Islam teaches that throughout history God has sent prophets, from Adam to Noah to Jesus and ultimately Muhammad, all with the same message: There is only one God, who desires people to pursue good and to prevent evil. Christians and Jews, "People of the Book," are believed to be the remaining followers of earlier divine, but corrupted, revelations. Islam's scripture, the Qur'an, is understood,by Muslims to have restored God's original guidance. The Qur'an includes numerous biblical personalities but recognizes as authentic only three sections of biblical literature: the Torah of Moses, the Evangel of Jesus, and the Psalms of David.
Muslims see many of their beliefs and practices as biblical: the existence of only one God, the prophets, heaven, hell, angels, and a day of judgment. They also see the importance of charity, prayer, and fasting in the Bible. Although Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet and not divine, they do believe the accounts of His virgin birth, sinless nature, miracles, and second coming.
The Qur'an accuses Jews and Christians of distorting their earlier revelation by deliberately suppressing the truth or by false interpretation. Muslims charge that the OT and NT contain logical inconsistencies, improbabilities, and factual errors. Charges against the OT include false reports of immorality (David and Bathsheba), missing doctrines (afterlife in the Torah), and incompatibility with science. The Evangel has been corrupted with inaccurate historical references, discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, and fabrications (such as the crucifixion). Christians and Jews allegedly suppressed or removed biblical predictions of Muhammad. For example, Psalm 84:4-6 is said to be about Muhammad, who overcame his childhood disadvantages by God's grace. Jesus supposedly predicted the coming Prophet Muhammad when He spoke of the "Counselor" in John 14.
Islam rejects the concept of human participation in the process of revelation that shows in the varieties of biblical books (Gospels, Letters, etc.). Jesus' original message is deemed lost. Muslims believe that Gospel authors, writing long after Jesus, altered the message to promote their own points of view. Paul's letters are supposed to promote a "mystical" Christ and "false" doctrines such as the resurrection. Another Muslim argument against biblical reliability is the lack of a record that the original texts passed from one generation to the next.
Muslims are, of course, correct that the Bible is older than the Qur'an. But there is not a shred of evidence the Bible has been corrupted. Indeed, the transmission of its text is by far the most accurate of any from the ancient world (see "Has the Bible Been Accurately Copied Down Through the Centuries?" By Norman L. Geisler). The Bible is not compromised by God using human personalities in its writing any more than when He uses human personality in the spoken word of prophets. Moreover, powerful evidence supports, among other things, the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (see "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" By William Lane Craig). Prayerful Christians can help to correct Muslim misconceptions about the Bible (e.g., by showing that the Bible does not sanction the sinfulness of Western culture). Indeed, Christ's followers should befriend Muslims so the Holy Spirit can bring conviction to their hearts through the powerful Word of God (Heb 4:12).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Showing posts with label the Apologetics Study Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Apologetics Study Bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
How Does a Christian Converse with a Buddhist? By Ravi Zacharias
Attraction to Eastern spirituality, and particularly Buddhism, is powerful because the human spirit craves spiritual answers. Thus, whenever a Christian converses with someone of another faith, including Buddhism, he must attempt to reveal the hungers of the human heart and how Christ alone addresses them.
Gautama Buddha taught that we should free ourselves from illusions of selfhood, God, forgiveness, and individual life hereafter. We should focus on a life wherein good deeds outweigh the bad. Buddha believed that all life is suffering and that to escape from rebirth we must understand our nature. If we extinguish hungers and detach ourselves from desires (namely, relationships), we will then offset all impure acts and thoughts. That is the Buddhist's hope. But Buddhism's attraction provides no real answers. The self-which is undeniable and inescapable-is lost in Buddhist philosophy, which brushes away the hungers of the soul. Everything is in our care. All losses are ours. There is no "other" to whom we can go, not even a self to whom we can speak. Yet Buddhism's denial of a personal God is unable to prevent its practitioners seeking to relate to and worship a personal being. There is a universal hunger that drives the self to a transcendent personal other of one's making.
Buddha considered one's present life to be payment for previous lives. Each rebirth is due to karmic indebtedness, but without the carryover of the person. In contrast, Christianity sees the individual self as distinctive and indivisible. God's love is personal. Jesus brought God's offer for true forgiveness and eternal life while affirming each individual as uniquely created in God's image. For Jesus, suffering is only symptomatic of the life unhinged from right relationship with God. We have broken away from God, from our fellow human beings, and even from ourselves.
In contrast to karma-where "sin" is nothing more than ignorance or illusion Christ's forgiveness can provide true appeal for the Buddhist. The gospel proclaims that we have come apart from within, and to this brokenness Jesus brings the real answer. In finding true relationship with God, all other relationships are given moral worth. God, who is distinct and distant, came close so that we who are sinful and weak may be forgiven and made strong in communion with God Himself without losing our identity. That simple act of communion encapsulates life's purpose. The individual retains his or her individuality while dwelling in community.
Moreover, Christ does not prescribe extinguishing one's self-which is not possible-but rather prescribes no longer living for oneself. Hungering after righteousness is good and brings God's fulfillment. Everyone who has surrendered all at the feet of Jesus can confess with the Apostle Paul, "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day" (2 Tm 1:12). Jesus Christ guards all our purposes, loves, attachments, and affections when we entrust them to Him.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Gautama Buddha taught that we should free ourselves from illusions of selfhood, God, forgiveness, and individual life hereafter. We should focus on a life wherein good deeds outweigh the bad. Buddha believed that all life is suffering and that to escape from rebirth we must understand our nature. If we extinguish hungers and detach ourselves from desires (namely, relationships), we will then offset all impure acts and thoughts. That is the Buddhist's hope. But Buddhism's attraction provides no real answers. The self-which is undeniable and inescapable-is lost in Buddhist philosophy, which brushes away the hungers of the soul. Everything is in our care. All losses are ours. There is no "other" to whom we can go, not even a self to whom we can speak. Yet Buddhism's denial of a personal God is unable to prevent its practitioners seeking to relate to and worship a personal being. There is a universal hunger that drives the self to a transcendent personal other of one's making.
Buddha considered one's present life to be payment for previous lives. Each rebirth is due to karmic indebtedness, but without the carryover of the person. In contrast, Christianity sees the individual self as distinctive and indivisible. God's love is personal. Jesus brought God's offer for true forgiveness and eternal life while affirming each individual as uniquely created in God's image. For Jesus, suffering is only symptomatic of the life unhinged from right relationship with God. We have broken away from God, from our fellow human beings, and even from ourselves.
In contrast to karma-where "sin" is nothing more than ignorance or illusion Christ's forgiveness can provide true appeal for the Buddhist. The gospel proclaims that we have come apart from within, and to this brokenness Jesus brings the real answer. In finding true relationship with God, all other relationships are given moral worth. God, who is distinct and distant, came close so that we who are sinful and weak may be forgiven and made strong in communion with God Himself without losing our identity. That simple act of communion encapsulates life's purpose. The individual retains his or her individuality while dwelling in community.
Moreover, Christ does not prescribe extinguishing one's self-which is not possible-but rather prescribes no longer living for oneself. Hungering after righteousness is good and brings God's fulfillment. Everyone who has surrendered all at the feet of Jesus can confess with the Apostle Paul, "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day" (2 Tm 1:12). Jesus Christ guards all our purposes, loves, attachments, and affections when we entrust them to Him.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Notable Christian Apologist: Justin Martyr By Ted Cabal
Born in Palestine, Justin (c. 100-167) spent his early years immersed in philosophy. Though a professional philosopher (Platonist), he was impressed with the courage of Christians facing death for their faith. He converted to Christ in A.D. 130 through the witness of an old Christian man who spoke to him of the true “philosophy”. This truth was revealed trough biblical prophets foretelling events to come and was confirmed by miracles. Justin's heart was stirred and thereafter he spent his days seeking to introduce others to Christ. Faithfulness to his confession of Christ ultimately led to his beheading at Rome-hence the name Justin Martyr.
Justin would go on to write several apologetic treatises, including two addressed to the Roman emperors Antoniinus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In these works Justin, sought to prove the injustice of the persecution of Christians. He defended Christians from false charges such as atheism. Their refusal to bow before pagan idols and worship the emperor stemmed from their worship of the true God, who is invisible as Creator of all things. Demons are the true source of the hatred instigated toward Christians. Traces of truth that may be discovered in pagan philosophers writing before Christ were borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures or else are due to the pre-incarnate Christ as Logos (the rational power guiding the universe) enlightening them. The biblical prophets accurately prophesied the coming of this Christ as the central figure of history.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Justin would go on to write several apologetic treatises, including two addressed to the Roman emperors Antoniinus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In these works Justin, sought to prove the injustice of the persecution of Christians. He defended Christians from false charges such as atheism. Their refusal to bow before pagan idols and worship the emperor stemmed from their worship of the true God, who is invisible as Creator of all things. Demons are the true source of the hatred instigated toward Christians. Traces of truth that may be discovered in pagan philosophers writing before Christ were borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures or else are due to the pre-incarnate Christ as Logos (the rational power guiding the universe) enlightening them. The biblical prophets accurately prophesied the coming of this Christ as the central figure of history.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Does the Bible Teach That Humans Are More Than Their Bodies? By J.P. Moreland
Throughout history most Christians have believed in "the souls of men and beasts," to take an expression from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Animals and humans are composed of an immaterial entity-a soul-and a body. The main biblical emphasis is on the functional, holistic unity of a human being. But this unity includes a dualist distinction of body and soul. The human soul, while not by nature immortal, is nevertheless capable of entering an intermediate disembodied state upon death and, eventually, being reunited with a resurrected body. By contrast, animal souls do not reflect the image of God and most likely do not survive death.
There are two main lines of argument for dualism: biblical anthropological terms and biblical teaching about life after death.
1. Old Testament anthropological terms. Biblical anthropological terms exhibit a wide field of meanings, and so we must take care to interpret each occurrence in its context. The two most important OT terms are nephesh (frequently translated "soul") and ruach (frequently translated "spirit").
Nephesh sometimes refers to.God as an immaterial, transcendent self, a seat of mind, will, emotion, etc. (see Jb 23:13; Am 6:8). It is similarly applied to humans (Dt 6:5; 21:14; Pr 21:10; Is 26:9; Mc 7:1). It also refers to a vital entity that makes something alive (Ps 30:3; 86:13; Pr 3:22.). Finally, nephesh refers to the continuing center of personal identity that departs to the afterlife as the last breath ceases (Gn 35:18; cp. 1 Kg 17:21-22; Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; 139:8; Lm 1:1). The Bible regularly speaks of death and resurrection in terms of the departure and return of the soul. Indeed, the problem of necromancy throughout Israel's history (the practice of trying to communicate with the dead in Sheol; see Dt 18:9-14; 1 Sm 28:7-25) seems to presuppose the view that people continue to live conscious lives after the death of their bodies.
Ruach, frequently translated "spirit," sometimes signifies a vital power that infuses something, animates it, and gives it life and consciousness. Thus the ruach in man is formed by Yahweh (Zch 12:1), proceeds from and returns to Him, and is that which gives man life (Jb 34:14). In Ezekiel 37, God takes dry bones, reconstitutes human bodies of flesh, and then adds a ruach to these bodies to make them living persons (see Gn 2:7.) There is no ruach in physical idols and thus they cannot arise and possess consciousness (Jr 10:14; Hab 2:19). Ruach also refers to an independent, invisible, conscious being as when God employs a spirit to accomplish some purpose (2 Kg 19:7; 22:21-23). In this sense Yahweh is called the God of the vital spirits of all flesh (Nm 27:16; cp. 16:22). Here "spirit" means an individual, conscious being distinct from the body. Moreover, ruach also refers to the seat of various states of consciousness, including will (Dt 2:30; Ps 51:10-12; Jr 51:11), thought (Is 29:24), emotion (Jdg 8:3; 1 Kg 21:4), and one's moral or spiritual condition (Pr 18:14; Ec 7:8).
2. The OT on life after death. The OT depicts individual survival after physical death in a disembodied form. The dead in Sheol are called rephaim. Old Testament teaching about life after death is best understood in terms of a diminished though conscious form of disembodied personal survival in an intermediate state. First, the OT often depicts life in Sheol as lethargic, inactive, and resembling an unconscious coma (Jb 3:13; Ps 88:10-12; 115:17-18; Ec 9:10; Is 38:18). However, it also describes the dead in Sheol as being with family, awake, and active on occasion (Is 14:9-10).
Second, the Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach the practice of necromancy (communicating with the dead) as a real possibility and, on some occasions, an actuality (see Lv 19:31; 20:6; Dt 18:11; 1 Sm 28; Is 8:19). Third, according to the OT, the nephesh-a conscious person without flesh and bone-departs to God upon death (see Ps 49:15).
3. New Testament anthropological terms. Several NT passages use pneuma (spirit) or psyche (soul) in a dualistic sense. Hebrews 12:23 refers to deceased but existing human beings in the heavenly Jerusalem as "the spirits of righteous people made perfect." Revelation 6:9-11 refers to dead saints as the "souls" of the martyrs who are in the intermediate state awaiting the final resurrection (20:5-6). Several texts refer to death as "giving up the spirit" (Mt 27:50; Lk 23:46; 24:37; Jn 19:30). Matthew 10:28 says, "Don't fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." In this text psyche seems clearly to refer to something that can exist without the body.
4. New Testament teaching on the intermediate state. Certain NT passages seem to affirm a disembodied intermediate state between death and final resurrection. For instance, there is the transfiguration passage (see Mt 17:1-13) in which Elijah (who never died) and Moses (who had died) appear with Jesus. The most natural way to interpret this text is to understand that Moses and Elijah have continued to exist (Moses was not re-created for this one event) and were made temporarily visible. Thus the transfiguration passage seems to imply a disembodied intermediate state.
In Luke 23:43, Jesus promised the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise." The term "today" should be taken in its natural sense, namely as meaning that the man would be with Jesus that very day in the intermediate state after their deaths.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 and Philippians 1:21-24, Paul referred to a state after death and prior to the resurrection in which people experience a conscious disembodied "' ("naked," "unclothed") existence in God's presence.
In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul admitted that, during a visionary experience, he did not know whether he was in his body or temporarily disembodied. Because Paul understood himself as a soul/spirit united to a body, the latter state of being disembodied was a real possibility for him.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
There are two main lines of argument for dualism: biblical anthropological terms and biblical teaching about life after death.
1. Old Testament anthropological terms. Biblical anthropological terms exhibit a wide field of meanings, and so we must take care to interpret each occurrence in its context. The two most important OT terms are nephesh (frequently translated "soul") and ruach (frequently translated "spirit").
Nephesh sometimes refers to.God as an immaterial, transcendent self, a seat of mind, will, emotion, etc. (see Jb 23:13; Am 6:8). It is similarly applied to humans (Dt 6:5; 21:14; Pr 21:10; Is 26:9; Mc 7:1). It also refers to a vital entity that makes something alive (Ps 30:3; 86:13; Pr 3:22.). Finally, nephesh refers to the continuing center of personal identity that departs to the afterlife as the last breath ceases (Gn 35:18; cp. 1 Kg 17:21-22; Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; 139:8; Lm 1:1). The Bible regularly speaks of death and resurrection in terms of the departure and return of the soul. Indeed, the problem of necromancy throughout Israel's history (the practice of trying to communicate with the dead in Sheol; see Dt 18:9-14; 1 Sm 28:7-25) seems to presuppose the view that people continue to live conscious lives after the death of their bodies.
Ruach, frequently translated "spirit," sometimes signifies a vital power that infuses something, animates it, and gives it life and consciousness. Thus the ruach in man is formed by Yahweh (Zch 12:1), proceeds from and returns to Him, and is that which gives man life (Jb 34:14). In Ezekiel 37, God takes dry bones, reconstitutes human bodies of flesh, and then adds a ruach to these bodies to make them living persons (see Gn 2:7.) There is no ruach in physical idols and thus they cannot arise and possess consciousness (Jr 10:14; Hab 2:19). Ruach also refers to an independent, invisible, conscious being as when God employs a spirit to accomplish some purpose (2 Kg 19:7; 22:21-23). In this sense Yahweh is called the God of the vital spirits of all flesh (Nm 27:16; cp. 16:22). Here "spirit" means an individual, conscious being distinct from the body. Moreover, ruach also refers to the seat of various states of consciousness, including will (Dt 2:30; Ps 51:10-12; Jr 51:11), thought (Is 29:24), emotion (Jdg 8:3; 1 Kg 21:4), and one's moral or spiritual condition (Pr 18:14; Ec 7:8).
2. The OT on life after death. The OT depicts individual survival after physical death in a disembodied form. The dead in Sheol are called rephaim. Old Testament teaching about life after death is best understood in terms of a diminished though conscious form of disembodied personal survival in an intermediate state. First, the OT often depicts life in Sheol as lethargic, inactive, and resembling an unconscious coma (Jb 3:13; Ps 88:10-12; 115:17-18; Ec 9:10; Is 38:18). However, it also describes the dead in Sheol as being with family, awake, and active on occasion (Is 14:9-10).
Second, the Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach the practice of necromancy (communicating with the dead) as a real possibility and, on some occasions, an actuality (see Lv 19:31; 20:6; Dt 18:11; 1 Sm 28; Is 8:19). Third, according to the OT, the nephesh-a conscious person without flesh and bone-departs to God upon death (see Ps 49:15).
3. New Testament anthropological terms. Several NT passages use pneuma (spirit) or psyche (soul) in a dualistic sense. Hebrews 12:23 refers to deceased but existing human beings in the heavenly Jerusalem as "the spirits of righteous people made perfect." Revelation 6:9-11 refers to dead saints as the "souls" of the martyrs who are in the intermediate state awaiting the final resurrection (20:5-6). Several texts refer to death as "giving up the spirit" (Mt 27:50; Lk 23:46; 24:37; Jn 19:30). Matthew 10:28 says, "Don't fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." In this text psyche seems clearly to refer to something that can exist without the body.
4. New Testament teaching on the intermediate state. Certain NT passages seem to affirm a disembodied intermediate state between death and final resurrection. For instance, there is the transfiguration passage (see Mt 17:1-13) in which Elijah (who never died) and Moses (who had died) appear with Jesus. The most natural way to interpret this text is to understand that Moses and Elijah have continued to exist (Moses was not re-created for this one event) and were made temporarily visible. Thus the transfiguration passage seems to imply a disembodied intermediate state.
In Luke 23:43, Jesus promised the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise." The term "today" should be taken in its natural sense, namely as meaning that the man would be with Jesus that very day in the intermediate state after their deaths.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 and Philippians 1:21-24, Paul referred to a state after death and prior to the resurrection in which people experience a conscious disembodied "' ("naked," "unclothed") existence in God's presence.
In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul admitted that, during a visionary experience, he did not know whether he was in his body or temporarily disembodied. Because Paul understood himself as a soul/spirit united to a body, the latter state of being disembodied was a real possibility for him.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Isn't Christianity Intolerant? By Paul Copan
Unless we're talking about language development, it's a good idea to understand words before we use them, especially when they may be emotionally charged. One commonly used-and abused-word describing Christians is intolerant. Of course, some prickly, pugnacious persons call themselves Christians but deny this claim by their lives. True Christianity shouldn't be equated with abuses committed in Christ's name. Think of Mother Teresa, not the Inquisition! Without compromising their convictions, all Christians should-as much as possible-live at peace with everyone (Rm 12:18).
Today people assume tolerance means "accepting all views as true." And because genuine Christians don't do this, they are charged with being intolerant. Whenever you hear Christians criticized as intolerant, ask, "What do you mean by `intolerance'?" True tolerance doesn't mean accepting all beliefs-the good and the goofy-as legitimate. After all, one who disagrees with Christians doesn't accept Christianity; he thinks Christians are wrong! Historically, tolerance has meant putting up with what you find disagreeable or false. You put up with strangers on a plane who snore or slurp their coffee. Similarly, you put up with another person's beliefs without criminalizing him.
Tolerance differentiates between beliefs and persons. While disagreeing with certain beliefs, we can show respect to persons holding those beliefs, since all humans are made in God's image and inherently deserve respect. Furthermore, Christianity's truth doesn't imply that non-Christians are 100 percent wrong. Christians can agree with non-Christians about, say, certain ethical truths and scientific findings. All truth is God's truth. Truth is more basic than tolerance since tolerance itself presupposes belief in truth.
Tolerance operates at different levels. What can be tolerated in one area may not be tolerated in another. I'll tolerate certain behaviors in other children that I won't tolerate in my own. Christians shouldn't tolerate adultery within the church (ecclesiastical intolerance), but this doesn't mean we seek to have the adulterer imprisoned (legal intolerance).
Condemning arrogance, Christianity emphasizes grace and humility. Some "Christians" think they're superior to non-Christians. But this violates the spirit of the gospel. We gratefully receive God's gift of salvation, being like beggars telling other beggars where to find bread. Unlike the manager of some exclusive country club, God lovingly invites everyone to participate in His family-and not at the expense of truth.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Today people assume tolerance means "accepting all views as true." And because genuine Christians don't do this, they are charged with being intolerant. Whenever you hear Christians criticized as intolerant, ask, "What do you mean by `intolerance'?" True tolerance doesn't mean accepting all beliefs-the good and the goofy-as legitimate. After all, one who disagrees with Christians doesn't accept Christianity; he thinks Christians are wrong! Historically, tolerance has meant putting up with what you find disagreeable or false. You put up with strangers on a plane who snore or slurp their coffee. Similarly, you put up with another person's beliefs without criminalizing him.
Tolerance differentiates between beliefs and persons. While disagreeing with certain beliefs, we can show respect to persons holding those beliefs, since all humans are made in God's image and inherently deserve respect. Furthermore, Christianity's truth doesn't imply that non-Christians are 100 percent wrong. Christians can agree with non-Christians about, say, certain ethical truths and scientific findings. All truth is God's truth. Truth is more basic than tolerance since tolerance itself presupposes belief in truth.
Tolerance operates at different levels. What can be tolerated in one area may not be tolerated in another. I'll tolerate certain behaviors in other children that I won't tolerate in my own. Christians shouldn't tolerate adultery within the church (ecclesiastical intolerance), but this doesn't mean we seek to have the adulterer imprisoned (legal intolerance).
Condemning arrogance, Christianity emphasizes grace and humility. Some "Christians" think they're superior to non-Christians. But this violates the spirit of the gospel. We gratefully receive God's gift of salvation, being like beggars telling other beggars where to find bread. Unlike the manager of some exclusive country club, God lovingly invites everyone to participate in His family-and not at the expense of truth.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
What Are Common Characteristics of the New Religious Movements? By Leonard G. Goss
“New religions" or "alternative religions" are breakaways from larger, more traditional religions. They break down into self-improvement groups, Eastern religions or thought systems, unification groups, and Christian deviation sects. Many of these new religions had Christian roots, but have departed from historic biblical Christianity and discarded one or more of Christianity's basic beliefs. What they have left behind is something that decidedly is not Christianity. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves" (Mt 7:15).
Viewed through the lens of biblical teaching, each new religion abandons orthodox Christian tenants at one point or another (and usually at many different points). Latter-day Saints (Mormons), for example, have parted company with the Christian tradition in multiple ways, but perhaps the most dramatic is their teaching that the church founded by Jesus and the apostles was destroyed from human history by the time of Constantine. Hence, the LDS church was founded to once again represent the exclusive truth and to rescue the Christian religion from total apostasy. The Unification Church (Moonies) also departs from biblical teaching and undermines Christian thinking in dozens of different ways, most notably in claiming their founder is God's messiah and messenger who will fulfill the work of Jesus. This is a serious heresy found in many of the new religions, and the Apostle Paul warned about following after "another Jesus" who is not the same Jesus revealed in Scripture (2 Co 11:4). Other examples are The Way International, a group where the leader's interpretation of the Bible is considered the only valid interpretation and is in fact the Word. The Children of God, sometimes called the Family of Love, believes all mainline Christian churches are as anti-Christian as organizations that do not profess Christianity. The basic belief of this sect is that its members are the only true Christians and obedient servants left on earth. Many other new religious groups could be mentioned, but one last example would be Eckankar, one of the mystical new religions, which teaches out-of-the-body travels (bilocation) and replaces Jesus Christ with the group's founder as the incarnation of God on earth and teaches that only through their group can an individual find ultimate truth.
This small sampling of new religions shows how very different these movements can be, and therefore it is not easy to suggest that each new religion looks the same or possesses the same theological, sociological, psychological, and moral characteristics. Although each new religious belief system deviates drastically and in individual ways from conventional, historic Christianity, still there are some common characteristics to look for in the new movements. Here is a list of warning signs and danger zones, along with some representative groups displaying these characteristics noted in parentheses:
(1) The group is almost always outside the mainstream of dominant religious forms and culture and displays an oppositional style and substance, meaning it is elitist and exclusionist. (Church of Scientology, Global Family. Unification Church, The Walk/Church of the Living Word, The Way International)
(2) Often there is a "new authority" or new revelation besides the Bible from which adherents to the group must find ultimate truths. (Christian Science, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church)
(3) On the other hand, some groups do not claim to have a new, extra-biblical revelation; instead, a group may claim "all we use is the Bible." But the Bible is reinterpreted to justify and defend false teachings. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love)
(4) The group is comprised of lay people; there are no paid clergy or professional religious functionaries. (Fundamentalist Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)
(5) The group is focused around a central figure who is a prophet-founder "chosen" by God to deliver a special message to the modern world that is not found in the Bible, has not been known to genuine Christians throughout all church history, or to recover the teaching of the ancient church that has been lost through the centuries. (Christian Science, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Unification Church)
(6) This leader is usually a charismatic figure, and often the style of his or her leadership is authoritarian. (Children of God/Family of Love, Church of the Living Word, Yahwism)
(7) Often the group teaches that the Bible foretold the coming of its particular group or leader. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk/ Church of the Living Word)
(8) The group thinks of its belief system as the last bastion of God's work on earth. The adherents are God's "final and last group" and they play a central role in the last things. The truth of all things spiritual is exclusive with them and the world is doomed without them. (Jehovah's Witnesses, University Bible Fellowship)
(9) The group believes its adherents are being persecuted. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Healthy Happy Holy Organization, the Truth Station, Unification Church)
(10) The group might engage in some form of predatory and destructive recruitment of new members with vigor, zeal, and high pressure, often deceiving recruits or not revealing their whole theology. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Unification Church, the Way International)
(11) The group sanctions wayward and rebellious members. (Church of Armageddon, Divine Light Mission, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)
(12) The group believes that God is a force or power, not a person who relates to the creation. (Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity)
(13) The group is fixated on eschatology (end times) and is usually apocalyptic in its teaching. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)
(14) The lifestyle of the group's members is highly legalistic. (Alamo Christian Foundation, the Christ Family, Church of Armageddon, Maranatha Christian Church)
(15) Sometimes the group has a notion that a communal organization is necessary to fulfill the human calling. Therefore, there is usually a tightly maintained autocratic organization which governs both spiritual and everyday life. Some dictate modes of dress, length of hair, the type of personal adornment that is permitted, and sometimes even marriage partners. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Forever Family/Church of Bible Understanding, Church Universal and Triumphant, The Walk)
(16) The group engages in strange rituals and mindless chanting. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Penitentes/Brothers of Our Father Jesus)
(17) The group emphasizes secondary issues and minor points of theology. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses)
(18) The group members are very often taught that they can have direct revelations and visions from God. (Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, Unification Church)
(19) The group claims that it is compatible or in harmony with the Bible and traditional Christianity, but in fact it reduces and discounts the Bible or otherwise adds to the revelation of Scripture. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, People's Temple, Unification Church)
(20) The group has usurped traditional Christian vocabulary, but has redefined and reinterpreted terms and concepts from the Bible-making its words do "double-duty" in order to defend aberrant doctrines. Their language is pliable and has no fixed meaning. (Christian Science, Mormonism, Unity School of Christianity)
(21) The group denies at least one central truth of Christianity-such as the work of Christ on the cross, the authority of the Scriptures, salvation by grace through faith, the bodily resurrection, the doctrine of eternal punishment, etc. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Branch Davidians, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism-the Church of the New Jerusalem, Unification Church, Unitarian Universalists)
(22) The group denies both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Christian Science, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, United Pentecostal Church, The Way)
(23) The group recognizes Jesus as a great teacher and leader, an avatar, a wise man, even as the most important of God's created beings-but does not believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. (Unification Church, The United Pentecostal Church, The Way International)
(24) The group teaches a "salvation through works" system whereby members must ultimately save themselves. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)
(25) The group emphasizes experience over basic Christian doctrine. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love, Divine Light Mission, est, Lifespring, Mormonism, Urantia, The Walk/Church of the Living Word)
(26) The group is mystical and individualistically oriented. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Foundation of Human Understanding, New Testament Missionary Fellowship)
(27) The group dabbles in the occult and spiritism. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk)
Christians must recognize that our spiritual enemy is not the new religion but, rather, Satan (2 Co 11:12-15).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Viewed through the lens of biblical teaching, each new religion abandons orthodox Christian tenants at one point or another (and usually at many different points). Latter-day Saints (Mormons), for example, have parted company with the Christian tradition in multiple ways, but perhaps the most dramatic is their teaching that the church founded by Jesus and the apostles was destroyed from human history by the time of Constantine. Hence, the LDS church was founded to once again represent the exclusive truth and to rescue the Christian religion from total apostasy. The Unification Church (Moonies) also departs from biblical teaching and undermines Christian thinking in dozens of different ways, most notably in claiming their founder is God's messiah and messenger who will fulfill the work of Jesus. This is a serious heresy found in many of the new religions, and the Apostle Paul warned about following after "another Jesus" who is not the same Jesus revealed in Scripture (2 Co 11:4). Other examples are The Way International, a group where the leader's interpretation of the Bible is considered the only valid interpretation and is in fact the Word. The Children of God, sometimes called the Family of Love, believes all mainline Christian churches are as anti-Christian as organizations that do not profess Christianity. The basic belief of this sect is that its members are the only true Christians and obedient servants left on earth. Many other new religious groups could be mentioned, but one last example would be Eckankar, one of the mystical new religions, which teaches out-of-the-body travels (bilocation) and replaces Jesus Christ with the group's founder as the incarnation of God on earth and teaches that only through their group can an individual find ultimate truth.
This small sampling of new religions shows how very different these movements can be, and therefore it is not easy to suggest that each new religion looks the same or possesses the same theological, sociological, psychological, and moral characteristics. Although each new religious belief system deviates drastically and in individual ways from conventional, historic Christianity, still there are some common characteristics to look for in the new movements. Here is a list of warning signs and danger zones, along with some representative groups displaying these characteristics noted in parentheses:
(1) The group is almost always outside the mainstream of dominant religious forms and culture and displays an oppositional style and substance, meaning it is elitist and exclusionist. (Church of Scientology, Global Family. Unification Church, The Walk/Church of the Living Word, The Way International)
(2) Often there is a "new authority" or new revelation besides the Bible from which adherents to the group must find ultimate truths. (Christian Science, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church)
(3) On the other hand, some groups do not claim to have a new, extra-biblical revelation; instead, a group may claim "all we use is the Bible." But the Bible is reinterpreted to justify and defend false teachings. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love)
(4) The group is comprised of lay people; there are no paid clergy or professional religious functionaries. (Fundamentalist Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)
(5) The group is focused around a central figure who is a prophet-founder "chosen" by God to deliver a special message to the modern world that is not found in the Bible, has not been known to genuine Christians throughout all church history, or to recover the teaching of the ancient church that has been lost through the centuries. (Christian Science, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Unification Church)
(6) This leader is usually a charismatic figure, and often the style of his or her leadership is authoritarian. (Children of God/Family of Love, Church of the Living Word, Yahwism)
(7) Often the group teaches that the Bible foretold the coming of its particular group or leader. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk/ Church of the Living Word)
(8) The group thinks of its belief system as the last bastion of God's work on earth. The adherents are God's "final and last group" and they play a central role in the last things. The truth of all things spiritual is exclusive with them and the world is doomed without them. (Jehovah's Witnesses, University Bible Fellowship)
(9) The group believes its adherents are being persecuted. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Healthy Happy Holy Organization, the Truth Station, Unification Church)
(10) The group might engage in some form of predatory and destructive recruitment of new members with vigor, zeal, and high pressure, often deceiving recruits or not revealing their whole theology. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Unification Church, the Way International)
(11) The group sanctions wayward and rebellious members. (Church of Armageddon, Divine Light Mission, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)
(12) The group believes that God is a force or power, not a person who relates to the creation. (Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity)
(13) The group is fixated on eschatology (end times) and is usually apocalyptic in its teaching. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)
(14) The lifestyle of the group's members is highly legalistic. (Alamo Christian Foundation, the Christ Family, Church of Armageddon, Maranatha Christian Church)
(15) Sometimes the group has a notion that a communal organization is necessary to fulfill the human calling. Therefore, there is usually a tightly maintained autocratic organization which governs both spiritual and everyday life. Some dictate modes of dress, length of hair, the type of personal adornment that is permitted, and sometimes even marriage partners. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Forever Family/Church of Bible Understanding, Church Universal and Triumphant, The Walk)
(16) The group engages in strange rituals and mindless chanting. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Penitentes/Brothers of Our Father Jesus)
(17) The group emphasizes secondary issues and minor points of theology. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses)
(18) The group members are very often taught that they can have direct revelations and visions from God. (Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, Unification Church)
(19) The group claims that it is compatible or in harmony with the Bible and traditional Christianity, but in fact it reduces and discounts the Bible or otherwise adds to the revelation of Scripture. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, People's Temple, Unification Church)
(20) The group has usurped traditional Christian vocabulary, but has redefined and reinterpreted terms and concepts from the Bible-making its words do "double-duty" in order to defend aberrant doctrines. Their language is pliable and has no fixed meaning. (Christian Science, Mormonism, Unity School of Christianity)
(21) The group denies at least one central truth of Christianity-such as the work of Christ on the cross, the authority of the Scriptures, salvation by grace through faith, the bodily resurrection, the doctrine of eternal punishment, etc. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Branch Davidians, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism-the Church of the New Jerusalem, Unification Church, Unitarian Universalists)
(22) The group denies both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Christian Science, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, United Pentecostal Church, The Way)
(23) The group recognizes Jesus as a great teacher and leader, an avatar, a wise man, even as the most important of God's created beings-but does not believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. (Unification Church, The United Pentecostal Church, The Way International)
(24) The group teaches a "salvation through works" system whereby members must ultimately save themselves. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)
(25) The group emphasizes experience over basic Christian doctrine. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love, Divine Light Mission, est, Lifespring, Mormonism, Urantia, The Walk/Church of the Living Word)
(26) The group is mystical and individualistically oriented. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Foundation of Human Understanding, New Testament Missionary Fellowship)
(27) The group dabbles in the occult and spiritism. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk)
Christians must recognize that our spiritual enemy is not the new religion but, rather, Satan (2 Co 11:12-15).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Is Christian Science Compatible with the Bible? By Robert B. Stewart
Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) is a religion based primarily upon the New Thought metaphysical theories of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910). It is a rebirth of the ancient gnostic heresy that matter, including disease, is illusory. Still, to the casual observer, it often sounds biblical because of Christian Science's propensity to use (while redefining) Christian terms. For instance, Eddy says in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures that "the Bible has been my only authority" (126:29-30), that "Divine Science derives its sanction from the Bible" (146:23), and also that the Bible is the "inspired Word" and "our sufficient guide to eternal Life" (497:3-4). Nevertheless, Christian Science ; rejects the Bible's plain sense in favor of the spiritual interpretations recorded in Mrs. Eddy's writings, Science and Health, Miscellaneous Writings, and Manual of the Mother Church. This becomes clear when she states, "The material record of the Bible ... is no more important to our well being than the history of Europe and America" (Miscellaneous Writings, 170).
A brief perusal of Science and Health reveals many contradictions between Christian Science and the Bible. Mrs. Eddy's religion not only reinterprets biblical names (Adam becomes "belief in original sin" [579:8-9], while Abraham refers to "faith in the divine Life and in the eternal Principle of being" [579:10-11]) but also denies key doctrines. It replaces the biblical concept of a triune personal God with a triple principle of "Life, Truth, and Love" (331:26-27). It denies sin: "Man is deathless, spiritual. He is above sin or frailty" (266:29-30). It rejects Christ's sufficient atonement: "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins as he went ' daily about his Father's business" (25:6-9). It even denies Jesus' deity, as it distinguishes between the Christ, "the divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error" (583:10-11), and the historical person of Jesus.
By redefining biblical terms, Christian Science denies virtually every cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In no meaningful way can Christian Science be considered compatible with the Bible.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
A brief perusal of Science and Health reveals many contradictions between Christian Science and the Bible. Mrs. Eddy's religion not only reinterprets biblical names (Adam becomes "belief in original sin" [579:8-9], while Abraham refers to "faith in the divine Life and in the eternal Principle of being" [579:10-11]) but also denies key doctrines. It replaces the biblical concept of a triune personal God with a triple principle of "Life, Truth, and Love" (331:26-27). It denies sin: "Man is deathless, spiritual. He is above sin or frailty" (266:29-30). It rejects Christ's sufficient atonement: "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins as he went ' daily about his Father's business" (25:6-9). It even denies Jesus' deity, as it distinguishes between the Christ, "the divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error" (583:10-11), and the historical person of Jesus.
By redefining biblical terms, Christian Science denies virtually every cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In no meaningful way can Christian Science be considered compatible with the Bible.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Can a Christian Have Assurance of Salvation? By Chad Owen Brand
Scripture teaches that Christians are saved by God's grace, which we access by placing our faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins (Rm 3:21-26; Eph 2:8-9). It also teaches that we can persevere in that faith since we are "protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pt 1:5). But can we know with assurance that we truly do belong to the Lord and in the end will be resurrected to eternal life? The answer is yes.
The NT writers were convinced that assurance is available to believers. Paul wrote in Romans 8:1, "No condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus," and then concluded that chapter's remarkable discussion with this statement in verses 38-39: "I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will have the power to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord!" John was also convinced that believers can have assurance. He wrote, "This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands" (1 Jn 2:3). And again: "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death" (1 Jn 3:14).
How can we receive this assurance? Just as medical technicians test vital signs to look for indicators of health, so there are several "vital sign indicators" in Scripture for spiritual health.
1. The Bible says we are to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (1 Co 9:24-27; 2 Co 13:5). There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with a Christian stopping from time to time and asking the question "Am I doing okay, spiritually?" We are not looking for perfection at such times, just signs that God is making a difference.
2. Are we walking in obedience to God? Those who love Him obey Him (1 Jn 2:3). This is an objective test. Again, we are not looking for perfection, since becoming like Christ is a process that lasts a lifetime (Rm 8:29-30; 1 Jn 3:2). The question is, is obedience to Him what I want more than anything else?
3. Do we have a sense that we truly belong to the Lord and He to us? Scripture teaches that if we are Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rm 8:9), a Spirit who "testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children" (Rm 8:16). It is this same Spirit who enables us to cry out, `Abba, Father," to our Father in heaven (Rm 8:15; G14:6).
Scripture gives both objective and subjective vital signs. When it comes down to it, as John Calvin once noted, assurance comes with faith. If we are trusting Jesus alone for salvation, that brings assurance with it.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
The NT writers were convinced that assurance is available to believers. Paul wrote in Romans 8:1, "No condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus," and then concluded that chapter's remarkable discussion with this statement in verses 38-39: "I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will have the power to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord!" John was also convinced that believers can have assurance. He wrote, "This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands" (1 Jn 2:3). And again: "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death" (1 Jn 3:14).
How can we receive this assurance? Just as medical technicians test vital signs to look for indicators of health, so there are several "vital sign indicators" in Scripture for spiritual health.
1. The Bible says we are to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (1 Co 9:24-27; 2 Co 13:5). There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with a Christian stopping from time to time and asking the question "Am I doing okay, spiritually?" We are not looking for perfection at such times, just signs that God is making a difference.
2. Are we walking in obedience to God? Those who love Him obey Him (1 Jn 2:3). This is an objective test. Again, we are not looking for perfection, since becoming like Christ is a process that lasts a lifetime (Rm 8:29-30; 1 Jn 3:2). The question is, is obedience to Him what I want more than anything else?
3. Do we have a sense that we truly belong to the Lord and He to us? Scripture teaches that if we are Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rm 8:9), a Spirit who "testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children" (Rm 8:16). It is this same Spirit who enables us to cry out, `Abba, Father," to our Father in heaven (Rm 8:15; G14:6).
Scripture gives both objective and subjective vital signs. When it comes down to it, as John Calvin once noted, assurance comes with faith. If we are trusting Jesus alone for salvation, that brings assurance with it.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Notable Christian Apologist: Irenaeus By Ted Cabal
Irenaeus (c. n.D. 130-200) was born of Greek parents in Asia (modern-day Turkey). In his youth he learned under Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. As a teenager Irenaeus served as a missionary to Gaul (France), where he later filled the office of bishop. Some later Christian authorities indicate that he was martyred during the reign of Septimius Severus.
Irenaeus was the most important defender of essential Christian doctrine in the second century. He was especially effective in combating the heresy of Gnosticism. a cult that stressed secret knowledge (gnosis) as the way to salvation. Irenaeus contended with the gnostic leader Marcion, who taught that the OT and NT reveal two different gods. The god of the OT was the creator of matter, which, according to gnostic teaching, was evil. Thus, according to Marcion, the OT was useless. The NT God, as the God of law, unknown before the coming of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus powerfully refuted Marcion by demonstrating the interrelationship of the Testaments. He detailed how the OT accurately predicted the coming of Christ, Moreover, Irenaeus stressed the literal resurrection of Jesus. The Redeemer's physical body is not only not evil but in fact raised from the dead for our salvation – precisely as the OT prophets had predicted.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Irenaeus was the most important defender of essential Christian doctrine in the second century. He was especially effective in combating the heresy of Gnosticism. a cult that stressed secret knowledge (gnosis) as the way to salvation. Irenaeus contended with the gnostic leader Marcion, who taught that the OT and NT reveal two different gods. The god of the OT was the creator of matter, which, according to gnostic teaching, was evil. Thus, according to Marcion, the OT was useless. The NT God, as the God of law, unknown before the coming of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus powerfully refuted Marcion by demonstrating the interrelationship of the Testaments. He detailed how the OT accurately predicted the coming of Christ, Moreover, Irenaeus stressed the literal resurrection of Jesus. The Redeemer's physical body is not only not evil but in fact raised from the dead for our salvation – precisely as the OT prophets had predicted.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Isn't That just Your Interpretation? By Paul Copan
Few things are more frustrating than carefully presenting reasons for the meaning of a text-biblical or otherwise-only to be casually dismissed with "That's just your interpretation!" Whether Scripture, history, literature, or politics is under scrutiny, we witness people reducing meaning to personal interpretation or perspective. Who hasn't heard the Friedrich Nietzche's line, "There are no facts-only interpretations"?
But isn't that statement presumed by the speaker to be a fact, not an interpretation? Many claim that conclusions about abortion are just matters of "interpretation" or "perspective," but they give the impression that if you disagree with them, you're wrong. To deny objectivity is to assume something is objectively true for all people: "Everything is a matter of interpretation, whether or not you agree with my statement." We have only two alternatives: triviality ("It's all perspective, including mine"-so why believe it?) or incoherence ("Everything's a matter of perspective, except mine"-making a person an exception to his own rule).
Most people appeal to "interpretation" because they don't like another alternative. "Interpretation" is often a smokescreen for pursuing one's own agenda or autonomy. To better discern whether this is so, we can ask, "Do you mean that you don't like my interpretation or that you have good reasons for disagreeing with it?" Other questions worth asking are these: "Can a perspective ever be correct?" "Are some things not a matter of perspective (such as a flat earth versus a round earth),"How can you know that your interpretation and my interpretation are actually different?"
Even if we don't always get things right, we can discern that some perspectives better approximate the truth than others. We generally trust the Wall Street Journal over tabloids, even though good newspapers may be wrong at points. The fact that we can recognize that some interpretations are more plausible than others (and thus are more likely true) indicates that not everything is matter of interpretation. Therefore, we must be willing reasons for the most plausible position. After, all, if everything is perspective, how can we distinguish between reasonable and wacky ideas?
Despite our limitations, we still cannot escape objectivity. To deny its possibility is to affirm its actuality. Even the "perspectivist" believes that those disagreeing with him are objectively wrong.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
But isn't that statement presumed by the speaker to be a fact, not an interpretation? Many claim that conclusions about abortion are just matters of "interpretation" or "perspective," but they give the impression that if you disagree with them, you're wrong. To deny objectivity is to assume something is objectively true for all people: "Everything is a matter of interpretation, whether or not you agree with my statement." We have only two alternatives: triviality ("It's all perspective, including mine"-so why believe it?) or incoherence ("Everything's a matter of perspective, except mine"-making a person an exception to his own rule).
Most people appeal to "interpretation" because they don't like another alternative. "Interpretation" is often a smokescreen for pursuing one's own agenda or autonomy. To better discern whether this is so, we can ask, "Do you mean that you don't like my interpretation or that you have good reasons for disagreeing with it?" Other questions worth asking are these: "Can a perspective ever be correct?" "Are some things not a matter of perspective (such as a flat earth versus a round earth),"How can you know that your interpretation and my interpretation are actually different?"
Even if we don't always get things right, we can discern that some perspectives better approximate the truth than others. We generally trust the Wall Street Journal over tabloids, even though good newspapers may be wrong at points. The fact that we can recognize that some interpretations are more plausible than others (and thus are more likely true) indicates that not everything is matter of interpretation. Therefore, we must be willing reasons for the most plausible position. After, all, if everything is perspective, how can we distinguish between reasonable and wacky ideas?
Despite our limitations, we still cannot escape objectivity. To deny its possibility is to affirm its actuality. Even the "perspectivist" believes that those disagreeing with him are objectively wrong.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
What Are the Three Laws of Logic? By J.P. Moreland
There are three fundamental laws of logic. Suppose P is any indicative sentence, say, "It is raining."
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P
The law of identity says that if a statement such as "It is raining" is true, then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and is different from everything else. Applied to all reality, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.
The law of noncontradiction says that a statement such as "It is raining" cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the, same place.
The law of the excluded middle says: that a statement such as "It is raining" is either true or false. There is no other alternative.
These fundamental laws are true principles governing reality and thought and are assumed by Scripture. Some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions, but this is false. The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see below), one can see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and that it is self-refuting to deny them.
The basic laws of logic are neither arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside God's being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God's own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage "In the beginning was the Word [logos]" (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, "In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind)." For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a color. When people say that God need not behave "logically," they are using the term in a loose sense to mean "the sensible thing from my point of view." Often God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in the proper sense. He does not violate in His being or thought the fundamental laws of logic.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P
The law of identity says that if a statement such as "It is raining" is true, then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and is different from everything else. Applied to all reality, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.
The law of noncontradiction says that a statement such as "It is raining" cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the, same place.
The law of the excluded middle says: that a statement such as "It is raining" is either true or false. There is no other alternative.
These fundamental laws are true principles governing reality and thought and are assumed by Scripture. Some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions, but this is false. The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see below), one can see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and that it is self-refuting to deny them.
The basic laws of logic are neither arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside God's being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God's own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage "In the beginning was the Word [logos]" (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, "In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind)." For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a color. When people say that God need not behave "logically," they are using the term in a loose sense to mean "the sensible thing from my point of view." Often God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in the proper sense. He does not violate in His being or thought the fundamental laws of logic.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom? By William Lane Craig
The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul's death in 1 Sm 31:1-6 and 1 Ch 10:8-12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God's knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.
Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535-1600) defined providence as God's ordering of things to their ends either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.
Molina analyzed God's knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God's knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God's knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.
In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.
In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form "If x were the case, then y would be the case"), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D.30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.
Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God's free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.
Given God's free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.
Molina's scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina's view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God's ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.
(For another perspective, see How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom by Bruce A Ware)
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535-1600) defined providence as God's ordering of things to their ends either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.
Molina analyzed God's knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God's knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God's knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.
In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.
In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form "If x were the case, then y would be the case"), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D.30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.
Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God's free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.
Given God's free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.
Molina's scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina's view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God's ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.
(For another perspective, see How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom by Bruce A Ware)
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Does the Bible Teach Reincarnation? By Paul Copan
The simple answer is no. When proponents of reincarnation allege that certain biblical texts teach the soul's preexistence or reincarnation, they are approaching those texts superficially and their interpretations dissolve under further scrutiny.
Reincarnation (Hinduism) or rebirth (Buddhism) is integral to Eastern philosophy. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks of having "passed through many births." And what we reap in this life (karma) comes from what we've sown in past lives. Biblical, theological, and philosophical reasons, however, undermine reincarnation.
If one acknowledges the Bible's authority and storyline, one will readily recognize the Eastern doctrine of reincarnation as unacceptable. Many claiming that reincarnation appears in the Bible would go on believing in reincarnation anyway, with or without biblical support. They read reincarnation into isolated verses (e.g., statements about being "born again" in Jn 3) without respecting the biblical context or the worldview of the author. In doing so, they do not respect the biblical text as they would want their own Eastern texts respected. (What if we read bodily resurrection into their texts?)
Each of us must die and then be judged by God (Heb 9:27). When God told Jeremiah He knew him before he was in his mother's womb (Jr 1:5), this doesn't demonstrate preexistence or reincarnation; it only indicates God's foreknowledge and sovereignty. Notice Jeremiah did not say, "Before I was in my mother's womb, I knew You, God." That would make a persuasive case for preexistence! Also, the disciples' questioning whether the man born blind sinned before birth (Jn 9:2) does not express reincarnation but rather reflects the rabbinic belief that a fetus could sin while in his mother's womb (cp. Genesis Rabbah 63.6).
Furthermore, the historically supportable event of Jesus' bodily resurrection undercuts reincarnation. The biblical view of the afterlife is radically different from that of Eastern philosophies. True immortality is not the eradication or "snuffing out" (moksha) of the self nor its absorption with the One, Brahman, like a drop in an ocean. To receive immortality is to receive an immortal, imperishable physical body (1 Co 15:53-34). It is a spiritual body (that is, one supernaturally animated by the Holy Spirit) rather than a natural body (animated by a human soul). Immortality means being forever in union with God and living in God's presence with this new body in the new heavens and new earth-without losing individual identity.
Theologically, God's grace and forgiveness undercut karma. We need not bear the heavy weight of guilt and shame because Jesus Christ has absorbed all that for us. And if reincarnation is true, why help the underprivileged? Aren't they getting what they deserve-their karma?
Despite "evidence" for reincarnation, arguments for a person having lived previous lives could be explained by demonic activity (see Ac 16:16-18). A person having access to information about another's previous life does not imply that this was his own life. A psychic may purport to have knowledge of a crime, but this doesn't mean he committed it!
Philosophical problems with reincarnation are many. (1) Those "remembering" past lives tend to be clustered in the East (where reincarnation is taught), not throughout the world (as we'd expect). (2) If we forget our past lives, what purpose does reincarnation serve for self-improvement? (3) Assuming reincarnation (with an infinite past series of rebirths), then we've all had plenty of time to reach perfection. Why haven't we? (4) Reincarnation doesn't solve the problem of evil, as some claim, but only infinitely postpones it (and in some Eastern schools, evil is just an illusion anyway). (5) Reincarnation makes incoherent the Eastern idea of monism, which says that everything is one without distinction, by presupposing distinctions between (a) individual souls, (b) the karmas of individual souls not having yet reached enlightenment, (c) the enlightened and unenlightened, and (d) individual souls and the One (ultimate reality).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Reincarnation (Hinduism) or rebirth (Buddhism) is integral to Eastern philosophy. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks of having "passed through many births." And what we reap in this life (karma) comes from what we've sown in past lives. Biblical, theological, and philosophical reasons, however, undermine reincarnation.
If one acknowledges the Bible's authority and storyline, one will readily recognize the Eastern doctrine of reincarnation as unacceptable. Many claiming that reincarnation appears in the Bible would go on believing in reincarnation anyway, with or without biblical support. They read reincarnation into isolated verses (e.g., statements about being "born again" in Jn 3) without respecting the biblical context or the worldview of the author. In doing so, they do not respect the biblical text as they would want their own Eastern texts respected. (What if we read bodily resurrection into their texts?)
Each of us must die and then be judged by God (Heb 9:27). When God told Jeremiah He knew him before he was in his mother's womb (Jr 1:5), this doesn't demonstrate preexistence or reincarnation; it only indicates God's foreknowledge and sovereignty. Notice Jeremiah did not say, "Before I was in my mother's womb, I knew You, God." That would make a persuasive case for preexistence! Also, the disciples' questioning whether the man born blind sinned before birth (Jn 9:2) does not express reincarnation but rather reflects the rabbinic belief that a fetus could sin while in his mother's womb (cp. Genesis Rabbah 63.6).
Furthermore, the historically supportable event of Jesus' bodily resurrection undercuts reincarnation. The biblical view of the afterlife is radically different from that of Eastern philosophies. True immortality is not the eradication or "snuffing out" (moksha) of the self nor its absorption with the One, Brahman, like a drop in an ocean. To receive immortality is to receive an immortal, imperishable physical body (1 Co 15:53-34). It is a spiritual body (that is, one supernaturally animated by the Holy Spirit) rather than a natural body (animated by a human soul). Immortality means being forever in union with God and living in God's presence with this new body in the new heavens and new earth-without losing individual identity.
Theologically, God's grace and forgiveness undercut karma. We need not bear the heavy weight of guilt and shame because Jesus Christ has absorbed all that for us. And if reincarnation is true, why help the underprivileged? Aren't they getting what they deserve-their karma?
Despite "evidence" for reincarnation, arguments for a person having lived previous lives could be explained by demonic activity (see Ac 16:16-18). A person having access to information about another's previous life does not imply that this was his own life. A psychic may purport to have knowledge of a crime, but this doesn't mean he committed it!
Philosophical problems with reincarnation are many. (1) Those "remembering" past lives tend to be clustered in the East (where reincarnation is taught), not throughout the world (as we'd expect). (2) If we forget our past lives, what purpose does reincarnation serve for self-improvement? (3) Assuming reincarnation (with an infinite past series of rebirths), then we've all had plenty of time to reach perfection. Why haven't we? (4) Reincarnation doesn't solve the problem of evil, as some claim, but only infinitely postpones it (and in some Eastern schools, evil is just an illusion anyway). (5) Reincarnation makes incoherent the Eastern idea of monism, which says that everything is one without distinction, by presupposing distinctions between (a) individual souls, (b) the karmas of individual souls not having yet reached enlightenment, (c) the enlightened and unenlightened, and (d) individual souls and the One (ultimate reality).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Notable Christian Apologist: C. S. Lewis By Ted Cabal
Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) enjoyed a distinguished career at Oxford and Cambridge. He was also a notable literary critic and author of science fiction and children's literature (including the Chronicles of Narnia). In addition, Lewis was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the twentieth century. Remarkably, he was a committed atheist before his conversion to Christ in 1929.
Lewis authored a number of important apologetic works, such as Miracles, The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock, and The Abolition of Man. In his most famous work, Mere Christianity, Lewis presented powerful arguments for the truth of the Christian faith. Originally broadcast as several BBC talks during World War II, Mere Christianity notes that even people who deny objective right and wrong cannot refrain from believing in them. Moreover, people are unable to live out the moral law they know they should. Lewis argued that this moral law, coupled with humanity's inability to fulfill it, allows Christianity to begin to "talk." The forgiveness God offers in Christ makes sense in the real world.
Lewis also maintained that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, undercutting popular notions that Jesus was something like a good teacher. Either He was who He claimed, or else He was a liar or lunatic. But the life of Jesus does not betray the character of a liar or the mentality of a lunatic. Lewis contended that the most reasonable understanding of Jesus is that He is the Lord.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Lewis authored a number of important apologetic works, such as Miracles, The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock, and The Abolition of Man. In his most famous work, Mere Christianity, Lewis presented powerful arguments for the truth of the Christian faith. Originally broadcast as several BBC talks during World War II, Mere Christianity notes that even people who deny objective right and wrong cannot refrain from believing in them. Moreover, people are unable to live out the moral law they know they should. Lewis argued that this moral law, coupled with humanity's inability to fulfill it, allows Christianity to begin to "talk." The forgiveness God offers in Christ makes sense in the real world.
Lewis also maintained that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, undercutting popular notions that Jesus was something like a good teacher. Either He was who He claimed, or else He was a liar or lunatic. But the life of Jesus does not betray the character of a liar or the mentality of a lunatic. Lewis contended that the most reasonable understanding of Jesus is that He is the Lord.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
What Is Divine Revelation? By Gordon R. Lewis
Revelation is an activity of the invisible, living God making known to finite and sinful people His creative power, moral standards, and gracious redemptive plan.
First, God discloses Himself and His power to everyone by the marvels of His creation-the amazing life support system of planet earth. We can discover some things about painters from their paintings. Similarly, in the magnificence of creation, with its microscopic complexities and cosmic expanse, we realize our dependence upon the Creator's powerful existence and intelligent design (Ps 19:1-6; Rm 1:19-20).
Second, God makes plain His moral nature and ethical principles for our well-being by implanting oughts and ought nots in every human spirit. Even people who do not have Moses' Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-20) feel an obligation to obey those universal principles of right and wrong and suffer guilt when they do not (Rm 2:14-15). God's moral principles restrain evil and prompt all to seek and find Him (Ac 17:27). However, everyone sins, worships, and serves the creation rather than its Creator (Rm 1:25; 3:10-23). Our habitual failure to live up to God's laws demonstrates our need for His mercy and redeeming grace.
Third, God made His merciful redemptive purposes known centuries before Christ both through mighty acts such as delivering Israel from slavery in Egypt (Ex 12) and through the reliable messages of His prophetic spokesmen (Heb 1:1). Criteria by which to distinguish true from false prophets included the logical consistency of teaching with previous revelation (Dt 13:1-5) and the verification of visible signs (Dt 18:20-22). God promised to send His anointed One to defeat Satan's destructive purposes in many ways. The Messiah would be a son of Eve (Gn 3:15), a descendant of Abraham (Gn 22:18) and David (2 Sm 7:12-16), and would be born of a virgin (Is 7:14) in Bethlehem (Mc 5:2). Because those who chose the way of sin chose a way that ends in death, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So believing citizens of Israel pictured Christ's coming sacrificial atonement for sin by animal sacrifices and the Passover.
Fourth, God made His just and loving plan of redemption known supremely in Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah. "No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-the One who is at the Father's side-He has revealed Him" (Jn 1:18). To appreciate more fully what God is like, study the life, words, works, and atoning death of Jesus. At Calvary, the guiltless Savior substituted Himself for the guilty. In doing so He defeated Satan and provided the just basis for His reconciling mercy and grace He sat down (Rm 3:25). Then the risen Christ demonstrated His saving power over sin, guilt, death, and Satan (Rm 1:2-4; 10:9-10)!
Fifth, after Jesus' ascension to heaven, God communicated His redemptive purposes neglects poses through spokesmen called apostles. Jesus taught and trained them for three years and they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection (Ac 1:21-22). Through Paul, an apostle who later saw the risen Christ, God revealed His plan to unite both Jewish and Gentile believers in one body, the church (Eph 2:11-22).
Sixth, the King of kings will be revealed in all His power and glory at His second coming.
Seventh, all the above sources of revealed truth have been preserved for us in Holy Scriptures.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
First, God discloses Himself and His power to everyone by the marvels of His creation-the amazing life support system of planet earth. We can discover some things about painters from their paintings. Similarly, in the magnificence of creation, with its microscopic complexities and cosmic expanse, we realize our dependence upon the Creator's powerful existence and intelligent design (Ps 19:1-6; Rm 1:19-20).
Second, God makes plain His moral nature and ethical principles for our well-being by implanting oughts and ought nots in every human spirit. Even people who do not have Moses' Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-20) feel an obligation to obey those universal principles of right and wrong and suffer guilt when they do not (Rm 2:14-15). God's moral principles restrain evil and prompt all to seek and find Him (Ac 17:27). However, everyone sins, worships, and serves the creation rather than its Creator (Rm 1:25; 3:10-23). Our habitual failure to live up to God's laws demonstrates our need for His mercy and redeeming grace.
Third, God made His merciful redemptive purposes known centuries before Christ both through mighty acts such as delivering Israel from slavery in Egypt (Ex 12) and through the reliable messages of His prophetic spokesmen (Heb 1:1). Criteria by which to distinguish true from false prophets included the logical consistency of teaching with previous revelation (Dt 13:1-5) and the verification of visible signs (Dt 18:20-22). God promised to send His anointed One to defeat Satan's destructive purposes in many ways. The Messiah would be a son of Eve (Gn 3:15), a descendant of Abraham (Gn 22:18) and David (2 Sm 7:12-16), and would be born of a virgin (Is 7:14) in Bethlehem (Mc 5:2). Because those who chose the way of sin chose a way that ends in death, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So believing citizens of Israel pictured Christ's coming sacrificial atonement for sin by animal sacrifices and the Passover.
Fourth, God made His just and loving plan of redemption known supremely in Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah. "No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-the One who is at the Father's side-He has revealed Him" (Jn 1:18). To appreciate more fully what God is like, study the life, words, works, and atoning death of Jesus. At Calvary, the guiltless Savior substituted Himself for the guilty. In doing so He defeated Satan and provided the just basis for His reconciling mercy and grace He sat down (Rm 3:25). Then the risen Christ demonstrated His saving power over sin, guilt, death, and Satan (Rm 1:2-4; 10:9-10)!
Fifth, after Jesus' ascension to heaven, God communicated His redemptive purposes neglects poses through spokesmen called apostles. Jesus taught and trained them for three years and they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection (Ac 1:21-22). Through Paul, an apostle who later saw the risen Christ, God revealed His plan to unite both Jewish and Gentile believers in one body, the church (Eph 2:11-22).
Sixth, the King of kings will be revealed in all His power and glory at His second coming.
Seventh, all the above sources of revealed truth have been preserved for us in Holy Scriptures.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
What Does It Mean That God Inspired the Bible? By Gordon R. Lewis
To say that God inspired the Bible is to say that the Holy Spirit supernaturally motivated and superintended the prophetic and apostolic recipients of revelation in the entire process of writing their scriptural books.
Many other books have coauthors, so we need not imagine that Scripture has to be either a human or a divine production. The Holy Scriptures originated, not with the will of its human writers, but with the will of God the Holy Spirit (2 Pt 1:20-21). Over 3,000 times biblical writers claimed to have received their messages from God. God the Holy Spirit "inspired" (breathed out or originated) the Scriptures through the human writers (2 Tm 3:16).
God prepared these conscious, active prophetic and apostolic spokesmen (and their secretaries) providentially by their heredity, character, vocabularies, and writing styles. At the appropriate time, in all the processes of writing, they were "moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pt 1:21). This technical meaning of inspiration does not apply to any alleged revelations outside the Bible or to any literature that in a more general sense may be said to be inspiring.
God commissioned His true prophets to write, including Moses (Ex 17:14; 34:27), Joshua (Jos 24:15-26), Samuel (1 Sm 10:25), Isaiah (Is 30:8), Jeremiah' (Jr 30:2; 36:2,17,28-29), Ezekiel (Ezk 43:11), and Habakkuk (Hab 2:2). Hence the Bible was not a result of Israel's quest for God; it is God's witness against Israel (Dt 31:26). Zechariah laments the fact that Israel "made their hearts like a rock so as not to obey the law or the words that the LORD of Hosts had sent by His Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zch 7:12).
The collection (or canon) of biblical books began to be formed as inspired writings were placed alongside the ark of the covenant in which were contained the Ten Commandments (Dt 31:24-26; Jos 24:25-26; 1 Sm 10:25; 1 Kg 8:9; Is 8:20; 29:18; 34:16).
The Lord Jesus Christ validated the OT's inspiration by quoting from all three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Lk 24:44). He endorsed the inspiration and authority of the OT in detail (Mt 5:17-18). The Lord also prepared His disciples for the coming of the NT (Jn 16:12) and so endorsed it in principle. Paul received revelation pertaining to redemption (GI 1:11-17) and expected his writings to be received as from God (2 Th 2:13,15). Peter classified Paul's writings with the inspired OT (2 Pt 3:16).
What the authors or their close associates originally wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek was inspired. Although their original manuscripts have not been discovered. we know what they wrote. In numerous available copies, quotations, and translations, there is amazing agreement. Through some 20 centuries of laborious copying and printing, there have been no substantial variations of any important fact or doctrine.
So, in the twenty-first century, we can rely on serious translations to convey what believers need to be "equipped for every good work" (2 Tm 3:17). The Holy Spirit attests to the truth of this written revelation and uses it like a sword to convict of sin, draw sinners to Christ, build them up, and send them out to bless the world (Heb 4:12).
As a result of its inspiration, all that the Bible affirms is true.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Many other books have coauthors, so we need not imagine that Scripture has to be either a human or a divine production. The Holy Scriptures originated, not with the will of its human writers, but with the will of God the Holy Spirit (2 Pt 1:20-21). Over 3,000 times biblical writers claimed to have received their messages from God. God the Holy Spirit "inspired" (breathed out or originated) the Scriptures through the human writers (2 Tm 3:16).
God prepared these conscious, active prophetic and apostolic spokesmen (and their secretaries) providentially by their heredity, character, vocabularies, and writing styles. At the appropriate time, in all the processes of writing, they were "moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pt 1:21). This technical meaning of inspiration does not apply to any alleged revelations outside the Bible or to any literature that in a more general sense may be said to be inspiring.
God commissioned His true prophets to write, including Moses (Ex 17:14; 34:27), Joshua (Jos 24:15-26), Samuel (1 Sm 10:25), Isaiah (Is 30:8), Jeremiah' (Jr 30:2; 36:2,17,28-29), Ezekiel (Ezk 43:11), and Habakkuk (Hab 2:2). Hence the Bible was not a result of Israel's quest for God; it is God's witness against Israel (Dt 31:26). Zechariah laments the fact that Israel "made their hearts like a rock so as not to obey the law or the words that the LORD of Hosts had sent by His Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zch 7:12).
The collection (or canon) of biblical books began to be formed as inspired writings were placed alongside the ark of the covenant in which were contained the Ten Commandments (Dt 31:24-26; Jos 24:25-26; 1 Sm 10:25; 1 Kg 8:9; Is 8:20; 29:18; 34:16).
The Lord Jesus Christ validated the OT's inspiration by quoting from all three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Lk 24:44). He endorsed the inspiration and authority of the OT in detail (Mt 5:17-18). The Lord also prepared His disciples for the coming of the NT (Jn 16:12) and so endorsed it in principle. Paul received revelation pertaining to redemption (GI 1:11-17) and expected his writings to be received as from God (2 Th 2:13,15). Peter classified Paul's writings with the inspired OT (2 Pt 3:16).
What the authors or their close associates originally wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek was inspired. Although their original manuscripts have not been discovered. we know what they wrote. In numerous available copies, quotations, and translations, there is amazing agreement. Through some 20 centuries of laborious copying and printing, there have been no substantial variations of any important fact or doctrine.
So, in the twenty-first century, we can rely on serious translations to convey what believers need to be "equipped for every good work" (2 Tm 3:17). The Holy Spirit attests to the truth of this written revelation and uses it like a sword to convict of sin, draw sinners to Christ, build them up, and send them out to bless the world (Heb 4:12).
As a result of its inspiration, all that the Bible affirms is true.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
How Is Jihad Understood in Islam? By Ergun Mehmet Caner
The Arabic, the term jihad means "to strive," and "to fight." In Islam, the verb carries two levels of meaning that affect the individual Muslim.
First, the individual Muslim must strive (jihad) against his flesh. Surah al Tawbah 9:20 says, "Those who believe and suffer exile and strive [jihad] with might and main in Allah's cause ... have the highest rank in the sight of Allah." In this dimension, the jihad is against oneself. The Muslim must learn to control his sinful impulses and desires. In this dimension, jihad is a means for the Muslim to earn salvation. The aforementioned verse ends with this promise, "they (who jihad with might) are the people who will achieve salvation."
Second, however, jihad has a corporate dimension. The Qur'an teaches that jihad is warfare in the cause of Allah. This fighting (also jihad in Arabic) is required for Muslims, even. if they do not want to do it (Surah 2:216). The nature of jihad is unambiguous in the Qur'an. Surah al Tawbah 9:29 says, "Fight [jihad] those who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission."
In this corporate dimension, jihad is clearly seen as warfare. Specifically, Islam teaches that jihad is fought against those who do not recognize Islam as the only truth. In the context of Surah 9:29, jihad's purpose is for either the conversion of the infidel, or the control of the non-believer. If a non-believer will not believe, he must pay a tax, called jizyah, as a sign of his submission.
Jihad as warfare has parameters in Islam. Muslims who are blind, lame, or terminally ill are exempt from holy war (Surah 48:17). Muslims must give a warning of four months (fatwa), telling the infidel to convert or surrender. After these "forbidden months," the Muslim warriors must "seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war" (Surah 9:1-5). Some Muslims cite Surah al Baqarah 2:256 ("there is no compulsion in religion") but earlier in that same ' chapter, Allah says, "and slay them whenever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out" (Surah al Baqarah 2:191). Once jihad begins, it must be fought until victory or the surrender of the unbelievers (Surah 47:4). The Muslim who dies in jihad is promised heaven (Surah 47:4-6).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
First, the individual Muslim must strive (jihad) against his flesh. Surah al Tawbah 9:20 says, "Those who believe and suffer exile and strive [jihad] with might and main in Allah's cause ... have the highest rank in the sight of Allah." In this dimension, the jihad is against oneself. The Muslim must learn to control his sinful impulses and desires. In this dimension, jihad is a means for the Muslim to earn salvation. The aforementioned verse ends with this promise, "they (who jihad with might) are the people who will achieve salvation."
Second, however, jihad has a corporate dimension. The Qur'an teaches that jihad is warfare in the cause of Allah. This fighting (also jihad in Arabic) is required for Muslims, even. if they do not want to do it (Surah 2:216). The nature of jihad is unambiguous in the Qur'an. Surah al Tawbah 9:29 says, "Fight [jihad] those who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission."
In this corporate dimension, jihad is clearly seen as warfare. Specifically, Islam teaches that jihad is fought against those who do not recognize Islam as the only truth. In the context of Surah 9:29, jihad's purpose is for either the conversion of the infidel, or the control of the non-believer. If a non-believer will not believe, he must pay a tax, called jizyah, as a sign of his submission.
Jihad as warfare has parameters in Islam. Muslims who are blind, lame, or terminally ill are exempt from holy war (Surah 48:17). Muslims must give a warning of four months (fatwa), telling the infidel to convert or surrender. After these "forbidden months," the Muslim warriors must "seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war" (Surah 9:1-5). Some Muslims cite Surah al Baqarah 2:256 ("there is no compulsion in religion") but earlier in that same ' chapter, Allah says, "and slay them whenever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out" (Surah al Baqarah 2:191). Once jihad begins, it must be fought until victory or the surrender of the unbelievers (Surah 47:4). The Muslim who dies in jihad is promised heaven (Surah 47:4-6).
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
How Should a Christian Understand the Role of Government? By Charles Colson
Christianity is about much more than salvation; it speaks to all of life. "Jesus is Lord" was the earliest baptismal confession. Scripture mandates taking dominion and cultivating the soil (Gn 1) and being salt and light (Mt 5:13-16).Abraham Kuyper, former Dutch prime minister and theologian, famously said, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry out `Mine!"'
No area of cultural engagement is more important than government and politics: We are commanded to submit to governing authorities (Rm 13); Jesus Himself said, "Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mt 22:21). This means Christians must be good citizens, pay taxes, obey laws, and serve (as called) in government. Augustine argued that Christians are to be the best citizens: what others do only because the law demands, we do out of love for God.
Because government is ordained by God to preserve order and do justice, we're instructed to honor the king (1 Pt 2:13-17) and pray for those in authority that we might live peaceful lives (1 Tm 2:1-22). The only thing worse than bad government is anarchy.
The authorities are established by God, Paul said. Hence, John Calvin accorded the magistrate's office as having one of the most important roles in any society working as a servant for good (Rm 13:4). It's a noble calling for Christians to enter public service. Contrary to common caricatures of politicians, some of the finest public servants I've known are serious believers who live out their faith in office without compromising their convictions.
The cultural mandate means the church has an important role to play with respect to political structures-working for justice, speaking prophetically, and often being the conscience of society, even when this means persecution, prison, or death, as it did for many in the confessing church in Nazi Germany. Though there have been times when the church has failed in this responsibility, thankfully today it's at its post, the strongest voice in American society in defense of life and human rights. The church is also the agency that, in this age of terrorism, prophetically holds government to the moral boundaries of the just war tradition (see the article. "Does the Bible Support a Just War?" Norman L. Geisler). Though in America we observe a strict separation of church and state (the state shouldn't establish a state church or restrict the free exercise of religion), there should never be a separation of religion and public life. The public square needs religious influence; indeed, the Christian faith has played a critical role in shaping our institutions. Reformation doctrines such.as sphere sovereignty (government doesn't rule alone; all structures-the family, the church, private associations-have ordained responsibilities) and the rule of law made Western liberal democracy possible. Our Founding Fathers respected the "laws of nature and nature's God," recognizing that without a moral consensus resting upon Judeo-Christian tradition, virtue could not be maintained and self-government would fail. Noted historian Will Durant wrote that he could find no case in history where a nation survived without a moral code and no case where that moral code was not informed by religious truth.
But the church must approach its public role with caution and sensitivity. Pastors and other church leaders, for example, should never make partisan endorsements of candidates (which can divide our ranks and politicize the faith) or allow themselves to be in the hip pocket of any political party. That said, the pastor should never hesitate to speak boldly from the pulpit about pressing moral concerns.
There are clear dangers in dealing with politics. Among my duties as special counsel to President Nixon was winning the support of special interest groups. I found religious leaders easily impressed with the trappings of office. And later, watching from the outside, I saw Christian leaders succumb to these allures. There's a fine line here. It was wrong when, for most of the twentieth century, evangelicals stood apart from politics; so too it's wrong to allow ourselves to be married to a political party.
Christians individually and through organizations must engage in the political process, always preserving their independence and fulfilling the prophetic office (which may mean calling friends to account). Though Christians are to be the best of citizens, our first loyalty is not to the kingdom of man but to the kingdom of God.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
No area of cultural engagement is more important than government and politics: We are commanded to submit to governing authorities (Rm 13); Jesus Himself said, "Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mt 22:21). This means Christians must be good citizens, pay taxes, obey laws, and serve (as called) in government. Augustine argued that Christians are to be the best citizens: what others do only because the law demands, we do out of love for God.
Because government is ordained by God to preserve order and do justice, we're instructed to honor the king (1 Pt 2:13-17) and pray for those in authority that we might live peaceful lives (1 Tm 2:1-22). The only thing worse than bad government is anarchy.
The authorities are established by God, Paul said. Hence, John Calvin accorded the magistrate's office as having one of the most important roles in any society working as a servant for good (Rm 13:4). It's a noble calling for Christians to enter public service. Contrary to common caricatures of politicians, some of the finest public servants I've known are serious believers who live out their faith in office without compromising their convictions.
The cultural mandate means the church has an important role to play with respect to political structures-working for justice, speaking prophetically, and often being the conscience of society, even when this means persecution, prison, or death, as it did for many in the confessing church in Nazi Germany. Though there have been times when the church has failed in this responsibility, thankfully today it's at its post, the strongest voice in American society in defense of life and human rights. The church is also the agency that, in this age of terrorism, prophetically holds government to the moral boundaries of the just war tradition (see the article. "Does the Bible Support a Just War?" Norman L. Geisler). Though in America we observe a strict separation of church and state (the state shouldn't establish a state church or restrict the free exercise of religion), there should never be a separation of religion and public life. The public square needs religious influence; indeed, the Christian faith has played a critical role in shaping our institutions. Reformation doctrines such.as sphere sovereignty (government doesn't rule alone; all structures-the family, the church, private associations-have ordained responsibilities) and the rule of law made Western liberal democracy possible. Our Founding Fathers respected the "laws of nature and nature's God," recognizing that without a moral consensus resting upon Judeo-Christian tradition, virtue could not be maintained and self-government would fail. Noted historian Will Durant wrote that he could find no case in history where a nation survived without a moral code and no case where that moral code was not informed by religious truth.
But the church must approach its public role with caution and sensitivity. Pastors and other church leaders, for example, should never make partisan endorsements of candidates (which can divide our ranks and politicize the faith) or allow themselves to be in the hip pocket of any political party. That said, the pastor should never hesitate to speak boldly from the pulpit about pressing moral concerns.
There are clear dangers in dealing with politics. Among my duties as special counsel to President Nixon was winning the support of special interest groups. I found religious leaders easily impressed with the trappings of office. And later, watching from the outside, I saw Christian leaders succumb to these allures. There's a fine line here. It was wrong when, for most of the twentieth century, evangelicals stood apart from politics; so too it's wrong to allow ourselves to be married to a political party.
Christians individually and through organizations must engage in the political process, always preserving their independence and fulfilling the prophetic office (which may mean calling friends to account). Though Christians are to be the best of citizens, our first loyalty is not to the kingdom of man but to the kingdom of God.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Notable Christian Apologist: Augustine By Ted Cabal
Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was born in northern Africa (roughly modern Algeria). Monica, his devout Christian mother, raised him in biblical truth, prayed for him faithfully throughout her life, and remained an important influence on Augustine until her death. His brilliant but restless mind, however, wandered away from his Christian roots. This journey away from God (detailed in his classic Confessions) included giving himself to sensual pleasures. Augustine, seeking intellectual and spiritual fulfillment, wandered in succession through pagan philosophies such as Manichaeanism and Neoplatonism. Manichaeanism combined elements from several religions, teaching that reality is ultimately grounded in two gods, one evil and one good. Neoplatonism, however, taught that all reality emanated from "the One" (an impersonal, unknowable god).
Augustine eventually realized the intellectual and spiritual failure of his search through paganism. After his soul came to rest through conversion to Christ, Augustine would become the greatest theologian and apologist of the first Christian millennium. He powerfully refuted prevailing pagan philosophies (including Manichaeanism) as well as heresies that threatened to divide and corrupt the church. In The City of God, Augustine brilliantly confronted the pagan charge that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. He focused the blame, where it belonged by exposing paganism's spiritual bankruptcy. Moreover, in so doing, Augustine constructed a grand philosophy of history in observing that the crisis of his day was only part of a larger whole. The "City of the World," comprised of those chief love is the self, stands in sharp contrast in every age to the “City of God,” of those who love God.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Augustine eventually realized the intellectual and spiritual failure of his search through paganism. After his soul came to rest through conversion to Christ, Augustine would become the greatest theologian and apologist of the first Christian millennium. He powerfully refuted prevailing pagan philosophies (including Manichaeanism) as well as heresies that threatened to divide and corrupt the church. In The City of God, Augustine brilliantly confronted the pagan charge that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. He focused the blame, where it belonged by exposing paganism's spiritual bankruptcy. Moreover, in so doing, Augustine constructed a grand philosophy of history in observing that the crisis of his day was only part of a larger whole. The "City of the World," comprised of those chief love is the self, stands in sharp contrast in every age to the “City of God,” of those who love God.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
How Should a Christian Relate to the New Age Movement? By Ted Cabal
Though the vestiges of a biblical worldview are still in evidence, polls reveal that doctrinal beliefs of perhaps a third of Westerners can be characterized as New Age. The ideas of this New Age Movement (NAM) are widely, and often subconsciously, disseminated through television (e.g., Oprah Winfrey's show) and movies (e.g., Star Wars). The NAM also has become big business through its myriads of self-help seminars, journaling/prayer guides (often mimicking Christian tradition), and books.
Adherents of the movement often reject the term New Age due to its connotations. At any rate, it is perhaps better termed "postmodern religion" in view of the assumptions its shares with philosophical postmodernism (see the article, "How Should a Christian Understand Postmodernism?" by Douglas R.Groothius). Generally rejecting a scientific or analytic (modernist) approach to life, adherents believe that knowledge is subjectively constructed and socially determined. Truth is not universal to all humans but may vary according to what "works" for some and not others. Moral values are not universally objective but are only properties of communities choosing to adopt them. People in the NAM view reality as an evolving unified whole; indeed, they often consider God to be one name for this whole. They especially disdain biblical Christianity due to its universal truth claims.
Since the NAM is under the authority of no particular religious text, proponents are best identified by various "symptoms," such as the following. They prefer the practice of spirituality over organized, classical expressions of religion. They believe that no single religious teacher can claim the allegiance of all; claims by Jesus as being the Way must be reinterpreted or rejected altogether. According to them, rather than the grace of God revealed in the Jesus of the Bible, "angels," paranormal powers, or even raw human potential serve as "saviors" from the race's predicament. Mixing and matching the objects of worship, they often identify themselves simultaneously in terms such as Buddhist, Jewish, and Presbyterian. Ultimately the NAM represents a return to polytheism, or the belief in many gods.
How, then, should Christians begin sharing Christ with those in the NAM? Frequently a truth discussion must pave the way. If objective, universal truth does not exist, then the claims of the gospel are false. But all people live as if everyday beliefs must correspond to reality (e.g., no one can just choose to live on poison instead of water). So why should anyone hold that belief in God and the afterlife is somehow different? Incoherence in everyday affairs is viewed as dishonest or irrational ("Yes, Officer, that double-parked car is mine, but it's not mine"). Why, then, accept claims such as "Christ can be true for you but not for me"?
At first glance the shoddy handling of truth in the NAM makes it appear more tolerant than Christianity. But actually it condescendingly views the claims of all other religions as wrong, ignorant, and divisive believing that only those in the NAM see the complete picture; other religions, fixated on their traditional teachings, are unaware of the deep, hidden unity of all religions. But is there good reason to believe that many ways to heaven actually exist? How can anyone claim to know this universal truth (especially if there are no universal truths)? Earthly road maps do not assume that just any path can reach a destination. Routes may be chosen by their ease of travel or scenic views, but not all lead to the same place.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Adherents of the movement often reject the term New Age due to its connotations. At any rate, it is perhaps better termed "postmodern religion" in view of the assumptions its shares with philosophical postmodernism (see the article, "How Should a Christian Understand Postmodernism?" by Douglas R.Groothius). Generally rejecting a scientific or analytic (modernist) approach to life, adherents believe that knowledge is subjectively constructed and socially determined. Truth is not universal to all humans but may vary according to what "works" for some and not others. Moral values are not universally objective but are only properties of communities choosing to adopt them. People in the NAM view reality as an evolving unified whole; indeed, they often consider God to be one name for this whole. They especially disdain biblical Christianity due to its universal truth claims.
Since the NAM is under the authority of no particular religious text, proponents are best identified by various "symptoms," such as the following. They prefer the practice of spirituality over organized, classical expressions of religion. They believe that no single religious teacher can claim the allegiance of all; claims by Jesus as being the Way must be reinterpreted or rejected altogether. According to them, rather than the grace of God revealed in the Jesus of the Bible, "angels," paranormal powers, or even raw human potential serve as "saviors" from the race's predicament. Mixing and matching the objects of worship, they often identify themselves simultaneously in terms such as Buddhist, Jewish, and Presbyterian. Ultimately the NAM represents a return to polytheism, or the belief in many gods.
How, then, should Christians begin sharing Christ with those in the NAM? Frequently a truth discussion must pave the way. If objective, universal truth does not exist, then the claims of the gospel are false. But all people live as if everyday beliefs must correspond to reality (e.g., no one can just choose to live on poison instead of water). So why should anyone hold that belief in God and the afterlife is somehow different? Incoherence in everyday affairs is viewed as dishonest or irrational ("Yes, Officer, that double-parked car is mine, but it's not mine"). Why, then, accept claims such as "Christ can be true for you but not for me"?
At first glance the shoddy handling of truth in the NAM makes it appear more tolerant than Christianity. But actually it condescendingly views the claims of all other religions as wrong, ignorant, and divisive believing that only those in the NAM see the complete picture; other religions, fixated on their traditional teachings, are unaware of the deep, hidden unity of all religions. But is there good reason to believe that many ways to heaven actually exist? How can anyone claim to know this universal truth (especially if there are no universal truths)? Earthly road maps do not assume that just any path can reach a destination. Routes may be chosen by their ease of travel or scenic views, but not all lead to the same place.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)