- Joined
- Nov 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,677
- Points
- 113
Sorry brother, posted on your thread by mistake. Hope you do not mind me leaving these posts here.
Blessings.
Blessings.
-
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
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
No worries.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What does it mean to find God?
Question: "What does it mean to find God?"
Answer: To “find God” is a rather nebulous expression that can mean different things to different people. For some, the phrase find God is synonymous with getting religion, whatever religion that may be. For others, to “find God” means to “clean up one’s life,” usually with the help of a higher power. It is sometimes used derogatorily to describe a spiritual transformation of questionable authenticity. In any case, to “find God” involves a change in someone’s attitude and/or behavior.
There are several people in Scripture who earnestly sought to find God. In his distress, Job cried out, “If only I knew where to find God, I would go to his court” in order to argue his case before the Judge of the universe (Job 23:3). The sons of Korah expressed their desire to find God: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?” (Psalm 42:1–2).
Biblically speaking, to find God means to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is only through Jesus that anyone can come to God (John 14:6), and receiving Christ results in a spiritual transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Therefore, to find God is to recognize one’s need of salvation and exercise faith in Christ. The result of finding God is living the Christian life.
The Bible says that we do not naturally seek God (Psalm 14:2–3). God commands us to forsake our sin and seek Him (Isaiah 55:6–7). Those who seek and find God receive mercy and goodness (Psalm 9:10; 22:26). The Israelites had God’s promise that, if in the midst of their exile they sought to find God, they would surely find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29).
God wants to be found. He delights in mercy and forgiveness, and He is close to all who would call on Him. As Paul taught, “God [deals with us] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
Recommended Resource: Masterlife: Developing a Rich Personal Relationship with the Master by Avery Willis
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: To “find God” is a rather nebulous expression that can mean different things to different people. For some, the phrase find God is synonymous with getting religion, whatever religion that may be. For others, to “find God” means to “clean up one’s life,” usually with the help of a higher power. It is sometimes used derogatorily to describe a spiritual transformation of questionable authenticity. In any case, to “find God” involves a change in someone’s attitude and/or behavior.
There are several people in Scripture who earnestly sought to find God. In his distress, Job cried out, “If only I knew where to find God, I would go to his court” in order to argue his case before the Judge of the universe (Job 23:3). The sons of Korah expressed their desire to find God: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?” (Psalm 42:1–2).
Biblically speaking, to find God means to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is only through Jesus that anyone can come to God (John 14:6), and receiving Christ results in a spiritual transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Therefore, to find God is to recognize one’s need of salvation and exercise faith in Christ. The result of finding God is living the Christian life.
The Bible says that we do not naturally seek God (Psalm 14:2–3). God commands us to forsake our sin and seek Him (Isaiah 55:6–7). Those who seek and find God receive mercy and goodness (Psalm 9:10; 22:26). The Israelites had God’s promise that, if in the midst of their exile they sought to find God, they would surely find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29).
God wants to be found. He delights in mercy and forgiveness, and He is close to all who would call on Him. As Paul taught, “God [deals with us] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
Recommended Resource: Masterlife: Developing a Rich Personal Relationship with the Master by Avery Willis
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What is Rastafarianism?
Question: "What is Rastafarianism?"
Answer: The word “Rastafarianism” often calls to mind the stereotypical images of dreadlocks (long braids or natural locks of hair), ganja (marijuana), the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, and the reggae rhythms of Bob Marley. Rastafarians have no universally acknowledged leaders, no universally agreed-upon defining principles. It is a black consciousness movement—Afro-Caribbean—and there is a split between the religion and its accompanying social consciousness, so people can appreciate what Rastas are trying to do socially while not embracing the religion.
The movement takes its name from the title “Ras Tafari.” In the Ethiopian (Amharic) language, ras means “head,” “prince,” or “field marshal,” and tafari means “to be feared.” Within the system of Rastafarianism, the term is a reference most particularly to Ras Tafari Makonnen (1892–1975), who became the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I (his Christian baptismal name) upon his coronation in 1930, when Selassie was lauded with the title “Lion of Judah, Elect of God, King of Kings.” This sent a shock wave through Afro-Caribbean culture. In the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, preachers like Joseph Hibbert started declaring that Haile Selassie was the long awaited Messiah, the second coming of Christ. Thus was born one track of Rastafari, which looked to Selassie as the living God and black messiah who would overthrow the existing order and usher in a reign of blacks.
Another track of Rasta has sprung up alongside the messianic track. This group traces its roots to Leonard Percival Howell and has definite Hindu elements. Sometime in the early- to mid-1930s, Howell produced a 14-page pamphlet, “The Promised Key,” which laid the groundwork for a second track within Rastafarianism influenced by Hinduism and Rosicrucianism. Many of the leaders in this track have also been Freemasons. The result has been a sort of Rastafarian pantheism that looks for “the Lion Spirit in each of us: the Christ spirit.”
A summary of Rastafarian theology, as evidenced in the pantheistic track: the belief that “God is man and man is God”; that salvation is earthly; that human beings are called to celebrate and protect life; that the spoken word, as a manifestation of the divine presence and power, can both create and bring destruction; that sin is both personal and corporate; and that Rasta brethren are the chosen people to manifest God’s power and promote peace in the world.
Both tracks of Rasta are in direct contrast to the revealed Word of God in the Bible. First, Haile Selassie is not the Messiah. Those who worship him as such worship a false god. There is only one King of Kings, one Lion of Judah, and that is Jesus Christ (see Revelation 5:5; 19:16), who will return in the future to set up His earthly kingdom. Preceding His coming, there will be a great tribulation, after which the whole world will see Jesus “coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and great glory” (see Matthew 24:29-31). Haile Selassie was a man and, like all men, he was born, he lived, and he died. Jesus Christ, the true Messiah, is alive and seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12).
The pantheistic track of Rasta is equally false and based on the same lie that Satan has been telling mankind since the garden of Eden: “you will be as God” (Genesis 3:4). There is one God, not many, and although believers do possess the indwelling Holy Spirit and we do belong to God, we are not God. “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9). Furthermore, salvation is not earthly, another anti-scriptural, “salvation by works” idea. No amount of earthly works or good deeds can make us acceptable to a holy and perfect God, which is why He sent His holy and perfect Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). Finally, Rastafarians are not the chosen people of God. Scripture is clear that the Jews are God’s chosen people and that He has not yet completed His plan for their redemption (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Romans 11:25-27).
Recommended Resource: Neighboring Faiths by Winfried Corduan
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The word “Rastafarianism” often calls to mind the stereotypical images of dreadlocks (long braids or natural locks of hair), ganja (marijuana), the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, and the reggae rhythms of Bob Marley. Rastafarians have no universally acknowledged leaders, no universally agreed-upon defining principles. It is a black consciousness movement—Afro-Caribbean—and there is a split between the religion and its accompanying social consciousness, so people can appreciate what Rastas are trying to do socially while not embracing the religion.
The movement takes its name from the title “Ras Tafari.” In the Ethiopian (Amharic) language, ras means “head,” “prince,” or “field marshal,” and tafari means “to be feared.” Within the system of Rastafarianism, the term is a reference most particularly to Ras Tafari Makonnen (1892–1975), who became the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I (his Christian baptismal name) upon his coronation in 1930, when Selassie was lauded with the title “Lion of Judah, Elect of God, King of Kings.” This sent a shock wave through Afro-Caribbean culture. In the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, preachers like Joseph Hibbert started declaring that Haile Selassie was the long awaited Messiah, the second coming of Christ. Thus was born one track of Rastafari, which looked to Selassie as the living God and black messiah who would overthrow the existing order and usher in a reign of blacks.
Another track of Rasta has sprung up alongside the messianic track. This group traces its roots to Leonard Percival Howell and has definite Hindu elements. Sometime in the early- to mid-1930s, Howell produced a 14-page pamphlet, “The Promised Key,” which laid the groundwork for a second track within Rastafarianism influenced by Hinduism and Rosicrucianism. Many of the leaders in this track have also been Freemasons. The result has been a sort of Rastafarian pantheism that looks for “the Lion Spirit in each of us: the Christ spirit.”
A summary of Rastafarian theology, as evidenced in the pantheistic track: the belief that “God is man and man is God”; that salvation is earthly; that human beings are called to celebrate and protect life; that the spoken word, as a manifestation of the divine presence and power, can both create and bring destruction; that sin is both personal and corporate; and that Rasta brethren are the chosen people to manifest God’s power and promote peace in the world.
Both tracks of Rasta are in direct contrast to the revealed Word of God in the Bible. First, Haile Selassie is not the Messiah. Those who worship him as such worship a false god. There is only one King of Kings, one Lion of Judah, and that is Jesus Christ (see Revelation 5:5; 19:16), who will return in the future to set up His earthly kingdom. Preceding His coming, there will be a great tribulation, after which the whole world will see Jesus “coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and great glory” (see Matthew 24:29-31). Haile Selassie was a man and, like all men, he was born, he lived, and he died. Jesus Christ, the true Messiah, is alive and seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12).
The pantheistic track of Rasta is equally false and based on the same lie that Satan has been telling mankind since the garden of Eden: “you will be as God” (Genesis 3:4). There is one God, not many, and although believers do possess the indwelling Holy Spirit and we do belong to God, we are not God. “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9). Furthermore, salvation is not earthly, another anti-scriptural, “salvation by works” idea. No amount of earthly works or good deeds can make us acceptable to a holy and perfect God, which is why He sent His holy and perfect Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). Finally, Rastafarians are not the chosen people of God. Scripture is clear that the Jews are God’s chosen people and that He has not yet completed His plan for their redemption (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Romans 11:25-27).
Recommended Resource: Neighboring Faiths by Winfried Corduan
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Is Marxism compatible with the Christian faith?
Question: "Is Marxism compatible with the Christian faith?"
Answer: Marxism is a political philosophy developed by Prussian (German) philosopher Karl Marx that focuses on class struggle and various ways to ensure equality of outcome for all people. Marxism and Marxian analysis have various schools of thought, but the basic idea is that the ruling class in any nation has historically oppressed the lower classes, and thus social revolution is needed to create a classless, homogeneous society. Marxism teaches that the best system of government is one in which wealth is distributed equally, there is no private property (ownership of productive entities is shared by everyone), and every citizen gives selflessly to the collective. The purported goal of Marxism is a government-run utopia in which the needs of each individual are always provided for. Ideally, the strong work hard, the inventive create technological marvels, the doctors heal, the artists delight the community with beauty, and anyone who is weak or poor or in need can draw on society’s combined resources as their needs demand. When this idealistic model is attempted in the real world, it is called “socialism,” “communism,” “statism,” “liberalism,” or “progressivism,” depending on the degree to which the model is explored and implemented.
Thus far, Marxism has never worked in real life—and, without exception, in the places where Marxism has been the governmental model, Christians have been persecuted. That’s because there’s a foundational difference between Marxism and Christianity, a deep divide that cannot be bridged. There are several aspects of Marxism, as a philosophy, that put it at odds with the Christian faith. Here are a few:
Marxism is, at heart, an atheistic philosophy with no room for belief in God. Karl Marx himself was clear on this point: “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (“A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right,” 1844). Christianity, of course, is rooted in theism and is all about God. In the Marxist model, the state becomes the provider, sustainer, protector, and lawgiver for every citizen; in short, the state is viewed as God. Christians always appeal to a higher authority—the God of the universe—and Marxist governments don’t like the idea of there being any authority higher than themselves.
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is that the idea of private property must be abolished. Where Marxism has taken root, land owners see their property confiscated by the state, and private ownership of just about anything is outlawed. In abolishing private property, Marxism directly contradicts several biblical principles. The Bible assumes the existence of private property and issues commands to respect it: injunctions such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. The Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth mandated by Marxism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources. There is no way to reconcile Marxism with the parable of the talents.
Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.
The utopia that Marxism seeks to develop is earthly and man-made; Christians look to the Lord Jesus to establish a heavenly, perfect kingdom some day. Believers understand that, given man’s sinful nature, there is no perfect system in this world. Greed and abuse of power and selfishness and laziness will taint even the purest motives.
Some people attempt to combine Christianity with Marxist philosophy. Their attempts may be well-meaning, but they are impractical. The Puritans in the New World tried communal living for a while. When the Plymouth Colony was founded, there was no private property, and all food was distributed equally amongst all, regardless of one’s job (or work ethic). But that system, lacking any incentive to hard work, was soon abandoned as a complete failure. See “Of Plymouth Plantation” by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford for the full story.
Attempting to combine Christianity with Marxism also ignores their widely divergent views on sin, God, equality, responsibility, and the value of human life. Of course, some people point to Acts 2:44–45 as proof that Christianity is compatible with communism: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Two things must be said here: first, this passage, as with much of Acts, is descriptive, not prescriptive; that is, this passage contains no command for the church to function this way; it is simply a description of what the early church in Jerusalem did to meet some unique and urgent needs. There is no indication that such extensive sharing was ever copied by other New Testament churches. Second, the communal arrangements in Acts were completely voluntary and motivated by the love of Christ. Any attempt to apply this to involuntary, secular (godless) communism really makes no sense.
When Frederick Engels heard that some Christians were using Acts 2 to promote socialism, he wrote against melding his philosophy with Christianity: “These good people are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it” (“Progress of Social Reform on the Continent,” in The New Moral World, 3rd Series, Nos. 19, Nov. 4, 1843, transcribed by Andy Blunden). According to Engles, the Bible and Marxism are “totally opposed.”
In short, the Bible promotes freedom and personal responsibility, and neither of those concepts lasts long under Marxism. There’s a reason why, in Marxist states such as Communist China and Vietnam and the old Soviet Union, Christians are always persecuted—the ideas espoused by Marxism are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differences are irreconcilable.
Recommended Resource: Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Marxism is a political philosophy developed by Prussian (German) philosopher Karl Marx that focuses on class struggle and various ways to ensure equality of outcome for all people. Marxism and Marxian analysis have various schools of thought, but the basic idea is that the ruling class in any nation has historically oppressed the lower classes, and thus social revolution is needed to create a classless, homogeneous society. Marxism teaches that the best system of government is one in which wealth is distributed equally, there is no private property (ownership of productive entities is shared by everyone), and every citizen gives selflessly to the collective. The purported goal of Marxism is a government-run utopia in which the needs of each individual are always provided for. Ideally, the strong work hard, the inventive create technological marvels, the doctors heal, the artists delight the community with beauty, and anyone who is weak or poor or in need can draw on society’s combined resources as their needs demand. When this idealistic model is attempted in the real world, it is called “socialism,” “communism,” “statism,” “liberalism,” or “progressivism,” depending on the degree to which the model is explored and implemented.
Thus far, Marxism has never worked in real life—and, without exception, in the places where Marxism has been the governmental model, Christians have been persecuted. That’s because there’s a foundational difference between Marxism and Christianity, a deep divide that cannot be bridged. There are several aspects of Marxism, as a philosophy, that put it at odds with the Christian faith. Here are a few:
Marxism is, at heart, an atheistic philosophy with no room for belief in God. Karl Marx himself was clear on this point: “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (“A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right,” 1844). Christianity, of course, is rooted in theism and is all about God. In the Marxist model, the state becomes the provider, sustainer, protector, and lawgiver for every citizen; in short, the state is viewed as God. Christians always appeal to a higher authority—the God of the universe—and Marxist governments don’t like the idea of there being any authority higher than themselves.
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is that the idea of private property must be abolished. Where Marxism has taken root, land owners see their property confiscated by the state, and private ownership of just about anything is outlawed. In abolishing private property, Marxism directly contradicts several biblical principles. The Bible assumes the existence of private property and issues commands to respect it: injunctions such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. The Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth mandated by Marxism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources. There is no way to reconcile Marxism with the parable of the talents.
Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.
The utopia that Marxism seeks to develop is earthly and man-made; Christians look to the Lord Jesus to establish a heavenly, perfect kingdom some day. Believers understand that, given man’s sinful nature, there is no perfect system in this world. Greed and abuse of power and selfishness and laziness will taint even the purest motives.
Some people attempt to combine Christianity with Marxist philosophy. Their attempts may be well-meaning, but they are impractical. The Puritans in the New World tried communal living for a while. When the Plymouth Colony was founded, there was no private property, and all food was distributed equally amongst all, regardless of one’s job (or work ethic). But that system, lacking any incentive to hard work, was soon abandoned as a complete failure. See “Of Plymouth Plantation” by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford for the full story.
Attempting to combine Christianity with Marxism also ignores their widely divergent views on sin, God, equality, responsibility, and the value of human life. Of course, some people point to Acts 2:44–45 as proof that Christianity is compatible with communism: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Two things must be said here: first, this passage, as with much of Acts, is descriptive, not prescriptive; that is, this passage contains no command for the church to function this way; it is simply a description of what the early church in Jerusalem did to meet some unique and urgent needs. There is no indication that such extensive sharing was ever copied by other New Testament churches. Second, the communal arrangements in Acts were completely voluntary and motivated by the love of Christ. Any attempt to apply this to involuntary, secular (godless) communism really makes no sense.
When Frederick Engels heard that some Christians were using Acts 2 to promote socialism, he wrote against melding his philosophy with Christianity: “These good people are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it” (“Progress of Social Reform on the Continent,” in The New Moral World, 3rd Series, Nos. 19, Nov. 4, 1843, transcribed by Andy Blunden). According to Engles, the Bible and Marxism are “totally opposed.”
In short, the Bible promotes freedom and personal responsibility, and neither of those concepts lasts long under Marxism. There’s a reason why, in Marxist states such as Communist China and Vietnam and the old Soviet Union, Christians are always persecuted—the ideas espoused by Marxism are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differences are irreconcilable.
Recommended Resource: Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What were the Christian crusades?
Question: "What were the Christian crusades?"
Answer: The crusades have provided some of the most frequent arguments against the Christian faith. Some Islamic terrorists even claim that their terrorist attacks are revenge for what Christians did in the crusades. So, what were the crusades and why are they viewed as such a big problem for the Christian faith?
First of all, the crusades should not be referred to as the “Christian crusades.” Most of the people involved in the crusades were not truly Christians, even though they claimed to be. The name of Christ was abused, misused, and blasphemed by the actions of many of the crusaders. Second, the crusades took place from approximately A.D. 1095 to 1230. Should the unbiblical actions of supposed Christians hundreds of years ago still be held against Christians today?
Third, not that this is an adequate excuse, but Christianity is not the only religion with a violent past. In actuality, the crusades were responses to Muslim invasions on what was once land occupied primarily by Christians. From approximately A.D. 200 to 900, the land of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey was inhabited primarily by Christians. Once Islam became powerful, Muslims invaded these lands and brutally oppressed, enslaved, deported, and even murdered the Christians living in those lands. In response, the Roman Catholic Church and “Christian” kings/emperors from Europe ordered the crusades to reclaim the land the Muslims had taken. The actions that many so-called Christians took in the crusades were still deplorable. There is no biblical justification for conquering lands, murdering civilians, and destroying cities in the name of Jesus Christ. At the same time, Islam is not a religion that can speak from a position of innocence in these matters.
To summarize briefly, the crusades were attempts in the 11th through 13th centuries A.D. to reclaim land in the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslims. The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to “convert” to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the name of Christ is completely unbiblical. Many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith stands for.
How can we respond when, as a result of the crusades, the Christian faith is attacked by atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and those of other religions? We can respond in the following ways: 1) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of people who lived 900+ years ago? 2) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of everyone who claims to represent your faith? Trying to blame all of Christianity for the crusades is analogous to blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism.
Recommended Resource: Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The crusades have provided some of the most frequent arguments against the Christian faith. Some Islamic terrorists even claim that their terrorist attacks are revenge for what Christians did in the crusades. So, what were the crusades and why are they viewed as such a big problem for the Christian faith?
First of all, the crusades should not be referred to as the “Christian crusades.” Most of the people involved in the crusades were not truly Christians, even though they claimed to be. The name of Christ was abused, misused, and blasphemed by the actions of many of the crusaders. Second, the crusades took place from approximately A.D. 1095 to 1230. Should the unbiblical actions of supposed Christians hundreds of years ago still be held against Christians today?
Third, not that this is an adequate excuse, but Christianity is not the only religion with a violent past. In actuality, the crusades were responses to Muslim invasions on what was once land occupied primarily by Christians. From approximately A.D. 200 to 900, the land of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey was inhabited primarily by Christians. Once Islam became powerful, Muslims invaded these lands and brutally oppressed, enslaved, deported, and even murdered the Christians living in those lands. In response, the Roman Catholic Church and “Christian” kings/emperors from Europe ordered the crusades to reclaim the land the Muslims had taken. The actions that many so-called Christians took in the crusades were still deplorable. There is no biblical justification for conquering lands, murdering civilians, and destroying cities in the name of Jesus Christ. At the same time, Islam is not a religion that can speak from a position of innocence in these matters.
To summarize briefly, the crusades were attempts in the 11th through 13th centuries A.D. to reclaim land in the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslims. The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to “convert” to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the name of Christ is completely unbiblical. Many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith stands for.
How can we respond when, as a result of the crusades, the Christian faith is attacked by atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and those of other religions? We can respond in the following ways: 1) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of people who lived 900+ years ago? 2) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of everyone who claims to represent your faith? Trying to blame all of Christianity for the crusades is analogous to blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism.
Recommended Resource: Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
How should Christians react to persecution against the LGBTQ community?
Question: "How should Christians react to persecution against the LGBTQ community?"
Answer: The most insidious temptation related to seeing others being persecuted is apathy. As Christians, when we see members of the LGBTQ+ community being persecuted, we have a responsibility to act. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27). It doesn’t matter what our neighbor’s opinion is on moral or sexual ethics, the command applies. Loving those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community means, in part, we do not condone acts of persecution against them—we do not excuse violence, injustice, or any behavior that brings harm. Doing good to those in the LGBTQ community means we are proactive in aiding them in times of trouble.
In considering a response to persecution against the LGBTQ community, we must consider Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37). In the story, the Samaritan passes by a man, a Jew, who had experienced severe “persecution” in the form of being beaten and robbed. Rather than ignoring him as others had done, the Samaritan generously tends to the man’s wounds and cares for him, expecting nothing in return.
Jesus tells this parable to a lawyer, a devout and well-studied Jew who was likely a Pharisee. To the Jews of Jesus’ day, Samaritans were unclean, despised, despicable people. Samaritans were half-breeds by race and heretics in religion, and they were avoided at all costs (John 4:9). By and large, Samaritans returned those sentiments. As far as the Samaritan in the parable knew, the Jew he rescued might well have cursed and insulted him the day before. The man lying beaten and bloody in the ditch would have expected no help from the Samaritan, separated as they were socially, politically, and religiously.
The point of the parable cannot be overstated. The Samaritan had every reason to think the Jewish man hated him, yet he showed love, and Jesus explicitly said that we are to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Mere charity is not the point; it is charity even to those with whom we disagree. Jesus’ message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that, when someone is hurting, our responsibility as followers of Christ is to pour out love, compassion, healing, relief, and resources to aid him. When members of the LGBTQ community are hurting, our responsibility is to give help and comfort. Agreement or disagreement in religion, morals, or opinions is quite irrelevant in the time of need.
Whether or not sin is involved is likewise immaterial. Jesus rescued an adulterous woman from the persecution of a mob without condoning her sin (John 8:10–11). To show compassion is not the same as endorsing a person’s lifestyle. Compassion does not require agreement or approval. Our response to persecution against the LGBTQ community should involve prayer, a rebuke of the persecutors, and charitable action. We are to love and overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).
When the LGBTQ community is the victim of persecution, violence, or other harms, Christians have a clear mandate from our Lord. Just as the Good Samaritan bound the wounds of a social and religious antagonist, we are to love our neighbors, whoever they are. For the Christian, there is only one proper response when those in the LGBTQ community are suffering persecution. We should come along beside them, show them mercy, and demonstrate the love of Christ.
“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35–36).
Recommended Resource: 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The most insidious temptation related to seeing others being persecuted is apathy. As Christians, when we see members of the LGBTQ+ community being persecuted, we have a responsibility to act. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27). It doesn’t matter what our neighbor’s opinion is on moral or sexual ethics, the command applies. Loving those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community means, in part, we do not condone acts of persecution against them—we do not excuse violence, injustice, or any behavior that brings harm. Doing good to those in the LGBTQ community means we are proactive in aiding them in times of trouble.
In considering a response to persecution against the LGBTQ community, we must consider Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37). In the story, the Samaritan passes by a man, a Jew, who had experienced severe “persecution” in the form of being beaten and robbed. Rather than ignoring him as others had done, the Samaritan generously tends to the man’s wounds and cares for him, expecting nothing in return.
Jesus tells this parable to a lawyer, a devout and well-studied Jew who was likely a Pharisee. To the Jews of Jesus’ day, Samaritans were unclean, despised, despicable people. Samaritans were half-breeds by race and heretics in religion, and they were avoided at all costs (John 4:9). By and large, Samaritans returned those sentiments. As far as the Samaritan in the parable knew, the Jew he rescued might well have cursed and insulted him the day before. The man lying beaten and bloody in the ditch would have expected no help from the Samaritan, separated as they were socially, politically, and religiously.
The point of the parable cannot be overstated. The Samaritan had every reason to think the Jewish man hated him, yet he showed love, and Jesus explicitly said that we are to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Mere charity is not the point; it is charity even to those with whom we disagree. Jesus’ message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that, when someone is hurting, our responsibility as followers of Christ is to pour out love, compassion, healing, relief, and resources to aid him. When members of the LGBTQ community are hurting, our responsibility is to give help and comfort. Agreement or disagreement in religion, morals, or opinions is quite irrelevant in the time of need.
Whether or not sin is involved is likewise immaterial. Jesus rescued an adulterous woman from the persecution of a mob without condoning her sin (John 8:10–11). To show compassion is not the same as endorsing a person’s lifestyle. Compassion does not require agreement or approval. Our response to persecution against the LGBTQ community should involve prayer, a rebuke of the persecutors, and charitable action. We are to love and overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).
When the LGBTQ community is the victim of persecution, violence, or other harms, Christians have a clear mandate from our Lord. Just as the Good Samaritan bound the wounds of a social and religious antagonist, we are to love our neighbors, whoever they are. For the Christian, there is only one proper response when those in the LGBTQ community are suffering persecution. We should come along beside them, show them mercy, and demonstrate the love of Christ.
“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35–36).
Recommended Resource: 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise (Ecclesiastes 7:16)?
Question: "What does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise (Ecclesiastes 7:16)?"
Answer: Ecclesiastes 7:16 says, “Do not be overrighteous, / neither be overwise— / why destroy yourself?” Given the Bible’s standard of righteousness and the premium it sets on wisdom, it seems strange that Solomon would say not to be overly righteous or too wise.
One key to understanding this warning against being overrighteous and overwise is found in Ecclesiastes 7:15: “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: / the righteous perishing in their righteousness, / and the wicked living long in their wickedness.” Solomon had witnessed both situations: those who had died doing righteous deeds and those who had died while sinning—and, what’s worse, sinning for a long time while seeming to get away with it. Solomon here is contemplating the fact that sometimes the good die young while evil men live long, iniquitous lives. This is a mystery to him and one of the things that add to the “vanity” of a life lived “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:2–3).
We must also keep Ecclesiastes 7:17 in mind, because Solomon continues the thought begun with the warning against being overrighteous and overwise: “Do not be overwicked, / and do not be a fool— / why die before your time?” And then verse 18 summarizes the lesson: “Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.”
Putting it all together, Solomon is teaching moderation in the fear of God. Don’t be overly righteous, overly wise, overly wicked, or overly foolish. Chasing after extremes will not prolong one’s life or provide the satisfaction one desires.
Still, what does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise? Solomon obviously means something different from being truly righteous and truly wise. To be “overrighteous” is to strive for a self-made righteousness based on an outward adherence to rules. “Overrighteousness” is an extreme religiosity, perhaps marked by asceticism, excessive strictness, and zealous observance of the minutiae of man-made religion. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were “overrighteous” in this way; in their fanatical self-righteousness, they would “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24).
To be “overwise” is to think of oneself as self-sufficient in matters of knowledge, especially when it concerns the things of God. “Overwisdom” will call God’s character and wisdom into question, speculate about His actions, and judge them according to one’s own “superior” wisdom. Job, righteous man that he was, was “overwise” when he began to question God, and God had to ask him, “Who is this that obscures my plans / with words without knowledge? / Brace yourself like a man; / I will question you, / and you shall answer me” (Job 38:2–3). Job’s reply showed that he had regained true wisdom: “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? / I put my hand over my mouth” (Job 40:4).
Self-righteousness has the potential to lead to much harm. Matthew 23:5 offers an excellent summary of the behavior of the “overrighteous”: “Everything they do is done for people to see.” This type of lifestyle is condemned by God as attempting to be righteous in the wrong way.
In Joel 2:12–13, the Lord calls His people to move beyond external religion and righteousness and to truly return to Him: “Return to me with all your heart, / with fasting and weeping and mourning. / Rend your heart / and not your garments.” The Lord was less concerned with their sacrifices and external adherence to the Law than He was the condition of their hearts.
Solomon knew better than most people the outcome of righteousness that did not arise from a heart that truly loves God. As king, he would have been familiar with the religious leaders of the temple he commissioned to have built in Jerusalem. Thousands of Levites served within its walls. Some certainly did so with a true heart of love for God, while others served with improper motives. Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 7:16 reflect the voice of one calling all of God’s people to live for Him with true righteousness and true wisdom. And the next verses (Ecclesiastes 7:17–18) keep it all in balance.
Though these themes are only mentioned briefly in Ecclesiastes, Solomon and others speak at length regarding true righteousness and wisdom in the book of Proverbs. Its opening words say that proverbs are “for gaining wisdom and instruction; / for understanding words of insight; / for receiving instruction in prudent behavior, / doing what is right and just and fair” (Proverbs 1:2–3). Proverbs 1:7 adds, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, / but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Recommended Resource: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon: Holman Old Testament Commentary by David Moore and Daniel Akin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Ecclesiastes 7:16 says, “Do not be overrighteous, / neither be overwise— / why destroy yourself?” Given the Bible’s standard of righteousness and the premium it sets on wisdom, it seems strange that Solomon would say not to be overly righteous or too wise.
One key to understanding this warning against being overrighteous and overwise is found in Ecclesiastes 7:15: “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: / the righteous perishing in their righteousness, / and the wicked living long in their wickedness.” Solomon had witnessed both situations: those who had died doing righteous deeds and those who had died while sinning—and, what’s worse, sinning for a long time while seeming to get away with it. Solomon here is contemplating the fact that sometimes the good die young while evil men live long, iniquitous lives. This is a mystery to him and one of the things that add to the “vanity” of a life lived “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:2–3).
We must also keep Ecclesiastes 7:17 in mind, because Solomon continues the thought begun with the warning against being overrighteous and overwise: “Do not be overwicked, / and do not be a fool— / why die before your time?” And then verse 18 summarizes the lesson: “Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.”
Putting it all together, Solomon is teaching moderation in the fear of God. Don’t be overly righteous, overly wise, overly wicked, or overly foolish. Chasing after extremes will not prolong one’s life or provide the satisfaction one desires.
Still, what does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise? Solomon obviously means something different from being truly righteous and truly wise. To be “overrighteous” is to strive for a self-made righteousness based on an outward adherence to rules. “Overrighteousness” is an extreme religiosity, perhaps marked by asceticism, excessive strictness, and zealous observance of the minutiae of man-made religion. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were “overrighteous” in this way; in their fanatical self-righteousness, they would “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24).
To be “overwise” is to think of oneself as self-sufficient in matters of knowledge, especially when it concerns the things of God. “Overwisdom” will call God’s character and wisdom into question, speculate about His actions, and judge them according to one’s own “superior” wisdom. Job, righteous man that he was, was “overwise” when he began to question God, and God had to ask him, “Who is this that obscures my plans / with words without knowledge? / Brace yourself like a man; / I will question you, / and you shall answer me” (Job 38:2–3). Job’s reply showed that he had regained true wisdom: “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? / I put my hand over my mouth” (Job 40:4).
Self-righteousness has the potential to lead to much harm. Matthew 23:5 offers an excellent summary of the behavior of the “overrighteous”: “Everything they do is done for people to see.” This type of lifestyle is condemned by God as attempting to be righteous in the wrong way.
In Joel 2:12–13, the Lord calls His people to move beyond external religion and righteousness and to truly return to Him: “Return to me with all your heart, / with fasting and weeping and mourning. / Rend your heart / and not your garments.” The Lord was less concerned with their sacrifices and external adherence to the Law than He was the condition of their hearts.
Solomon knew better than most people the outcome of righteousness that did not arise from a heart that truly loves God. As king, he would have been familiar with the religious leaders of the temple he commissioned to have built in Jerusalem. Thousands of Levites served within its walls. Some certainly did so with a true heart of love for God, while others served with improper motives. Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 7:16 reflect the voice of one calling all of God’s people to live for Him with true righteousness and true wisdom. And the next verses (Ecclesiastes 7:17–18) keep it all in balance.
Though these themes are only mentioned briefly in Ecclesiastes, Solomon and others speak at length regarding true righteousness and wisdom in the book of Proverbs. Its opening words say that proverbs are “for gaining wisdom and instruction; / for understanding words of insight; / for receiving instruction in prudent behavior, / doing what is right and just and fair” (Proverbs 1:2–3). Proverbs 1:7 adds, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, / but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Recommended Resource: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon: Holman Old Testament Commentary by David Moore and Daniel Akin
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Is there a mother god?
Question: "Is there a mother god?"
Answer: Outside of Christianity, female deities are quite common. Almost every pagan religion has a goddess of some kind. Some people attempt to shoehorn the concept of a mother god into Christianity, as well, despite the fact that the Bible in no way supports the idea of a female counterpart to God the Father.
Some point to Asherah as an example of a mother god that was accepted by the ancient Israelites. Not only was Asherah a goddess, they say, but she was the consort of Yahweh. Such a view is a simplistic recasting of Baal-worship, based on an assumption that the Israelites built their Yahweh-focused religion from the raw materials of Baal-worship. In Canaanite mythology, Asherah was the consort of Baal, but the Mosaic Law unequivocally forbade the worship of Asherah (Deuteronomy 16:21). Israel’s forays into Asherah-worship were viewed as rebellion and judged as sin (see 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:13).
Some look to Sophia as a mother god because Wisdom is personified as a woman in Proverbs 8. In verses 27–31, Wisdom speaks in a way that seems to indicate she is companion to the God of creation. However, the book of Proverbs is poetic and highly symbolic. Wisdom is clearly a personification, not an actual person. “Sophia” is not an actual person, much less a female companion or counterpart to God the Father.
Similarly, the World Mission Society Church of God, by conflating Galatians 4:26 with some concepts about the New Jerusalem, teach that God has a bride, the heavenly mother. In the New Testament, the church as a redeemed group is called the bride of Christ, but we are not a mother god.
Some view Mary as the Queen of Heaven and almost deify her. However, those who do so do not get their views from the Bible. Mary herself puts to rest any notion that she is a mother god, recognizing in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior. Mary was a mortal human being, a sinner in need of salvation just like every other human being.
In addition to the above attempts to find a “mother goddess” in Scripture are many pagan religions that are rife with female deities. Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17–25 mention worship of the “Queen of Heaven,” a pagan deity. Jeremiah was not endorsing pagan theology; rather, he condemned the observance of rituals associated with the Queen of Heaven, referring to her by her common title.
Another goddess that is gaining in popularity as people become more environmentally conscious is Gaia (or Gaea), the goddess of the earth. Gaia is simply a remnant of Greek mythology who in some cases has been conflated with the evolutionary concept of Mother Earth. In Greek mythology Gaia may have been considered an actual person, but the more modern evolutionary concept views her as a personification of the substance from which we and the universe all sprang.
Some who promote the idea of a mother god allege a contradiction in Scripture: in some places the Bible says there is only one God, yet in other places it speaks about other gods. Paul puts it in perspective in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, “We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one.’ For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” God is the One True God, but there are many other “gods,” that is, many other things that people worship. Many of these so-called gods are female deities.
Regardless of the gender assigned to any deity, God has made it clear that He is the only True God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. “There is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:6). There is no mother god.
Recommended Resource: Knowing God by J.I. Packer
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Outside of Christianity, female deities are quite common. Almost every pagan religion has a goddess of some kind. Some people attempt to shoehorn the concept of a mother god into Christianity, as well, despite the fact that the Bible in no way supports the idea of a female counterpart to God the Father.
Some point to Asherah as an example of a mother god that was accepted by the ancient Israelites. Not only was Asherah a goddess, they say, but she was the consort of Yahweh. Such a view is a simplistic recasting of Baal-worship, based on an assumption that the Israelites built their Yahweh-focused religion from the raw materials of Baal-worship. In Canaanite mythology, Asherah was the consort of Baal, but the Mosaic Law unequivocally forbade the worship of Asherah (Deuteronomy 16:21). Israel’s forays into Asherah-worship were viewed as rebellion and judged as sin (see 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:13).
Some look to Sophia as a mother god because Wisdom is personified as a woman in Proverbs 8. In verses 27–31, Wisdom speaks in a way that seems to indicate she is companion to the God of creation. However, the book of Proverbs is poetic and highly symbolic. Wisdom is clearly a personification, not an actual person. “Sophia” is not an actual person, much less a female companion or counterpart to God the Father.
Similarly, the World Mission Society Church of God, by conflating Galatians 4:26 with some concepts about the New Jerusalem, teach that God has a bride, the heavenly mother. In the New Testament, the church as a redeemed group is called the bride of Christ, but we are not a mother god.
Some view Mary as the Queen of Heaven and almost deify her. However, those who do so do not get their views from the Bible. Mary herself puts to rest any notion that she is a mother god, recognizing in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior. Mary was a mortal human being, a sinner in need of salvation just like every other human being.
In addition to the above attempts to find a “mother goddess” in Scripture are many pagan religions that are rife with female deities. Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17–25 mention worship of the “Queen of Heaven,” a pagan deity. Jeremiah was not endorsing pagan theology; rather, he condemned the observance of rituals associated with the Queen of Heaven, referring to her by her common title.
Another goddess that is gaining in popularity as people become more environmentally conscious is Gaia (or Gaea), the goddess of the earth. Gaia is simply a remnant of Greek mythology who in some cases has been conflated with the evolutionary concept of Mother Earth. In Greek mythology Gaia may have been considered an actual person, but the more modern evolutionary concept views her as a personification of the substance from which we and the universe all sprang.
Some who promote the idea of a mother god allege a contradiction in Scripture: in some places the Bible says there is only one God, yet in other places it speaks about other gods. Paul puts it in perspective in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, “We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one.’ For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” God is the One True God, but there are many other “gods,” that is, many other things that people worship. Many of these so-called gods are female deities.
Regardless of the gender assigned to any deity, God has made it clear that He is the only True God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. “There is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:6). There is no mother god.
Recommended Resource: Knowing God by J.I. Packer
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What does it mean that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:19)?
Question: "What does it mean that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:19)?"
Answer: James 1:19–20 says, “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” Being “quick to listen” means that we train ourselves to wait for the whole story before diving in with our opinion. “Slow to speak” is the flip side of that. We control our words and don’t blurt out everything that comes into our heads.
James goes on to talk about the tongue: “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Later, he warns us about controlling our tongues: “The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:5–6).
Our mouths get us into a lot of trouble. We profess to believe one thing, but then we are often betrayed by what comes out of our mouths. Jesus said, “The mouth speaks what the heart is full of” (Matthew 12:34).
When we discipline ourselves to listen more than we talk, we can learn a lot. Big talkers are hard to teach. They think they already know everything they need to know, and they constantly express their opinions. Wise people have learned that more wisdom can be gained by listening, observing, and not rushing to judgment. Proverbs 10:19 says, “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.”
The old adage is right: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” How many relationships have been damaged or ruined because we were slow to listen and quick to speak? How many mistakes could have been avoided had we only listened instead of talked?
We should be careful about the kinds of people we spend a lot of time listening to. Psalm 1 warns us not to listen to the foolish or the wicked. However, there are other people we should be quick to listen to:
• Elders because of their experience (Hebrews 13:17).
• Wise people because of their good advice (Proverbs 13:20).
• Godly people because they can represent God’s perspective on our situation (Psalm 141:5).
• Authorities because they represent the law (Romans 13:1).
Most of us are not naturally quick to listen, but we can train ourselves to be better listeners. Good listening is active. It engages with the speaker. It understands the speaker’s perspective, even if we disagree. When people feel heard, they are more willing to listen to our side. Being quick to listen actually opens the door to greater communication because listening shows respect, and when people feel respected, they are more likely to return that respect and listen to us. It is important for us to be quick to listen and slow to speak. God’s Word always shows us the best way, and when we follow it, we are blessed.
Recommended Resource: The Epistle of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament by James Adamson
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: James 1:19–20 says, “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” Being “quick to listen” means that we train ourselves to wait for the whole story before diving in with our opinion. “Slow to speak” is the flip side of that. We control our words and don’t blurt out everything that comes into our heads.
James goes on to talk about the tongue: “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Later, he warns us about controlling our tongues: “The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:5–6).
Our mouths get us into a lot of trouble. We profess to believe one thing, but then we are often betrayed by what comes out of our mouths. Jesus said, “The mouth speaks what the heart is full of” (Matthew 12:34).
When we discipline ourselves to listen more than we talk, we can learn a lot. Big talkers are hard to teach. They think they already know everything they need to know, and they constantly express their opinions. Wise people have learned that more wisdom can be gained by listening, observing, and not rushing to judgment. Proverbs 10:19 says, “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.”
The old adage is right: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” How many relationships have been damaged or ruined because we were slow to listen and quick to speak? How many mistakes could have been avoided had we only listened instead of talked?
We should be careful about the kinds of people we spend a lot of time listening to. Psalm 1 warns us not to listen to the foolish or the wicked. However, there are other people we should be quick to listen to:
• Elders because of their experience (Hebrews 13:17).
• Wise people because of their good advice (Proverbs 13:20).
• Godly people because they can represent God’s perspective on our situation (Psalm 141:5).
• Authorities because they represent the law (Romans 13:1).
Most of us are not naturally quick to listen, but we can train ourselves to be better listeners. Good listening is active. It engages with the speaker. It understands the speaker’s perspective, even if we disagree. When people feel heard, they are more willing to listen to our side. Being quick to listen actually opens the door to greater communication because listening shows respect, and when people feel respected, they are more likely to return that respect and listen to us. It is important for us to be quick to listen and slow to speak. God’s Word always shows us the best way, and when we follow it, we are blessed.
Recommended Resource: The Epistle of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament by James Adamson
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Is Mormonism properly defined as a cult?
Question: "Is Mormonism properly defined as a cult?"
Answer: Much controversy has occurred in recent years regarding how Bible-believing Christians should view the teachings of the Mormon Church. Mormons call themselves “Christians,” and they take exception to Mormonism being called a “cult.”
First, we should clearly define cult. One general definition found in dictionaries defines a cult as “a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.” According to this wide-ranging definition, any religious group could be labeled as a cult. However, Christians have often defined a cult more narrowly, using a definition such as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” A cult holds views that are unorthodox and spurious. It claims to be part of a religion yet denies essential truths of that religion.
When considered in light of this narrower definition, does Mormonism fit the characteristics of a cult? The technical answer is “yes.” Some Mormon teachings are unorthodox, and the claims of Joseph Smith are spurious. Mormonism claims to be part of Christianity yet denies some of Christianity’s core truths. For example, Mormons reject belief in the Trinity (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372, Articles of Faith, p. 35); hold to an unbiblical view of the afterlife (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-354.); and teach that Jesus is a created being (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115), that salvation is by faith and works (2 Nephi 25:23, Articles of Faith, p. 92), and that the Book of Mormon is Scripture in addition to the Bible (History of the Church, 4:461).
Despite recent attempts to reposition Mormonism as evangelical Christianity—or to at least make the two seem compatible—the Mormon Church continues to hold to its aberrant teachings. No one can claim to be a Christian yet hold a vastly divergent view of salvation, God, Jesus, and Scripture. A Mormon may claim to follow Christ, but it is a very different “Christ” from what is found in the Bible.
Another question remains. Even if Mormonism can properly be defined as a cult, should it be called a cult? This question addresses not only teaching but association, because the word cult carries a negative connotation. For example, a wide variety of religious cults exist, and some cultists have performed violent acts or led people to make unhealthy, irrational choices. Is it helpful, especially when dealing with Mormons personally, to call Mormonism a “cult”?
It is unwise to use derogatory terms when referring to other religions. Words like cult are generally unhelpful when referring to Mormonism. Even if its teachings can be defined, theologically, as cultic, based on a certain definition, the negative connotation of the word remains. Christians are called to reach Mormons with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:16), and the use of the term cult is a distraction. This is not a matter of compromise, but of speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). It is sufficient for Christians to clearly state that Mormon teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity. These differences are important. Christians should pray for and reach out to Mormons with the message that salvation is a free gift of God, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9).
(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: Much controversy has occurred in recent years regarding how Bible-believing Christians should view the teachings of the Mormon Church. Mormons call themselves “Christians,” and they take exception to Mormonism being called a “cult.”
First, we should clearly define cult. One general definition found in dictionaries defines a cult as “a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.” According to this wide-ranging definition, any religious group could be labeled as a cult. However, Christians have often defined a cult more narrowly, using a definition such as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” A cult holds views that are unorthodox and spurious. It claims to be part of a religion yet denies essential truths of that religion.
When considered in light of this narrower definition, does Mormonism fit the characteristics of a cult? The technical answer is “yes.” Some Mormon teachings are unorthodox, and the claims of Joseph Smith are spurious. Mormonism claims to be part of Christianity yet denies some of Christianity’s core truths. For example, Mormons reject belief in the Trinity (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372, Articles of Faith, p. 35); hold to an unbiblical view of the afterlife (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-354.); and teach that Jesus is a created being (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115), that salvation is by faith and works (2 Nephi 25:23, Articles of Faith, p. 92), and that the Book of Mormon is Scripture in addition to the Bible (History of the Church, 4:461).
Despite recent attempts to reposition Mormonism as evangelical Christianity—or to at least make the two seem compatible—the Mormon Church continues to hold to its aberrant teachings. No one can claim to be a Christian yet hold a vastly divergent view of salvation, God, Jesus, and Scripture. A Mormon may claim to follow Christ, but it is a very different “Christ” from what is found in the Bible.
Another question remains. Even if Mormonism can properly be defined as a cult, should it be called a cult? This question addresses not only teaching but association, because the word cult carries a negative connotation. For example, a wide variety of religious cults exist, and some cultists have performed violent acts or led people to make unhealthy, irrational choices. Is it helpful, especially when dealing with Mormons personally, to call Mormonism a “cult”?
It is unwise to use derogatory terms when referring to other religions. Words like cult are generally unhelpful when referring to Mormonism. Even if its teachings can be defined, theologically, as cultic, based on a certain definition, the negative connotation of the word remains. Christians are called to reach Mormons with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:16), and the use of the term cult is a distraction. This is not a matter of compromise, but of speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). It is sufficient for Christians to clearly state that Mormon teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity. These differences are important. Christians should pray for and reach out to Mormons with the message that salvation is a free gift of God, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9).
(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What is the New Age movement?
Question: "What is the New Age movement?"
Answer: The expression “New Age” came into existence in the 1970s and 1980s. It was promoted by the circulation of the New Age Journal and a book by Mark Satin called New Age Politics. Marilyn Ferguson’s best-selling Aquarian Conspiracy was a presentation of the social agenda and philosophical vision of the New Age. Ferguson’s writing attained status as the unofficial scripture of the movement. As Russell Chandler, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in Understanding the New Age, “If Ferguson wrote the New Age ‘Bible,‘ Shirley MacLaine is its high priestess.”
Shirley MacLaine’s book, Out on a Limb, chronicles her reluctant conversion to New Age belief. This book describes her travels and studies, which include science fiction-like dimensions, out-of-body travel, contact with extraterrestrial beings, “trance channeling” (séances), and a “guided tour” of the unseen world. MacLaine’s second book, Dancing in the Light, tells about her reach into the world of yoga, reincarnation, crystal power, Hindu mantras, and past-life recall experiences mediated through acupuncture. Her spirit guides informed her that each individual is God, and she passed along the “wisdom” that the person is unlimited. One only has to realize it (Chandler, page 6-2).
New Age thinking has its roots, then, in Eastern mysticism, which attempts to bypass the mind. There is a new organ of perception—the third eye—which gives spiritual light. One needs to get to the “psychic self” by training one’s self to ignore messages from the mind or to see that the mind is actually achieving “cosmic consciousness.” The mind can create reality.
Neil Anderson in his book, Walking Through the Darkness, writes this: “The New Age movement is not seen as a religion but a new way to think and understand reality. It’s very attractive to the natural man who has become disillusioned with organized religion and Western rationalism. He desires spiritual reality but doesn’t want to give up materialism, deal with his moral problems, or come under authority” (page 22). Anderson goes on to summarize New Age thinking (pages 22–24) as follows:
(1) It is monism. The belief that all is one and one is all. History is not the story of humanity’s fall into sin and its restoration by God’s saving grace. Rather, it is humanity’s fall into ignorance and the gradual ascent into enlightenment.
(2) All is God. If all is one, including God, then one must conclude that all is God. It is pantheism—trees, snails, books, and people are all of one divine essence. A personal God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and in Jesus Christ is completely rejected. Since God is impersonal, the New Ager doesn’t have to serve Him. God is an “it,” not a “He.”
(3) There is a change in consciousness. If we are God, we need to know we are God. We must become cosmically conscious, enlightened, or attuned to the cosmic consciousness. Some who reach this enlightened status will claim to be “born again”—a counterfeit of biblical conversion. The essential is not whether we believe or meditate, but whom we believe in and what we meditate upon. Christ is the true, personal, objective reality, as He said that He is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).
(4) A cosmic evolutionary optimism is taught. There is a New Age coming. There will be a new world order, a new world government. New Age thinkers believe that there will eventually be a progressive unification of world consciousness. This, according to the Bible, is a counterfeit kingdom led by Satan himself. Christ has the true kingdom, and He will one day rule on earth with peace for all who accept Him as Savior and King (Revelation 5:13).
(5) New Agers create their own reality. They believe they can create reality by what they believe, and, by changing what they believe, they can change reality. All moral boundaries have been erased. There are no absolutes because there is no distinction between good and evil. Nothing has reality until one says that it is reality or says that it is truth. If finite man can create truth, we are in desperate trouble in our society. Unless there are eternal absolutes from the eternal God, man will eventually be his own destruction.
(6) New Agers make contact with the kingdom of darkness. Calling a medium a “channeler” and a demon a “spirit guide” has not changed the reality of what they are. This is the kingdom of darkness of which Satan is the head. Those involved in this kind of activity are in contact with a world that is totally opposed to the biblical God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, who defeated Satan (Matthew 4:1–11; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14–18).
The New Age movement is a counterfeit philosophy that appeals to the feelings of individuals, leading them to think that that they are God and can enhance their lives through their own person. The reality is that we are born, grow up, live a while on planet Earth, and die. Humans are finite. We can never be God. We need someone greater than we who can provide us forgiveness and life eternal. Praise the Lord for the God-man, Jesus Christ. Through His death and bodily resurrection, He has won for us what we desperately need: forgiveness from God, a life of purpose and meaning in this life, and eternal life beyond the grave. Don’t miss out on who Jesus Christ is and what He has done for you. Read John chapter 3. Ask Christ to be your Savior. Your life will be transformed, and you will know who you are, why you are here, and where you are going.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The expression “New Age” came into existence in the 1970s and 1980s. It was promoted by the circulation of the New Age Journal and a book by Mark Satin called New Age Politics. Marilyn Ferguson’s best-selling Aquarian Conspiracy was a presentation of the social agenda and philosophical vision of the New Age. Ferguson’s writing attained status as the unofficial scripture of the movement. As Russell Chandler, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in Understanding the New Age, “If Ferguson wrote the New Age ‘Bible,‘ Shirley MacLaine is its high priestess.”
Shirley MacLaine’s book, Out on a Limb, chronicles her reluctant conversion to New Age belief. This book describes her travels and studies, which include science fiction-like dimensions, out-of-body travel, contact with extraterrestrial beings, “trance channeling” (séances), and a “guided tour” of the unseen world. MacLaine’s second book, Dancing in the Light, tells about her reach into the world of yoga, reincarnation, crystal power, Hindu mantras, and past-life recall experiences mediated through acupuncture. Her spirit guides informed her that each individual is God, and she passed along the “wisdom” that the person is unlimited. One only has to realize it (Chandler, page 6-2).
New Age thinking has its roots, then, in Eastern mysticism, which attempts to bypass the mind. There is a new organ of perception—the third eye—which gives spiritual light. One needs to get to the “psychic self” by training one’s self to ignore messages from the mind or to see that the mind is actually achieving “cosmic consciousness.” The mind can create reality.
Neil Anderson in his book, Walking Through the Darkness, writes this: “The New Age movement is not seen as a religion but a new way to think and understand reality. It’s very attractive to the natural man who has become disillusioned with organized religion and Western rationalism. He desires spiritual reality but doesn’t want to give up materialism, deal with his moral problems, or come under authority” (page 22). Anderson goes on to summarize New Age thinking (pages 22–24) as follows:
(1) It is monism. The belief that all is one and one is all. History is not the story of humanity’s fall into sin and its restoration by God’s saving grace. Rather, it is humanity’s fall into ignorance and the gradual ascent into enlightenment.
(2) All is God. If all is one, including God, then one must conclude that all is God. It is pantheism—trees, snails, books, and people are all of one divine essence. A personal God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and in Jesus Christ is completely rejected. Since God is impersonal, the New Ager doesn’t have to serve Him. God is an “it,” not a “He.”
(3) There is a change in consciousness. If we are God, we need to know we are God. We must become cosmically conscious, enlightened, or attuned to the cosmic consciousness. Some who reach this enlightened status will claim to be “born again”—a counterfeit of biblical conversion. The essential is not whether we believe or meditate, but whom we believe in and what we meditate upon. Christ is the true, personal, objective reality, as He said that He is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).
(4) A cosmic evolutionary optimism is taught. There is a New Age coming. There will be a new world order, a new world government. New Age thinkers believe that there will eventually be a progressive unification of world consciousness. This, according to the Bible, is a counterfeit kingdom led by Satan himself. Christ has the true kingdom, and He will one day rule on earth with peace for all who accept Him as Savior and King (Revelation 5:13).
(5) New Agers create their own reality. They believe they can create reality by what they believe, and, by changing what they believe, they can change reality. All moral boundaries have been erased. There are no absolutes because there is no distinction between good and evil. Nothing has reality until one says that it is reality or says that it is truth. If finite man can create truth, we are in desperate trouble in our society. Unless there are eternal absolutes from the eternal God, man will eventually be his own destruction.
(6) New Agers make contact with the kingdom of darkness. Calling a medium a “channeler” and a demon a “spirit guide” has not changed the reality of what they are. This is the kingdom of darkness of which Satan is the head. Those involved in this kind of activity are in contact with a world that is totally opposed to the biblical God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, who defeated Satan (Matthew 4:1–11; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14–18).
The New Age movement is a counterfeit philosophy that appeals to the feelings of individuals, leading them to think that that they are God and can enhance their lives through their own person. The reality is that we are born, grow up, live a while on planet Earth, and die. Humans are finite. We can never be God. We need someone greater than we who can provide us forgiveness and life eternal. Praise the Lord for the God-man, Jesus Christ. Through His death and bodily resurrection, He has won for us what we desperately need: forgiveness from God, a life of purpose and meaning in this life, and eternal life beyond the grave. Don’t miss out on who Jesus Christ is and what He has done for you. Read John chapter 3. Ask Christ to be your Savior. Your life will be transformed, and you will know who you are, why you are here, and where you are going.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Why is biblical Creationism so important?
Question: "Why is biblical Creationism so important?"
Answer: A clear view of origins is important for the same reason that a foundation is important to a building. Christianity is established in the book of Genesis chapter one, with “In the beginning God created . . . .” This one statement affirms creationism and opposes any view that embraces naturalism (the belief that the universe started without the intervention of God and/or proceeds without His involvement).
One’s views regarding creation reflect whether we believe the Word of God or call its truthfulness into question. As Christians, we must differentiate between creationism and naturalism; that is, how are they different? Which one is true? Is it possible to believe in both creationism and some form of evolution? These questions can be answered by defining what biblical creationism is and how it affects our fundamental belief system.
The importance of biblical creationism is that it answers the fundamental questions of human existence:
1. How did we get here? Where did we come from?
2. Why are we here? Do we have a purpose, and what is the cause of all or our problems? Are the issues of sin and salvation important?
3. What happens to us when we die? Is there life after death? A person’s stance on origins is important because Genesis is the foundation for the rest of Scripture, in which these questions are answered. Genesis has been likened to the root of a tree in that it anchors Scripture. If you cut the root from a tree, the tree dies. If you discredit Genesis, you remove the authoritative value of all Scripture.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This gives us three great truths foundational to biblical creationism and the Christian faith. First, God is one. This stands in contrast to the polytheism of the pagans and the dualism of modern humanist philosophy. Second, God is personal and exists outside of creation. This is in contrast to pantheism, which sees God as immanent but not transcendent. Last, God is omnipotent and eternal. This is in contrast to the idols that people worship. God was before, is now, and always will be—He created all that is out of nothing by His spoken word.
This answers our creation question of beginnings, but what about our second question: why are we here?
Biblical creationism answers the question of the condition of the human race. Genesis 3 deals with the fall of man but also gives us the hope of redemption. It is important that we understand we are unified in one man, Adam—a literal, real-life person. If Adam is not a literal person, then we have no plausible explanation for how sin entered into the world. If mankind, in Adam, did not fall from grace, then mankind cannot be saved by grace through Jesus Christ. First Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (NJKV). This parallel—Adam is the head of the fallen race, and Christ is the head of a redeemed race—is important to our understanding of salvation. “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19, NKJV).
We must look to biblical creationism as the basis for our value system. The creation narrative must be factual and not just a myth, for, if it is fictional, then the values it imports are man-reasoned, subject to change as man “evolves,” and therefore invalid. The basis of the modern-day conflict between science and religion (especially Christianity) is the assumption that (atheistic) science is fact and religion is merely superstition and myth. If this were true, then our Christian values are just that—values for Christians with no relevance in the secular world.
The last basic question for mankind is what happens to us when we die? If man is merely part of an un-designed and accidental universe and simply changes from one kind of matter to another when he dies, it means we have no soul or spirit and this life is all there is. This belief leaves us with only one purpose in life: to follow the plan of evolution, which is survival of the fittest.
Christianity, on the other hand, presents us with a moral good established by a transcendent, supernatural Being. The moral nature of God sets an unchanging standard that not only promotes a better life for us personally but also teaches us how to love others and ultimately bring glory to our Creator. This standard is exemplified by Christ. It is through His life, death, and resurrection that we find purpose for this life and hope of a future life with God in heaven.
Biblical creationism is important because it is the only system that answers the basic questions of life and gives us significance greater than ourselves. It should be clear to all Christians that creationism and naturalism are mutually exclusive and stand in opposition to one another.
Recommended Resource: Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design edited by Stump & Gundry
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: A clear view of origins is important for the same reason that a foundation is important to a building. Christianity is established in the book of Genesis chapter one, with “In the beginning God created . . . .” This one statement affirms creationism and opposes any view that embraces naturalism (the belief that the universe started without the intervention of God and/or proceeds without His involvement).
One’s views regarding creation reflect whether we believe the Word of God or call its truthfulness into question. As Christians, we must differentiate between creationism and naturalism; that is, how are they different? Which one is true? Is it possible to believe in both creationism and some form of evolution? These questions can be answered by defining what biblical creationism is and how it affects our fundamental belief system.
The importance of biblical creationism is that it answers the fundamental questions of human existence:
1. How did we get here? Where did we come from?
2. Why are we here? Do we have a purpose, and what is the cause of all or our problems? Are the issues of sin and salvation important?
3. What happens to us when we die? Is there life after death? A person’s stance on origins is important because Genesis is the foundation for the rest of Scripture, in which these questions are answered. Genesis has been likened to the root of a tree in that it anchors Scripture. If you cut the root from a tree, the tree dies. If you discredit Genesis, you remove the authoritative value of all Scripture.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This gives us three great truths foundational to biblical creationism and the Christian faith. First, God is one. This stands in contrast to the polytheism of the pagans and the dualism of modern humanist philosophy. Second, God is personal and exists outside of creation. This is in contrast to pantheism, which sees God as immanent but not transcendent. Last, God is omnipotent and eternal. This is in contrast to the idols that people worship. God was before, is now, and always will be—He created all that is out of nothing by His spoken word.
This answers our creation question of beginnings, but what about our second question: why are we here?
Biblical creationism answers the question of the condition of the human race. Genesis 3 deals with the fall of man but also gives us the hope of redemption. It is important that we understand we are unified in one man, Adam—a literal, real-life person. If Adam is not a literal person, then we have no plausible explanation for how sin entered into the world. If mankind, in Adam, did not fall from grace, then mankind cannot be saved by grace through Jesus Christ. First Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (NJKV). This parallel—Adam is the head of the fallen race, and Christ is the head of a redeemed race—is important to our understanding of salvation. “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19, NKJV).
We must look to biblical creationism as the basis for our value system. The creation narrative must be factual and not just a myth, for, if it is fictional, then the values it imports are man-reasoned, subject to change as man “evolves,” and therefore invalid. The basis of the modern-day conflict between science and religion (especially Christianity) is the assumption that (atheistic) science is fact and religion is merely superstition and myth. If this were true, then our Christian values are just that—values for Christians with no relevance in the secular world.
The last basic question for mankind is what happens to us when we die? If man is merely part of an un-designed and accidental universe and simply changes from one kind of matter to another when he dies, it means we have no soul or spirit and this life is all there is. This belief leaves us with only one purpose in life: to follow the plan of evolution, which is survival of the fittest.
Christianity, on the other hand, presents us with a moral good established by a transcendent, supernatural Being. The moral nature of God sets an unchanging standard that not only promotes a better life for us personally but also teaches us how to love others and ultimately bring glory to our Creator. This standard is exemplified by Christ. It is through His life, death, and resurrection that we find purpose for this life and hope of a future life with God in heaven.
Biblical creationism is important because it is the only system that answers the basic questions of life and gives us significance greater than ourselves. It should be clear to all Christians that creationism and naturalism are mutually exclusive and stand in opposition to one another.
Recommended Resource: Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design edited by Stump & Gundry
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Why did Jesus speak so strongly against lukewarm faith?
Question: "Why did Jesus speak so strongly against lukewarm faith?"
Answer: In Revelation 3:14–21, the Lord is describing the “lukewarm” heart attitude of those in the Laodicean church, an attitude manifested by their deeds. The Laodiceans were neither cold nor hot in relation to God, just lukewarm. Hot water can cleanse and purify; cold water can refresh and enliven. But lukewarm water carries no similar value. The Laodiceans understood the Lord’s analogy because their city drinking water came over an aqueduct from a spring six miles to the south, and it arrived disgustingly lukewarm. Laodicean water was not hot like the nearby hot springs that people bathed in, nor was it refreshingly cold for drinking. It was lukewarm, good for nothing. In fact, it was nauseating, and that was the Lord’s response to the Laodiceans—they sickened Him, and He said, “I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (verse 16).
The letter to the church at Laodicea is the harshest of the seven letters to the churches in Asia Minor. By His indictment of their “deeds” (Revelation 3:15), Jesus makes it clear that this is a dead church. The members of this church see themselves as “rich” and self-sufficient, but the Lord sees them as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (verse 17). Their lukewarm faith was hypocritical; their church was full of unconverted, pretend Christians.
Jesus frequently equates deeds with a person’s true spiritual state: “By their fruit you will recognize them,” and “Every good tree bears good fruit” (Matthew 7:16–17). Clearly, the lukewarm deeds of the Laodiceans were not in keeping with true salvation. The deeds of the true believer will be “hot” or “cold”—that is, they will benefit the world in some way and reflect the spiritual passion of a life transformed. Lukewarm deeds, however—those done without joy, without love, and without the fire of the Spirit—do harm to the watching world. The lukewarm are those who claim to know God but live as though He doesn’t exist. They may go to church and practice a form of religion, but their inner state is one of self-righteous complacency. They claim to be Christians, but their hearts are unchanged, and their hypocrisy is sickening to God.
The fact that the lukewarm individuals to whom Christ speaks are not saved is seen in the picture of Jesus standing outside of the church (Revelation 3:20). He has not yet been welcomed into their midst. In love, the Lord rebukes and disciplines them, commanding them to repent (verse 19). He sees their lukewarm attitudes as “shameful nakedness” that needs to be clothed in the white garments of true righteousness (verse 18). He urges them to be earnest, or zealous, and commit themselves totally to Him. Our Lord is gracious and long-suffering and gives the lukewarm time to repent.
The Laodiceans enjoyed material prosperity that, coupled with a semblance of true religion, led them to a false sense of security and independence (see Mark 10:23). The expression “I am rich; I have acquired wealth” (Revelation 3:17) stresses that the wealth attained came though self-exertion. Spiritually, they had great needs. A self-sufficient attitude and lukewarm faith are constant dangers when people live lives of ease and prosperity.
Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: In Revelation 3:14–21, the Lord is describing the “lukewarm” heart attitude of those in the Laodicean church, an attitude manifested by their deeds. The Laodiceans were neither cold nor hot in relation to God, just lukewarm. Hot water can cleanse and purify; cold water can refresh and enliven. But lukewarm water carries no similar value. The Laodiceans understood the Lord’s analogy because their city drinking water came over an aqueduct from a spring six miles to the south, and it arrived disgustingly lukewarm. Laodicean water was not hot like the nearby hot springs that people bathed in, nor was it refreshingly cold for drinking. It was lukewarm, good for nothing. In fact, it was nauseating, and that was the Lord’s response to the Laodiceans—they sickened Him, and He said, “I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (verse 16).
The letter to the church at Laodicea is the harshest of the seven letters to the churches in Asia Minor. By His indictment of their “deeds” (Revelation 3:15), Jesus makes it clear that this is a dead church. The members of this church see themselves as “rich” and self-sufficient, but the Lord sees them as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (verse 17). Their lukewarm faith was hypocritical; their church was full of unconverted, pretend Christians.
Jesus frequently equates deeds with a person’s true spiritual state: “By their fruit you will recognize them,” and “Every good tree bears good fruit” (Matthew 7:16–17). Clearly, the lukewarm deeds of the Laodiceans were not in keeping with true salvation. The deeds of the true believer will be “hot” or “cold”—that is, they will benefit the world in some way and reflect the spiritual passion of a life transformed. Lukewarm deeds, however—those done without joy, without love, and without the fire of the Spirit—do harm to the watching world. The lukewarm are those who claim to know God but live as though He doesn’t exist. They may go to church and practice a form of religion, but their inner state is one of self-righteous complacency. They claim to be Christians, but their hearts are unchanged, and their hypocrisy is sickening to God.
The fact that the lukewarm individuals to whom Christ speaks are not saved is seen in the picture of Jesus standing outside of the church (Revelation 3:20). He has not yet been welcomed into their midst. In love, the Lord rebukes and disciplines them, commanding them to repent (verse 19). He sees their lukewarm attitudes as “shameful nakedness” that needs to be clothed in the white garments of true righteousness (verse 18). He urges them to be earnest, or zealous, and commit themselves totally to Him. Our Lord is gracious and long-suffering and gives the lukewarm time to repent.
The Laodiceans enjoyed material prosperity that, coupled with a semblance of true religion, led them to a false sense of security and independence (see Mark 10:23). The expression “I am rich; I have acquired wealth” (Revelation 3:17) stresses that the wealth attained came though self-exertion. Spiritually, they had great needs. A self-sufficient attitude and lukewarm faith are constant dangers when people live lives of ease and prosperity.
Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Why do the four Gospels seem to present a different message of salvation than the rest of the New Testament?
Question: "Why do the four Gospels seem to present a different message of salvation than the rest of the New Testament?"
Answer: We must keep in mind that the Bible is intended to be taken as a whole. The books preceding the Four Gospels are anticipatory, and the books that follow are explanatory. Throughout the whole Bible, what God requires is faith (Genesis 15:6; Psalm 2:12; Habakkuk 2:4; Matthew 9:28; John 20:27; Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 10:39). Salvation comes not by our own works but by trusting what God does on our behalf.
Each of the Gospels has its own emphasis on the ministry of Christ. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, proving that He is the long-awaited Messiah. Mark writes a fast-paced, condensed account, recording Jesus’ miraculous deeds and not recording His long discourses. Luke portrays Jesus as the remedy of the world’s ills, emphasizing His perfect humanity and humane concern for the weak, the suffering, and the outcast. John emphasizes Jesus’ deity by selecting many conversations and sayings of Jesus on the subject and also including "signs" that prove He is the Son of God.
The Four Gospels work together to provide a complete testimony of Jesus, a beautiful portrait of the God-Man. Although the Gospels differ slightly in theme, the central Subject is the same. All present Jesus as the One who died to save sinners. All record His resurrection. Whether the writers presented Jesus as the King, the Servant, the Son of Man, or the Son of God, they had the common goal that people believe in Him.
we’ll delve into the theology of the Gospels now. John includes many statements of faith and commands to believe. These inclusions fit his stated purpose, "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name" (John 20:31). The other Gospels (the Synoptics) are no less concerned that we trust in Christ. Their appeals to faith are less overt but are just as genuine.
Jesus proclaims the need for righteousness, and He warns of the penalty of sin, which is hell. However, Jesus always presents God as the standard of righteousness and Himself as the means of righteousness. Without Christ, righteousness is unattainable and hell is inevitable. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7) is a case in point:
- Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with a description of the blessed life (Matthew 5:1–12). The Beatitudes are not telling us "how to" be righteous, but are simply describing righteousness.
- He presents Himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17–18). This is a key verse because, to earn our own righteousness, we must fulfill the law; here, Jesus says that He will do it for us.
- He says that no amount of our own good works will gain us entrance to heaven (Matthew 5:20). This is another important statement in the sermon. The Pharisees were the most religious people of the day, but Jesus says even they are not good enough to enter heaven. Jesus will go on to say that it’s not a religious system that saves, but He Himself.
- He deepens the understanding of righteousness and defines it according to God’s standard, instead of man’s interpretation of the law (Matthew 5:21–48). He explains God’s intent behind several Old Testament laws. The standard is so high as to make everyone, even the most dedicated religious practitioner, guilty before God.
- He describes three popular religious activities—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting—as hypocritical when practiced by the outwardly religious (Matthew 6:1–18). Jesus’ focus, as with the laws He just mentioned, is the heart condition of man, not the works we can see.
- He warns that there will be "many" in the day of judgment who will have performed great works for God yet will be turned away from heaven (Matthew 7:21–23). The reason given is that Jesus never "knew" them. There was no familial relationship, only "good" works, which is not enough.
- Jesus concludes the Sermon on the Mount with the audacious statement that He alone is the foundation for building one’s religious life (Matthew 7:24–27). It is an appeal to trust "these sayings of Mine" enough to abandon all other foundations.
To summarize, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus meticulously deconstructs the pharisaical religion of good works, points to a holiness greater than our own, and offers Himself as the sole basis of religion. Accepting what Jesus says in this sermon requires faith in His Person.
Matthew’s Gospel goes on to emphasize faith in at least the following verses: Matthew 8:10, 13, 26; 9:2, 22, 28-29; 12:21; 13:58; 14:31; 15:28; 16:8; 17:17; and 18:6. Also, Matthew includes a very clear presentation of Jesus as the Son of God in this exchange: "He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven’" (Matthew 16:15-17).
Mark’s Gospel contains at least the following references to faith in Christ: Mark 1:15; 2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:6; 9:19, 23, 42; 10:52; 11:23; and 16:14. In Luke’s Gospel we see at least these verses promoting faith in Christ: Luke 5:20; 7:9, 50; 8:12, 25, 48, 50; 9:41; 12:28, 46; 17:19; 18:8, 42; and 24:25. As we continue to see Scripture as a unified whole, we will see that there is only one message of salvation, and the Four Gospels provide the basis for that message.
The Epistles, which follow the Gospels, elaborate upon the same theme: salvation by faith in Christ. The overarching theme of Romans is the righteousness that comes through God and the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. The central theme of Galatians and Colossians is the same. The book of Hebrews stresses the pre-eminence and perfection of Christ, the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). First and Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus, Philemon, James, 1 and 2 Peter, all describe the holy living, both personally and corporately within the church, and the hope for the future that should be the natural result of life in Christ. The three epistles of John reiterate the basics of the faith and warn against those who would call them into question, also the main theme of Jude. Revelation, the final book of the New Testament, presents the last act of God’s plan for mankind and the fate of those who hold onto the same faith expounded in the entirety of the New Testament—faith in Christ alone.
Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: We must keep in mind that the Bible is intended to be taken as a whole. The books preceding the Four Gospels are anticipatory, and the books that follow are explanatory. Throughout the whole Bible, what God requires is faith (Genesis 15:6; Psalm 2:12; Habakkuk 2:4; Matthew 9:28; John 20:27; Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 10:39). Salvation comes not by our own works but by trusting what God does on our behalf.
Each of the Gospels has its own emphasis on the ministry of Christ. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, proving that He is the long-awaited Messiah. Mark writes a fast-paced, condensed account, recording Jesus’ miraculous deeds and not recording His long discourses. Luke portrays Jesus as the remedy of the world’s ills, emphasizing His perfect humanity and humane concern for the weak, the suffering, and the outcast. John emphasizes Jesus’ deity by selecting many conversations and sayings of Jesus on the subject and also including "signs" that prove He is the Son of God.
The Four Gospels work together to provide a complete testimony of Jesus, a beautiful portrait of the God-Man. Although the Gospels differ slightly in theme, the central Subject is the same. All present Jesus as the One who died to save sinners. All record His resurrection. Whether the writers presented Jesus as the King, the Servant, the Son of Man, or the Son of God, they had the common goal that people believe in Him.
we’ll delve into the theology of the Gospels now. John includes many statements of faith and commands to believe. These inclusions fit his stated purpose, "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name" (John 20:31). The other Gospels (the Synoptics) are no less concerned that we trust in Christ. Their appeals to faith are less overt but are just as genuine.
Jesus proclaims the need for righteousness, and He warns of the penalty of sin, which is hell. However, Jesus always presents God as the standard of righteousness and Himself as the means of righteousness. Without Christ, righteousness is unattainable and hell is inevitable. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7) is a case in point:
- Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with a description of the blessed life (Matthew 5:1–12). The Beatitudes are not telling us "how to" be righteous, but are simply describing righteousness.
- He presents Himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17–18). This is a key verse because, to earn our own righteousness, we must fulfill the law; here, Jesus says that He will do it for us.
- He says that no amount of our own good works will gain us entrance to heaven (Matthew 5:20). This is another important statement in the sermon. The Pharisees were the most religious people of the day, but Jesus says even they are not good enough to enter heaven. Jesus will go on to say that it’s not a religious system that saves, but He Himself.
- He deepens the understanding of righteousness and defines it according to God’s standard, instead of man’s interpretation of the law (Matthew 5:21–48). He explains God’s intent behind several Old Testament laws. The standard is so high as to make everyone, even the most dedicated religious practitioner, guilty before God.
- He describes three popular religious activities—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting—as hypocritical when practiced by the outwardly religious (Matthew 6:1–18). Jesus’ focus, as with the laws He just mentioned, is the heart condition of man, not the works we can see.
- He warns that there will be "many" in the day of judgment who will have performed great works for God yet will be turned away from heaven (Matthew 7:21–23). The reason given is that Jesus never "knew" them. There was no familial relationship, only "good" works, which is not enough.
- Jesus concludes the Sermon on the Mount with the audacious statement that He alone is the foundation for building one’s religious life (Matthew 7:24–27). It is an appeal to trust "these sayings of Mine" enough to abandon all other foundations.
To summarize, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus meticulously deconstructs the pharisaical religion of good works, points to a holiness greater than our own, and offers Himself as the sole basis of religion. Accepting what Jesus says in this sermon requires faith in His Person.
Matthew’s Gospel goes on to emphasize faith in at least the following verses: Matthew 8:10, 13, 26; 9:2, 22, 28-29; 12:21; 13:58; 14:31; 15:28; 16:8; 17:17; and 18:6. Also, Matthew includes a very clear presentation of Jesus as the Son of God in this exchange: "He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven’" (Matthew 16:15-17).
Mark’s Gospel contains at least the following references to faith in Christ: Mark 1:15; 2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:6; 9:19, 23, 42; 10:52; 11:23; and 16:14. In Luke’s Gospel we see at least these verses promoting faith in Christ: Luke 5:20; 7:9, 50; 8:12, 25, 48, 50; 9:41; 12:28, 46; 17:19; 18:8, 42; and 24:25. As we continue to see Scripture as a unified whole, we will see that there is only one message of salvation, and the Four Gospels provide the basis for that message.
The Epistles, which follow the Gospels, elaborate upon the same theme: salvation by faith in Christ. The overarching theme of Romans is the righteousness that comes through God and the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. The central theme of Galatians and Colossians is the same. The book of Hebrews stresses the pre-eminence and perfection of Christ, the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). First and Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus, Philemon, James, 1 and 2 Peter, all describe the holy living, both personally and corporately within the church, and the hope for the future that should be the natural result of life in Christ. The three epistles of John reiterate the basics of the faith and warn against those who would call them into question, also the main theme of Jude. Revelation, the final book of the New Testament, presents the last act of God’s plan for mankind and the fate of those who hold onto the same faith expounded in the entirety of the New Testament—faith in Christ alone.
Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Can monotheism be proven?
Question: "Can monotheism be proven?"
Answer: The word “monotheism” comes from two words, “mono” meaning “single” and “theism” meaning “belief in God.” Specifically, monotheism is the belief in one true God who is the only creator, sustainer, and judge of all creation. Monotheism differs from “henotheism,” which is the belief in multiple gods with one supreme God over all. It is also opposed to polytheism, which is the belief in the existence of more than one god.
There are many arguments for monotheism, including those from special revelation (Scripture), natural revelation (philosophy), as well as historical anthropology. These will only be explained briefly below, and this should not in any way be considered an exhaustive list.
Biblical arguments for Monotheism - Deuteronomy 4:35: “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides Him there is no other.” Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Malachi 2:10a, “Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” 1 Corinthians 8:6: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” Ephesians 4:6: “One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” James 2:19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
Obviously, for many people, it wouldn’t suffice to simply say that there is only one God because the Bible says so. This is because without God there is no way to prove that the Bible is His Word in the first place. However, one might argue that since the Bible has the most reliable supernatural evidence confirming what it teaches, monotheism can be affirmed on these grounds. A similar argument would be the beliefs and teaching of Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God (or at the very least approved by God) by His miraculous birth, life, and the miracle of His resurrection. God cannot lie or be deceived; therefore, what Jesus believed and taught was true. Therefore, monotheism, which Jesus believed and taught, is true. This argument may not be very impressive to those unfamiliar with the case for the supernatural confirmations of Scripture and Christ, but this is a good place to start for one who is familiar with its strength.
Historical arguments for Monotheism - Arguments based on popularity are notoriously suspect, but it is interesting just how much monotheism has affected world religions. The popular evolutionary theory of religious development stems from an evolutionary view of reality in general, and the presupposition of evolutionary anthropology which sees “primitive” cultures as representing the earlier stages of religious development. But the problems with this evolutionary theory are several. 1) The kind of development it describes has never been observed; in fact, there seems to be no upward development toward monotheism within any culture—actually the opposite seems to be the case. 2) The anthropological method’s definition of “primitive” equates to technological development, yet this is hardly a satisfactory criterion as there are so many components to a given culture. 3) The alleged stages are often missing or skipped. 4) Finally, most polytheistic cultures show vestiges of monotheism early in their development.
What we find is a monotheistic God who is personal, masculine, lives in the sky, has great knowledge and power, created the world, is the author of a morality to which we are accountable, and whom we have disobeyed and are thus estranged from, but who has also provided a way of reconciliation. Virtually every religion carries a variation of this God at some point in its past before devolving into the chaos of polytheism. Thus, it seems that most religions have begun in monotheism and “devolved” into polytheism, animism, and magic—not vice versa. (Islam is a very rare case, having come full circle back into a monotheistic belief.) Even with this movement, polytheism is often functionally monotheistic or henotheistic. It is a rare polytheistic religion which does not hold one of its gods as sovereign over the rest, with the lesser gods only functioning as intermediaries.
Philosophical/Theological arguments for Monotheism - There are many philosophical arguments for the impossibility of there being more than one God in existence. Many of these depend a great deal on one’s metaphysical position concerning the nature of reality. Unfortunately, in an article this short it would be impossible to argue for these basic metaphysical positions and then go on to show what they point to regarding monotheism, but rest assured that there are strong philosophical and theological grounds for these truths that go back millennia (and most are fairly self-evident). Briefly, then, here are three arguments one might choose to explore:
1. If there were more than one God, the universe would be in disorder because of multiple creators and authorities, but it is not in disorder; therefore, there is only one God.
2. Since God is a completely perfect being, there cannot be a second God, for they would have to differ in some way, and to differ from complete perfection is to be less than perfect and not be God.
3. Since God is infinite in His existence, He cannot have parts (for parts cannot be added to reach infinity). If God’s existence is not just a part of Him (which it is for all things which can have existence or not), then He must have infinite existence. Therefore, there cannot be two infinite beings, for one would have to differ from the other.
Someone may wish to argue that many of these would not rule out a sub-class of “gods,” and that is fine. Although we know this to be untrue biblically, there is nothing wrong with it in theory. In other words, God could have created a sub-class of “gods,” but it just happens to be the case that He did not. If He had, these “gods” would only be limited, created things—probably a lot like angels (Psalm 82). This does not hurt the case for monotheism, which does not say that there cannot be any other spirit beings—only that there cannot be more than one God.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: The word “monotheism” comes from two words, “mono” meaning “single” and “theism” meaning “belief in God.” Specifically, monotheism is the belief in one true God who is the only creator, sustainer, and judge of all creation. Monotheism differs from “henotheism,” which is the belief in multiple gods with one supreme God over all. It is also opposed to polytheism, which is the belief in the existence of more than one god.
There are many arguments for monotheism, including those from special revelation (Scripture), natural revelation (philosophy), as well as historical anthropology. These will only be explained briefly below, and this should not in any way be considered an exhaustive list.
Biblical arguments for Monotheism - Deuteronomy 4:35: “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides Him there is no other.” Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Malachi 2:10a, “Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” 1 Corinthians 8:6: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” Ephesians 4:6: “One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” James 2:19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
Obviously, for many people, it wouldn’t suffice to simply say that there is only one God because the Bible says so. This is because without God there is no way to prove that the Bible is His Word in the first place. However, one might argue that since the Bible has the most reliable supernatural evidence confirming what it teaches, monotheism can be affirmed on these grounds. A similar argument would be the beliefs and teaching of Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God (or at the very least approved by God) by His miraculous birth, life, and the miracle of His resurrection. God cannot lie or be deceived; therefore, what Jesus believed and taught was true. Therefore, monotheism, which Jesus believed and taught, is true. This argument may not be very impressive to those unfamiliar with the case for the supernatural confirmations of Scripture and Christ, but this is a good place to start for one who is familiar with its strength.
Historical arguments for Monotheism - Arguments based on popularity are notoriously suspect, but it is interesting just how much monotheism has affected world religions. The popular evolutionary theory of religious development stems from an evolutionary view of reality in general, and the presupposition of evolutionary anthropology which sees “primitive” cultures as representing the earlier stages of religious development. But the problems with this evolutionary theory are several. 1) The kind of development it describes has never been observed; in fact, there seems to be no upward development toward monotheism within any culture—actually the opposite seems to be the case. 2) The anthropological method’s definition of “primitive” equates to technological development, yet this is hardly a satisfactory criterion as there are so many components to a given culture. 3) The alleged stages are often missing or skipped. 4) Finally, most polytheistic cultures show vestiges of monotheism early in their development.
What we find is a monotheistic God who is personal, masculine, lives in the sky, has great knowledge and power, created the world, is the author of a morality to which we are accountable, and whom we have disobeyed and are thus estranged from, but who has also provided a way of reconciliation. Virtually every religion carries a variation of this God at some point in its past before devolving into the chaos of polytheism. Thus, it seems that most religions have begun in monotheism and “devolved” into polytheism, animism, and magic—not vice versa. (Islam is a very rare case, having come full circle back into a monotheistic belief.) Even with this movement, polytheism is often functionally monotheistic or henotheistic. It is a rare polytheistic religion which does not hold one of its gods as sovereign over the rest, with the lesser gods only functioning as intermediaries.
Philosophical/Theological arguments for Monotheism - There are many philosophical arguments for the impossibility of there being more than one God in existence. Many of these depend a great deal on one’s metaphysical position concerning the nature of reality. Unfortunately, in an article this short it would be impossible to argue for these basic metaphysical positions and then go on to show what they point to regarding monotheism, but rest assured that there are strong philosophical and theological grounds for these truths that go back millennia (and most are fairly self-evident). Briefly, then, here are three arguments one might choose to explore:
1. If there were more than one God, the universe would be in disorder because of multiple creators and authorities, but it is not in disorder; therefore, there is only one God.
2. Since God is a completely perfect being, there cannot be a second God, for they would have to differ in some way, and to differ from complete perfection is to be less than perfect and not be God.
3. Since God is infinite in His existence, He cannot have parts (for parts cannot be added to reach infinity). If God’s existence is not just a part of Him (which it is for all things which can have existence or not), then He must have infinite existence. Therefore, there cannot be two infinite beings, for one would have to differ from the other.
Someone may wish to argue that many of these would not rule out a sub-class of “gods,” and that is fine. Although we know this to be untrue biblically, there is nothing wrong with it in theory. In other words, God could have created a sub-class of “gods,” but it just happens to be the case that He did not. If He had, these “gods” would only be limited, created things—probably a lot like angels (Psalm 82). This does not hurt the case for monotheism, which does not say that there cannot be any other spirit beings—only that there cannot be more than one God.
Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?
Question: "Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?"
Answer: It is important to distinguish between the terms "science" and "scientific community." Science is a discipline concerned with observing, experimenting with, and explaining phenomena. The scientific community is composed of the living human persons who participate in this discipline. The distinction is important, because there is no logical contradiction between science and creationism. Science is a generic term for a type of study, while creationism is a philosophy applied to the interpretation of facts. The scientific community, as it exists today, holds naturalism as the preferred philosophy, but there is no overt reason why naturalism should be preferred by science over creationism.
In general, there is a perception that creationism is "unscientific." This is partly true, in the sense that creationism entails certain assumptions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified. However, naturalism is in exactly the same predicament, as an untestable, unprovable, non-falsifiable philosophy. The facts discovered in scientific research are only that: facts. Facts and interpretations are two different things. The current scientific community rejects, in general, the concepts of creationism, and so they define it as "unscientific." This is highly ironic, given the scientific community’s preference for an interpretive philosophy—naturalism—that is just as "unscientific" as creationism.
There are many reasons for this tendency towards naturalism in science. Creationism involves the intervention of a supernatural being, and science is primarily concerned with tangible and physical things. For this reason, some in the scientific community fear that creationism will lead to a "God of the Gaps" dilemma, where scientific questions are shrugged off by the explanation, "God did it." Experience has shown that this is not the case. Some of the greatest names in scientific history were staunch creationists. Their belief in God inspired them to ask, "How did God do it?" Among these names are Pascal, Maxwell, and Kelvin. On the other hand, an unreasonable commitment to naturalism can degrade scientific discovery. A naturalistic framework requires a scientist to ignore results that do not fit the established paradigm. That is, when new data does not correlate to the naturalistic view, it is assumed to be invalid and discarded.
There are distinct religious overtones to creationism. Science is only as objective as those who participate in it, and those persons are just as subject to bias as in any other field. There are those who reject creationism in favor of naturalism purely for personal "moral" reasons. In fact, this number is probably much higher than would be admitted to. Most people who reject the concepts of God do so primarily because they disagree with some perceived restriction or unfairness, despite claims to the contrary, and this is as true for those in lab coats as those in coveralls.
In the same way, an unfriendly attitude in the scientific community has had its impact on the perception of creationism. Science has benefited from creationist contributors for centuries; yet today the scientific community, at large, takes a hostile and condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn’t take a naturalistic perspective. This open hostility towards creationist views, and religion in general, creates a strong incentive for persons with those views to avoid scientific study. Those who do often feel compelled to remain silent for fear of ridicule. In this way, the scientific community has degraded and "pushed out" a segment of the population, and then has the audacity to claim that a lowered percentage of creationists in their ranks is evidence of naturalism’s superior scientific merit.
There are also political reasons for the scientific community’s hostility towards creationism and religion in general. Christianity, more so than any other religious system, places immense value on every individual human life. This causes tensions with the scientific community when that concern for life gets in the way of some type of scientific process. Christian values tend to act as a brake on experiments or positions that cause harm to people, or that destroy or damage human life. Examples include embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia. In other cases, Christian values butt heads with secular ones when science promotes certain sinful activities by making them easier. While naturalistic scientists may see this as an unnecessary hindrance, they should consider what happens when scientific research is conducted with no regard for morality or conscience. Echoing this idea was actor Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park. He stated, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
There is also a level of competition between the scientific community and the religious community over power, producing additional tensions between science and creationism. As even some leading skeptic scientists have admitted, there is a tendency for the scientific community to position itself, even subconsciously, as a priesthood. This secular priesthood has the wondrous and elite knowledge that the laymen need for salvation, and cannot be questioned by any outsiders. In plain terms, religiously tinged ideas, such as creationism, impinge on the scientific community’s claim to superior knowledge of the universe.
While there may be many reasons for tension between the scientific community and creationism, there are plenty of reasons why they should be able to coexist peacefully. There are no logically valid reasons to reject creationism in favor of naturalism, as the scientific community has done. Creationism does not inhibit discovery, as evidenced by the titans of science who believed strongly in it. The derisive attitude spewed at creationists has diminished the number of capable and willing minds in many fields. Creationism has much to offer science and the scientific community. The God who made the universe revealed Himself through it (Psalm 19:1); the more we know about His creation, the more glory He receives!
Recommended Resource: The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Philip Johnson
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: It is important to distinguish between the terms "science" and "scientific community." Science is a discipline concerned with observing, experimenting with, and explaining phenomena. The scientific community is composed of the living human persons who participate in this discipline. The distinction is important, because there is no logical contradiction between science and creationism. Science is a generic term for a type of study, while creationism is a philosophy applied to the interpretation of facts. The scientific community, as it exists today, holds naturalism as the preferred philosophy, but there is no overt reason why naturalism should be preferred by science over creationism.
In general, there is a perception that creationism is "unscientific." This is partly true, in the sense that creationism entails certain assumptions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified. However, naturalism is in exactly the same predicament, as an untestable, unprovable, non-falsifiable philosophy. The facts discovered in scientific research are only that: facts. Facts and interpretations are two different things. The current scientific community rejects, in general, the concepts of creationism, and so they define it as "unscientific." This is highly ironic, given the scientific community’s preference for an interpretive philosophy—naturalism—that is just as "unscientific" as creationism.
There are many reasons for this tendency towards naturalism in science. Creationism involves the intervention of a supernatural being, and science is primarily concerned with tangible and physical things. For this reason, some in the scientific community fear that creationism will lead to a "God of the Gaps" dilemma, where scientific questions are shrugged off by the explanation, "God did it." Experience has shown that this is not the case. Some of the greatest names in scientific history were staunch creationists. Their belief in God inspired them to ask, "How did God do it?" Among these names are Pascal, Maxwell, and Kelvin. On the other hand, an unreasonable commitment to naturalism can degrade scientific discovery. A naturalistic framework requires a scientist to ignore results that do not fit the established paradigm. That is, when new data does not correlate to the naturalistic view, it is assumed to be invalid and discarded.
There are distinct religious overtones to creationism. Science is only as objective as those who participate in it, and those persons are just as subject to bias as in any other field. There are those who reject creationism in favor of naturalism purely for personal "moral" reasons. In fact, this number is probably much higher than would be admitted to. Most people who reject the concepts of God do so primarily because they disagree with some perceived restriction or unfairness, despite claims to the contrary, and this is as true for those in lab coats as those in coveralls.
In the same way, an unfriendly attitude in the scientific community has had its impact on the perception of creationism. Science has benefited from creationist contributors for centuries; yet today the scientific community, at large, takes a hostile and condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn’t take a naturalistic perspective. This open hostility towards creationist views, and religion in general, creates a strong incentive for persons with those views to avoid scientific study. Those who do often feel compelled to remain silent for fear of ridicule. In this way, the scientific community has degraded and "pushed out" a segment of the population, and then has the audacity to claim that a lowered percentage of creationists in their ranks is evidence of naturalism’s superior scientific merit.
There are also political reasons for the scientific community’s hostility towards creationism and religion in general. Christianity, more so than any other religious system, places immense value on every individual human life. This causes tensions with the scientific community when that concern for life gets in the way of some type of scientific process. Christian values tend to act as a brake on experiments or positions that cause harm to people, or that destroy or damage human life. Examples include embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia. In other cases, Christian values butt heads with secular ones when science promotes certain sinful activities by making them easier. While naturalistic scientists may see this as an unnecessary hindrance, they should consider what happens when scientific research is conducted with no regard for morality or conscience. Echoing this idea was actor Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park. He stated, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
There is also a level of competition between the scientific community and the religious community over power, producing additional tensions between science and creationism. As even some leading skeptic scientists have admitted, there is a tendency for the scientific community to position itself, even subconsciously, as a priesthood. This secular priesthood has the wondrous and elite knowledge that the laymen need for salvation, and cannot be questioned by any outsiders. In plain terms, religiously tinged ideas, such as creationism, impinge on the scientific community’s claim to superior knowledge of the universe.
While there may be many reasons for tension between the scientific community and creationism, there are plenty of reasons why they should be able to coexist peacefully. There are no logically valid reasons to reject creationism in favor of naturalism, as the scientific community has done. Creationism does not inhibit discovery, as evidenced by the titans of science who believed strongly in it. The derisive attitude spewed at creationists has diminished the number of capable and willing minds in many fields. Creationism has much to offer science and the scientific community. The God who made the universe revealed Himself through it (Psalm 19:1); the more we know about His creation, the more glory He receives!
Recommended Resource: The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Philip Johnson
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
What does it mean to have a form of godliness but deny its power in 2 Timothy 3:5?
Question: "What does it mean to have a form of godliness but deny its power in 2 Timothy 3:5?"
Answer: In 2 Timothy 3, the apostle Paul describes the nature of people in the last days. In his description, he warns of people who are characterized as “having a form of godliness but denying its power” (verse 5). Paul then issues this command: “Have nothing to do with such people.”
Paul often uses contrast to emphasize an attribute he wishes to highlight. In 2 Timothy 3:1–4, he gives Timothy a long list of sinful behaviors and attitudes that are contrary to God’s will. In verse 5 he tells Timothy to avoid those who state they are Christians with their mouths—they have a “form” of godliness—but who act as unbelievers—they deny the power of godliness.
Those who have a form of godliness are those who make an outward display of religion. They present themselves as godly, but it is all for show. There is no power behind their religion, as evidenced in the fact that their lives are unchanged. They speak of God and live in sin, and they are fine with that arrangement. As commentator Charles Ellicott wrote, “These, by claiming the title of Christians, wearing before men the uniform of Christ, but by their lives dishonouring His name, did the gravest injury to the holy Christian cause” (Ellicott’s Bible Commentary for English Readers, entry for 2 Timothy 3:5).
These false Christians are destructive. Paul warns that they will “creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts” and that they are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:6–7, NKJV). He compares them to the wicked magicians who opposed Moses and warns that their folly and corrupt minds will be revealed to all eventually (verses 8–9).
The power of God, which should accompany the form of godliness, is shown through the Holy Spirit and results in the transformation of our lives. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer (1 Corinthians 6:19) and enables him to bear certain fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22–23). These are the attributes of a true Christian, as opposed to Paul’s list of sins in 2 Timothy 3:1–4.
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy falls in line with James’ explanation how to identify a true faith (James 2:14–26). True faith will be evidenced by good works, which will occur naturally. If a person says he is a Christian but shows no evidence in his life by bearing the fruit of the Spirit, we have to make a judgment about him and avoid that person. He may have a form of godliness, but he is denying God’s power by not letting himself be controlled by the Spirit. In fact, if his faith is not genuine, he cannot be controlled by God’s power, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in him.
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The natural person may have a form of godliness, but he denies God’s power in the way he lives. Only faith in Jesus Christ can bring justification and the transformation he so desperately needs (Colossians 1:21–22; Romans 5:1–2).
Recommended Resource: 2 Timothy, MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: In 2 Timothy 3, the apostle Paul describes the nature of people in the last days. In his description, he warns of people who are characterized as “having a form of godliness but denying its power” (verse 5). Paul then issues this command: “Have nothing to do with such people.”
Paul often uses contrast to emphasize an attribute he wishes to highlight. In 2 Timothy 3:1–4, he gives Timothy a long list of sinful behaviors and attitudes that are contrary to God’s will. In verse 5 he tells Timothy to avoid those who state they are Christians with their mouths—they have a “form” of godliness—but who act as unbelievers—they deny the power of godliness.
Those who have a form of godliness are those who make an outward display of religion. They present themselves as godly, but it is all for show. There is no power behind their religion, as evidenced in the fact that their lives are unchanged. They speak of God and live in sin, and they are fine with that arrangement. As commentator Charles Ellicott wrote, “These, by claiming the title of Christians, wearing before men the uniform of Christ, but by their lives dishonouring His name, did the gravest injury to the holy Christian cause” (Ellicott’s Bible Commentary for English Readers, entry for 2 Timothy 3:5).
These false Christians are destructive. Paul warns that they will “creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts” and that they are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:6–7, NKJV). He compares them to the wicked magicians who opposed Moses and warns that their folly and corrupt minds will be revealed to all eventually (verses 8–9).
The power of God, which should accompany the form of godliness, is shown through the Holy Spirit and results in the transformation of our lives. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer (1 Corinthians 6:19) and enables him to bear certain fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22–23). These are the attributes of a true Christian, as opposed to Paul’s list of sins in 2 Timothy 3:1–4.
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy falls in line with James’ explanation how to identify a true faith (James 2:14–26). True faith will be evidenced by good works, which will occur naturally. If a person says he is a Christian but shows no evidence in his life by bearing the fruit of the Spirit, we have to make a judgment about him and avoid that person. He may have a form of godliness, but he is denying God’s power by not letting himself be controlled by the Spirit. In fact, if his faith is not genuine, he cannot be controlled by God’s power, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in him.
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The natural person may have a form of godliness, but he denies God’s power in the way he lives. Only faith in Jesus Christ can bring justification and the transformation he so desperately needs (Colossians 1:21–22; Romans 5:1–2).
Recommended Resource: 2 Timothy, MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
How should Christians view Disney?
Question: "How should Christians view Disney?"
Answer: When Walt Disney began a small company in the back of a Los Angeles office in 1923, no one foresaw the phenomenon that was about to take the world by storm. Since then, the Walt Disney Company, in conjunction with its subsidiaries such as Walt Disney Animated Films, Pixar, and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment has produced over 500 projects for the screen as well as thousands of books, toys, and movie memorabilia. Disneyland, Disney World, and Epcot Center theme parks across the world attract millions of visitors every year, putting Disney at number 5 on the Forbes list of top-grossing businesses. With most of its success stemming from the appeal to children, Disney has long been considered a safe and wholesome source of entertainment. But is that still true? How should Christians view Disney?
Since producing its first full-length animated movie in 1937, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Disney name has been a trusted source for high-quality products combined with family values. Though aimed at the child market, Disney classics have captivated audiences of all ages. Animated features such as Pinocchio (1940) have provided artistic excellence while portraying positive moral values like honesty, responsibility, and wisdom in choosing friends. Many people who grew up with Disney cartoons and feature films continue to love everything Disney far into adulthood. However, loyalty to a product tends to render us blind to subtle changes, and, like most 21st-century enterprises, Disney has begun following the downward moral spiral that reflects our increasingly immoral culture.
For the past couple of decades, Christian leaders and family values watchdogs have sounded increasingly loud warnings about Disney’s direction. They site, among other things, the subtle shift away from the Judeo-Christian worldview that most parents wish to instill in their children. From seemingly lesser issues, such as the recurring theme that a beautiful girl needs a Prince Charming to make all her problems go away (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast), to more overt inclusions of openly gay characters (The Disney Channel’s Andi Mack), Disney’s attempts to reflect our changing culture may be, in fact, influencing it.
Other areas of concern about all things Disney include the following:
1. Creation of a “princess culture.” In 2000, Disney introduced the Princess brand of dolls, toys, and accessories representing the fictional heroines of Disney films. What has resulted is something the Washington Post calls a “princess culture.” Several studies have been conducted to determine the effects of this princess culture on children. Surprisingly, most studies indicated that young boys were positively affected by this theme and tended to view their masculinity as a means to protect and rescue damsels in distress. Not so positive were the results of princess culture on little girls. As could be assumed, the idea of every little girl being a “princess” reinforced negative female stereotypes. Disney princesses are always beautiful and usually in need of rescue by a male. Disney has attempted to counter this pattern by producing characters such as Elsa, Anna, Merida, and Rapunzel, but the princess culture may be a contributor to the sense of entitlement (and low self-image) characteristic of a whole generation of young women. Most little girls grow up to find that the adult world does not treat them as princesses.
2. Open support for the LBGTQ agenda. Since the early 1990s, Disney has openly supported homosexual issues. In 1991 Disney World hosted its first gay pride parade and in 1995 offered gay executives health benefits for their partners—an offer that did not extend to heterosexual couples living together. While there is debate over whether certain fictional Disney characters are attempts to normalize homosexual or androgynous lifestyles, the fact is that the Disney Channel has begun introducing “gay” characters such as the “coming out” of Cyrus in season 2 of Andi Mack. Critics argue that, while the real world does contain such perversion, there is no reason to include it in shows designed for children.
3. Favorable portrayals of non-Christian religious practices. Pocahontas (1995) is undoubtedly one of the more egregious films in this category, with its promotion of New Age beliefs and Native American religion. But other Disney films have contained tributes to paganism (Fantasia, 1940) and shamanism (The Lion King, 1994). Disney supporters contend that inclusion of any of these elements does not negate the plethora of positive values and role models Disney also offers. They point out that children are exposed to far more these days than were the children of 50 years ago, and the Walt Disney Company’s questionable themes and support of LGBTQ issues do not affect today’s kids to the degree that children of yesteryear would have been affected. Others argue that parents are not forced to allow their children to view a Disney production they deem inappropriate, so there is no reason to ban Disney altogether.
The final decision for Christians about gray areas such as viewing Disney movies must be a matter of conscience (Romans 14:5). Parents face a dizzying array of choices in rearing children, from schooling options to dietary restrictions. Choice of entertainment is merely one more. The danger comes when parents blindly entrust the moral and spiritual development of their children to any outside influence without thoroughly investigating the potential impact. Movies, TV, toys, and video games are now a huge part of childhood, and wise parents must never blindly assume products are innocuous because of the brand name. Trusting the name of Disney without investigating the specific product is naive at best and spiritually dangerous at worst.
Wise parents keep an ongoing dialogue with their children about what they are seeing and hearing. They train their children in truth from the earliest ages, never delegating moral instruction to the television or movie screen and never assuming those influences are negligible. The Walt Disney Company is no better or worse than any other worldly, for-profit company and should not be treated as such. If Christian parents cannot in good conscience support Disney in any form, they must be up-front and honest with their children as to the reasons. But they must also be consistent with those reasons, or children will smell hypocrisy and all efforts may backfire.
With parental movie review websites readily available, no parent needs to be caught unprepared for what children will see if allowed to attend a Disney movie. The 21st century is not a time for parental laziness or naïveté. Satan is unleashing insanity, deception, and perversion into our world like never before, and Christians are foolish to pretend this world is our friend and shares our values (see James 4:4).
The best safeguard for our children’s developing moral compass is to immerse them in God’s Word from the crib. Parents can teach children to recognize error and speak up about it. They can memorize and meditate together on Philippians 4:8, which says, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Parents must walk children through what that means and allow their children to watch them applying it to their own choices. As they watch a Disney show together and something questionable comes on, wise parents can use that as a teaching moment. They can pause the show (if possible) and talk about what they saw, or they can discuss it later, comparing Disney’s values with the Bible’s truth. Children love to discover contradictions and feel empowered when they spot more errors by themselves.
Christians should view Disney products the way we view everything else this world offers. We may benefit from some aspects of them, but we refuse to be seduced by them. Christian parents must be careful not to imply to young children that, if Disney says or does it, it must be fine. Disney is proving itself untrustworthy as a supporter of biblical values, and wise parents will recognize this and respond accordingly.
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust by Mark Pinsky
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: When Walt Disney began a small company in the back of a Los Angeles office in 1923, no one foresaw the phenomenon that was about to take the world by storm. Since then, the Walt Disney Company, in conjunction with its subsidiaries such as Walt Disney Animated Films, Pixar, and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment has produced over 500 projects for the screen as well as thousands of books, toys, and movie memorabilia. Disneyland, Disney World, and Epcot Center theme parks across the world attract millions of visitors every year, putting Disney at number 5 on the Forbes list of top-grossing businesses. With most of its success stemming from the appeal to children, Disney has long been considered a safe and wholesome source of entertainment. But is that still true? How should Christians view Disney?
Since producing its first full-length animated movie in 1937, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Disney name has been a trusted source for high-quality products combined with family values. Though aimed at the child market, Disney classics have captivated audiences of all ages. Animated features such as Pinocchio (1940) have provided artistic excellence while portraying positive moral values like honesty, responsibility, and wisdom in choosing friends. Many people who grew up with Disney cartoons and feature films continue to love everything Disney far into adulthood. However, loyalty to a product tends to render us blind to subtle changes, and, like most 21st-century enterprises, Disney has begun following the downward moral spiral that reflects our increasingly immoral culture.
For the past couple of decades, Christian leaders and family values watchdogs have sounded increasingly loud warnings about Disney’s direction. They site, among other things, the subtle shift away from the Judeo-Christian worldview that most parents wish to instill in their children. From seemingly lesser issues, such as the recurring theme that a beautiful girl needs a Prince Charming to make all her problems go away (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast), to more overt inclusions of openly gay characters (The Disney Channel’s Andi Mack), Disney’s attempts to reflect our changing culture may be, in fact, influencing it.
Other areas of concern about all things Disney include the following:
1. Creation of a “princess culture.” In 2000, Disney introduced the Princess brand of dolls, toys, and accessories representing the fictional heroines of Disney films. What has resulted is something the Washington Post calls a “princess culture.” Several studies have been conducted to determine the effects of this princess culture on children. Surprisingly, most studies indicated that young boys were positively affected by this theme and tended to view their masculinity as a means to protect and rescue damsels in distress. Not so positive were the results of princess culture on little girls. As could be assumed, the idea of every little girl being a “princess” reinforced negative female stereotypes. Disney princesses are always beautiful and usually in need of rescue by a male. Disney has attempted to counter this pattern by producing characters such as Elsa, Anna, Merida, and Rapunzel, but the princess culture may be a contributor to the sense of entitlement (and low self-image) characteristic of a whole generation of young women. Most little girls grow up to find that the adult world does not treat them as princesses.
2. Open support for the LBGTQ agenda. Since the early 1990s, Disney has openly supported homosexual issues. In 1991 Disney World hosted its first gay pride parade and in 1995 offered gay executives health benefits for their partners—an offer that did not extend to heterosexual couples living together. While there is debate over whether certain fictional Disney characters are attempts to normalize homosexual or androgynous lifestyles, the fact is that the Disney Channel has begun introducing “gay” characters such as the “coming out” of Cyrus in season 2 of Andi Mack. Critics argue that, while the real world does contain such perversion, there is no reason to include it in shows designed for children.
3. Favorable portrayals of non-Christian religious practices. Pocahontas (1995) is undoubtedly one of the more egregious films in this category, with its promotion of New Age beliefs and Native American religion. But other Disney films have contained tributes to paganism (Fantasia, 1940) and shamanism (The Lion King, 1994). Disney supporters contend that inclusion of any of these elements does not negate the plethora of positive values and role models Disney also offers. They point out that children are exposed to far more these days than were the children of 50 years ago, and the Walt Disney Company’s questionable themes and support of LGBTQ issues do not affect today’s kids to the degree that children of yesteryear would have been affected. Others argue that parents are not forced to allow their children to view a Disney production they deem inappropriate, so there is no reason to ban Disney altogether.
The final decision for Christians about gray areas such as viewing Disney movies must be a matter of conscience (Romans 14:5). Parents face a dizzying array of choices in rearing children, from schooling options to dietary restrictions. Choice of entertainment is merely one more. The danger comes when parents blindly entrust the moral and spiritual development of their children to any outside influence without thoroughly investigating the potential impact. Movies, TV, toys, and video games are now a huge part of childhood, and wise parents must never blindly assume products are innocuous because of the brand name. Trusting the name of Disney without investigating the specific product is naive at best and spiritually dangerous at worst.
Wise parents keep an ongoing dialogue with their children about what they are seeing and hearing. They train their children in truth from the earliest ages, never delegating moral instruction to the television or movie screen and never assuming those influences are negligible. The Walt Disney Company is no better or worse than any other worldly, for-profit company and should not be treated as such. If Christian parents cannot in good conscience support Disney in any form, they must be up-front and honest with their children as to the reasons. But they must also be consistent with those reasons, or children will smell hypocrisy and all efforts may backfire.
With parental movie review websites readily available, no parent needs to be caught unprepared for what children will see if allowed to attend a Disney movie. The 21st century is not a time for parental laziness or naïveté. Satan is unleashing insanity, deception, and perversion into our world like never before, and Christians are foolish to pretend this world is our friend and shares our values (see James 4:4).
The best safeguard for our children’s developing moral compass is to immerse them in God’s Word from the crib. Parents can teach children to recognize error and speak up about it. They can memorize and meditate together on Philippians 4:8, which says, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Parents must walk children through what that means and allow their children to watch them applying it to their own choices. As they watch a Disney show together and something questionable comes on, wise parents can use that as a teaching moment. They can pause the show (if possible) and talk about what they saw, or they can discuss it later, comparing Disney’s values with the Bible’s truth. Children love to discover contradictions and feel empowered when they spot more errors by themselves.
Christians should view Disney products the way we view everything else this world offers. We may benefit from some aspects of them, but we refuse to be seduced by them. Christian parents must be careful not to imply to young children that, if Disney says or does it, it must be fine. Disney is proving itself untrustworthy as a supporter of biblical values, and wise parents will recognize this and respond accordingly.
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust by Mark Pinsky
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,344
- Points
- 113
Could an alien deception be part of the end times?
Question: "Could an alien deception be part of the end times?"
Answer: We know that the events surrounding the end times, as described in the Bible, will include a powerful deception (Matthew 24:24). Recently, interest has been rising in the theory that this deception will include alien beings from another planet. Odd as it may seem, this theory is entirely plausible from a Christian perspective. Although the Bible gives us no word about whether or not aliens exist—there is no inclusion of them in the creation account in Genesis, and no mention of them elsewhere—the Bible does tell us about visitors from another world—the spiritual world.
Since the beginning, instances of demons (fallen angels) visiting the earth have been witnessed and recorded. We know from Eve’s encounter with Satan that demons are interested in monitoring (and altering) the progress of humanity. They want to be involved, with the goal of drawing humanity away from the worship of God and turning mankind’s attention instead to them. Another notable instance of their interaction with us is found in Genesis 6:4 with the arrival of the "sons of God." The Genesis account states that these powerful beings had sexual intercourse with women and produced a super race of beings known as the Nephilim. This sounds like the stuff of science fiction, yet it is right there in the Bible. There are striking similarities between this account and the accounts of other ancient cultures. The writings of the ancient Sumerians, for example (who were the first to produce a written language) mention the presence of the “Anunnaki” who were deities that came from heaven to dwell on earth with men. It is also interesting to note that the Sumerians’ gods often came to them in the form of snakes.
These accounts, seen alongside the amazing things created by ancient man, make it possible to theorize that demons, in the form of beings from another world, came to earth, bringing spectacular wisdom and knowledge to men, and “intermarrying” with their daughters in an attempt to draw men away from God. We already see from Eve’s experience with the serpent that demons will use the temptation of superior wisdom to ensnare man and that man is very susceptible to it.
Could the end times include a similar alien deception? The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue, but it is certainly plausible, for a variety of reasons. First, the Bible tells us that the world will unite under the power of the Antichrist. In order to achieve an agreement between all the world’s religions, it would make sense for the “uniter” to come from an entirely new source—an extraterrestrial source. It is hard to imagine one religion becoming head of all the others, unless new, unearthly knowledge were the source of the appeal and power of the new “religion.” This would be in keeping with past deceptions and would be a very effective way to deceive a large number of people.
Second, this deception could provide an answer to the problem of earth’s origins. The scientific theory that the evolution of life on earth was spontaneously generated still has no answer for life’s beginnings. There is evidence for a “big bang,” but that still doesn’t explain what caused the big bang to occur. If alien beings arrived and gave us an extraterrestrial explanation for life on earth, the origins of the world religions, and even the origins of our planet, it would be very persuasive.
That said, we should not fear. The Lord has said that He will not leave us or forsake us, and that He will protect us (1 Kings 8:57; Matthew 10:31; Isaiah 41:10). Demons / angels are not omnipotent, nor are they omnipresent. Jesus said that in the end times His appearing would be like lightning—easily visible to all. He said to be wary of any being that says “I am the Christ” or any group that says “He’s over there” or “He’s in here” (Matthew 24:23-24). He said that vultures gather around a dead body, meaning that if you see a group of people gathering around someone claiming to be Christ, that person is death and a false prophet.
We should be wary of any person or being that produces signs and wonders without biblical fidelity or the presence of obedience to the Lord Jesus, anyone who provides a way to unite the world religions or governments (Revelation 13:5-8), any being that promotes unnatural sexual relationships (Genesis 6:4; Jude 1:6-7), and of course, any person who denies that Jesus is God (2 John 1:7). Furthermore, anyone who presents a “substitute” Jesus, who represents Him as “a god but not the God” or who claims He was merely a good teacher, simply a human, or even a super-human or an alien creature, is a deceiver.
Lastly, if demons manifesting as aliens are part of the end times, we should remember that they, too, are created beings subject to a sovereign God and ultimately answerable to Him. Whether in alien form or not, the descriptions of demons in Revelation are frightening (Revelation 9:1-12), but we should not fear those who can only kill the body. Instead, we should only fear the One who can kill the body and the soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). No matter what happens to us on the earth, we should trust that the Lord is the Savior, Redeemer, and Protector of the souls of those who put their trust in Him (Psalm 9:10; 22:5).
Recommended Resource: Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Answer: We know that the events surrounding the end times, as described in the Bible, will include a powerful deception (Matthew 24:24). Recently, interest has been rising in the theory that this deception will include alien beings from another planet. Odd as it may seem, this theory is entirely plausible from a Christian perspective. Although the Bible gives us no word about whether or not aliens exist—there is no inclusion of them in the creation account in Genesis, and no mention of them elsewhere—the Bible does tell us about visitors from another world—the spiritual world.
Since the beginning, instances of demons (fallen angels) visiting the earth have been witnessed and recorded. We know from Eve’s encounter with Satan that demons are interested in monitoring (and altering) the progress of humanity. They want to be involved, with the goal of drawing humanity away from the worship of God and turning mankind’s attention instead to them. Another notable instance of their interaction with us is found in Genesis 6:4 with the arrival of the "sons of God." The Genesis account states that these powerful beings had sexual intercourse with women and produced a super race of beings known as the Nephilim. This sounds like the stuff of science fiction, yet it is right there in the Bible. There are striking similarities between this account and the accounts of other ancient cultures. The writings of the ancient Sumerians, for example (who were the first to produce a written language) mention the presence of the “Anunnaki” who were deities that came from heaven to dwell on earth with men. It is also interesting to note that the Sumerians’ gods often came to them in the form of snakes.
These accounts, seen alongside the amazing things created by ancient man, make it possible to theorize that demons, in the form of beings from another world, came to earth, bringing spectacular wisdom and knowledge to men, and “intermarrying” with their daughters in an attempt to draw men away from God. We already see from Eve’s experience with the serpent that demons will use the temptation of superior wisdom to ensnare man and that man is very susceptible to it.
Could the end times include a similar alien deception? The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue, but it is certainly plausible, for a variety of reasons. First, the Bible tells us that the world will unite under the power of the Antichrist. In order to achieve an agreement between all the world’s religions, it would make sense for the “uniter” to come from an entirely new source—an extraterrestrial source. It is hard to imagine one religion becoming head of all the others, unless new, unearthly knowledge were the source of the appeal and power of the new “religion.” This would be in keeping with past deceptions and would be a very effective way to deceive a large number of people.
Second, this deception could provide an answer to the problem of earth’s origins. The scientific theory that the evolution of life on earth was spontaneously generated still has no answer for life’s beginnings. There is evidence for a “big bang,” but that still doesn’t explain what caused the big bang to occur. If alien beings arrived and gave us an extraterrestrial explanation for life on earth, the origins of the world religions, and even the origins of our planet, it would be very persuasive.
That said, we should not fear. The Lord has said that He will not leave us or forsake us, and that He will protect us (1 Kings 8:57; Matthew 10:31; Isaiah 41:10). Demons / angels are not omnipotent, nor are they omnipresent. Jesus said that in the end times His appearing would be like lightning—easily visible to all. He said to be wary of any being that says “I am the Christ” or any group that says “He’s over there” or “He’s in here” (Matthew 24:23-24). He said that vultures gather around a dead body, meaning that if you see a group of people gathering around someone claiming to be Christ, that person is death and a false prophet.
We should be wary of any person or being that produces signs and wonders without biblical fidelity or the presence of obedience to the Lord Jesus, anyone who provides a way to unite the world religions or governments (Revelation 13:5-8), any being that promotes unnatural sexual relationships (Genesis 6:4; Jude 1:6-7), and of course, any person who denies that Jesus is God (2 John 1:7). Furthermore, anyone who presents a “substitute” Jesus, who represents Him as “a god but not the God” or who claims He was merely a good teacher, simply a human, or even a super-human or an alien creature, is a deceiver.
Lastly, if demons manifesting as aliens are part of the end times, we should remember that they, too, are created beings subject to a sovereign God and ultimately answerable to Him. Whether in alien form or not, the descriptions of demons in Revelation are frightening (Revelation 9:1-12), but we should not fear those who can only kill the body. Instead, we should only fear the One who can kill the body and the soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). No matter what happens to us on the earth, we should trust that the Lord is the Savior, Redeemer, and Protector of the souls of those who put their trust in Him (Psalm 9:10; 22:5).
Recommended Resource: Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
Similar threads
