taught that one only needs look within oneself to find spiritual release. Scripture is used only out of context and presented as obscurely as possible.
There is no room for Jesus Christ, the God-Man, or His teachings in Oprah and Tolle’s belief system. In fact, Oprah and Tolle propose that all people free their minds from a belief in Christ. Truly, deception is the only thing that Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey offer. They, and those that follow their teachings, have fallen for Satan’s original lie, “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Oprah Winfrey is arguably one of the most influential women in the world. With a daily viewership that has peaked around 10 million, The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely has the potential to impact the lives of many people. The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely promotes much that is good. However, there is another side of Oprah that has only recently become an integral part of her show—and that is her rejection of biblical Christianity. Oprah has made statements on her show in the past that have given a small glimpse into her personal spiritual beliefs, speaking mostly about her belief that there are many ways, millions even, for a person to "get to what some call God."
This more recent exposure of her beliefs revolves around the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, which she helped to make a best-seller by promoting it on Oprah’s Book Club and on her website. Beyond simply promoting the book, Oprah has partnered with Tolle in presenting weekly online webcast classes in order to explore the ideas and principles expressed in A New Earth.
Some have gone as far as labeling Oprah a cult leader—and with good reason. She is a figurehead for the promotion and propagation of anti-biblical beliefs which deny every foundational truth of historical Christianity. Her webcasts have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants with the promise of gaining new perspectives on how to live a life of enrichment, peace, newfound self-worth, and spiritual freedom.
Eckhart Tolle, a well-known New Age author and speaker, promotes nothing short of personal divinity in his teachings. In an attempt to deceive people into thinking that his religion is compatible with Christianity, Tolle occasionally quotes from the Bible and refers to biblical principles. The problem is that Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth, is in complete opposition to biblical Christianity from cover to cover. Nearly every reference to, or quote of, Scripture is twisted by Tolle’s consistent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Consider what can be found in just the pages of the first chapter: evolution of life over millions of years is accepted, assumed, and understood to be fact; Jesus is misquoted; flowers, crystals, precious stones, and birds are believed to be temporary manifestations of the Universal Consciousness and are themselves considered enlightened life forms; the definition of sin is misinterpreted; Jesus Christ is thought of as just one of those rare people who, like the Buddha, achieved divine consciousness; other religions, such as Buddhism, are considered just as valid and true as Christianity; an early Christian cult, Gnosticism, is portrayed as one of the few groups who actually understood the teachings of Jesus; original sin was simply a forgetting of the connectedness and oneness with the Source, along with everything else connected with the Source—a delusion of separateness; heaven is portrayed as merely an "inner realm of consciousness."
These teachings are found in just the first chapter. Obviously, Eckhart Tolle is promoting a new religion, one which combines the most mystical aspects of every major religion. The first chapter, of course, sets the tone and direction for the rest of the book. This direction happens to be as far from biblical truth as is possible. If you are concerned at all with whether or not this book is compatible with the Christian faith, you need not read any further than the first chapter to understand what Tolle believes and what Oprah is encouraging others to believe.
Tolle ends the book writing about the new heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21. He states near the end of chapter 10:
The only existence the future actually has is as a thought form in your mind, so when you look to the future for salvation, you are unconsciously looking to your own mind for salvation. You are trapped in form, and that is ego. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” writes the biblical prophet. [T]he foundation for a new earth is a new heaven - the awakened consciousness. The earth - external reality - is only its outer reflection. The arising of a new heaven and by implication a new earth are not future events that are going to make us free. Nothing is going to make us free because only the present moment can make us free. That realization is the awakening. Awakening as a future event has no meaning because awakening is the realization of Presence. So the new heaven, the awakened consciousness, is not a future state to be achieved. A new heaven and a new earth are arising within you at this moment, and if they are not arising at this moment, they are no more than a thought in your head and therefore not arising at all. What did Jesus tell his disciples? “Heaven is right here in the midst of you.”
In line with chapter 1, chapter 10 places the final stamp of approval on a belief system completely void of biblical truth. Salvation is presented as a state of being, achieved through one’s own power; heaven is referred to as simply a state of consciousness; and Jesus Christ is relegated to a spiritual master who taught that one only needs look within oneself to find spiritual release. Scripture is used only out of context and presented as obscurely as possible.
There is no room for Jesus Christ, the God-Man, or His teachings in Oprah and Tolle’s belief system. In fact, Oprah and Tolle propose that all people free their minds from a belief in Christ. Truly, deception is the only thing that Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey offer. They, and those that follow their teachings, have fallen for Satan’s original lie, “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?
Question: "What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?"
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church?
On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Following are a few examples:
Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.
Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.
The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church?
On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Following are a few examples:
Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.
Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.
The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?
45,485 views
•Oct 19, 2018
LIKEDISLIKE
SHARESAVE
Got Questions Ministries
183K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? Is the Catholic Church a mixture of true Christianity with other non-Christian religions?
Does the Bible say anything about holy war?
Question: "Does the Bible say anything about holy war?"
Answer: The concept of “holy war” is most commonly expressed as a war justified on the grounds of religious differences. As typically understood, this concept is neither taught nor encouraged by the Bible. The ancient Israelites were never given a broad mandate to wage war on behalf of their faith, though they were given a specific time, place, and that which they were instructed to conquer. Jesus Christ explicitly contradicted the holy war concept through both His teachings and His example. The concept of “just war,” meaning justifiable war waged by a legitimate government, is not the same as a “holy war.”
Critics sometimes claim that holy war is encouraged in the Old Testament. However, the nation of Israel was given a mandate only to conquer the land of Canaan (Numbers 34:2). This command was for a specific place, time, and people, not an endorsement of religious warfare. Nor was the conquest of Canaan made on the basis of religion, in and of itself. On the contrary, God repeatedly stated that this conquest was due to the wickedness of the Canaanites, not the merit of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:4–6). Historically, this is exactly how the nation of Israel interpreted these commands. No attempts were made to conquer other lands or to expand that territory through combat.
Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10). When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29) and submission (Romans 13:4–5), never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it spread throughout the Roman Empire.
The occurrence of “holy war,” historically speaking, is rare. Secular historians note that more than 90 percent of the wars fought in human history had no religious motivation. The remaining 7 percent of conflicts account for about 2 percent of all deaths in war. Islam accounts for more than half of these religious wars, despite existing for only about 1/3 of human history; in Islam’s first three centuries, its growth was fueled by armed conquest. If there’s any reason the concept of “holy war” exists, it’s fair to say that reason is Islam.
It’s also worth noting that atheistic regimes have resulted in untold millions of deaths, just in the last 100 years alone. Religious belief, historically, hasn’t been a major cause of conflict, while non-belief has enabled some of history’s worst atrocities.
The Bible maintains a strict emphasis on God’s righteousness and mankind’s fallibility. Jesus preached a message of peace and lived it out perfectly. His earliest followers did the same, and every attempt to justify “holy war” by nominal Christianity was met with opposition and dissent from within the church. Historically and theologically, “holy war” has never been a part of biblical Christianity.
Recommended Resource: War: Four Christian Views by Robert G. Clouse
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The concept of “holy war” is most commonly expressed as a war justified on the grounds of religious differences. As typically understood, this concept is neither taught nor encouraged by the Bible. The ancient Israelites were never given a broad mandate to wage war on behalf of their faith, though they were given a specific time, place, and that which they were instructed to conquer. Jesus Christ explicitly contradicted the holy war concept through both His teachings and His example. The concept of “just war,” meaning justifiable war waged by a legitimate government, is not the same as a “holy war.”
Critics sometimes claim that holy war is encouraged in the Old Testament. However, the nation of Israel was given a mandate only to conquer the land of Canaan (Numbers 34:2). This command was for a specific place, time, and people, not an endorsement of religious warfare. Nor was the conquest of Canaan made on the basis of religion, in and of itself. On the contrary, God repeatedly stated that this conquest was due to the wickedness of the Canaanites, not the merit of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:4–6). Historically, this is exactly how the nation of Israel interpreted these commands. No attempts were made to conquer other lands or to expand that territory through combat.
Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10). When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29) and submission (Romans 13:4–5), never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it spread throughout the Roman Empire.
The occurrence of “holy war,” historically speaking, is rare. Secular historians note that more than 90 percent of the wars fought in human history had no religious motivation. The remaining 7 percent of conflicts account for about 2 percent of all deaths in war. Islam accounts for more than half of these religious wars, despite existing for only about 1/3 of human history; in Islam’s first three centuries, its growth was fueled by armed conquest. If there’s any reason the concept of “holy war” exists, it’s fair to say that reason is Islam.
It’s also worth noting that atheistic regimes have resulted in untold millions of deaths, just in the last 100 years alone. Religious belief, historically, hasn’t been a major cause of conflict, while non-belief has enabled some of history’s worst atrocities.
The Bible maintains a strict emphasis on God’s righteousness and mankind’s fallibility. Jesus preached a message of peace and lived it out perfectly. His earliest followers did the same, and every attempt to justify “holy war” by nominal Christianity was met with opposition and dissent from within the church. Historically and theologically, “holy war” has never been a part of biblical Christianity.
Recommended Resource: War: Four Christian Views by Robert G. Clouse
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Last edited:
What is faith in God?
Question: "What is faith in God?"
Answer: Faith in God is trust in Him, based on a true understanding of who He is, as revealed in the Bible. Faith in God involves an intellectual assent to the facts concerning God and a life-changing reliance on those facts.
Faith in God has several components. The first is believing that He actually exists. However, simply believing that God exists is not enough. As James 2:19 explains, the demons believe in God’s existence as well.
After acknowledging that God exists, the second element of faith in God is commitment. Faith that does not result in action is a dead faith, not true faith (James 2:26).
However, even a faith in God that motivates us to action is not enough. For faith in God to be genuine, we must accept Him as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. We are not allowed to accept the attributes of God that we prefer and reject the ones we don’t. If we do not accept God as He is, then we are putting our faith in a false god of our own making. Much “religion” does exactly this, but any religion not based on the Bible is a designer religion with a designer god. For faith in God to be genuine, it must be based on the genuine God. For example, the God of the Bible is triune, so true faith in God must accept the deity and personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit as well as the Father.
There is much confusion today over the nature of faith. It is reported that, when asked to define faith, a little boy in Sunday school responded, “Believing what you know isn’t true.” Many of the “new atheists” place faith against science and evidence. They say that Christians have faith that God exists but that atheists have empirical evidence for science. Christians have faith, but scientists have knowledge. This comparison misunderstands the nature of faith in God.
Faith in God is not a blind leap without any evidence or, even worse, contrary to the evidence. Faith is simply trust. The Christian trusts in God. The scientific atheist has faith in science. If an atheist uses the scientific method to discover a medicine and then takes that medicine, he is exercising faith. He trusts his data, and he trusts that the medicine will cure him, not poison him. Some people may take the medicine with no thought whatsoever as to how it was developed or as to who prepared it. Others may only take the medicine after thoroughly investigating every aspect of the research. One person may take it with great confidence while another person takes it tentatively. In the final analysis, anyone who takes the medicine is exercising faith in the medicine. Ultimately, it is not the strength of the faith that determines if the medicine will work, but the efficacy of the medicine. Great faith in bad medicine will not cure a person. It is the object of faith, not the strength of faith that makes the difference. Uncertainty about a good medicine will not hinder its efficacy, as long as it is taken as prescribed. Faith is not the opposite of doubt; in fact, doubt can exist even in the heart of faith (see Mark 9:24). A person can exercise faith (trust and commitment) while at the same time being unsure about the thing or person he has committed himself to. Someone once defined doubt as “faith seeking understanding.”
Some people may simply trust God because it seems intuitive. They may have been raised in a Christian home and taught the Bible from their earliest remembrance. They have seen God work in the lives of other people, and they simply trust Him. Others may only have come to faith after a thorough examination of the evidence for God. Whether the decision to trust the God of the Bible is intuitive or deliberative, it is the mark of genuine faith.
The atheist likewise may come to his atheism by intuition or after careful deliberation. In the end, he has faith that God does not exist because he trusts either his instincts or his investigation and commits himself to live in a way that is consistent with his beliefs. Contrary to the claims of the new atheists, everyone has some kind of faith—everyone trusts something. It is impossible to live without trusting in something, even if it is only in the reliability of our five senses. The object of our faith is what makes all the difference.
Recommended Resource: Tame Your Fears: And Transform Them Into Faith, Confidence, and Action by Carol Kent
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Faith in God is trust in Him, based on a true understanding of who He is, as revealed in the Bible. Faith in God involves an intellectual assent to the facts concerning God and a life-changing reliance on those facts.
Faith in God has several components. The first is believing that He actually exists. However, simply believing that God exists is not enough. As James 2:19 explains, the demons believe in God’s existence as well.
After acknowledging that God exists, the second element of faith in God is commitment. Faith that does not result in action is a dead faith, not true faith (James 2:26).
However, even a faith in God that motivates us to action is not enough. For faith in God to be genuine, we must accept Him as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. We are not allowed to accept the attributes of God that we prefer and reject the ones we don’t. If we do not accept God as He is, then we are putting our faith in a false god of our own making. Much “religion” does exactly this, but any religion not based on the Bible is a designer religion with a designer god. For faith in God to be genuine, it must be based on the genuine God. For example, the God of the Bible is triune, so true faith in God must accept the deity and personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit as well as the Father.
There is much confusion today over the nature of faith. It is reported that, when asked to define faith, a little boy in Sunday school responded, “Believing what you know isn’t true.” Many of the “new atheists” place faith against science and evidence. They say that Christians have faith that God exists but that atheists have empirical evidence for science. Christians have faith, but scientists have knowledge. This comparison misunderstands the nature of faith in God.
Faith in God is not a blind leap without any evidence or, even worse, contrary to the evidence. Faith is simply trust. The Christian trusts in God. The scientific atheist has faith in science. If an atheist uses the scientific method to discover a medicine and then takes that medicine, he is exercising faith. He trusts his data, and he trusts that the medicine will cure him, not poison him. Some people may take the medicine with no thought whatsoever as to how it was developed or as to who prepared it. Others may only take the medicine after thoroughly investigating every aspect of the research. One person may take it with great confidence while another person takes it tentatively. In the final analysis, anyone who takes the medicine is exercising faith in the medicine. Ultimately, it is not the strength of the faith that determines if the medicine will work, but the efficacy of the medicine. Great faith in bad medicine will not cure a person. It is the object of faith, not the strength of faith that makes the difference. Uncertainty about a good medicine will not hinder its efficacy, as long as it is taken as prescribed. Faith is not the opposite of doubt; in fact, doubt can exist even in the heart of faith (see Mark 9:24). A person can exercise faith (trust and commitment) while at the same time being unsure about the thing or person he has committed himself to. Someone once defined doubt as “faith seeking understanding.”
Some people may simply trust God because it seems intuitive. They may have been raised in a Christian home and taught the Bible from their earliest remembrance. They have seen God work in the lives of other people, and they simply trust Him. Others may only have come to faith after a thorough examination of the evidence for God. Whether the decision to trust the God of the Bible is intuitive or deliberative, it is the mark of genuine faith.
The atheist likewise may come to his atheism by intuition or after careful deliberation. In the end, he has faith that God does not exist because he trusts either his instincts or his investigation and commits himself to live in a way that is consistent with his beliefs. Contrary to the claims of the new atheists, everyone has some kind of faith—everyone trusts something. It is impossible to live without trusting in something, even if it is only in the reliability of our five senses. The object of our faith is what makes all the difference.
Recommended Resource: Tame Your Fears: And Transform Them Into Faith, Confidence, and Action by Carol Kent
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint?
Question: "Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint? Why do so many people believe that we can be saved by works?"
Answer: The simple answer is that salvation by works seems right in the eyes of man. One of man’s basic desires is to be in control of his own destiny, and that includes his eternal destiny. Salvation by works appeals to man’s pride and his desire to be in control. Being saved by works appeals to that desire far more than the idea of being saved by faith alone. Also, man has an inherent sense of justice. Even the most ardent atheist believes in some type of justice and has a sense of right and wrong, even if he has no moral basis for making such judgments. Our inherent sense of right and wrong demands that if we are to be saved, our “good works” must outweigh our “bad works.” Therefore, it is natural that when man creates a religion it would involve some type of salvation by works.
Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:12 tells us that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Another reason why salvation by works is the predominantly held viewpoint is that natural or unregenerate man does not fully understand the extent of his own sinfulness or of God’s holiness. Man’s heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), and God is infinitely holy (Isaiah 6:3). The deceit of our hearts is the very thing that colors our perception of the extent of that deceit and is what prevents us from seeing our true state before a God whose holiness we are also unable to fully comprehend. But the truth remains that our sinfulness and God’s holiness combine to make our best efforts as “filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6; cf. 6:1–5).
The thought that man’s good works could ever balance out his bad works is a totally unbiblical concept. Not only that, but the Bible also teaches that God’s standard is nothing less than 100 percent perfection. If we stumble in keeping just one part of God’s righteous law, we are as guilty as if we had broken all of it (James 2:10). Therefore, there is no way we could ever be saved if salvation truly were dependent on works.
Another reason that salvation by works can creep into denominations that claim to be Christian or say they believe in the Bible is that they misunderstand passages like James 2:24: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Taken in the context of the entire passage (James 2:14–26), it becomes evident that James is not saying our works make us righteous before God; instead, he is making it clear that real saving faith is demonstrated by good works. The person who claims to be a Christian but lives in willful disobedience to Christ has a false or “dead” faith and is not saved. James is making a contrast between two different types of faith—truth faith that saves and false faith that is dead.
There are simply too many verses that teach that one is not saved by works for any Christian to believe otherwise. Titus 3:4–5 is one of many such passages: “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Good works do not contribute to salvation, but they will always be characteristic of one who has been born again. Good works are not the cause of salvation; they are the evidence of it.
While salvation by works might be the predominantly held viewpoint, it is not an accurate one biblically. The Bible contains abundant evidence of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Recommended Resource: Faith Alone, The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught...and Why It Still Matters by Thomas Schreiner
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The simple answer is that salvation by works seems right in the eyes of man. One of man’s basic desires is to be in control of his own destiny, and that includes his eternal destiny. Salvation by works appeals to man’s pride and his desire to be in control. Being saved by works appeals to that desire far more than the idea of being saved by faith alone. Also, man has an inherent sense of justice. Even the most ardent atheist believes in some type of justice and has a sense of right and wrong, even if he has no moral basis for making such judgments. Our inherent sense of right and wrong demands that if we are to be saved, our “good works” must outweigh our “bad works.” Therefore, it is natural that when man creates a religion it would involve some type of salvation by works.
Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:12 tells us that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Another reason why salvation by works is the predominantly held viewpoint is that natural or unregenerate man does not fully understand the extent of his own sinfulness or of God’s holiness. Man’s heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), and God is infinitely holy (Isaiah 6:3). The deceit of our hearts is the very thing that colors our perception of the extent of that deceit and is what prevents us from seeing our true state before a God whose holiness we are also unable to fully comprehend. But the truth remains that our sinfulness and God’s holiness combine to make our best efforts as “filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6; cf. 6:1–5).
The thought that man’s good works could ever balance out his bad works is a totally unbiblical concept. Not only that, but the Bible also teaches that God’s standard is nothing less than 100 percent perfection. If we stumble in keeping just one part of God’s righteous law, we are as guilty as if we had broken all of it (James 2:10). Therefore, there is no way we could ever be saved if salvation truly were dependent on works.
Another reason that salvation by works can creep into denominations that claim to be Christian or say they believe in the Bible is that they misunderstand passages like James 2:24: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Taken in the context of the entire passage (James 2:14–26), it becomes evident that James is not saying our works make us righteous before God; instead, he is making it clear that real saving faith is demonstrated by good works. The person who claims to be a Christian but lives in willful disobedience to Christ has a false or “dead” faith and is not saved. James is making a contrast between two different types of faith—truth faith that saves and false faith that is dead.
There are simply too many verses that teach that one is not saved by works for any Christian to believe otherwise. Titus 3:4–5 is one of many such passages: “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Good works do not contribute to salvation, but they will always be characteristic of one who has been born again. Good works are not the cause of salvation; they are the evidence of it.
While salvation by works might be the predominantly held viewpoint, it is not an accurate one biblically. The Bible contains abundant evidence of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Recommended Resource: Faith Alone, The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught...and Why It Still Matters by Thomas Schreiner
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint? | GotQuestions.org
3,536 views
•Feb 4, 2021
LIKEDISLIKE
SHARESAVE
Got Questions Ministries
183K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
Most agreed the Bible teaches that we are not saved by good works, but by grace through faith. However, a works based salvation, which is essentially an attempt to earn our salvation, is believed by many. Why is that? In this video, Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch answers the question, “Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint”. *** Source Article: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvatio... *** Check out, Bible Munch! @Bible Munch https://www.youtube.com/BibleMunch
Should Christians participate in religious festivals of other religions?
Question: "Should Christians participate in religious festivals of other religions?"
Answer: Some Christians say there is nothing wrong with having meals with Muslims during Ramadan or enjoying a sugar skull for the Day of the Dead. Other Christians claim that Christians should not participate in other religions’ holidays at all. Basic to the issue is whether or not it is possible for a Christian to participate in a non-Christian holiday or festival without endorsing the beliefs behind it.
We first need to distinguish between participating in a cultural festival and a religious festival. Some festivals are simply expressions of a particular culture and a celebration of that culture’s people, history, and contributions to society at large. There is nothing inherently wrong with attending an Irish Fest, for example. A Christian can wear green, sample some colcannon, and clap along with a reel without embracing Catholicism. Learning about and enjoying a different culture is morally neutral.
On the other hand, participating in a religious festival is fraught with spiritual danger. Honoring a false god is always a sin. “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). If any part of a celebration involves actions that honor or pay tribute to a false god, then Christians should not participate. There is no room for compromise in this area. Paul asks a rhetorical question: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? . . . The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” (1 Corinthians 10:18, 20). Partaking in non-Christian religious festivals cannot be justified. We “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” (verse 21).
The difficulty arises in the fact that religion is often an integral part of culture. In many cases it is impossible to extract the religious element from what would otherwise be a purely secular event. For example, the bonfires and colored powder of India’s Holi celebrations seem innocent enough, but they are inextricably tied to Hindu mythology: the bonfires represent the burning of the female demon Holika, and the throwing of colored powder honors the god Krishna—depicted in Hindu art as having blue skin—and his paramour Radha. Christians in India avoid participating in the Holi festival because it is acknowledged to be a pagan and idolatrous celebration.
In other cases, the religious significance of certain celebrations has diminished over the years, to the point that many participants are unaware of the spiritual history behind the occasion. We see this even in modern Christmas celebrations, as the day honoring the birth of Christ is considered more and more to be nothing but a cultural festival in Western society. China’s Lantern Festival, or Yuan Xiao Jie, is another example. The festival began long ago as a religious observance but now is often seen simply as a new year’s celebration of traditional Chinese culture. There’s also the traditional Hawaiian hula dance, which began as a form of worship to Laka, the goddess of love, forests, and plants. Sacrifices and prayers to Laka accompanied ancient performances of the sacred hula in temples. Today, most observers—perhaps even most hula dancers themselves—are unaware of the pagan origins of the dance. Can a Christian attend a Chinese Lantern Festival or a luau featuring hula dancing, given the fact that most of the religious undertones have vanished? The issue may be a matter of conscience rather than set biblical principle.
If a Christian is invited to attend a festival overtly celebrating another religion, it is his duty to respectfully decline the invitation. An explanation of why would be appropriate, and it may even open the door to sharing the gospel. It may also be fitting to suggest another time, unrelated to the religious ceremony, to meet.
We need discernment in this and many other areas. Participating in a purely cultural festival is fine, but attending a religious festival gives the impression of tacit approval. Determining one’s level of participation in a cultural festival with religious roots requires wisdom; for the sake of one’s own conscience and the integrity of one’s witness, such decisions should only be made after prayer, a study of the culture, and the solicitation of godly advice. Whatever we do, we need to do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Some Christians say there is nothing wrong with having meals with Muslims during Ramadan or enjoying a sugar skull for the Day of the Dead. Other Christians claim that Christians should not participate in other religions’ holidays at all. Basic to the issue is whether or not it is possible for a Christian to participate in a non-Christian holiday or festival without endorsing the beliefs behind it.
We first need to distinguish between participating in a cultural festival and a religious festival. Some festivals are simply expressions of a particular culture and a celebration of that culture’s people, history, and contributions to society at large. There is nothing inherently wrong with attending an Irish Fest, for example. A Christian can wear green, sample some colcannon, and clap along with a reel without embracing Catholicism. Learning about and enjoying a different culture is morally neutral.
On the other hand, participating in a religious festival is fraught with spiritual danger. Honoring a false god is always a sin. “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). If any part of a celebration involves actions that honor or pay tribute to a false god, then Christians should not participate. There is no room for compromise in this area. Paul asks a rhetorical question: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? . . . The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” (1 Corinthians 10:18, 20). Partaking in non-Christian religious festivals cannot be justified. We “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” (verse 21).
The difficulty arises in the fact that religion is often an integral part of culture. In many cases it is impossible to extract the religious element from what would otherwise be a purely secular event. For example, the bonfires and colored powder of India’s Holi celebrations seem innocent enough, but they are inextricably tied to Hindu mythology: the bonfires represent the burning of the female demon Holika, and the throwing of colored powder honors the god Krishna—depicted in Hindu art as having blue skin—and his paramour Radha. Christians in India avoid participating in the Holi festival because it is acknowledged to be a pagan and idolatrous celebration.
In other cases, the religious significance of certain celebrations has diminished over the years, to the point that many participants are unaware of the spiritual history behind the occasion. We see this even in modern Christmas celebrations, as the day honoring the birth of Christ is considered more and more to be nothing but a cultural festival in Western society. China’s Lantern Festival, or Yuan Xiao Jie, is another example. The festival began long ago as a religious observance but now is often seen simply as a new year’s celebration of traditional Chinese culture. There’s also the traditional Hawaiian hula dance, which began as a form of worship to Laka, the goddess of love, forests, and plants. Sacrifices and prayers to Laka accompanied ancient performances of the sacred hula in temples. Today, most observers—perhaps even most hula dancers themselves—are unaware of the pagan origins of the dance. Can a Christian attend a Chinese Lantern Festival or a luau featuring hula dancing, given the fact that most of the religious undertones have vanished? The issue may be a matter of conscience rather than set biblical principle.
If a Christian is invited to attend a festival overtly celebrating another religion, it is his duty to respectfully decline the invitation. An explanation of why would be appropriate, and it may even open the door to sharing the gospel. It may also be fitting to suggest another time, unrelated to the religious ceremony, to meet.
We need discernment in this and many other areas. Participating in a purely cultural festival is fine, but attending a religious festival gives the impression of tacit approval. Determining one’s level of participation in a cultural festival with religious roots requires wisdom; for the sake of one’s own conscience and the integrity of one’s witness, such decisions should only be made after prayer, a study of the culture, and the solicitation of godly advice. Whatever we do, we need to do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Did God create the universe?
Question: "Did God create the universe?"
Answer: The scriptural teaching on the origin of the universe is found in Genesis 1:1, which states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Steven Hawking attempts to circumvent this truth (or, at the very least, render a Creator logically superfluous to the issue of the beginning of the universe). However, his ideas are not new, but are rather the latest versions of some classic attempts to explain getting something (i.e., the universe) out of nothing.
Hawking’s support for his work comes from the existence of the law of gravity. It is known to physicists that the energy associated with the gravitational force is negative, while the energy associated with most ordinary objects (baseballs, cars, etc.) is positive. It is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel, resulting in zero net energy. Two situations with the same energy (or zero energy difference) are, in a physical sense, equally preferable. An example would be a soccer ball on the kitchen floor; the ball could sit by the refrigerator or the stove or the table without wanting to roll anywhere else. This is because each position on the kitchen floor which the soccer ball could occupy would have the same energy, so none of the positions is energetically preferable to the others.
Hawking envisions the origin of the universe in a similar way. Since it is possible to think of the creation of the universe as a “zero net energy process,” Hawking suggests that there is no need to explain how it could have been created. But this inference is based not on the physics, but on Hawking’s own philosophical presuppositions. In the example of a soccer ball on the kitchen floor, it is conceivable to imagine the soccer ball sitting anywhere on the floor without needing an explanation; however, it is quite another thing to say that the soccer ball and the kitchen floor came from nothing.
Hawking's attempts to address this problem are not in any way new to philosophers; it is one of the oldest issues in Epicurean philosophy: “ex nihilo nihil fit” (literally, “nothing comes out of nothing”). Hawking’s ideas may establish that two physical situations (the universe existing versus not existing) are energetically equivalent, but it does nothing to address the issue of cause and effect. No explanation is needed as to why the soccer ball is sitting by the stove rather than by the refrigerator, but an explanation is needed if the ball moves from the stove to the refrigerator. In physics, a change never occurs without an explanation; in philosophical language, an effect never occurs without a cause.
Hawking’s ideas do nothing to address this; the issue of the universe’s origin is the same as it was before. It is not possible to get something from nothing. Only the idea of a Creator can adequately explain where the universe could have come from. Moreover, Hawking’s statement that science will always prevail over religion “because it works” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy of science. Truth is not determined by “what works,” but by whether it conforms to the reality around us. When we say that a particular statement is “true,” we are saying that the content of that statement actually describes the way things are. This connection between a statement and the reality it describes is independent of a person and his mind. A statement may be true or false, irrespective of whether or not it appears to a particular person to describe the correct state of affairs. This is what we mean when we say that truth is objective; a statement’s “truth value” is a quality which it possesses independently of a person's knowledge thereof.
However, once we begin to try to decide whether a particular statement is true or false (as happens in both science and religion), the only way we know how to proceed is to try to test the statement to “see if it works.” As an example, suppose we want to decide whether the statement, “All cats are brown” is true. We can begin our investigation by gathering cats together and inspecting each of them to see if any do not conform to the statement in question, thereby rendering it false. We only need to find one gray cat to know that the original statement is false: not all cats are brown.
But what if every cat we were able to find was, in fact, brown? Clearly, the world does contain felines of many other varieties and colors. In this case, even though the statement “works” (from our investigation, all cats do appear to be brown), it is clearly false. Thus, the issue of whether science or religion “works” is completely irrelevant to the issue of truth in each of these disciplines. While truth can be discovered by noting what works, simply because a statement appears to work does not in fact imply that it is true.
To summarize, Hawking's reasoning fails on philosophical grounds. Hawking attempts to substitute God with a particular physical law (gravity). However, Hawking fails to address the key issue at hand - that is, the origin of physical law in the first place. Where did the law of gravity come from and how does nothing produce something? A physical law is not nothing. Moreover, Hawking's conception of a plethora of ensemble universes to escape the conclusion of fine-tuning is philosophically unsound, metaphysically motivated, and less parsimonious than the theistic interpretation.
Why does humanity seek to eliminate God from having had any role in the creation of the Universe? It's very simple. Humanity hates God and does not want to be subject to God's law, or held accountable for our actions. As Paul writes in Romans 1, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
Recommended Resource: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The scriptural teaching on the origin of the universe is found in Genesis 1:1, which states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Steven Hawking attempts to circumvent this truth (or, at the very least, render a Creator logically superfluous to the issue of the beginning of the universe). However, his ideas are not new, but are rather the latest versions of some classic attempts to explain getting something (i.e., the universe) out of nothing.
Hawking’s support for his work comes from the existence of the law of gravity. It is known to physicists that the energy associated with the gravitational force is negative, while the energy associated with most ordinary objects (baseballs, cars, etc.) is positive. It is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel, resulting in zero net energy. Two situations with the same energy (or zero energy difference) are, in a physical sense, equally preferable. An example would be a soccer ball on the kitchen floor; the ball could sit by the refrigerator or the stove or the table without wanting to roll anywhere else. This is because each position on the kitchen floor which the soccer ball could occupy would have the same energy, so none of the positions is energetically preferable to the others.
Hawking envisions the origin of the universe in a similar way. Since it is possible to think of the creation of the universe as a “zero net energy process,” Hawking suggests that there is no need to explain how it could have been created. But this inference is based not on the physics, but on Hawking’s own philosophical presuppositions. In the example of a soccer ball on the kitchen floor, it is conceivable to imagine the soccer ball sitting anywhere on the floor without needing an explanation; however, it is quite another thing to say that the soccer ball and the kitchen floor came from nothing.
Hawking's attempts to address this problem are not in any way new to philosophers; it is one of the oldest issues in Epicurean philosophy: “ex nihilo nihil fit” (literally, “nothing comes out of nothing”). Hawking’s ideas may establish that two physical situations (the universe existing versus not existing) are energetically equivalent, but it does nothing to address the issue of cause and effect. No explanation is needed as to why the soccer ball is sitting by the stove rather than by the refrigerator, but an explanation is needed if the ball moves from the stove to the refrigerator. In physics, a change never occurs without an explanation; in philosophical language, an effect never occurs without a cause.
Hawking’s ideas do nothing to address this; the issue of the universe’s origin is the same as it was before. It is not possible to get something from nothing. Only the idea of a Creator can adequately explain where the universe could have come from. Moreover, Hawking’s statement that science will always prevail over religion “because it works” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy of science. Truth is not determined by “what works,” but by whether it conforms to the reality around us. When we say that a particular statement is “true,” we are saying that the content of that statement actually describes the way things are. This connection between a statement and the reality it describes is independent of a person and his mind. A statement may be true or false, irrespective of whether or not it appears to a particular person to describe the correct state of affairs. This is what we mean when we say that truth is objective; a statement’s “truth value” is a quality which it possesses independently of a person's knowledge thereof.
However, once we begin to try to decide whether a particular statement is true or false (as happens in both science and religion), the only way we know how to proceed is to try to test the statement to “see if it works.” As an example, suppose we want to decide whether the statement, “All cats are brown” is true. We can begin our investigation by gathering cats together and inspecting each of them to see if any do not conform to the statement in question, thereby rendering it false. We only need to find one gray cat to know that the original statement is false: not all cats are brown.
But what if every cat we were able to find was, in fact, brown? Clearly, the world does contain felines of many other varieties and colors. In this case, even though the statement “works” (from our investigation, all cats do appear to be brown), it is clearly false. Thus, the issue of whether science or religion “works” is completely irrelevant to the issue of truth in each of these disciplines. While truth can be discovered by noting what works, simply because a statement appears to work does not in fact imply that it is true.
To summarize, Hawking's reasoning fails on philosophical grounds. Hawking attempts to substitute God with a particular physical law (gravity). However, Hawking fails to address the key issue at hand - that is, the origin of physical law in the first place. Where did the law of gravity come from and how does nothing produce something? A physical law is not nothing. Moreover, Hawking's conception of a plethora of ensemble universes to escape the conclusion of fine-tuning is philosophically unsound, metaphysically motivated, and less parsimonious than the theistic interpretation.
Why does humanity seek to eliminate God from having had any role in the creation of the Universe? It's very simple. Humanity hates God and does not want to be subject to God's law, or held accountable for our actions. As Paul writes in Romans 1, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
Recommended Resource: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Similar threads
