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

[Patriot]

What are the most common world religions?​

ANSWER

There are countless religions in the world, with most religions having sub-sects within them. Generally speaking, all religions attempt to help people make sense of their purpose and existence in this world, explain what occurs in the afterlife, and declare whether or not there is a deity, and if so, how we relate to this deity. The seven world religions in the list below comprise over 95 percent of the world’s religious adherents. With each world religion is a link to a more detailed discussion of that religion’s beliefs and practices.

Roman Catholicism and Christianity
There are approximately 1.2 billion professed Roman Catholics worldwide. Though the Roman Catholic Church has always been identified with Christianity, there are clear and fundamental differences between the two. Roman Catholics generally identify themselves as Christians, but for the purposes of distinguishing the two divisions of the Christian faith, adherents of Roman Catholicism are referred to as Catholics, while non-Catholic adherents of the Christian faith are referred to as Christians. There are approximately 900 million people worldwide who profess to be non-Catholic Christians. The name Christian is derived from the fact that the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth were called Christians (Acts 11:26), which means literally “little Christs.” Christ is the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah, the “anointed one.” Although Christians frequently identify with particular denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Nazarenes, they also universally claim the name “Christian” for themselves. Christianity is oftentimes collectively called “the Church.” This is an indistinct term in that it is also the word used for local congregations and buildings as well as for specific denominations.

Islam
The word Islam literally means “submission,” and, as such, a Muslim is “one who submits to God.” Islam is based primarily on the sayings of Mohammad, as dictated to his companions and recorded in the Qur'an. There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today. Islam is represented all over the world. Though mostly associated with the Middle East, the largest Muslim populations are in Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India have sizable Muslim populations.

Hinduism
Hinduism is a word created by the Western world to encompass the dominant religious and social system of India. Traditionally, those we call Hindus refer to their religion as the dharma, which means “the way” or “the religion.” There are approximately 900 million Hindus in the world. Obviously, the greatest number of Hindus is located in India. Since Indians have emigrated all over the world, however, there are many Hindu communities in other countries. The total number of Hindus in India is subject to some controversy because it includes up to 300 million “untouchables” (dalits), who are officially counted as a part of the Hindu social structure but who are prevented from fully participating in Hinduism.

Buddhism
Buddhism is based on the teachings of the person called the Buddha, which means “enlightened one.” This religion has many different branches, but Buddhism is the only appropriate all-encompassing term, and its adherents, no matter how divergent in their beliefs, are happy to be known as Buddhists. Buddhism has about 360 million followers, placing it fourth, behind Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Buddhism originated in India. It is dominant in its more traditional forms in Sri Lanka and much of Southeast Asia (Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia). Additionally, it has taken on various forms in many other Asian countries, most notably Tibet, Korea, China, and Japan. Today Buddhism is frequently adapted and adopted by Westerners, though often at the expense of faithfulness to the traditional forms of this religion.

Judaism
The word Judaism comes from the name of the tribe of Judah, one of the twelve ancient tribes of Israel. So, literally, it is the religion of those who come from the tribe of Judah, who are (in English) called the Jews. However, being Jewish refers to an ethnic identity as well as a faith, and nowadays there are many Jews who do not practice the Jewish faith, even though they are happy to be known as Jews ethnically and culturally. It is estimated that there are about 15 million religious Jews in the world today, but many others do not practice any religion.

Baha’i
The term Baha'i literally means a “follower of Baha,” referring to Baha'ullah, the founder of the religion. Baha'i has more than seven million members. Originating in Iran, Baha’i is represented in over 200 countries in the world, behind only Christianity and Islam.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Handbook of World Religions by Len Woods

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

 

[Patriot]

What is the insider movement?​

ANSWER

The insider movement is an attempt to follow Jesus and rely on Him for salvation within the language and customs of one’s native culture. Romans 1:16-17 is given as validation that salvation is a matter of faith, not of a particular culture. The idea actually began with Paul, who fought against the assumption that Gentile Christians would have to meet Judaic requirements, and was validated by the early church when they decided Greek believers did not have to be circumcised (Acts 21:17-25). Later, the philosophy was realized when the Bible was interpreted into languages other than Greek and Latin. Modern missionaries to countries that are not Christian-friendly often rely on the insider movement. They feel it allows people to come to saving faith in Christ while maintaining their ability to witness to friends and family as well as safeguarding their lives. In this modern form, as in the old, it comes down to three issues: culture, religion, and theology.

The Insider Movement - Culture
There are very few Western Christians who would insist that a person from another culture sing only English-language hymns. Or only pray sitting in a chair, hands in lap. Or hold a church service with songs, announcements, and a 45-minute sermon every Sunday morning with coffee and cookies beforehand. But Jesus-followers in non-Western parts of the world maintain some cultural practices that are not so acceptable to Westerners. In many countries, parents arrange the marriages of their children. In others, it is disrespectful for a woman to not cover her hair or for a man to not have a beard. In some areas, it is inappropriate for a local believer to refer to himself as "Christian." Christian does not mean someone who follows Jesus and tries to live according to His teaching. In Eastern countries, Christian means someone from Europe or North America who lives a greedy, immoral lifestyle as seen on TV. To many, Christianity is not a religion or a faith system. It is a label for the Western culture.

Should culture be an issue? Can a person follow Christ within his or her own culture? As much as Westerners can follow Christ within theirs. There are parts of every culture that do not align with the Bible. If a certain practice within a culture does not agree with the Bible, that practice should be abandoned by believers within that culture. But if the Bible doesn’t mention a certain practice one way or the other, it shouldn’t be an issue. And, scripturally, there is nothing wrong with a group of believers coming up with their own word for "little Christ." No one is required to use a Greek word from 2,000 years ago. God looks at the heart, not the label.

The Insider Movement - Religion
The expression of religion is the point where Western Christians have the greatest problem with the insider movement. First, a little background. The "insider movement" concept is most common among missionaries to Muslim nations. The integration of a church into a culture can be designated by the labels C1 to C6. At one extreme is C1, which refers to a completely non-integrated, Westernized church with traditional hymns and English speakers in the midst of a native culture. At the other is C6, which refers to a small group of believers who keep their faith secret for fear of persecution. C1 through C5 are differentiated by increasing acceptance of cultural norms, such as language, dress, and worship style, with the gradual addition of religious practices, such as dietary laws and the use of native religious terms, such as Allah. C5 is the most controversial level, as worshipers still identify themselves culturally and even religiously by their national religion, although they claim their salvation is through Jesus. Advantages include the potential to witness to friends and family in a non-threatening way and a limited change in lifestyle.

Can a person be a Christ-follower and still call himself Muslim? Is it appropriate for Christ-followers to observe Ramadan, pray in the mosque, and study the Qu'ran? At what point does the culture of Islam cross over to the spirituality of Islam? It’s a slippery slope, and one that "Muslim-Christians" might respond to with another question: why do Western churches so often embrace the crass commercialism and love of entertainment found in Western culture? Whereas proponents of the insider movement equate a C5 believer with a Jewish convert in the early church, this is not an even analogy. The Jewish convert was transitioning from a legitimate, God-given religion to a more complete fulfillment of that religion. There was nothing unbiblical about Judaism! Conversely, C5 believers also compare their situation with the early Gentile converts who were not required to leave their culture to follow the “new religion” of Christianity. This is inaccurate as well. Nowhere does the New Testament say that new Gentile converts continued to sacrifice to Greek gods. In fact, it was their very rejection of emperor worship that led to the martyrdom of so many.

The Insider Movement - Theology
Seldom do insider movement arguments bring up theology. And since there is no standard for the movement, perhaps there is no standard to argue. Aside from the wrong theology of accepting Muhammad as a prophet and the Qu'ran as inspired scripture, there’s the matter of the person of Jesus. The Qu'ran speaks highly of Jesus. He is identified as a holy prophet and a teacher worth listening to. But, according to the Qu'ran and Islam, Jesus is not the Son of God. He is not God; He is not divine. Muslim-sensitive Bibles replace "Son of God" with "Word of God" or even the "spiritual Son of God" so as to be more palatable. When the sacrifice of Jesus is mentioned in C5 evangelism, it is as a traditional sin offering, not as God come to earth to save mankind.

The wording is understandable, if unfortunate. Muslims are monotheists with no acceptance of the Trinity. Jesus as God is heresy to the Muslim faith. Allah alone is to be worshiped and adored. Worshiping Jesus as "Lord" is heresy. A religious environment that does not teach that Jesus is God cannot be conducive to spiritual growth. Missionaries who approve of the insider movement claim that the realization of the deity of Christ comes later, after careful study of the Bible, sometimes years after the person has decided to follow Jesus’ teachings.

Is the insider movement an appropriate evangelical tool? To a point. It is certainly acceptable to worship God within one’s cultural framework—as Christian rock bands and praise-hula teams can attest. Jesus-followers of all cultures should be able to express their devotion in ways that have personal significance. Theologically, however, the insider movement is precarious. We are not to be of this world (John 17:16), even if it means the world hates us (John 15:18-19). It does take time to really understand Jesus, who He is and what He means, and it’s natural for new converts to feel they have their feet in both worlds for a time. But continuing one’s native religious practices and following its spiritual teachings—whether in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or other—is not what the life of a Christ-follower should look like. Not every Christ-follower has to take the name "Christian" and sing ”Amazing Grace,” but he does need to worship Jesus, the Son of God, as his Lord and Savior.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler

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

 

[Patriot]

What is misotheism?​

ANSWER

Misotheists are those who express misotheism, a dislike/hatred of God. The prefix mis- often refers to hatred or loathing. So, a misotheist despises God or religion in general, as a misanthropist (or misanthrope) hates mankind and a misogynist loathes women. The term misotheist is slightly out-of-date. The more common expression today would be antitheist, though misotheism technically implies a more emotional, personal level of disgust.

Part of what makes the term misotheism interesting is that it denotes an attitude more than any particular belief. It’s possible to be an atheist or agnostic and not be considered a misotheist. One can deny God’s existence without harboring an active loathing of God. Once someone gets to the point of feeling that theism is harmful and needs to be actively countered, he could be considered an antitheist. And those who are characterized by a particular hatred, condescension, or animosity toward religion would more properly be considered misotheists.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, antitheism experienced a brief (and currently fading) swell of support. This “New Atheism,” as it is called, has been criticized, even by non-believers, for being intellectually and philosophically shallow. New Atheism is an example of a philosophy fueled by misotheism rather than by reason. Popular voices such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have expressed more than mere disagreement with religion. Their approach is characterized by a visceral, emotional, and spiteful hate for all things religious. They are misotheists.

Today, misotheism is frequently seen in the work of comedians such as Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais and lesser-known scientists such as Lawrence Krauss. The public work of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, including the recent Cosmos television series, is misotheistic in that it presents religion in error-filled, unfair, and misleading ways. Not all unbelievers are antitheists or misotheists, of course. But misotheism is well-illustrated by the bigoted approach taken by these figures.

Scripturally, there is a difference between error and ignorance (Luke 23:24; John 9:41). But misotheists are not doubting God or relying on faulty reasoning to conclude that He does not exist. The misotheist is expressing willful, deliberate hatred toward God (Psalm 10:4; 14:1). He is the “scoffer” or “mocker” of Psalm 1:1 and 2 Peter 3:3. His spiteful rejection of God is warned against in the Bible in the strongest of terms (Proverbs 29:1; Romans 1:24–25).

Misotheism is an attitude immune to reason and to dialogue. “Mockers resent correction” (Proverbs 15:12). Jesus makes this point in Matthew 7:6, warning His followers not to bother arguing with those who despise the truth. Unfortunately, this means that the misotheist is best left to the consequences of his own choices. Those who actively hate God are not inclined to listen to the gospel or anything that disagrees with their prejudice.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Inside the Atheist Mind by Anthony DeStefano

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

 

[Patriot]

What is religiosity?​

ANSWER

Religiosity can mean “piety” or “the state of being religious”; however, for the purpose of this article, we will consider the secondary definition of "the exaggerated embodiment of certain aspects of religious activity." To be religiose is to be “excessively or sentimentally religious” or to practice one’s religion in a meddlesome way. Thus, religiosity is characterized by excessive involvement in religious activities. Religiosity usually entails extreme zeal outside of and beyond the norms of one’s faith. It is more than affection for religion; it is affectation in religion. Religiosity usually reflects one’s individual beliefs more than those of the religious organization itself. Another term for religiosity, though less common, is religiousness, “the state of being superficially religious.”

To summarize, religiosity is a term used by Christians and non-Christians alike to refer to religious activity in the extreme. Religiosity is an inappropriate devotion to the rituals and traditions of a religion. Religiosity is something that should never be a characteristic of a follower of Jesus Christ, but, sadly, it sometimes is. Whenever a Christian takes his/her eyes off of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, religiosity/religiousness can be the result. It is often easier to observe the rules, rituals, and traditions of a religion than it is to maintain a passionate relationship with the Lord.

How can religiosity be avoided? It is a matter of perspective and priority. What is the priority? Is it worshiping and following the Lord Jesus Christ, or is it fulfilling the rituals of a religious organization? What is the perspective? Do we serve God in order to “earn” His love or to be seen and admired by other people, or do we serve God because we love Him and are grateful for the wonderful salvation He has provided? Religion, ritual, and tradition are not the problem. The attitude behind the religious practice is the problem.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Sojourners and Strangers by Gregg Allison

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

 

[Patriot]

What is irreligion?​

ANSWER

The term irreligion refers to a spectrum of non-religious belief systems, including secular humanism, agnosticism, atheism, and antitheism. It covers beliefs that are simply indifferent to religion, that reject religion, and that are hostile to religion. Irreligion is partly defined by cultural context. Today, atheism is the most common understanding of irreligion. In 18th-century England, even deism would have been considered an irreligious point of view.

Irreligion is increasing in popularity worldwide. According to a global poll taken in 2017, 25% of people claim they are not religious and an additional 9% are convinced atheists, with percentages in these categories increasing every time a poll is taken. A survey conducted in 2012 showed that 36 percent of the world’s population are not religious. Interestingly, irreligion does not necessarily coincide with a rejection of the church. Some countries that have high irreligion rates, like Sweden and Albania (over 50 percent for both countries) also show a high percentage of the population affirming that they are part of a religious group—Lutheran and Muslim for those two countries, respectively. Another demographic shows that 47 percent of atheists living in Scandinavia are also members of the national churches. The conclusion is obvious: belief in God is not necessary to obtain or claim membership in the organized church.

In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees classified the irreligious as “sinners” (Mark 2:16). That is, the Pharisees considered themselves separate from anyone who did not follow their prescribed rules. There was the world of their religion—which added the Pharisees’ own traditions and subsidiary laws to the Law of God—the world of paganism, and the world of irreligion. The world of religion had plenty of problems. During His ministry, Jesus repeatedly confronted the religious leaders of that time, telling them that they were too focused on the rules and the tenets of their religion, hoping to find salvation in doing good works and in keeping their traditions, rather than in God (John 5:39). Their religious system was unhealthy and ineffective not only for themselves but for those they proselytized (Matthew 23:15).

Irreligion is often a reaction against the oppressive nature of religion that attempts to appease God or the gods. Finding perfection too high a goal, or the law too heavy a burden, or the gods too capricious, or their ears deaf to prayer, people turn away from religion. Thankfully, the true God has already been appeased, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25). He knows that the law is a burden to man, who cannot attain perfection (Romans 3:10–11, 20), and He therefore provides salvation by grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Philippians 3:9). Jesus says to those in bondage, “Come to me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective by Norm Geisler

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

 

[Patriot]

Who was John Calvin?​

ANSWER

John Calvin (1509–1564) was a French theologian who was instrumental in the Protestant Reformation and who continues to hold wide influence today in theology, education, and even politics. Anglican author J. I. Packer wrote about Calvin, “It is doubtful whether any other theologian has ever played so significant a part in world history” (“Calvin the Theologian,” Churchman 073/3, 1959). Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon said, “The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system [of theology] is the nearest to perfection” (cited in Christian History, Vol. 5, No. 4). American historian John Fiske wrote, “It would be hard to overrate the debt which mankind owes to Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of Cromwell, must occupy a foremost rank among the champions of modern democracy. . . . The promulgation of this theology was one of the longest steps that mankind has ever taken toward personal freedom” (Beginnings of New England, p. 58).

John Calvin was a pastor in the last half of the Renaissance. Political and church intrigues were coming to a head. Wealthy tradesmen, tired of financial exploitation, were shifting the political power away from both the feudal lords and the Roman Catholic Church, and the result was a growing nationalism. Economically, socially, and numerically, Europe was still recovering from the Black Death 150 years earlier. The authority of the papacy had been split between as many as three different popes the century before, and the popes since then had been amazingly corrupt and publicly hypocritical.

Most concerning to the general populace was the Roman Church’s tendency to fund wars, works of art and architecture, and lavish lifestyles by convincing congregants of their need to buy indulgences. If you want your loved ones to get out of purgatory, said the pope, it will cost you. Or, what might be more appealing, you can get away with some sins yourself, if you buy an indulgence. Such ecclesiastical abuses led to the outcry of the Reformers—Luther in Germany, Zwingli in Switzerland, and Calvin in France (and later in Switzerland).

Forefathers of the Protestant Reformation such as Wyclif, Hus, and Tyndale focused more on having a Bible in the vernacular and combatting ecclesiastical abuse than theological matters such as Sola Scriptura (needed because the papal infallibility proved to be very fallible) or the nature of the Eucharist. But in a theocratic world based on the total authority of the popes and church councils, dissention from the Catholic interpretation of Scripture was tantamount to treason. The climate was somewhat chaotic with Rome trying to wrest control back from various factions who championed autonomy of rule and religion, promoted adherence to the Scriptures, and tried to prevent the church from taking their money. John Calvin’s contribution was to organize and consolidate the theological and biblical reasons for rejecting the Roman Church, and he brilliantly developed his concepts into a complete theological viewpoint.

John Calvin’s father originally meant for him to be a priest, but when the elder’s fortunes changed, he decided his son would be more stable as a lawyer. The training John received both in law and the humanities served him well in theology. The invasion of Constantinople pushed Eastern scholars—and their literature—west; the printing press made those records available to Western scholars. When Western scholars realized how the originals differed from their copies, they developed the practice of textual criticism, which we still use to validate documents and determine when they were written and by whom. (And it’s the reason the Apocrypha was rejected by so many Protestants.)

The details of Calvin’s conversion from Catholicism to nascent Protestantism are a mystery. Calvin wrote of his spiritual conversion as taking place in 1532. In 1536, Calvin solidified what he had learned into the Institutes of the Christian Religion—a defense of the Reformers from a theological standpoint. As the Roman Catholic Church’s authority continued to be threatened, Catholic authorities struck back. Calvin fled France. On a detour through Geneva, a friend, William Farel, persuaded Calvin to stay and teach, although John was a lawyer, not a minister. The rich bourgeoisie of Geneva wanted to break with Rome for financial reasons and declared the city Protestant, but they had inadequate church leadership. They welcomed Calvin up to the point where he started actual reforms to match his theology. Calvin and Farel set out to rewrite church polity and policies and wound up causing a riot over the use of unleavened bread in communion. They were removed from Geneva, and Calvin went to pastor a French congregation in Strasbourg.

While pastoring, Calvin found time to write in Strasbourg. He rewrote his apologetics book in the format of a catechism and wrote most of a commentary series based on the Greek Septuagint instead of the Latin Vulgate. He eventually expanded his little treatise, Institutes of the Christian Religion from six short chapters to four books (see below).

The political scene in Geneva changed. Three years into Calvin’s exile, a popular Catholic cardinal wrote an open letter inviting Geneva to return to Catholicism and giving several arguments for why they should. The city council asked Calvin to respond, and he wrote a masterful letter in reply, answering the religious arguments and defending the Protestant leaders. Geneva stayed Protestant, and they brought Calvin back and agreed to his reforms.

The city council alternatingly supported Calvin and abandoned him depending on the political climate of the moment—until the unfortunate incident of Michael Servetus. Michael Servetus was a Spanish doctor and outspoken heretic who came to Basel and then Strasbourg to escape ecclesiastical authorities. He denounced the Trinity and denied the deity of Christ, putting him at odds with both Catholics and Protestants. The Inquisitions of both Spain and France condemned him to death. He was finally caught and held in Geneva. Calvin’s secretary provided a list of accusations of heresy, which were confirmed by several other theologians, both Protestant and Catholic. The consensus was strong on both sides: Servetus was a heretic and should be burned at the stake—the standard and widespread punishment for heresy—although Calvin requested a more humane beheading. Finally, the court had no choice but to convict and execute Servetus. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first. Although the matter of Servetus—the sole execution of a heretic in Calvin’s lifetime—besmirched Calvin’s reputation, Calvin became the unchallenged defender of the faith, and his polity was soon after accepted in Geneva.

Both Calvin and Luther valued unity in the church, their main disagreement being over communion. Luther asserted that the body and blood of Christ dwells with the bread and wine without changing the physical properties of the elements; Zwingli believed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial. Calvin took a middle-of-the-road approach, teaching that communion is indeed a memorial yet also a way to “feed” (spiritually) on Christ. Calvin wrote that communion is an “aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel . . . an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his goodwill toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety towards him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men” (Institutes IV.xiv.1). In other words, taking communion aids our faith, helps preach the gospel, seals God’s promises, bolsters our weaknesses, and allows us to attest to our fidelity to God.

Luther and Calvin actually agreed on predestination. It was their followers who widened the rift between their teachers, making more of a divide between Lutheranism and Reformed theology. Even Jacobus Arminius, after whom Arminianism, the anti-Calvinism sect, is named, praised Calvin’s commentaries and recommended them to his students, saying that Calvin was “incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture” (cited by Thomas Smyth in Calvin and His Enemies: A Memoir of the Life, Character, and Principles of Calvin, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009, p. 24–25). Calvin’s writings had a wide influence, as his system of theology was taken up by the Puritans in England, the Presbyterians in Scotland, the Dutch Reformed movement, the Huguenots in France, and the Pilgrims in America.

John Calvin is also remembered today for the school he established in Geneva and the advances in education he promoted. Calvin’s innovations in education include the formation of the first public school. During the Middle Ages, education was limited to the elite; only the aristocracy were schooled. Calvin changed that, ensuring that the general populace received a tuition-free, classical, liberal arts education. To that end, Calvin established an academy with seven grades and a seminary beyond that. Both schools became models for similar institutions across Europe and are now considered forerunners of the modern public school movement.

John Calvin’s Theology

Calvin’s theological magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion, was originally intended to explain biblical doctrine in a systematic way: “Seeing, then, how necessary it was in this manner to aid those who desire to be instructed in the doctrine of salvation, I have endeavoured, according to the ability which God has given me, to employ myself in so doing, and with this view have composed the present book” (preface, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1545 French edition). The final product is a brilliant presentation of biblical Christianity and a recognized classic of world literature. The four books comprising the Institutes cover the four main subjects of the Apostles’ Creed: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and the Church. Calvin wrote his Institutes in Latin and revised the book several times, but he also translated it into French: “First I wrote it in Latin, that it might be serviceable to all studious persons, of what nation soever they might be; afterwards, desiring to communicate any fruit which might be in it to my French countrymen, I translated it into our own tongue.” The work has since been translated into many more languages. You can find a copy of the Institutes here or a chapter summary here.

Book First: Of the Knowledge of God the Creator

The first eighteen chapters of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion cover how mankind can know God the Father. Although we have within us “eternity in our hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11), our judgment is corrupted. And, although we can see aspects of God in the nature and order of creation, it is only the Scriptures that we can fully rely on. “New revelation” is a subversion of piety by fanatics, and the worship of idols is ridiculous, not least because God has no physical form. As for mankind, we were the pinnacle of God’s creation, made in His image in a spiritual sense, but we have lost that splendor and, therefore, the ability to truly know God. The existence of God’s providence is proof that He maintains the world and has active sovereignty over what happens in it. We have free will, but His ultimate will prevails. Even the wicked are directed by God to use their evil for His purposes. Our inability to reconcile the responsibility of the sinner while acting on God’s direction is a result of our own inability to understand God’s nature.

Book Second: Of the Knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as First Manifested to the Fathers Under the Law, and Thereafter to Us Under the Gospel.

The next seventeen chapters of Calvin’s Institutes explain Christ’s role in history in the context of the fall of Adam and Eve and the resulting enslavement of the human race to sin. Our free will and reason are corrupted, and our spiritual discernment is lost until we are regenerated. God’s providence provides restraining grace and uses agents such as shame, fear of the law, and societal pressures to moderate men’s actions; men do not choose to do good—only God’s grace incites good in men. No matter what we can learn about God from His creation, it is useless without the faith that comes only through Christ, our mediator. The Mosaic Law shows us the righteousness of God and our own unrighteousness, and it is a tool of God’s restraining grace. The gospel did not replace the Law but completed it and allowed us to be forgiven of our transgressions. Although the Old and New Testaments ultimately have the same message, there are differences. One is that the temporal, earthly blessings to the Jews became spiritual blessings to the church, and another is that the Jews relied on images and ceremonies whereas we have Christ, the substance of that imagery. Jesus as Mediator had to be fully God and fully man. Jesus is prophet, priest, and king: as King, His kingdom is spiritual and gives us hope of eternal preservation; as Priest, He is our reconciliation and intercession.

Book Third: The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ. The Benefits It Confers, and the Effects Resulting from It.

These twenty-five chapters of Calvin’s Institutes delve into the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives. It is the Holy Spirit who unites us to Christ and causes us to receive God’s benefits. Our faith is in God the Son (not the church) and rests on the Word of God. Repentance is a result of faith, which is a result of recognition of God’s grace, and repentance continues throughout the believer’s life in conjunction with sanctification. Confession is a biblical practice, but not to a priest and not for absolution; only Christ’s sacrifice forgives. Indulgences deny the gospel of Christ, and purgatory is a “deadly fiction of Satan.” The purpose of regeneration is a changed heart that leads to denial of ourselves and a love of righteousness that leads to righteous action. When faced with trials and chastisement, we are not to necessarily expect deliverance, but call out to God for deliverance and remember there is a better world to come. A correct understanding of our place before God will educate our ideas of material blessings and how unrighteous we are on our own. Justification does not mean we are righteous in and of ourselves and, therefore, do good works through our own effort. Neither does it mean that, if a man realizes he is justified by faith, he will neglect good works and live in sin. The freedom we have from the Law is not carnal but spiritual, as we are released from the effects of our sin. In fact, good works can only be credited to us when our sins have been pardoned; it is only with freedom from the Law that we can obey it with our hearts. Prayer is our submission to God and should be done with all humility. God’s predestination is sovereign and independent of foreknowledge, and His election is eternal. Men’s claim that predestination is unfair merely exposes their inability to understand God. All those who are predestined will be called by God and will have faith. The final resurrection will be physical for both the elect and the reprobate. Hell is real and eternal.

Book Fourth: Of the Eternal Means or Helps by Which God Allures Us into Fellowship with Christ, and Keeps Us in It.

The final twenty chapters of Calvin’s Institutes mainly deal with the true nature of the Church and how the Roman Catholic Church is a corruption. The church has a physical aspect, but it is also comprised of the invisible fellowship of all believers. Membership in this spiritual church (the invisible Body of Christ) is necessary for forgiveness and salvation. The church is not perfect, and minor impurities should not discourage attendance, although serious doctrinal departures would justify leaving; i.e., Christians should break with the Roman Church as the false teaching of Catholicism proves it is not a true church. The highest role in a church is the role of teacher of the Word. The government of the Roman Church is corrupt. Jesus did not place Peter in charge of the church, and the “keys of the gospel” are a metaphor for teaching the gospel. There are distinct similarities between the history of the power-grabbing popes and Paul’s description of the Antichrist. God’s revelation was given to multiple men who all had the same message; it was never given only to the leader or council of the Roman Church. All prophets, teachers, leaders, and councils are under the primacy of Scripture. God gave the church authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate members; the church has no other authority to make laws or govern kingdoms. Monastic vows are unbiblical and should be broken. Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are outward signs of God’s covenants; they confirm Christ’s covenants to our feeble sense, but they do not make us worthy of them. Baptism is a sign of our burial and resurrection with Christ and does not impart righteousness. Infant baptism is the Christian’s circumcision and is an outward sign that infants are joined to the faith they will grow to understand. In communion, Jesus is spiritually present in the elements and passes life into us, but Jesus is not sacrificed again for every communion. Any sacrament besides baptism and the Lord’s Supper is an unbiblical law written by man. Christians are to respect civil government as society’s and the church’s protector, and we should obey civil authorities even when they are unjust.

One of history’s great thinkers and teachers, John Calvin was hugely influential in his lifetime, and his writings continue to impact our world five hundred years later. We are indebted to Calvin for his clarity of thought, his biblical approach to issues, and his faithfulness to promote the glory of God over all that would glorify man.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about eclecticism?​

ANSWER

If something is “eclectic,” it is comprised of things from various sources. Eclectic music, for example, includes many different musical styles in a unique combination. Eclectic things usually defy labels. In religion and philosophy, eclecticism is the pasting together of various and diverse doctrines and practices. Eclecticism draws from many different belief systems to create a personalized pastiche of religion.

An eclectic (an advocate of eclecticism) might start with Judaism, add a belief in reincarnation, throw in Gaia and a sprinkling of shamanism, and use the novels of Robert Heinlein as sacred texts. Usually, eclecticism strives to be pragmatic; if it “works” on a personal level, the eclectic is satisfied.

Eclecticism is not biblical. The eclectic considers the idea of many different gods as a real possibility. The Bible is clear on this point: “This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). We cannot combine different ideas of what a god is and still hold to the truth.

Eclecticism sees various sacred texts as being equally valid. The Bible also addresses this issue: Scripture is God-breathed and therefore set apart from other writings (2 Timothy 3:16–17). God warns us not to add to or remove from Scripture: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. Revelation 22:18–19).

Eclecticism takes a utilitarian approach to religion and truth. If it “works”—if it makes me happy, if it brings a sense of serenity, if it helps me get off drugs—then it is “true for me.” Once more, the Bible is clear on the subject. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17), no matter how it makes us feel. Truth is objective, not subjective; truth does not depend on our choosing it to be true. “The faith . . . was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3), and God has issued a stern warning against changing His gospel (Galatians 1:9–11). There is only one gospel, and we don’t get to adapt it to fit what we think works. We are on a narrow path that is determined by God, and we should not stray off of that path simply because we think we’ve found a better way (Matthew 7:13–14).

Eclecticism is a false teaching that relies on subjectivity, relativism, and “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3). Eclecticism brings confusion and compromise and leads to destruction. We will never find the truth as long as we’re standing at a religious smorgasbord and piling our plates with a bit of whatever looks good to us. We will only find the truth when we come to Jesus: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

Is democracy a Christian form of government?​

ANSWER

Every election cycle raises the question of religion and its role in government. This leads many to wonder about the relationship between Christianity and democracy. Is democracy a Christian form of government? Is democracy religiously neutral? Or is it contradictory to the Bible? There is a difference between whether or not ideas can coexist and whether or not they are inseparable.

In short, democracy and Christianity are compatible. Obviously, this means that these are not contradictory ideas. In fact, it has been argued that democracy functions most effectively in a Christian culture. At the same time, democracy is not necessarily a Christian form of government. There is no necessary aspect of democracy that absolutely requires a Christian worldview. Christianity itself does not mandate democracy or any other form of earthly government.

Democracy can be a Christian form of government, and it is probably best supported by a Christian culture, but it is not the only valid form of Christian government, and democracy can exist apart from a Christian worldview.

Politics and religion share overlapping interests. Every law is based on some moral principle. “Politics” in general is a discussion about how much control, freedom, and power individual people should have and to what extent they should be forced to act alike. This is an important detail: religion and politics partially overlap, but they are not the same thing. Just as some senses overlap, such as smell and taste or hearing and touch, politics and religion inevitably cross paths. But they are not the same. A notable exception would be a religion such as Islam, which explicitly erases any distinction between earthly government and religious belief.

Despite what some modern atheists think, the principle of separation of church and state does not mean that religious reasoning has no place in politics. A person’s spiritual stance not only can influence his politics—it will. Scrubbing public policy of religious factors is simply state-enforced atheism. That, of course, is not functionally any different from a theocracy, where rule is given only to those with a particular view of metaphysics.

Separation of church and state is really meant to keep those two institutions from exerting formal control over each other. In the United States, in particular, the original intent of the First Amendment had more to do with preventing the government from interfering with churches than keeping religious ideas out of government.

As noted, the Bible does not prescribe any particular form of government, democracy or otherwise. The system given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament was intended solely for the nation of Israel. Christians are called on to cooperate with the basic concept of government (Romans 13:1–7), regardless of what form it takes. At the same time, we are instructed to obey God instead of man when human laws conflict with the Bible (Acts 5:29). This doesn’t necessarily mean armed revolution, but it does maintain the idea that Christianity considers human government and personal spirituality as two distinct categories.

Democracy and Christianity share several fundamental assumptions that make them natural partners. The 18th-century origin of what we now call “modern democracy” was a nominally Christian culture. So one would expect its political assumptions to echo religious tenets.

A prominent example of Christianity’s influence on U.S. politics is the Declaration of Independence. This document was meant to justify Colonial rebellion against the king of England. As such, it makes reference to ideas such as objective truth, a “Creator,” human equality, intrinsic value, and personal responsibility. All of these, in fact, are found in a single sentence from the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Such a statement, in and of itself, is fundamentally at odds with virtually all worldviews other than theism. Atheism rejects a Creator and has no means by which to claim either “inalienable rights” or intrinsic value. Hinduism’s caste system and karma refute human equality. The idea of self-evident truth contradicts all forms of relativism. The basic idea of government independent of overt religious control is foreign to Islam. The point is not to claim that the United States or other democracies are explicitly and irrevocably Christian. Nor that it’s impossible, in practice, for persons of non-Christian worldviews to participate as citizens in a democracy. However, an examination of Christian theology and political democracy shows many commonalities. This is not true of most other worldviews, and, in fact, most religious systems directly conflict with various aspects of democracy.

History bears this out, proving the logical relationship between a culture’s religious beliefs and its political stance. In practice, the “gold standard” for freedom and human rights are nations with a Christian heritage. And, when forces opposed to democracy seek control, one of their first targets is the Christian faith.

Christianity also helps to bolster democracy’s greatest weakness: a dependence on the moral fiber of the culture. Unlike dictatorships or monarchies, where a single person’s moral compass directs the nation’s laws and policies, a democracy goes where the culture goes. That’s good, by and large. It especially means one evil person has a hard time wreaking national havoc. Yet it also means that, as the culture drifts away from good moral principles, it has no defense against “capsizing,” so to speak. A nation that uses democratic power for selfish or irresponsible purposes will cannibalize its own freedom.

As U.S. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said, “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.” When a culture abuses its democratic power, the result is chaos and ruin. Either a democracy, guided by self-control and morality, keeps itself in check, or it crashes. When the crash happens, control falls to a non-democratic system, either willingly or by force. Cultures that drift from Christianity tend to drift from “true” democracy into other, democracy-flavored political schemes and, eventually, into subjection to tyranny.

This decline away from democracy makes sense from a logical standpoint. Modern democracy grew out of a culture steeped in a Judeo-Christian worldview. It stands to reason that, the further a culture moves from that worldview, the less compatible that culture is with that form of government.

Democracy, in its various forms, presumes that the people, as a whole, are worthy of making choices for themselves. It assumes that the people are willing and able to make morally sensible decisions and will abide by those decisions in a spirit of mutual respect. Democracy presumes the value of human beings and a definition of right and wrong that supersedes the laws of the land. Christianity teaches the same basic principles, making it the most natural cultural fit for democracy.

Other worldviews can cooperate with democracy; however, they don’t have the same fundamental connection as Christianity. Democracy is a naturally Christian form of government, but it is not a necessarily Christian political scheme.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Wicca? Is Wicca witchcraft?​

ANSWER

Wicca is a neo-pagan religion that has been growing in popularity and acceptance in the United States and Europe. There are many websites and books claiming to teach “real” Wicca, but the truth is, there is no consensus among Wiccans as to what the religion is all about. The reason for this is that Wicca, as it is practiced now, is only about 50 years old. Wicca is a belief system that Briton Gerald Gardner cobbled together in the 1940s and 1950s from a variety of religious traditions and beliefs as well as Freemason rituals. Since Gardner published several books espousing his system of worship, many offshoots and variations of Wicca have sprung up. Some Wiccans are polytheistic, worshiping more than one deity, while others worship only the “God” or the “Goddess.” Still other Wiccans worship nature, and call it Gaea, after the Greek earth goddess. Some Wiccans pick and choose parts of Christian doctrine to embrace, while others totally reject Christianity. Most practitioners of Wicca believe in reincarnation.

Most Wiccans will vehemently deny that Satan is part of their pantheon, citing major doctrinal differences between themselves and Satanists. Wiccans generally promote moral relativity, disdaining labels like “good” and “evil” and “right” or “wrong.” Wicca has one law or rule, called the Rede: “Do what ye will, harm ye none.” At first blush, the Rede seems like complete, uninhibited personal license. You can do whatever you want, as long as no one gets hurt; however, Wiccans are quick to point out that the ripple effect of one’s actions can carry far-reaching consequences. They articulate this principle in the Three-fold Law, which says, "All good that a person does to another returns three-fold in this life; harm is also returned three-fold."

One major factor that contributes to the abiding fascination with Wicca is the purported use of spells and magick (a deliberate misspelling intended to separate Wiccans from magicians and illusionists). Curiosity seekers, as well as spiritual neophytes, are most eager to delve into these mysteries. Not all Wiccans practice witchcraft, but those that do claim magick is to them what prayer is to a Christian. The difference between the two is that Wiccans claim magick is simply using their minds to control matter, or they are appealing to their favorite deity to do them a favor, while Christians call upon an omnipotent, omnipresent God to heal people and to intervene and work in their lives. Because the Rede disallows witches from hurting others and the Three-fold Law spells out the consequences for Rede-breakers, witches who practice magick prefer to call themselves “nature witches” or “white witches” to further distance themselves from Satanists.

Wicca is basically a religion that is about minding your own business and living peaceably with your neighbors and environment. Wiccans are eager to draw parallels between themselves and biblical Christianity for the sake of earning credibility, but what does the Bible have to say about this religion? You won’t find the word “wicca” in the Bible, so let’s evaluate the beliefs in light of what God says about them.

Wiccan spells are idolism—Romans 1:25 says, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things, rather than the Creator…” Who wants to settle for second best? In Isaiah 40, God paints a picture of how much greater the Creator is than His creation. If you are worshiping anything besides the Creator, you are not only spinning your wheels, you are guilty of idolatry.

Wiccan spells bring false hope. Hebrews 9:27 says, “…Man is destined to die once, after that, to face judgment.” God says we get one chance at life, and that is it. There are no do-overs. If we don’t accept God’s gift of Jesus in our lifetime, He judges us as unwilling to be in His presence, and we are sent to hell.

Wiccan spells bring disillusionment. Mark 7:8 says, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” God is God, and we are not. We have a decision to make. Are we going to take God at His word and adopt His worldview, or are we not? Knowing God takes a lot of discipline. Wicca is a religion that takes a pack of lies, ties it in a romantic ribbon, and searches out a well-intentioned, but lazy and gullible mark to sell its hollow doctrines.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says, “Let no one be found among you who… practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells…Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD...” Wicca witchcraft is a sin, and God hates it. Why? Because it is an attempt to cut off our dependence on God and get answers apart from Him.

Sin isn’t just a heinous, socially disagreeable action. Sin is our decision to disagree with God on any topic—to rebel against Him. Sin is saying, “God, I want to live my life my way.” Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death…” This isn’t bodily death, this is spiritual death: eternal separation from God and all the blessings that His presence brings. This is the definition of hell: the absence of God’s presence. That is what our sin gains for us.

Thankfully, Romans 6:23 doesn’t end there. It goes on to say, “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God knew that we would all rebel in one way or another, and He provided a way for us to avoid that separation—through faith in Jesus Christ. Wicca witchcraft is nothing more than another lie from Satan, the enemy of our souls, who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Wicca’s Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft by Catherine Sanders

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

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about self-deception?​

ANSWER

We live in a world full of lies, and deceit comes from many sources. There are lying spirits who lead astray (1 Timothy 4:1); there are “evildoers and impostors” looking for dupes (2 Timothy 3:13); and, perhaps most insidious, we have ourselves to deal with. Self-deception is common in our fallen world.

Our own hearts are deceitful—so much so that we easily fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9). Isaiah 44:20 speaks of an idolater who is misled by his own “deluded heart.” The prophet Obadiah identifies arrogance as one of the roots of self-deception: “The pride of your heart has deceived you” (Obadiah 1:3). Human pride always blinds us to truth. It promises honor, but it delivers disgrace: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

James 1:22 warns us against deceiving ourselves: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” The self-deception that James has in mind relates to an inappropriate response to truth. God’s Word is meant to change us (see Psalm 119:11 and John 17:17). We can sit in church for years, listening to sermon after sermon, but if we never allow the Word we hear preached change us, then we are self-deceived. We can read the Bible from cover to cover, but unless we put its commands into practice, we deceive ourselves.

Such deception is common among religious people who accumulate truth in their minds, assuming that this is what “true religion” is all about. But Scripture was not given merely to produce theologians; it was given “so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). Holding the truth in one’s mind is not necessarily a character-changing quality. James 1:23–24 illustrates: merely looking at oneself in a mirror is not necessarily an appearance-changing experience. The mirror can tell us our hair is a mess, but unless we get out the brush and attack the problem, the tangles will remain.

James goes on to contrast self-deceived, “worthless” religion with “pure and faultless” religion, giving a practical example of each. One type of self-deception is to believe that our words do not matter: “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). In contrast, those who successfully avoid being self-deceived practice true religion: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (verse 27). Empty religion allows a person to employ his bodily members and his material resources toward self-centered objectives. But God approves of “faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:6).

Self-deception is illustrated tragically by Samson. This mighty hero of Israel disclosed the secret of his strength to Delilah, who betrayed him to his enemies as he slept. Once his hair had been cut, Delilah called, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!” Samson “awoke from his sleep and thought, ‘I’ll go out as before and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the Lord had left him” (Judges 16:20). Samson learned the hard way that forgetting the Word of God is a form of self-deception.

The bravado of the giant Goliath is another example of self-deception. He strutted and boasted and flung insults at Israel, sure that his great size and physical strength would ensure victory against the much smaller and weaker David. But he was wrong; in fact, Goliath didn’t even know what battle he was fighting. His fight was not with David, but with David’s God (1 Samuel 17:41–51).

Self-deception can also occur in relation to one’s security, as shown in Jesus’ parable of the rich fool. The man in the story was thrilled that his land produced an unusually abundant crop. He believed he’d come to a time in his life when he could “take life easy; eat, drink and be merry” (Luke 12:19). But this was wishful thinking, for he would die that very night (verse 20).

The church of Laodicea was the victim of self-deception concerning their spiritual condition. This lukewarm church had convinced itself that everything was all right: “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing” (Revelation 3:17a). Jesus, who always speaks truth, set them straight: “You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (verse 17b).

To avoid self-deception, we must be like the one who “looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do” (James 1:25). Remembering the Word, doing the Word, and continuing in the Word—this is what changes character and counters self-delusion. Like a mirror, the Word of God will always show us the truth.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Landmines in the Path of the Believer: Avoiding the Hidden Dangers by Charles F. Stanley

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

 

[Patriot]

What is religious syncretism?​

ANSWER

Syncretism, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity.

Religious syncretism often takes place when foreign beliefs are introduced to an indigenous belief system and the teachings are blended. The new, heterogeneous religion then takes a shape of its own. This has been seen most clearly in Roman Catholic missionary history. Take, for example, the Roman Catholic Church’s proselytizing of animistic South America. Threatened with the fear of death, natives were baptized into the church by the tens of thousands without any preaching of the Gospel whatsoever. Former temples were razed, with Catholic shrines and chapels built on the same spot. Natives were allowed to substitute praying to saints instead of gods of water, earth and air, and replaced their former idols with new images of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, the animistic religion the natives had formerly practiced was never fully replaced—it was adapted into Catholic teachings, and this new belief system was allowed to flourish.

More recently, religious syncretism can be seen in such religious systems as the New Age, Hinduism, Unitarianism, and Christian Science. These religions are a blending of multiple different belief systems, and are continually evolving as the philosophies of mankind rise and fall in popularity.

Therein lies the problem, for syncretism relies on the whim of man, not the standard of Scripture. The Bible makes it very clear what true religion is. Think on just a few things stated in Scripture: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37); "Jesus replied, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6); "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31); and “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Religious syncretism is simply not compatible with true Christianity. In fact, any modification to biblical law and principle for the sake of a “better” religion is heresy (Revelation 22:18-19).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

Are there supposed to be any rituals in Christianity?​

ANSWER

In religious contexts, a ritual is a set form of worship. Rituals involve symbolic physical actions; some examples of rituals are genuflecting before entering a pew, making the sign of the cross, and lifting aloft the Host during the Catholic Mass.

Religion can be defined as “belief in a deity, expressed in conduct and ritual.” The two most common ingredients in religion thus defined are rules and rituals. To be a faithful adherent of Judaism or Islam, for example, a person must observe lists of do’s and don’ts. Ritual-based religion is most prominently displayed in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, liturgical High Church services, but it is also a mainstay of Buddhism and Hinduism.

The Mosaic Law prescribed a set of rituals for Israel’s worship of God. There were many ceremonial laws for them to observe. Some of those laws were very specific and involved the sprinkling of water, the sprinkling of blood, the waving of grain, or the washing of clothes. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:17). The rituals of the Old Testament were never intended to be a permanent part of worship, as Scripture clearly teaches: “[The gifts and sacrifices] are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Hebrews 9:10, emphasis added). The “external regulations” are not binding on us today.

There is no New Testament mandate to include recitations, ceremonial objects, or symbolic physical gestures in our worship today. Our devotion is to the Lord Jesus, not to various rituals or liturgies. True Christianity, as derived from accurate interpretation of the Bible, is not rules-based or ritual-based. Rather, it is relationship-based. The living God through Jesus has made those who believe in Christ His own children (John 1:12).

The only “rites” the New Testament church is commanded to observe are the ordinances: baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:19) and communion (1 Corinthians 11:25). But, even then, no details are given to regulate the exact methods to use. Baptism, of course, requires water, and communion requires bread and “the cup.” Churches are free to baptize people in baptismals, lakes, swimming pools, or horse troughs. For communion, the Bible does not specify the frequency of the meal, the type of bread to use, the alcohol content in “the cup,” or exactly who should administer the ordinance. Churches are allowed some freedom in these matters.

All churches have a format that they typically follow, and this can be thought of as a “ritual.” Of course, it is good for everything to be done “in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:40), and having a procedure to follow is not wrong. But, if a church is so liturgical and its structure so rigid that the Holy Spirit is not able to freely operate, liturgy has gone too far.

Additionally, liturgies or rituals designed by people are fallible and are often unscriptural. It is even possible to “nullify the word of God” with the traditions people have created (Mark 7:13). Jesus warned against “vain repetitions” (Matthew 6:7), and many rituals held in churches today are just that. Repetitious prayers or creeds or songs can, over time, lead to dullness in worship rather than the free expression of one’s heart, mind, and soul before God (Matthew 22:34–40).

Are rituals wrong? No, not inherently. Empty ritual is wrong, as is any ritual that replaces, obscures, or detracts from a vibrant relationship with Christ. Are rituals commanded in the church? No, except for baptism and communion. God sees the heart, and He seeks those who worship Him “in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Rituals can be beneficial, but external rites should never be allowed to replace inner devotion.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ by John MacArthur

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

 

[Patriot]

What is deconversion? What does it mean to deconvert?​

ANSWER

Deconversion is defined as “the loss of one’s faith in a religion and a return to a previous religion or non-religion.” In the case of those who deconvert from Christianity, deconversion means giving up Christianity in exchange for a different religion, spiritualism, or no religion, such as atheism or agnosticism. Deconversion is related to deconstructing one’s faith.

Those who deconvert from Christianity reject core tenets of orthodox Christian faith, typically distance themselves from Christian community, and often, though not always, reject religion altogether.

The most common reasons given for deconversion are emotional, cognitive, or a combination thereof. Emotionally, people may deconvert because they experience hurt from other Christians or because they feel hurt by God. Cognitively, people may feel that Christianity or the Bible is not intellectually viable, whether because of perceived biblical inconsistencies, conflict with “science,” issues with biblical moral or truth claims, or any number of other areas of cognitive dissonance.

Knowing these reasons for deconversion can help Christians fortify their own faith and help others who may be struggling.

In the Parable of the Sower (found in Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:1–15), Jesus outlines reasons why a person may seem to have faith but later lose it. Some may lack understanding. Others may fall away in the face of trouble and persecution. The faith of others may be choked out by the cares of life and the riches and pleasures of this world.

Christians and churches may combat some of these issues. Churches and believers may submit their actions to Christ and model themselves after the teachings and practices of the early church, as laid out in Acts and the Epistles, to bear the image of Christ to both one another and nonbelievers. All Christians, not just pastors and theologians, may educate themselves on difficult scientific, historical, and theological topics, addressing rather than ignoring cognitive dissonance.

We all must remember to leave room for questions, doubt, discussions, and mistakes. Even genuine, born-again Christians are still imperfect and susceptible to sin and hurting others. All people, no matter how well educated, will fall short of understanding everything. In the words of Isaiah 40:13–14, “Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor? Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?”

Are those who deconvert examples of apostates who were never born again (see 1 John 2:19), or are they simply Christians going through a crisis of faith? Only God knows for sure, and only time will tell. We should patiently engage questions from seekers, doubters, and those in the process of deconversion. Not all challenges to faith come from a point of antagonism. Some come in the form of curiosity, some in the form of skepticism, and some with personal pain and a complicated history. For those reasons, believers should provide a “safe space” for others to express their concerns, doubts, and frustrations (Romans 12:18; 14:13). We can never, in ourselves, turn anyone away from deconversion, completely address the hurt others feel, or reassure a doubting heart, but God can.

When we encounter Christians who behave badly or we face a difficult teaching in the Bible, the response should not be to abandon Christianity altogether. Instead, we should study harder, pray more, and look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Still Evangelical? Insiders Reconsider Political, Social, and Theological Meaning by Mark Labberton

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Samaritanism?​

ANSWER

Samaritanism is a religion that derives its name from the region north of Jerusalem called Samaria. Samaritanism is based on the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Old Testament—although the Samaritan Pentateuch or Samaritan Torah is written in the Samaritan script for the Samaritan people. It is the only text the Samaritans consider inspired, rejecting the rest of the Hebrew Bible and the entire New Testament. Faithful Samaritans emphasize the role of Moses as a prophet and lawgiver, and they honor the location of the Samaritan temple that was built in Samaria at Mt. Gerizim. As in Judaism, Samaritanism does not allow images of Yahweh, and it keeps many of the same feasts that the Jews observe.

A brief history of the Samaritans will help understand Samaritanism. Here are some highlights:

• after the reign of King Solomon, Israel is divided into north and south in 931 BC
• in 722 BC, the Assyrians conquer the northern kingdom of Israel, including the city and region of Samaria
• the Assyrians leave a remnant of Israelites and import foreigners to settle the region; these emigrants bring many foreign gods to worship (2 Kings 17:29)
• in 586 BC, the Babylonians conquer the southern kingdom of Judah
• the Judeans return to their land and rebuild their temple in Jerusalem in 515 BC
• the people of Samaria oppose the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (Ezra 4; Nehemiah 4)
• the Samaritans build an alternate temple on Mt. Gerizim in their own territory
• in c. 128 BC, during the Maccabean Period, Jewish forces destroy the Samaritan temple

Thus, by the time of Christ, there existed a continuing animosity between Jews and Samaritans. It was a rift rooted in race and religion and a lot of bad blood through history.

The Samaritans built their own temple on Mt. Gerizim because they believed that on this mountain Moses told the Israelites to build an altar to the Lord. However, Deuteronomy 27:4–5 actually says that Mt. Ebal was the place God chose for an altar. The Samaritans consider “Mt. Ebal” to be a corruption of the text made by Ezra to favor the Jews. According to Josephus, the Samaritan temple was destroyed by Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus I (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIII, Chapter 10, § 2–3). The temple and the nearby city were never rebuilt, so the temple is not in use today. The ruins have been the subject of archaeological projects and are a national park in Israel.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus asks for a drink of water from a woman in Samaria. She is astonished that He would do this, asking him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (John 4:9, ESV). To make the point clear for his readers, John then adds this comment: “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:10).

Samaritanism holds to four principles of faith:
1) There is one God, the God of Israel.
2) There is one prophet, Moses.
3) There is one holy book, the Torah handed down by Moses.
4) There is one holy place, Mt. Gerizim.
(www.israelite-samaritans.com/religion, accessed 3/1/22)

Samaritanism observes the Sabbath and follows the laws of purity in the Torah. They also sacrifice lambs at Passover and look for the coming of the Taheb (the Returning One or the Restorer) who will fulfill Deuteronomy 18:15, judge the earth, and restore true religion in the end times (see the Samaritan woman’s expectation in John 4:25).

Today there are around 800 Samaritans who keep the religious practices of Samaritanism. They comprise one of the oldest and smallest religious groups in the world (www.bbc.com/travel/article/20180828-the-last-of-the-good-samaritans, accessed 3/1/22).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

What is truth?​

ANSWER

Almost two thousand years ago, Truth was put on trial and judged by people who were devoted to lies. In fact, Truth faced six trials in less than one full day, three of which were religious, and three that were legal. In the end, few people involved in those events could answer the question, “What is truth?”

After being arrested, the Truth was first led to a man named Annas, a corrupt former high priest of the Jews. Annas broke numerous Jewish laws during the trial, including holding the trial in his house, trying to induce self-accusations against the defendant, and striking the defendant, who had been convicted of nothing at the time. After Annas, the Truth was led to the reigning high priest, Caiaphas, who happened to be Annas’s son-in-law. Before Caiaphas and the Jewish Sanhedrin, many false witnesses came forward to speak against the Truth, yet nothing could be proved and no evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Caiaphas broke no fewer than seven laws while trying to convict the Truth: (1) the trial was held in secret; (2) it was carried out at night; (3) it involved bribery; (4) the defendant had no one present to make a defense for Him; (5) the requirement of 2-3 witnesses could not be met; (6) they used self-incriminating testimony against the defendant; (7) they carried out the death penalty against the defendant the same day. All these actions were prohibited by Jewish law. Regardless, Caiaphas declared the Truth guilty because the Truth claimed to be God in the flesh, something Caiaphas called blasphemy.

When morning came, the third trial of the Truth took place, with the result that the Jewish Sanhedrin pronounced the Truth should die. However, the Jewish council had no legal right to carry out the death penalty, so they were forced to bring the Truth to the Roman governor at the time, a man named Pontius Pilate. Pilate was appointed by Tiberius as the fifth prefect of Judea and served in that capacity A.D. 26 to 36. The procurator had power of life and death and could reverse capital sentences passed by the Sanhedrin. As the Truth stood before Pilate, more lies were brought against Him. His enemies said, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King” (Luke 23:2). This was a lie, as the Truth had told everyone to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:21) and never spoke of Himself as a challenge to Caesar.

After this, a very interesting conversation between the Truth and Pilate took place. “Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’” (John 18:33–38).

Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” has reverberated down through history. Was it a melancholy desire to know what no one else could tell him, a cynical insult, or perhaps an irritated, indifferent reply to Jesus’ words?

In a postmodern world that denies that truth can be known, the question is more important than ever to answer. What is truth?

A Proposed Definition of Truth

In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:

• Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism—an ends-vs.-means-type approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.
• Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable. A group of people can get together and form a conspiracy based on a set of falsehoods where they all agree to tell the same false story, but it does not make their presentation true.
• Truth is not what makes people feel good. Unfortunately, bad news can be true.
• Truth is not what the majority says is true. Fifty-one percent of a group can reach a wrong conclusion.
• Truth is not what is comprehensive. A lengthy, detailed presentation can still result in a false conclusion.
• Truth is not defined by what is intended. Good intentions can still be wrong.
• Truth is not how we know; truth is what we know.
• Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie believed is still a lie.
• Truth is not what is publicly proved. A truth can be privately known (for example, the location of buried treasure).

The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, which literally means to “un-hide” or “hiding nothing.” It conveys the thought that truth is always there, always open and available for all to see, with nothing being hidden or obscured. The Hebrew word for “truth” is emeth, which means “firmness,” “constancy” and “duration.” Such a definition implies an everlasting substance and something that can be relied upon.

From a philosophical perspective, there are three simple ways to define truth:

1. Truth is that which corresponds to reality.
2. Truth is that which matches its object.
3. Truth is simply telling it like it is.

First, truth corresponds to reality or “what is.” It is real. Truth is also correspondent in nature. In other words, it matches its object and is known by its referent. For example, a teacher facing a class may say, “Now the only exit to this room is on the right.” For the class that may be facing the teacher, the exit door may be on their left, but it’s absolutely true that the door, for the professor, is on the right.

Truth also matches its object. It may be absolutely true that a certain person may need so many milligrams of a certain medication, but another person may need more or less of the same medication to produce the desired effect. This is not relative truth, but just an example of how truth must match its object. It would be wrong (and potentially dangerous) for a patient to request that their doctor give them an inappropriate amount of a particular medication, or to say that any medicine for their specific ailment will do.

In short, truth is simply telling it like it is; it is the way things really are, and any other viewpoint is wrong. A foundational principle of philosophy is being able to discern between truth and error, or as Thomas Aquinas observed, "It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions."

Challenges to Truth

Aquinas’ words are not very popular today. Making distinctions seems to be out of fashion in a postmodern era of relativism. It is acceptable today to say, “This is true,” as long as it is not followed by, “and therefore that is false.” This is especially observable in matters of faith and religion where every belief system is supposed to be on equal footing where truth is concerned.

There are a number of philosophies and worldviews that challenge the concept of truth, yet, when each is critically examined it turns out to be self-defeating in nature.

The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong—why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do is follow his advice.

Those who follow the philosophy of skepticism simply doubt all truth. But is the skeptic skeptical of skepticism; does he doubt his own truth claim? If so, then why pay attention to skepticism? If not, then we can be sure of at least one thing (in other words, absolute truth exists)—skepticism, which, ironically, becomes absolute truth in that case. The agnostic says you can’t know the truth. Yet the mindset is self-defeating because it claims to know at least one truth: that you can’t know truth.

The disciples of postmodernism simply affirm no particular truth. The patron saint of postmodernism—Frederick Nietzsche—described truth like this: “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms … truths are illusions … coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” Ironically, although the postmodernist holds coins in his hand that are now “mere metal,” he affirms at least one absolute truth: the truth that no truth should be affirmed. Like the other worldviews, postmodernism is self-defeating and cannot stand up under its own claim.

A popular worldview is pluralism, which says that all truth claims are equally valid. Of course, this is impossible. Can two claims—one that says a woman is now pregnant and another that says she is not now pregnant—both be true at the same time? Pluralism unravels at the feet of the law of non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. As one philosopher quipped, anyone who believes that the law of non-contradiction is not true (and, by default, pluralism is true) should be beaten and burned until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same thing as to not be beaten and burned. Also, note that pluralism says that it is true and anything opposed to it is false, which is a claim that denies its own foundational tenet.

The spirit behind pluralism is an open-armed attitude of tolerance. However, pluralism confuses the idea of everyone having equal value with every truth claim being equally valid. More simply, all people may be equal, but not all truth claims are. Pluralism fails to understand the difference between opinion and truth, a distinction Mortimer Adler notes: “Pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.”

The Offensive Nature of Truth

When the concept of truth is maligned, it is usually for one or more of the following reasons:

One common complaint against anyone claiming to have absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 only equals 4?

Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that someone is right and another person is wrong. However, returning to the above example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist on only one right answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?

A third charge against those holding to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.

Yet another protest against truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim one has the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is immune to sincerity, belief, and desire. It doesn’t matter how much one sincerely believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.

Some will admit that absolute truth exists, but then claim such a stance is only valid in the area of science and not in matters of faith and religion. This is a philosophy called logical positivism, which was popularized by philosophers such as David Hume and A. J. Ayer. In essence, such people state that truth claims must either be (1) tautologies (for example, all bachelors are unmarried men) or (2) empirically verifiable (that is, testable via science). To the logical positivist, all talk about God is nonsense.

Those who hold to the notion that only science can make truth claims fail to recognize is that there are many realms of truth where science is impotent. For example:

• Science cannot prove the disciplines of mathematics and logic because it presupposes them.
• Science cannot prove metaphysical truths such as, minds other than my own do exist.
• Science is unable to provide truth in the areas of morals and ethics. You cannot use science, for example, to prove the Nazis were evil.
• Science is incapable of stating truths about aesthetic positions such as the beauty of a sunrise.
• Lastly, when anyone makes the statement “science is the only source of objective truth,” they have just made a philosophical claim—which cannot be tested by science.

And there are those who say that absolute truth does not apply in the area of morality. Yet the response to the question, “Is it moral to torture and murder an innocent child?” is absolute and universal: No. Or, to make it more personal, those who espouse relative truth concerning morals always seem to want their spouse to be absolutely faithful to them.

Why Truth Is Important

Why is it so important to understand and embrace the concept of absolute truth in all areas of life (including faith and religion)? Simply because life has consequences for being wrong. Giving someone the wrong amount of a medication can kill them; having an investment manager make the wrong monetary decisions can impoverish a family; boarding the wrong plane will take you where you do not wish to go; and dealing with an unfaithful marriage partner can result in the destruction of a family and, potentially, disease. Nowhere are the consequences more important than in the area of faith and religion. Eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong.

God and Truth

During the six trials of Jesus, the contrast between the truth (righteousness) and lies (unrighteousness) was unmistakable. There stood Jesus, the Truth, being judged by those whose every action was bathed in lies. The Jewish leaders broke nearly every law designed to protect a defendant from wrongful conviction. They fervently worked to find any testimony that would incriminate Jesus, and in their frustration, they turned to false evidence brought forward by liars. But even that could not help them reach their goal. So they broke another law and forced Jesus to implicate Himself.

Once in front of Pilate, the Jewish leaders lied again. They convicted Jesus of blasphemy, but since they knew that wouldn’t be enough to coax Pilate to kill Jesus, they claimed Jesus was challenging Caesar and was breaking Roman law by encouraging the crowds to not pay taxes. Pilate quickly detected their superficial deception, and he never even addressed the charge.

Jesus the Righteous was being judged by the unrighteous. The sad fact is that the latter always persecutes the former. It’s why Cain killed Abel. The link between truth and righteousness and between falsehood and unrighteousness is demonstrated by a number of examples in the New Testament:

• For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12, emphasis added).

• “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, emphasis added).

• “who will render to each person according to his deeds; to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (Romans 2:6–8, emphasis added).

• “[love] does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:5–6, emphasis added).

What Is Truth? - Conclusion

The question Pontius Pilate asked centuries ago needs to be rephrased in order to be completely accurate. The Roman governor’s remark “What is truth?” overlooks the fact that many things can have truth, but only one thing can actually be the Truth. Truth must originate from somewhere.

The stark reality is that Pilate was looking directly at the Origin of all Truth on that early morning almost two thousand years ago. Not long before being arrested and brought to the governor, Jesus had made the simple statement “I am the truth” (John 14:6), which was a rather incredible statement. How could a mere man be the truth? He couldn’t be, unless He was more than a man, which is actually what He claimed to be. The fact is, Jesus’ claim was validated when He rose from the dead (Romans 1:4).

There’s a story about a man who lived in Paris who had a stranger from the country come see him. Wanting to show the stranger the magnificence of Paris, he took him to the Louvre to see the great art and then to a concert at a majestic symphony hall to hear a great symphony orchestra play. At the end of the day, the stranger from the country commented that he didn’t particularly like either the art or the music. To which his host replied, “They aren’t on trial, you are.” Pilate and the Jewish leaders thought they were judging Christ, when, in reality, they were the ones being judged. Moreover, the One they convicted will actually serve as their Judge one day, as He will for all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Pilate evidently never came to a knowledge of the truth. Eusebius, the historian and Bishop of Caesarea, records the fact that Pilate ultimately committed suicide sometime during the reign of the emperor Caligula—a sad ending and a reminder for everyone that ignoring the truth always leads to undesired consequences.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

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

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

 

[Patriot]

What is spiritual direction?​

ANSWER

It has become popular in modern society to be “spiritual, but not religious.” “Spiritual” usually means that a person is in touch with his or her own spirit, the spirits of others, and some (personal or impersonal) Higher Power or Spirit that inhabits (and perhaps empowers) the universe. To do this, one does not need to be part of an organized religion or believe any specific doctrines about God, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, or Jesus. In fact, doctrine will probably only limit one’s spirituality since God (who- or whatever He, She, or It may be) is undoubtedly bigger than religious categories. Religion separates us, goes the common thinking; spirituality brings us together.

According to Liz Budd Ellmann, former Executive Director of Spiritual Directors International (as quoted on the Spiritual Direction website), “Spiritual direction explores a deeper relationship with the spiritual aspect of being human. Simply put, spiritual direction is helping people tell their sacred stories everyday [sic].

“Spiritual direction has emerged in many contexts using language specific to particular cultural and spiritual traditions. Describing spiritual direction requires putting words to a process of fostering a transcendent experience that lies beyond all names and yet the experience longs to be articulated and made concrete in everyday living. It is easier to describe what spiritual direction does than what spiritual direction is. Our role is not to define spiritual direction, but to describe the experience.

“Spiritual direction helps us learn how to live in peace, with compassion, promoting justice, as humble servants of that which lies beyond all names.”

For those who are steeped in a particular religion, there are spiritual directors who are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. These spiritual directors will operate within the context of a particular religion but focus on the more mystical and personal interactions with the Divine. Spiritual direction in a Christian context can be either Protestant or Catholic and will most likely focus on prayer, meditation, and the more mystical aspects of Christianity.

Spiritual direction focuses on people communicating their spiritual experiences to other people for the purpose of awakening to the mystery within and the wonder without. Spiritual direction offered by spiritual directors can happen in a weekly setting (individual or group) or in a retreat setting.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of spiritual direction, per se. All of us need help developing spiritually, and, if we are developing in the right direction, based on the Word of God, it is a good thing. The main problem with spiritual direction as a “movement” is that the personal experience of the individual, not the Word of God, is the final authority. While anything spiritual may sound better than the current focus on materialism and consumerism in American culture, spiritual direction is really just consumerism on the spiritual level. In spiritual direction, the spiritual explorer simply picks and chooses the experiences and the interpretation of the experiences that he or she finds most meaningful. Spiritual direction is really mysticism seeking a spiritual experience minus the doctrinal content.

The Bible teaches that our most basic need is not first and foremost that of spiritual direction or of getting in touch with our “spiritual self” but that we are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1) and in need of spiritual life that can only come from God. The God who gives spiritual life is the God who created the world and entered the human race as Jesus Christ. Spiritual life is only available to those who are raised to new life in Christ through faith in Him (Ephesians 2:6–7). Those who are “raised with Christ” are born again into new spiritual life and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the Ultimate Spiritual Director (Romans 8:14). And He will always glorify Jesus (John 16:14) and direct us to become more like Christ (Ephesians 4:15).

The Bible does call for “spiritual directors” of a sort to help Christians find “spiritual direction.” Some of these “spiritual directors” are called pastors (shepherds), elders, or overseers who must meet specific qualifications (see 1 Peter 5:2–4, Titus 1:5–9, and 1 Timothy 3:1–7). All believers are to help each other move in the right spiritual direction. “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (Hebrews 10:24–25). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16). The fellowship of the local church is the context for spiritual direction and spiritual growth.

Those who are seeking spiritual direction should get involved in a local church where the Bible is clearly taught and obeyed and where people help each other to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible gives us the direction that we should be moving spiritually (Psalm 119:105), and the propositional truth in the Bible should take priority over mystical or personal experiences.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ by John MacArthur

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

 

[Patriot]

Who is the Dalai Lama?​

ANSWER

Buddhism is the fourth largest of the world’s religions, with about 375 million followers. The religion of Buddhism is made up of several sects, philosophies, or schools. One of these is Tibetan Buddhism, which is a religion-in-exile, forced from its homeland when Tibet was conquered by the Chinese. The leader of Tibetan Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile in India since he fled the Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1959.

Partly because of the worldwide prominence of the Dalai Lama, most people have heard about Tibetan Buddhism. The Tibetan form of Buddhism is one of the most complicated because it is tied to the ancient spirit-oriented religion of the Tibetan plateau. The essential goal of Tibetan Buddhism, however, is the same as that of other types of Buddhism: to realize enlightenment and enter Nirvana, or the freedom of one’s spiritual self from the attachment to or affection for worldly things.

Tibetan Buddhism focuses on its monks, called “lamas.” Correspondingly, it also recognizes a multitude of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (deities or beings who have attained enlightenment worthy of Nirvana but remain in the world to help others), as well as their consorts. Lamas use different meditation techniques, which include what are called “mandalas” (spiritual diagrams) and prayer wheels. The Dalai Lama is the highest lama. What is interesting is that, whenever the Dalai Lama dies, Tibetan Buddhists believe he is reborn as an infant, and officials of the religion search for the child—who is supposed to bear certain distinguishing marks—and when he is discovered, he then becomes the new Dalai Lama.

The current Dalai Lama is named Tenzin Gyatso and is the 14th Dalai Lama. His real name is Lhamo Thondup. Born in 1935 and “discovered” in 1937, he was given the name he now bears, Tenzin Gyatso. He became the political head of Tibet in 1950. However, he left Tibet to establish a government-in-exile in 1959 when the Chinese took over that country. In 1989, the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Most Buddhists consider Jesus to be an “enlightened master” but not the Son of God. During an interview with Christianity Today, the Dalai Lama said that Jesus had lived previous lives and His purpose was to teach a message of tolerance and compassion, to help people to become better human beings. And this is the primary problem with the Dalai Lama and all of Buddhism. While some aspects of the Dalai Lama’s message are undeniably positive, and while most Buddhists are indeed kind-hearted, “good” human beings, their denial of the biblical Jesus infinitely outweighs any positive aspects of Buddhism.

The Scriptures reveal that Jesus is God in human form, slain for the sins of the world (John 3:16). Yes, Jesus taught compassion, but that was not the primary reason for His coming. Jesus came to provide salvation for all those who receive Him as Savior. Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins. Jesus provides salvation for us because we are absolutely incapable of saving ourselves. Due to Buddhism’s explicit rejection of this truth, the Dalai Lama is a false prophet, and Buddhism is a false religion. On the most crucial of issues, the Dalai Lama is, sadly, not enlightened.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

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

 

[Patriot]

What is theopathy?​

ANSWER

Theopathy is an emotional response to the contemplation and worship of God or a fervency of religious faith. The word theopathy is a combination of two Greek words, theos (“God”) and pathos (“passion” or “emotion”).

Perhaps it will be helpful to note the differences between theology and religion. Many years ago, theology was known as “the queen of the sciences.” The assumption among all scholars was that God did exist and that He could be studied and known at least in part based on how He had revealed himself in the Bible and what He had done in history.

In more recent years, many institutions of higher learning including seminaries have changed their “Department of Theology” to a “Department of Religion.” Religion is humanity’s response to God or what they think about God. The shift may seem subtle, but it is significant. Theology studied God; the study of religion is the investigation of man’s thoughts about God. In modern times, the focus has shifted from theology to theopathy, from knowing God objectively to analyzing mankind’s feelings about God.

Human beings are by nature religious. We long to worship, and, as Romans 1:21–23 explains, if we refuse to worship the Creator, we will begin to worship creatures. In times past, this worship may have been directed to trees or animals. In “modern” societies we worship celebrities, status, money, cars, houses, and maybe most devotedly, ourselves. Some would deny that this is religious devotion, but it is still worship. Human beings long for something “bigger” outside themselves to adore and serve.

As the word theopathy is used today, it could refer to something like Isaiah’s response to his vision of God:

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.”

At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:1–8).

Theopathy can also be used to refer to the ecstatic, altered state of consciousness experienced in other religions. And it can refer to the feelings of a person who thinks God tells him to do something contrary to what the Bible teaches. Even in evangelical circles where lip-service is paid to the Bible, it is often emotion, experience, and personal revelation (“God told me” or “the Spirit led me”) that is the final arbiter of truth and appropriate behavior.

Theopathy is the ability to worship and to be emotionally excited about God (or “the divine”). However, an ecstatic, excited, or emotional experience, no matter how “genuine” or heartfelt, is no guarantee that the experience was a genuine encounter with God. Theopathy cannot be allowed to govern theology. It is only when theopathy is directed by sound theology that we can be sure to truly experience God. God has not promised to reveal Himself in any experience, but He has revealed Himself in His Word, the Bible, which must be the source of our theology and the judge of our experience.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Quest Study Bible

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Yazidism, and what do Yazidis believe?​

ANSWER

Yazidism is the religion of a Kurdish people-group that lives primarily in Iraq. Some Yazidis also live in Armenia, Turkey, Iran, Georgia, and Syria. The Kurds are usually identified as an Iranian ethnic group descended from the Medes. Not all Kurds are Yazidis, but all Yazidis are Kurdish. The Yazidi live in tight-knit communities, and marriage outside the religion is not allowed. The Yazidi follow a strict caste system within their culture. The Yazidi are also called Yezidi, Daasin, or Ezidi.

Yazidis are monotheistic, and they believe in a creator God whom they call Yasdan. Similarity to Christianity ends with monotheism. According to Yazidism, after creation the world was placed in the care of seven angels. Their chief is a being called “the Peacock Angel,” a rather capricious ruler who causes both bad and good things to happen to people. The Yazidis have a myth about the Peacock Angel falling from God’s favor and then eventually being redeemed after his tears of repentance quenched the fires of the hell to which he had been sent for punishment. This tale correlates in some ways to a story in the Sufi religion. The figure Iblis, the Sufi version of Satan, is sometimes equated with the Yazidi Peacock Angel. Because of this connection, Yazidis are thought of as devil worshipers by other regional religions, and this is one reason for the persecution of Yazidis by Sunni Muslims, including ISIS.

Yazidism is a syncretic religion that has been described as a mixture of Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism. Although Yazidi theology is based on oral tradition, passed on through hymns, they do have two holy books: the Mishefa Reş, or the Black Book; and the Kitêba Cilwe, or the Book of Revelation. The Yazidi pray to the Peacock Angel several times a day, facing east. Yazidi children are baptized at birth. Once a year, the Yazidi make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir, a key figure in their religion, in the city of Lalish, Iraq.

The Yazidi accept no converts; in order to be a Yazidi, one must be born a Yazidi. Yazidis believe that they descended from Adam alone (without help from Eve) but that the rest of humanity came from the union of Adam and Eve. Yazidism teaches the transmigration of souls, the idea that, upon death, souls pass on to different bodies. Through this chain of death and rebirth, people are gradually purified.

Yazidism differs from Christianity in almost every way, from the creation story onward. Yazidism is related to the religions of ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans, three groups mentioned many times in the Old Testament. In fact, the Chaldeans are mentioned first in Genesis 11, and Abram was born into that group of people (Genesis 11:27–28). Abram left the Chaldeans to start afresh in Canaan. He received a call from God to break off from his tribe and travel to a land that God had promised to him (Genesis 12:1–7). In obedience prompted by faith, Abram became Abraham, the father of the Israelites (Hebrews 11:8–12).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin

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

 

[Patriot]

What is Romanticism?​

ANSWER

Romanticism was a cultural movement of the late-18th to mid-19th centuries, with influences in music lasting until the early 20th century. Romanticism emphasized the concepts of emotion, originality, and nature against reason and technological advancement. This anti-intellectual trend was a reaction to the Enlightenment and ultra-rationalist attitudes of the prior century.

The terms Romanticism and Romantic are often misunderstood when applied to this era, since they imply matters of love or sexuality in modern English. While some aspects of Romanticism are “romantic” in that sense, the perspective includes a much wider range of ideas and is not primarily concerned with issues of intimacy. Perhaps most importantly, Romanticism should be understood as a theme or a genre, rather than a standalone philosophy or worldview.

Strictly speaking, Romanticism did not alter Christian theology in the sense of changing major doctrines or beliefs. However, it did profoundly influence the way in which Christian ideas were discussed, perceived, and taught. In some cases, the origins of certain pseudo-Christian offshoots can be seen as products of Romantic thinking. The greater emphasis on emotion and experience, in particular, can be seen when contrasting mainstream Christianity before and after the Romantic era.

Romantic poets included Walt Whitman (Leaves of Grass), Thomas Gray (“Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard”), and Samuel Coleridge (“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”). Romantic authors most familiar to modern Western audiences include Edgar Allan Poe (“The Raven,” “The Tell-Tale Heart”), James Fenimore Cooper (The Last of the Mohicans), and Charlotte Brontë (Jane Eyre). Many oft-performed examples of orchestral music were created by composers of the Romantic tradition, such as Liszt (Les Preludes), Tchaikovsky (1812 Overture, Swan Lake), and Beethoven (Moonlight Sonata, Symphony No. 5).

Prior to Romanticism, culture was dominated by the theme of rationalism. Rationalist art, music, and literature were deeply rooted in universal concepts, perfect characters, emotional distance, and optimism. Unfortunately, rationalism also served to enable an upheaval of society, including political violence, contradicting its own sense of hopefulness. Rebounding from this, Romanticism placed great importance on individual experience, emotions, myth, nature, and idolization of the past. A good example is William Wordsworth’s poem “My Heart Leaps Up”:

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

In this poem, Wordsworth praises the emotional response of a child to a marvel of nature (the rainbow) and wishes to keep that childlike wonder his whole life. His reference to “natural piety” in the final line is a purposeful interjection of religious language, as the poet yearns for the “holiness” that comes from experiencing nature.

Artists of the Romantic tradition sought to explore man’s imperfections and traditions without a cold reliance on reason. This influence is seen in the development of genres focused on dark irrationality (Poe), themes such as nature and the “noble savage” (Cooper), and soaring, dramatic symphonic music (Liszt).

Philosophically, perhaps the most direct attempt to apply Romanticism as a worldview, even as a replacement for religion, was in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though he died around the time historians consider Romanticism to have begun in earnest, his work laid many of its foundations. Among these was the idea that man was better off in a “natural” state, without the moral corruptions brought on by modern society. Rousseau also emphasized the importance of emotion. In practice, however, his efforts were far more influential in politics and culture than in influencing any particular religious faith.

As a cultural movement, rather than a “hard” philosophy, Romanticism is technically neutral with respect to religion. In practice, however, Romanticism took a more positive view of religion than the attitudes that preceded it. The interplay between tradition, faith, the “good old days,” and the natural need to express emotion made the Romantic era much friendlier to religion than was the Enlightenment. Romantic authors, composers, and writers found a rich source of material in biblical stories. Coming millennia after the days of Christ, however, Romanticism had no means to influence fundamental Christian theology.

That is not to say Romanticism left no impact on the history of religion. Christian writing and theology produced during and after the Romantic era shows a greater emphasis on personal emotion and feelings than in prior times. In some sense, Romantic influence changed how Western Christianity described certain theological ideas, even if it did not immediately impact what mainstream Christians believed.

On the other hand, theologians such as Friedrich Schleiermacher leaned heavily on Romanticism in an effort to conform Christianity to the preferences of culture. In brief, his approach moved the focal point of religion from God’s reality to human experience. Some scholars credit—or discredit—this attitude with grounding modern theological liberalism.

Likewise, a core theme of the Romantic movement—personal, emotional experience—can be seen in the origin of several offshoots of Christianity that developed during the 19th century. Mormonism, for instance, was founded on the claim that Joseph Smith had been given personal messages from God. Exploration of spiritualism and the macabre also resulted in increased participation in séances and other forms of fortune-telling.

In and of itself, Romanticism neither opposes nor supports biblical Christianity. As with most approaches to literature, art, and music, each individual can apply the idea in his own way. Romanticism places a positive value on tradition and emotion, both of which are legitimate parts of the Christian faith. At the same time, the Romantic approach can be overly suspicious of reason, too reliant on subjective experience, and prone to exalt the creation over the Creator. As with any other cultural trend, Christians need to be careful to interpret their worldview according to the Bible, not the Bible according to their worldview.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland

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