Index of Presentations
*Easter
*Easter Addendum
*Can the Bible be Trusted?
*The First Church
*Does God Exist?
*Who is God?
*Jesus Christ
*Believe in Christ
*What is Truth?
*Who is The Holy Spirit?
*The Holy Spirit and The Trinity
*Baptism and Salvation
*Life After Death
*Protestant Denominations
*World Religions
*Morality
Can the Bible be Trusted?
Christian Bibles borrow heavily from the Hebrew Tanakh and are broken down into different books. As I discuss below, different traditions count different books and order them differently. Here is the order used in most mainline Protestant Bibles, as those are the most common variety in the United States.
The Hebrew Scriptures & The Old Testament
The first books in the Christian bible are the holy books of the Jewish faith, collected in the Tanakh. "Tanakh" is an acronym of the three major divisions of the Hebrew holy book--the Torah ("teachings," also known to Christians by the Greek name "the Pentateuch" or "five books"), Nevi'im ("prophets"), and Ketuvim ("writings"). In Christian traditions, these books are called "the Old Testament." The Jewish faith also adheres to the teachings in the Talmud, rabbinical commentaries on the Tanakh; unlike the Tanakh, Christian scripture does not recognize the Talmud.
Different Christian traditions acknowledge different books of the Bible as canonical. The Tanakh includes only 24 books, while mainline Protestant bibles include 39, Catholics include 46, and Eastern Orthodox groups include 49. The books included in some bibles and not others are called Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical; this means either that they are not canon, or that they are less canonical than primary canon.
Protestant bibles do not include more material than Hebrew bibles, but they divide the book of the 12 minor prophets into 12 different books, as well as dividing the book of Ezra-Nehemiah into the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the book of Chronicles into 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. All Christian bibles, however, are ordered differently than the Tanakh.
The Five Books of Moses/the Pentateuch
The only set of books included in all forms of the Tanakh and the Old Testament, in the same order, is the Torah or Pentateuch. These five books, the five books of Moses, are the first and “arguably” the most important books in the scriptures.
An Overview of the Old and New Testaments
The Old Testament begins with the book of Genesis, which tells the story of how the world was created, and how God anointed his chosen people and taught them how to live. This includes famous stories like those of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah's Ark.
After Genesis, the different books of the Old Testament relate to the trials of the Israelites as they endure centuries of enslavement or captivity under different empires. There is a general pattern where God sends a prophet to teach the Israelites how to live and to lead them from hardship, but over time they lose faith and find themselves suffering new hardships. The most famous example is Moses leading his people out of slavery in Egypt - the people are impious and must wander the desert for forty years before their descendants can enter the promised land.
Some of the other important episodes from the Old Testament include the rise of King David, the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Babylonian Captivity. The Old Testament also includes various sayings and songs about morality, god, and other ‘esoteric’ subjects.
The New Testament is concerned with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which are the basis for Christianity. His life story is told in the four Gospels (which comes from the Old English for "good news"). Almost all the other books are letters written by Paul or other Christian teachers, discussing their beliefs or giving advice.
The last book of the New Testament is the Book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle, which recounts an apocalyptic vision of the End of Days. The most important event discussed in Revelation is the Second Coming of Christ.
Notes on terms
There are a few cases of terms that crop up a lot in the books of the bible, but that get confused in everyday language. I just want to focus on two; the different terms for "God's chosen people" in the Bible, and how God is identified and named.
The terms "Hebrew," "Jew," and "Israelite" are often used interchangeably.
The first person identified as a Hebrew is Abraham, and so in a sense, the Hebrews are descendants of Abraham. More specifically, the etymology of Hebrew implies an individual who is across or has crossed something, and so it is often used to describe the people of Abraham when not in Israel/Canaan, and when resisting cultural pressures and temptations from outside groups. Joseph is called a Hebrew when in Egypt. Lastly, Hebrew is often used to refer to the Hebrew-speaking Jews of Roman Judaea.
Israelites more specifically refers to descendants of Jacob or Israel, the ancestor of the twelve tribes of Israel who later would be split between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is important to note that Israelite is different from the current national demonym Israeli, indicating a person from the country of Israel.
Jew, lastly, refers to the people of Judah, and then after the Babylonian exile to Israelites more broadly due to the cultural and religious importance of Judah. In general, Jew or Jewish person is used to refer to a person who practices Judaism or is part of the Jewish community. Due to its invective use by anti-semites, the word "Jew" by itself can sometimes sound harsh or rude, but there are many cases in which it's perfectly neutral and appropriate.
The name of God
In the Tanakh, God is identified with seven different names. Per tradition, these are to be treated with extreme reverence; you shouldn't erase or damage them when written down. For that matter, despite my academic use of them here, you're not supposed to write them down too often either.
The most significant name for God in the Tanakh is the Tetragrammaton or the four letters. The four letters are transliterated as YHWH. In Latin, since the letter J originally was pronounced like a Y or I, and the letter V sounded like a W, this was written JHVH (from which we get "Jehovah," as in the Witnesses). Since you're not supposed to write the name down too often, it's common to change a letter (in English this is often written as G-d) or to space the letters, like Y-H-W-H.
Especially in Judaism, but in many Christian traditions as well, you are not supposed to pronounce the Tetragrammaton. When referring to the name itself, one would typically say HaShem ("The Name" in Hebrew). When reading the four letters, it is pronounced Adonai (or "The Lord"). If the word "Lord" is already next to the four letters, you would say Elohim. This is how we arrive at the common English phrase "the Lord God."
How Accurate Is the Bible?
“The Bible is full of contradictions and errors.”
“How can you be sure the Bible is the same now as when it was written, given that it’s been copied and translated so many times?”
These common charges against the Christian Scriptures are often followed with an assertion like, “Historians and scientists have long since proven that the Bible is inaccurate and unreliable.”
But how accurate is that statement? Is the Bible full of contradictions? Is it outdated, inauthentic, and full of scientific and historical errors as so many assert? In short,
Can you trust the Bible?
Here, I will consider some objections to the accuracy and reliability of the Bible to help you make a more informed decision about whether the Bible is trustworthy.
Common False Impressions
Consider the following statements:
-The Bible says that God helps those who help themselves.
-The books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe.
-“Cleanliness is next to godliness” is in the Bible.
-According to the Bible, the earth is flat.
-The earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries AD.
-The Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe.
-The English Bible is a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process.
How many of the above statements do you think are true? The answer is none; all of them are false. Yet these false impressions persist in the minds of many, and misinformation like this produces a skeptical attitude toward the Bible.
The fact is that, with few exceptions, many have reached their conclusions about the Bible through second and third-hand sources rather than through firsthand investigation. It is a rare person who has personally examined a text to see if an alleged contradiction is there. Someone who asserts that the Bible is full of contradictions should be able to name at least one, if not several; challenging them to do so can be a helpful initial response.
We can break down the question of whether the Bible is reliable into four subcategories or questions:
Authenticity (textual reliability): Is what we have now a fair representation of what was first written?
Accuracy (factual reliability): Is what we have now a fair representation of what happened?
Authority (doctrinal reliability): Is what we have now a fair representation of what God wanted to communicate to us?
Accumulation: How do we know the right books were chosen to be in the Bible?
Three Tests
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable:
1. The bibliographic test.
2. The internal test
3. The external test.
The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
The Bibliographic Test
The first test examines the quantity, quality, and time span (between oldest copy and original writing) of the text. This test examines the question,
When we read the books of the Bible, are we reading what those books originally said?
Quantity of Manuscripts
In the case of the Old Testament, there is a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel’s turbulent history. Additionally, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century AD, and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac and Coptic, among others). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, is much smaller.
Comparison of Existing Manuscript Quantities
Homer: 2,000
Plato: 7
Aristotle: 49
Caesar: 10
Tacitus: 20
New Testament: 6,000+ in Greek (24,000 including translations in other languages)
Quality of Manuscripts
Because of the great reverence, the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this because these Hebrew scrolls predate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But despite this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
“The quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts"
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good—considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these has any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
Time Span
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated AD 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 BC to AD 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries AD. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated AD 117–138, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from AD 175–225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about AD 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.
The Internal Test
The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents addresses the question,
What claims does the Bible make about itself?
This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like I am using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But I am really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book, but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
Several biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe” (John 19:35; see also 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and held with our hands, concerning the Word of life … what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also …” (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their Gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between AD 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke’s two-part masterpiece. Here is the prologue to the first of these:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4)
The External Test
Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1–3) and in Luke 3:1–2 are two illustrations of this. Ezekiel 1:2 is another example; this verse allows us to date Ezekiel’s first vision of God down to the day (July 31, 592 BC).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extrabiblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders), the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors, for example, that are mentioned in the four Gospels and the book of Acts.
There is another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after AD 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara bar Serapion. This letter, written to his son, compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first and second century writers who mention Christ include:
-The Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars)
-The Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles)
-The Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine)
-The Jewish Talmud also mentions Jesus several times
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, and the like. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While I cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would seem to completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all these claims .
Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures because of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider the following examples illustrating the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. The Nuzi, Mari, and Ebla tablets, along with excavations at Alalakh (1937–1939; 1946–1949), all provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period.
The Nuzi Tablets (1925–1941)
Found shortly before World War II just to the east of Mari and the Euphrates River, the Nuzi excavations uncovered several thousand cuneiform tablets (dating back to 1500 BC) that confirm many customs of the day that are mentioned in the Bible, including:
-The servant heir custom (i.e., having your eldest servant inherit your wealth if you were childless), a practice mentioned by Abraham in reference to Eliezer in Genesis 15:2.
-The birthright sales custom, mentioned with Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:31).
-The custom of household idols (Genesis 31:19 tells the account of Rachel having stolen these from her father, Laban).
The Mari Tablets (1933)
Discovered in 1933, the Mari tablets are diplomatic correspondences and governmental records involving King Zimri-Lim (a contemporary of Babylon’s Hammurabi). To date, some 20,000 clay tablets have been found dating back to around 1800 BC. These letters, along with the Nuzi tablets, illustrate the patriarchal customs in detail. They also mention the city of Nahor, which apparently is named after the Nahor identified in Genesis 11:24, and make reference to the “Habiru” people (most likely an Akkadian reference to the Hebrews—an allusion to them as a nomadic people).
The Ebla Tablets (1964–the 1970s)
Discovered in northern Syria, these tablets affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the book of Genesis. Their excavation began in 1964 by two professors from the University of Rome, Drs. Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato (an archaeologist and epigrapher, respectively). Since 1974, 17,000 tablets have been unearthed from the Ebla kingdom era and have made valuable contributions to biblical criticism.
Other External Evidence for the Old Testament
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic law could not have been written by Moses, because the writing was largely unknown at that time, and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims. Archaeology provides helpful, external evidence of numerous other biblical details from the Old Testament as well, from Genesis to Ezra to Daniel.
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament has also received abundant support from archaeology, and many critical attacks have been reversed. Most of the geographical details associated with the life of Jesus in the Gospels have been substantiated. These include places such as the Pool of Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda, Jacob’s Well, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, Chorazin, the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, and “The Pavement” in John 19:13.
In the past, critics tried to discredit Luke, accusing him of being an inaccurate historian; however, the books of Luke and Acts both replete with references to cities, Roman provinces, and political figures have now been substantiated by external evidence. Critics once scoffed at his reference to Lysanius as the “tetrarch of Abilene” (Luke 3:1), but archaeologists have since found two Greek inscriptions proving that Lysanius was indeed the tetrarch of Abilene in AD 14–29. Luke’s use of technical terminology, like proconsul, procurator, Asiarch, praetor, and politarch, has been challenged in the past, but mounting evidence has vindicated his accuracy.
Conclusion:
The Old and New Testaments pass the bibliographic, internal, and external tests like no other ancient books. Most professional archaeologists and historians acknowledge the historicity of the Bible, and yet many theologians still embrace pre-archaeological critical theories about the Bible. The evidence strongly supports the accuracy of the Bible in relation to history and culture, but in many cases, it has been overlooked or rejected because of philosophical presuppositions that run contrary to the Scriptures. This leads to a double standard: critics approach secular literature with one standard but wrongly use a different standard when they examine the Bible. Those who discard the Bible as historically untrustworthy must realize that the same standard would force them to eliminate almost all ancient literature!
What Does it Mean that the Bible Is Infallible? What Is Biblical Infallibility?
To state something is inerrant indicates it does not confirm any errors, nor does it sanction any untrue thing. Inerrancy has to do with the assertion made by a person or entity. For instance, a human being can make a true statement, but the source of the statement is able to err.
Infallibility means errors are not possible for the entity in question; there is no possibility of the inaccuracy of any kind. Infallibility has to do with the one who makes the assertion in whatever form it’s made. The truth as stated by the infallible One (God) is absolute.
In today’s culture, tolerance extends to the truth of history as evidenced by the demolition of war memorials, disavowal of the Holocaust, etc., therefore seeking to negate the truth as it happened. Some people choose to reject things they find offensive or consider “hate speech.” But, as mentioned by one distinguished scientist is “To cut out history is to make it meaningless.” The misplaced tolerance and distrust extend to the Bible. It is under attack by those who would deny its Author, its infallibility, its commands, and its authority over our lives. As a Christian, I hold to the truths and tenets of God’s Word and live by the Lord’s commands as outlined in Scripture. As you engage our culture, you need to be able to answer this question:
Is the Bible infallible?
Let us start by asking the following question:
Is the Bible Inerrant?
In a word, yes. The historical accounts and spiritual principles as written in the Bible are factual. For instance, what was said by certain people—such as Cain when he lied to God about not knowing what happened to his brother, Abel (Genesis 4:9b), and the lies of the devil when he told Eve she would not die after disobeying the Lord’s command to not eat from the tree of good and evil (Genesis 3:4-5)—are factual and without reproach. They are deceits, but the Bible in no way validates them. The Bible is without error in that it reports exactly what happened and what was said. As critics investigating the supposed contradictions in the Bible, we can stand firm on what contextual criticism (analysis of the context of a text) affirms, the authenticity and integrity of the Scriptures. The Bible, however, is not unique in being inerrant; people, too, can make inerrant statements (e.g., “my name is Joe.”). The statement, “My name is Joe” is free from error, therefore it is inerrant. Since the two words, inerrancy and infallibility, are close in basic meaning, one goes hand-in-hand with the other when describing the inimitable, truthful nature of the Bible (Proverbs 30:5).
Is the Bible Infallible?
Also, yes. The Bible is exclusive in its infallible nature. It cannot be mistaken about anything; all recorded history and spiritual veracities in Scripture bear full truth; it is incapable of error of any sort. Skeptics will scour the Word seeking all perceived inaccuracies. One such indictment comes from doubters who take exception to the biblical accounts of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. The record of the progression of the reigning kings does not seem to match up when comparing the accounts as written in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. An exhaustive study, however, carried out by Dr. Edwin Thiele titled, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1983), explains and uncovers the seeming fallacy. As scholars advanced the historical study of ancient Assyria and Babylon, they have been able to discern the accurate timetable of their kings. In one account, the biblical timeline did not match up with their findings. What Dr. Thiele discovered was a difference in calendars used by Judah vs. Israel, which made the discrepancy disappear. Once the calendars were aligned, the kings’ reigns matched up perfectly with what the scholars found.
Year after year, the Bible has withstood the human-centered tests of people such as Voltaire, Darwin, Christopher Hitchens, and various other atheists and scientists who declare the Bible’s claims are untrue. In every case, the Bible is proven true. Every case.
There is also the question about how we got the Bible, which remains a best-seller and the most widely distributed book in history. Disparagers will make the accusation that human men wrote the Bible, and it is liable to their fallible nature. Yes, men are fallible, but as it was originally written by the inspired authors in its languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible is indisputable in its infallibility (just as it is with its inerrancy). God preserved His intended message to us as the Bible has passed through the ages. It has exact uniformity even though it was written by forty men from three different continents over 2000 years!
Men, however, are fallible and liable to make mistakes. Therefore, some people object to the copying process of the Bible. They compare it to the “telephone game,” where a message starts as one thing and is completely different when it gets back to the original sender. This is a false comparison to how the Bible was copied through the years. Unlike the “telephone game,” the copiers were able to go back and consult the original, existing texts and research for clarity. Even one noted critic states the original message of the New Testament can be known using the manuscripts available to us today.
People also say the ancient myths led the writers, but 2 Peter 1:20-21 explains—with the exactness only the Bible can provide—the men who wrote the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Another argument against the Bible is it’s too old to be reliable, nor is it relevant for today. God made sure what we hold in our hands this day is complete and true for what we need to live a life that pleases Him (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible is a timeless source of wisdom for all walks and stages of life. All people have the same God-designed souls, which means we have the same problem of sin (Romans 3:23), and we have the same solution (Acts 4:12). As such, we have the same God-given blueprint for life because we are all made in His image (Genesis 1:26). The Bible is not a cultural book; it uses people of a different culture to express enduring truths of God and humanity.
The Scriptures we hold in our hands today is a supernatural work of the Lord, faithfully and wholly preserved by Him to give us not only His love letter to us but also the history of the prophets and apostles and His plan of reconciliation for our souls through Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15).
Eyewitness reports abound in the Scriptures, and extra-biblical sources of the first century (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, e.g.) confirm what the Bible presents. Numerous electronic and print resources prove worthy study guides about how we got our Bible, and ministries such as Answers in Genesis provide not only an interactive website but museums that give the visitor hands-on experiences as to the truth and infallibility of the Bible
Why Does This Matter?
If the Bible is fallible, we as Christians have nothing on which to base our beliefs. We can only know God’s character, His plan, or His desires for us and the kingdom through His revelation to us (the Bible); we are incapable of knowing Him by our own effort. We don’t possess the innate ability to discern truth from error regarding God, and if the Bible is mixed with said truth and error, it would be impossible to distinguish what’s true and what’s false.
Imagine watching a person from a distance and trying to know them personally. You can make endless speculations about their behaviors but there would be no reason to think you know them. Only as they get closer and reveal themselves to you can you know who they are. If this is true of people, how much more of God?
We trust God’s attributes—His holiness—and His whole character. He is the very source of truth. He defines our reality by His Word (Colossians 1:16). It is because of this we can trust we possess His unfailing Word. To say the Bible can mislead or deceive someone is like saying God is not Who He says He is.
God shares some of His attributes with His human creation (loving, patient, kind, gracious, etc.), yet God’s very nature is on trial to those who do not believe the Bible is His infallible Word.
God encompasses some attributes which belong to Him alone.
He is:
-Perfect - (Matthew 5:48).
-Independent (Isaiah 40:13-14 – He alone is the source of all wisdom and counsel.)
-Infinite (Genesis 1:1 – He was there in the beginning. Deuteronomy 33:27, Psalm 90:2 – Both speak of Him as everlasting.)
-Immutable and Unchangeable - (Hebrews 13:8 – He will never change.)
-Omnipotent - Almighty (1 Corinthians 6:14, Colossians 1:16 – All has been made and sustained by His power.)
-Omnipresent - (Psalm 139:7-10, Hebrews 4:13 – There is nothing hidden from God.)
-Omniscient - (1 John 3:19-20 – God knows everything.)
The above list is not exhaustive, yet it is enough to base your belief in who God is and what He is like. Within all these truths about God in His Oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4), we can be sure that what He has for us in His Word is true. We have affirmation He would not provide us with a book filled with myths and fallacies. Plus, the Bible never contradicts itself, and it is the best interpreter of itself; context confirms what other passages state.
For years, scientists have sought to defame the account of creation as recorded in Genesis 1-2. But because of the irrefutable evidence, some scientists who formerly rebutted the creation account now believe in Intelligent Design. If they are open, the truths they uncover will inevitably point them to God.
The Greek language of John 1:1 declares, In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) “Word” here is Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. He, the Lord Jesus, is the Word of the word (the Bible). In Him, the fullness of the Godhead dwells (Colossians 2:9). The truth of Scripture is verified by our Lord Jesus, Himself. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), and since Jesus is God (John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-16), His description of Himself encompasses all Scripture inspired by His Holy Spirit. The Bible has over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of a coming Messiah. Jesus fulfilled every one of them. If this were not so, our hope in what the Bible promises are broken.
It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2), and 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Inspiration in this passage means “to breathe out;” God is the Originator of Scripture. A statement made by many biblical scholars underscores the first word in 2 Timothy 3:16; All means all and that’s all, all means. Since all Scripture is God’s Word, it cannot be fallible, and it’s true for every person’s life.
In Matthew 4:4, Jesus asserts to the devil, man is to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Indeed, His statement designates marching orders for every Christian. All wisdom for every situation may be found in the Bible (James 1:5-6), for “every word” by which we are to live may be found in the Scriptures.
I Pray to my Lord God that you receive and understand the insights from this introductory presentation as we begin to Unpack the Bible and related spiritual studies together.
Jack Bell
The First Church
The ability to trace today’s many churches back to the first church through Apostolic succession is an argument used by several different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.” The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim. Some Protestant denominations make this claim. Some of the “Christian” cults even make this claim. How do we know which church is correct?
The first church—its growth, doctrine, and practices—was recorded in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that those apostles had to fight against false teachers early on. Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church’s roots back to the "first church" is not found in Scripture as a test for being the true church. What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers taught and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether a church is the "true church" or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.
For instance, in Acts 20:17-38, the Apostle Paul has an opportunity to talk to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus one last time face to face. In that passage, he tells them that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them (vs. 29-30). Paul does not set forth the teaching that they were to follow the "first" organized church as a safeguard for the truth. Rather, he commits them to the safekeeping of "God and to the word of His grace" (v. 32). Thus, the truth could be determined by depending upon God and "the word of His grace" (Scripture) see John 10:35).
This dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individual "founders" is seen again in Galatians 1:8-9, in which Paul states, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Thus, the basis for determining truth from error is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is the same gospel that they had already received – and that gospel is recorded in Scripture.
Another example of this dependence upon the Word of God is found in (2 Peter) In this epistle, the Apostle Peter is fighting against false teachers. In doing so, Peter begins by mentioning that we have a "more sure word" to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter later tells them again to be mindful of "the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandments of the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2 Peter 3:2). Both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles are recorded in Scripture.
How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that Scripture says that we have is the Bible (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 2:25; Galatians 1:6-9). Tradition is a part of every church, and that tradition must be compared to God’s Word, lest it go against what is true (Mark 7:1-13). It is true that the cults and sometimes orthodox churches twist the interpretation of Scripture to support their practices; nonetheless, Scripture, when taken in context and faithfully studied, can guide one to the truth.
The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” You can know this because it is described in detail in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church.
On this basis, let me examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church which was the first church and the one true church, how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.
The New Testament records the history of the church from A.D. 30 to A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians, and the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-century churches began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?
The answer is simple – the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century and following churches did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament and the full Bible were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.
Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church’s teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after today.
Do They?
Jack
Does God exist?
Whether God exists is one of the most basic and important questions any person can consider. Opinions about God abound, but answering the question does God exist? demands more than a few seconds of attention and involves a wide range of ideas and evidence. Ultimately, what we see in human experience, science, logic, and history leads to a confident answer: Yes, God exists!
Demanding “proof” of God that no one could ever reject is unreasonable. Neither evidence nor people function that way in the real world. “Encountering” facts and “accepting” them are profoundly different. Airtight, sound arguments will remain unconvincing to those determined to disbelieve. For the resolute skeptic, it’s not “proof,” even if it would convince almost anyone else. A person’s intent is more influential than any evidence encountered.
That means a certain amount of “faith” is necessary—and not just regarding God’s existence. Perfect knowledge is beyond our ability. Bias and prejudice cloud our views. There will always be a gap between what we can “know” and what we “believe.” This applies equally to skeptics and believers. We cannot possibly know every detail involved every time we sit in a chair, eat food, or climb stairs. Such actions all express a measure of faith. We act, despite what we don’t know, because of what we do know. That’s the essence of biblical faith, including faith in the existence of God. We trust in what is known, leading us to action, despite a less-than-absolute understanding (Hebrews 11:6).
Whether or not one acknowledges God, the decision involves faith. Belief in God does not require blind faith (John 20:29), but neither can it overcome malicious resistance (John 5:39–40). Bolstering faith is human experience, logic, and empirical evidence, all of which help answer the question does God exist?
Does God Exist? — Human Experience
Discussing the existence of God usually starts with logical arguments. That makes sense, but it’s not how human beings normally operate. No one starts devoid of all perspective, waiting to follow a robotically rational path before forming an opinion. People interpret life based on the world around them. So, looking at the existence of God ought to start with experiences. Afterward, we can use logic to assess those views.
Evidence of God exists in daily human experiences (Romans 1:19–20; Psalm 19:1; Ecclesiastes 3:11). This includes our innate sense of morality. It applies to the apparent design of the universe around us. Human life compels belief that truth, deception, love, hate, goodness, evil, etc., are real and meaningful. The overwhelming majority of people throughout history have been inclined to believe in a reality greater than the physical.
Our experiences are not conclusive evidence, of course. Instead, God uses general revelation as an invitation (Revelation 3:20). Common experiences are meant to emphasize that we ought to seek further answers (Matthew 7:7–8). Those who ignore or disdain God’s invitation don’t have the excuse of ignorance (Romans 1:18; Psalm 14:1).
Does God Exist? — Human Logic
Three of the more powerful logical suggestions of God’s existence are the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments.
The cosmological argument considers the principle of cause and effect. Each effect is the result of some cause, and each cause is the effect of a prior cause. However, that chain of causes cannot go on infinitely into the past, or else the chain would never actually start. Logic demands something eternally existent and that is not itself the effect of anything else. Our universe, clearly, is not eternal or uncaused. Logic points to God: the uncreated, eternal measure of all other things, the First Cause of our reality.
The teleological argument examines the structure of the universe. The largest galactic configurations, our solar system, our DNA, subatomic particles—everything gives the appearance of having been purposefully arranged. This trait is so strong that even hardened atheists have difficulty explaining away the appearance of design.
Nothing about subatomic particles or forces indicates they must be arranged as they are. Yet, if they were not exactly as they are, complex matter—and life—would be impossible. Dozens of universal constants coordinate with mind-boggling precision just to make life possible, let alone actual. Science has never observed or explained life arising from non-life, yet it also shows a sudden onset of complex organisms. A team of archaeologists who saw the words I am here on a cave wall would universally assume intelligent action. Meanwhile, human DNA represents a coding structure beyond the ability of the best human engineers. The weight of this evidence, logically, favors the idea of an Intelligent Designer—God—as an explanation.
The moral argument points to concepts like good and evil, ethics, and so forth. It’s notable that these are discussions of “what should be,” not merely “what is.” Moral principles are drastically disconnected from the ruthless, selfish reasoning that one would expect of a creature randomly evolved to survive at any cost. The very idea that human beings think in non-physical, moral terms is striking. Beyond that, the fundamental content of human morals remains constant throughout history and across cultures.
Further, discussion of moral ideas leads inevitably to a crossroads. Either moral ideas are completely subjective, and therefore meaningless, or they must be grounded in some unchanging standard. Human experience doesn’t support the conclusion that morals mean nothing. The most reasonable explanation for why people think in moral terms and share moral ideals is a real moral law provided by a Moral Lawgiver - God.
Does God Exist? — Human Science
The logical arguments above are inspired by observations. Concepts such as the Big Bang Theory demonstrate, at the very least, the scientific validity of a created, non-eternal universe. Likewise for the structure of DNA. Empirical data lends credibility to the idea of a biblical Creator and contradicts alternative explanations, such as an eternal universe or abiogenesis.
Archaeology also lends support to the Bible. People, events, and places depicted in Scripture have repeatedly been confirmed by secular discoveries. Many of these discoveries came after skeptics implied the Bible’s accounts were fictional.
History and literature, for their part, also support the existence of God. The preservation of the Bible is one example: our ability to trace the existing text of Scripture to a time so close to the original events supports the Bible’s reliability. Judeo-Christian influence on culture, morality, human rights, and the birth of modern science also strongly indicates an approach aligned with truth.
Does God Exist? — God in Us
Each of the prior categories is an entire field of study and the subject of thousands of books. Yet the existence of God is demonstrated most profoundly, for most people, in personal experience. It may be impossible to “prove” to others that you’re happy, for instance, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are. That’s not to say internal perspective outweighs objective truth, but complex truths are often powerfully supported by individual experiences. Changed lives, reformed attitudes, and answers to prayer are all part of our personal perception that God exists.
A personal sense of truth is a compelling way we know God exists, and it’s God’s intent for all people to experience that sense. God came to earth personally, as a human being (2 Corinthians 4:6), so we could have a personal relationship with Him (John 14:6). Those who sincerely seek God will find Him (Matthew 7:7–8), resulting in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26–27).
The question "does God exist?", therefore, cannot be answered with absolute proof, but we can point to the weight of evidence that suggests He does exist. Accepting the existence of God is not a blind-faith leap into the dark. It’s a trusting step out of the dark into a well-lit room where many things are made clear.
I believe in the existence of God.
Jack Bell
Who is God?
Who is God? - The Fact
The fact of God’s existence is so conspicuous, both through creation and through man’s conscience, that the Bible calls the atheist a “fool” (Psalm 14:1). Accordingly, the Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God; rather, it assumes His existence from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1). What the Bible does is reveal the nature, character, and work of God.
Who is God? - The Definition
Thinking correctly about God is of utmost importance because a false idea about God is idolatry. In Psalm 50:21, God reproves the wicked man with this accusation: “You thought I was altogether like you.” To start with, a good summary definition of God is “the Supreme Being; the Creator and Ruler of all that is; the Self-existent One who is perfect in power, goodness, and wisdom.”
Who is God? - His Nature
We know certain things to be true of God for one reason: in His mercy, He has condescended to reveal some of His qualities to us. God is spirit, by nature intangible (John 4:24). God is One, but He exists as three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17). God is infinite (1 Timothy 1:17), incomparable (2 Samuel 7:22), and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). God exists everywhere (Psalm 139:7-12), knows everything (Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:28), and has all power and authority (Ephesians 1; Revelation 19:6).
Who is God? - His Character
Here are some of God’s characteristics as revealed in the Bible: God is just (Acts 17:31), loving (Ephesians 2:4-5), truthful (John 14:6), and holy (1 John 1:5). God shows compassion (2 Corinthians 1:3), mercy (Romans 9:15), and grace (Romans 5:17). God judges sin (Psalm 5:5) but also offers forgiveness (Psalm 130:4).
Who is God? - His Work
We cannot understand God apart from His works, because what God does flows from who He is. Here is an abbreviated list of God’s works, past, present, and future: God created the world (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 42:5); He actively sustains the world (Colossians 1:17); He is executing His eternal plan (Ephesians 1:11) which involves the redemption of man from the curse of sin and death (Galatians 3:13-14); He draws people to Christ (John 6:44); He disciplines His children (Hebrews 12:6), and He will judge the world (Revelation 20:11-15).
Who is God? - A Relationship with Him
In the Person of the Son, God became incarnate (John 1:14). The Son of God became the Son of Man and is therefore the “bridge” between God and man (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5). It is only through the Son that we can have forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7), reconciliation with God (John 15:15; Romans 5:10), and eternal salvation (2 Timothy 2:10). In Jesus Christ “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). So, to really know who God is, all we have to do is look at Jesus.
May the Lord our God bless you while reading this presentation.
Jack
Jesus Christ
Unlike the question “Does God exist?” the question of whether Jesus Christ existed is asked by relatively few people. Most accept that Jesus was truly a man who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago. The debate begins with the discussion of Jesus’ full identity. Almost every major religion teaches that Jesus was a prophet or a good teacher or a godly man. But the Bible tells us that Jesus was infinitely more than a prophet, a good teacher, or a godly man.
C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity writes the following: “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us.
He did not intend to” (Macmillan, 1952, p. 55–56).
So, who did Jesus claim to be? Who does the Bible say He is? First, He is God in the flesh. Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement. They tried to stone Him “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement as a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews or attempts to clarify His statement. He never says, “I did not claim to be God.” When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), He truly was claiming equality with God.
In John 8:58 Jesus claims pre-existence, an attribute of God: “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’” In response to this statement, the Jews again took up stones to stone Jesus (John 8:59). In claiming pre-existence, Jesus applied a name for God to Himself—I AM (see Exodus 3:14). The Jews rejected Jesus’ identity as God Incarnate, but they understood exactly what He was saying.
Other biblical clues that Jesus is God in the flesh include John 1:1, which says, “The Word was God,” coupled with John 1:14, which says, “The Word became flesh.” Thomas the disciple declared to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), Jesus does not correct him. The apostle Paul describes Jesus as “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). The apostle Peter says the same, calling Jesus “our God and Savior”
(2 Peter 1:1).
God the Father bears witness of Jesus’ identity as well: “But about the Son, he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom’” (Hebrews 1:8; cf. Psalm 45:6). Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 9:6 announce the deity of Christ: “For to us a child is born, to us, a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (emphasis added).
Why is the question of Jesus’ identity so important? Why does it matter whether Jesus is God? Several reasons:
• As C. S. Lewis pointed out, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus is the worst of liars and untrustworthy in every way.
• If Jesus is not God, then the apostles would likewise have been liars.
• Jesus had to be God because the Messiah was promised to be the “Holy One” (Psalm 16:5, NASB). Since no one on earth is righteous before God (Psalm 53:1; 143:2), God Himself had to enter the world as a human.
• If Jesus is not God, His death would have been insufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Only God Himself could provide an infinite, eternally valuable sacrifice (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
• God is the only Savior (Hosea 13:4; cf. 1 Timothy 2:3). If Jesus is to be the Savior, then He must be God.
Jesus had to be both God and man. As God, Jesus could satisfy God’s wrath. As a man, Jesus had the capability of dying. As the God-man, Jesus is the perfect Mediator between heaven and earth (1 Timothy 2:5).
Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ. As He proclaimed, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
I pray this study and sharing will be acceptable to all of you as my readers.
In the name of Jesus Christ - My Lord and Savior. Amen.
Jack Bell
Believe in Christ
Believe in the full diety and humanity of Christ
Believe in the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
Believe in salvation by faith in Christ
Believe in the physical return of Christ
What Is Truth?
Recently, I was in a conversation with a good friend of mine who stated "It's all about truth". We weren't able to resolve what was meant by the word truth during that conversation.
This is my answer to him:
Almost two thousand years ago, Truth was put on trial and judged by people who were devoted to lies. In fact, Truth faced six trials in less than one full day, three of which were religious, and three that were legal. In the end, few people involved in those events could answer the question, “What is truth?”
After being arrested, the Truth was first led to a man named Annas, a corrupt former high priest of the Jews. Annas broke numerous Jewish laws during the trial, including holding the trial in his house, trying to induce self-accusations against the defendant, and striking the defendant, who had been convicted of nothing at the time. After Annas, the Truth was led to the reigning high priest, Caiaphas, who happened to be Annas’s son-in-law. Before Caiaphas and the Jewish Sanhedrin, many false witnesses came forward to speak against the Truth, yet nothing could be proved, and no evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Caiaphas broke no fewer than seven laws while trying to convict the Truth: (1) the trial was held in secret; (2) it was carried out at night; (3) it involved bribery; (4) the defendant had no one present to make a defense for Him; (5) the requirement of 2-3 witnesses could not be met; (6) they used self-incriminating testimony against the defendant; (7) they carried out the death penalty against the defendant the same day. All these actions were prohibited by Jewish law. Regardless, Caiaphas declared the Truth guilty because the Truth claimed to be God in the flesh, something Caiaphas called blasphemy.
When morning came, the third trial of the Truth took place, with the result that the Jewish Sanhedrin pronounced the Truth should die. However, the Jewish council had no legal right to carry out the death penalty, so they were forced to bring the Truth to the Roman governor at the time, a man named Pontius Pilate. Pilate was appointed by Tiberius as the fifth prefect of Judea and served in that capacity A.D. 26 to 36. The procurator had the power of life and death and could reverse capital sentences passed by the Sanhedrin. As the Truth stood before Pilate, more lies were brought against Him. His enemies said, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King” (Luke 23:2). This was a lie, as the Truth had told everyone to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:21) and never spoke of Himself as a challenge to Caesar.
After this, a very interesting conversation between Truth and Pilate took place. “Therefore, Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Therefore, Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this, I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’” (John 18:33–38).
Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” has reverberated down through history. Was it a melancholy desire to know what no one else could tell him, a cynical insult, or perhaps an irritated, indifferent reply to Jesus’ words?
In a postmodern world that denies that truth can be known, the question is more important than ever to answer. What is truth?
A Proposed Definition of Truth
In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:
•Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism—an ends-vs.-means-type approach. Lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.
• Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable. A group of people can get together and form a conspiracy based on a set of falsehoods where they all agree to tell the same false story, but it does not make their presentation true.
• Truth is not what makes people feel good. Unfortunately, bad news can be true.
• Truth is not what the majority says is true. Fifty-one percent of a group can reach a wrong conclusion.
• Truth is not what is comprehensive. A lengthy, detailed presentation can still result in a false conclusion.
• Truth is not defined by what is intended. Good intentions can still be wrong.
• Truth is not how we know; the truth is what we know.
• Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie believed is still a lie.
• Truth is not what is publicly proved. Truth can be privately known (for example, the location of buried treasure).
The Greek word for “truth” is Aletheia, which literally means to “un-hide” or “hiding nothing.” It conveys the thought that truth is always there, always open, and available for all to see, with nothing being hidden or obscured. The Hebrew word for “truth” is emeth, which means “firmness,” “constancy” and “duration.” Such a definition implies an everlasting substance and something that can be relied upon.
From a philosophical perspective, there are three simple ways to define truth:
1. Truth is that which corresponds to reality.
2. Truth is that which matches its object.
3. Truth is simply telling it like it is.
First, truth corresponds to reality or “what is.” It is real. Truth is also correspondent in nature. In other words, it matches its object and is known by its referent. For example, a teacher facing a class may say, “Now the only exit to this room is on the right.” For the class that may be facing the teacher, the exit door may be on their left, but it’s true that the door, for the professor, is on the right.
Truth also matches its object. It may be true that a certain person may need so many milligrams of a certain medication, but another person may need more or less of the same medication to produce the desired effect. This is not relative truth, but just an example of how truth must match its object. It would be wrong (and potentially dangerous) for a patient to request that their doctor give them an inappropriate amount of a particular medication, or to say that any medicine for their specific ailment will do.
In short, truth is simply telling it like it is. It is the way things really are, and any other viewpoint is wrong. A foundational principle of philosophy is being able to discern between truth and error, or as Thomas Aquinas observed, "It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions."
Challenges to Truth
Aquinas’ words are not very popular today. Making distinctions seems to be out of fashion in a postmodern era of relativism. It is acceptable today to say, “This is true,” as long as it is not followed by, “and therefore that is false.” This is especially observable in matters of faith and religion where every belief system is supposed to be on equal footing where truth is concerned.
There are several philosophies and worldviews that challenge the concept of truth, yet, when each is critically examined it turns out to be self-defeating in nature.
The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one must ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong—why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do is follow his advice.
Those who follow the philosophy of skepticism simply doubt all truth. But is the skeptic skeptical of skepticism; does he doubt his own truth claim? If so, then why pay attention to skepticism? If not, then we can be sure of at least one thing (in other words, absolute truth exists)—skepticism, which, ironically, becomes absolute truth in that case. The agnostic says you can’t know the truth. Yet the mindset is self-defeating because it claims to know at least one truth: that you can’t know the truth.
The disciples of postmodernism simply affirm no truth. The patron saint of postmodernism—Frederick Nietzsche—described truth like this: “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms … truths are illusions … coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” Ironically, although the postmodernist holds coins in his hand that is now “mere metal,” he affirms at least one absolute truth: the truth that no truth should be affirmed. Like the other worldviews, postmodernism is self-defeating and cannot stand up under its own claim.
A popular worldview is pluralism, which says that all truth claims are equally valid. Of course, this is impossible. Can two claims—one that says a woman is now pregnant and another that says she is not now pregnant—both be true at the same time? Pluralism unravels at the feet of the law of non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. As one philosopher quipped, anyone who believes that the law of non-contradiction is not true (and, by default, pluralism is true) should be beaten and burned until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same thing as to not be beaten and burned. Also, note that pluralism says that it is true, and anything opposed to it is false, which is a claim that denies its own foundational tenet.
The spirit behind pluralism is an open-armed attitude of tolerance. However, pluralism confuses the idea of everyone having equal value with every truth claim being equally valid. More simply, all people may be equal, but not all truth claims are. Pluralism fails to understand the difference between opinion and truth, a distinction Mortimer Adler notes: “Pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.”
The Offensive Nature of Truth
When the concept of truth is maligned, it is usually for one or more of the following reasons:
One common complaint against anyone claiming to have absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 only equals 4?
Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that someone is right, and another person is wrong. However, returning to the above example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist on only one right answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?
The third charge against those holding to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.
Yet another protest against truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim one has the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is immune to sincerity, belief, and desire. It doesn’t matter how much one sincerely believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.
Some will admit that absolute truth exists, but then claim such a stance is only valid in the area of science and not in matters of faith and religion. This is a philosophy called logical positivism, which was popularized by philosophers such as David Hume and A. J. Ayer. In essence, such people state that truth claims must either be (1) tautologies (for example, all bachelors are unmarried men) or (2) empirically verifiable (that is, testable via science). To the logical positivist, all talk about God is nonsense.
Those who hold to the notion that only science can make truth claims fail to recognize is that there are many realms of truth where science is impotent. For example:
• Science cannot prove the disciplines of mathematics and logic because it presupposes them.
• Science cannot prove metaphysical truths such as minds other than my own do exist.
• Science is unable to provide truth in the areas of morals and ethics. You cannot use science, for example, to prove the Nazis were evil.
• Science is incapable of stating truths about aesthetic positions such as the beauty of a sunrise.
• Lastly, when anyone makes the statement “science is the only source of objective truth,” they have just made a philosophical claim—which cannot be tested by science.
And there are those who say that absolute truth does not apply in the area of morality. Yet the response to the question, “Is it moral to torture and murder an innocent child?” is absolute and universal: No. Or, to make it more personal, those who espouse relative truth concerning morals always seem to want their spouse to be faithful to them.
Why Truth Is Important
Why is it so important to understand and embrace the concept of absolute truth in all areas of life (including faith and religion)? Simply because life has consequences for being wrong. Giving someone the wrong amount of medication can kill them; having an investment manager makes the wrong monetary decisions can impoverish a family; boarding the wrong plane will take you where you do not wish to go; and dealing with an unfaithful marriage partner can result in the destruction of a family and, potentially, disease. Nowhere are the consequences more important than in faith and religion. Eternity is a long time to be wrong!
God and Truth
During the six trials of Jesus, the contrast between the truth (righteousness) and lies (unrighteousness) was unmistakable. There stood Jesus, the Truth, being judged by those whose every action was bathed in lies. The Jewish leaders broke nearly every law designed to protect a defendant from wrongful conviction. They fervently worked to find any testimony that would incriminate Jesus, and in their frustration, they turned to false evidence brought forward by liars. But even that could not help them reach their goal. So, they broke another law and forced Jesus to implicate Himself.
Once in front of Pilate, the Jewish leaders lied again. They convicted Jesus of blasphemy, but since they knew that wouldn’t be enough to coax Pilate to kill Jesus, they claimed Jesus was challenging Caesar and was breaking Roman law by encouraging the crowds to not pay taxes. Pilate quickly detected their superficial deception, and he never even addressed the charge.
Jesus the Righteous was being judged by the unrighteous. The sad fact is that the latter always persecutes the former. It’s why Cain killed Abel. The link between truth and righteousness and between falsehood and unrighteousness is demonstrated by a number of examples in the New Testament:
• For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12).
• “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).
• “who will render to each person according to his deeds; to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (Romans 2:6–8).
• “[love] does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:5–6).
What Is Truth? - Conclusion
The question Pontius Pilate asked centuries ago needs to be rephrased to be completely accurate. The Roman governor’s remark “What is truth?” overlooks the fact that many things can have the truth, but only one thing can be the Truth. Truth must originate from somewhere.
The stark reality is that Pilate was looking directly at the Origin of all Truth on that early morning almost two thousand years ago. Not long before being arrested and brought to the governor, Jesus had made the simple statement “I am the truth” (John 14:6), which was a rather incredible statement. How could a mere man be the truth? He couldn’t be, unless He was more than a man, which is what He claimed to be. The fact is, Jesus’ claim was validated when He rose from the dead (Romans 1:4).
There’s a story about a man who lived in Paris who had a stranger from the country come see him. Wanting to show the stranger the magnificence of Paris, he took him to the Louvre to see the great art and then to a concert at a majestic symphony hall to hear a great symphony orchestra play. At the end of the day, the stranger from the country commented that he didn’t particularly like either the art or the music. To which his host replied, “They aren’t on trial, you are.” Pilate and the Jewish leaders thought they were judging Christ when they were the ones being judged. Moreover, the One they convicted will serve as their Judge one day, as He will for all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Pilate evidently never came to a knowledge of the truth. Eusebius, the historian, and Bishop of Caesarea records the fact that Pilate ultimately committed suicide sometime during the reign of the emperor Caligula—a sad ending and a reminder for everyone that ignoring the truth always leads to undesired consequences.
Lord,” said Thomas, “we do not know where You are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen
Jack Bell
Who is the Holy Spirit?
Depending on your personal belief about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, I share this study and information with all of you that do accept the Holy Spirit as God and to those of you seeking to understand more about the Holy Spirit - just as I am.
Who is the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is co-equal with God the Father and God the Son and is of the same essence. Yet, He is also distinct from them.
Scripture describes the Holy Spirit in personal terms, not as an impersonal force when it says that He teaches, guides, comforts, and intercedes. He possesses emotions, intellect, and will.
The book of Acts in the Bible, which sometimes goes by the longer title of “The Acts of the Apostles,” could just as accurately be called “The Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.” After the time of the apostles, there have been some changes - the Spirit does not inspire further Scripture, for example - but He continues to do His work in the world.
What does the Holy Spirit do?
The Holy Spirit does many things in the lives of us that believe in Him. He is our Helper (John 14:26). He lives in us and seals us. (Biblically, to be “sealed” is to be verified as God’s child). Ephesians 1 says “When you believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” (v.13) ) To continue - ‘seals’ us until the day of redemption. I mean by redemption, the resurrection that occurs when we receive our new bodies at the time Christ returns to earth (1 Thess. 4:13-18) on the last day (John 6:39-44) when the last trumpet is blown (1 Cor. 15:51-55). I will share all of this information as a new forthcoming study for you. Please be patient. The above statements indicate that the Holy Spirit’s presence in our lives is irreversible. He guards and guarantees the salvation of us He indwells (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). The Holy Spirit assists us in prayer (which we so often need)( Jude 1:20) and He “intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God” (Romans 8:26–27).
The Holy Spirit regenerates - Regeneration is also called the "second birth” - When Christians believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation, they are then “born of God” and renewed. (Titus 3:5). At the moment of our salvation, the Spirit baptizes us into the Body of Christ (Romans 6:3). We receive a new birth by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5–8).
Some or all of my above statements may be confusing to some or all of you, so please ask your questions to me and consult a Bible commentary for more insight.
The Holy Spirit comforts us with fellowship and joy as we daily live through our difficult world.
(1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Spirit, in His mighty power, fills us with “all joy and peace” as we trust the Lord, causing us to “overflow with hope” (Romans 15:13). Is not that a beautiful thought?
May the Holy Spirit fill each of you with joy.
Sanctification (the act of making or declaring something holy) is another work of the Holy Spirit in our lives as believers. The Spirit sets Himself against the desires of our flesh and leads us into righteousness (Galatians 5:16–18). The actions of our bodies become less evident to us and the “fruit of the Spirit” becomes more evident (Galatians 5:19–26). As believers, we are commanded to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18), which means we are to give ourselves to the Spirit’s full control of us.
The Holy Spirit is a gift-giver. “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Holy Spirit distributes them”
(1 Corinthians 12:4). The spiritual gifts that we possess as believers in Jesus Christ are given to us by the Holy Spirit as He determines in His wisdom (verse 11). This is for a future presentation to you.
The Holy Spirit also does work among unbelievers. Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8, ESV). The Spirit testifies of Christ (John 15:26), pointing people to the Lord. Currently, the Holy Spirit is also restraining sin and combatting “the secret power of lawlessness” in the world. This action keeps the rise of the Antichrist (a person or force seen as opposing Christ or the Christian Church held back. (2nd Thessalonians 2:6–10).
The Holy Spirit has one other important role for us and that is to give us wisdom by which we can understand God. “The Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except for the Spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10–11).
Since, as Christians, we have been given the amazing gift of God’s Spirit inside of ourselves, we can comprehend the thoughts of God, as revealed in the Scriptures - the Bible. Wow! The Spirit helps us to understand. This is wisdom from God, rather than wisdom from man. No amount of human knowledge can ever replace the Holy Spirit’s teaching
(1 Corinthians 2:12–13).
I pray that all of you may experience the joy and peace of the Holy Spirit in your individual lives,
Jack
The Holy Spirit and The Trinity
I was recently asked a question about identifying the Holy Spirit. What a hard question! It certainly has encouraged me to continue my studies.
The Bible declares that the Holy Spirit is God. You can be certain of yourself when you give your praise and admiration to God - the Father, God - the Son, and God - the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Holy Spirit is God is clearly seen in many Scriptures, including Acts 5:3-4. In this verse, the apostle Peter confronts Ananias as to why he lied to the Holy Spirit and tells him that he had “not lied to men but to God.” It is a clear statement that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. You can also know that the Holy Spirit is God because He possesses the characteristics of God. For example, His omnipresence ( the presence of God everywhere at the same time) is seen in Psalm 139:7-8, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.”
Then in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, you will find the characteristic of omniscience (the capacity to know everything) in the Holy Spirit. “But God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except for the man’s spirit within him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” I hope my next statements will bring you closer to the Holy Spirit, as they have for me. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, a spiritual being with a mind, emotions, and a will. Here is more about what the Bible says about the identity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a personal being, rather than an impersonal thing. The Holy Spirit thinks and knows (1 Corinthians 2:10). The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Holy Spirit intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27). He makes decisions according to His will (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). The Holy Spirit is God and the Third ‘Person’ of the Trinity.
The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. Since God is infinitely greater than we are, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. We can, however, understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another. The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this does not in any way suggest three Gods. The word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. It is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who are all God. Simply put, this is the Holy Trinity. Finally, as God, the Holy Spirit can function as a Comforter and Counselor to us. The Holy Spirit is the very One Jesus promised He would be sending (John 14:16, 26, 15:26). He spoke of the Holy Spirit during His lifetime (Matthew 12:32; Mark 12:36) and He gives us additional insights into the Holy Spirit in the upper room before He left for the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of His betrayal. Questions, encouragement, and corrections are always appreciated. Christ’s love and peace to you,
Jack
Baptism and Salvation
The belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is also known as "baptismal regeneration." It is my contention that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but I reject baptism as being required for salvation. I believe that each and every Christian should be water baptized by immersion. Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4 declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The action of being immersed in the water illustrates dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water is a picture of Christ’s resurrection.
Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.
Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.
If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)? Granted, in this passage, Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Furthermore, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mention of baptism?
Dear students - look up the passages below:
Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Does Galatians 3:27 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Baptism does not save us from sin but from a bad conscience. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter clearly taught that baptism was not a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). I believe that baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian should take even though it cannot be a requirement for salvation.
To make it such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I will now look forward to your comments and phone calls!
With Christian Love,
Jack
Life after Death
Job, speaking out of his despair, asked, “If a man dies, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14, ESV). All of us have been challenged by this question. Is there life after death? What happens to us after we die? Do we simply cease to exist? Is death a revolving door of departing and returning to earth? Does everyone go to the same place after death, or do we go to different places? Is there really a heaven and hell?
The Bible tells us that, yes, there is life after death. This world is not all there is, and we were made for something more. At death, our bodies cease to function and begin the process of returning to the earth, but the spiritual part of us lives on: “The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Psalm 146:4).
To those of us who are redeemed and have our sins forgiven, God gives us eternal life, an existence so glorious that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9, NLT). This eternal life is inextricably linked to the Person of Jesus Christ: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). In Jesus’ prayer in the following passage, He equates “eternal life” with a knowledge of God and of the Son. “Whoever has the Son has life” (1 John 5:12).
Jesus Christ, God incarnate, came to the earth to pay for our sins and give us the gift of eternal life: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds, we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). Three days after His crucifixion, Jesus proved Himself victorious over death by rising from the grave - He is life personified (John 11:25) and the ultimate proof that there is life after death.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a well-documented event. The apostle Paul invited people to question the over 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6). All of them could bear testimony to the fact that Jesus was alive and that there was indeed life after death.
The resurrection of Christ, which gives us the sure hope of life after death, is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12–19). Because Christ was raised from the dead, we have faith that we, too, will be resurrected. As Jesus told His disciples, “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19). Christ was only the first of a great number of people who will be raised to life again (1 Corinthians 15:23). Just as God raised up Jesus’ body, so will our bodies be resurrected upon Jesus’ return (1 Corinthians 6:14).
The fact of life after death does not mean everyone will go to heaven. People will continue to exist after they die, and there will be a resurrection someday, but God makes a distinction between the resurrection of the just (those who are in Christ) and the unjust (those who die in their sin): “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Paul put it this way: “There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24:15).
All of us must make a choice in this life, a choice that will determine our eternal destination. The Bible is clear that there are only two possible destinations for every human soul following physical death: heaven or hell (Matthew 25:34, 41, 46; Luke 16:22–23). Only the righteous inherit eternal life, and the only way to be declared righteous before God is through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (John 3:16–18; Romans 10:9). The souls of the righteous go directly into the presence of God (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23).
For those who do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior, death means everlasting punishment
(2 Thessalonians 1:8–9). This punishment is described in the Bible in a variety of ways: a lake of fire (Luke 16:24; Revelation 20:14–15), outer darkness (Matthew 8:12), and a prison (1 Peter 3:19), as examples. This place of punishment is eternal (Jude 1:13; Matthew 25:46). There is no biblical support for the notion that after death people get another chance to repent.
Second Thessalonians 1:8–9 says, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might.” The misery of hell will consist of not only physical torture but the agony of being cut off from every avenue of happiness. God is the source of all good things (James 1:17). To be cut off from God is to forfeit all exposure to anything good. Hell will be a state of perpetual sin, yet those suffering there will possess a full understanding of sin’s horrors. Remorse, guilt, and shame will be unending, yet accompanied by the conviction that the punishment is just.
There will no longer be any deception about the “goodness of man.” To be separated from God is to be forever shut off from light (1 John 1:5), love (1 John 4:8), joy (Matthew 25:23), and peace (Ephesians 2:14) because God is the source of all those good things. Any good we observe in humanity is merely a reflection of the character of God, in whose image we were created (Genesis 1:27).
While the spirits of those regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit will abide forever with God in a perfected state (1 John 3:2), the opposite is true of those in hell. None of the goodness of God will exist in them. Whatever good they may have thought they represented on earth will be shown for the selfish, lustful, idolatrous thing it was (Isaiah 64:6). Ideas of goodness will be measured against the perfection of God’s holiness and be found severely lacking. Those in hell have forever lost the chance to see God’s face, hear His voice, experience His forgiveness, or enjoy His fellowship. To be forever separated from God is the ultimate punishment!
The punishment of those people who deny God and do not follow His ways exists in hell just as the bliss of the righteous are in heaven. Jesus, Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36)!
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but desires them to turn from their wicked ways so that they can live in heaven (Ezekiel 33:11). He will not force us into submission; if we choose to reject Christ, the one and only Savior, we reject the heaven that He has prepared for us, and we will live eternally apart from Him. Life on earth is a preparation for what is to come. Faith in Christ prepares us for life after death: “Whoever believes in [God’s Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).
I believe everyone must experience life after death in some manner. For those of us that believe in Christ, life after death is eternal life in heaven with God. For unbelievers, life after death is eternity separated from God. How can we receive eternal life in heaven? There is a way through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die” (John 11:25–26).
In summary, the gift of eternal life is available to all of us. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36). We will not be given the opportunity to accept God’s gift of salvation after death. Our eternal destination is determined in our earthly lifetimes by our reception or rejection of Jesus Christ. “I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation”
(2 Corinthians 6:2). If we trust in the death of Jesus Christ as the full payment for our sins, and we believe in His resurrection from the dead, we are guaranteed eternal life after death in glory (1 Peter 1:3–5).
I pray for all of you to carefully consider my statements above. May you find joy, peace, and a home in heaven with me for your souls.
Being a welcome student on my site: https://unpackingthebible.org click on the tab labeled Heaven for more specific information to help you in your search for the source of your being.
Jack Bell
Protestant Denominations
LUTHERANISM
Lutheranism is the largest branch of the Protestant Church. It grew out of the teachings of Martin Luther. The term "Lutheranism" was first used as a rebuke on a papal bull. Luther preferred the term "Evangelical."
There are around 100 million Lutherans in the world. About half the population of Germany are Lutherans. There are also many Lutherans in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland, where Lutheranism has traditionally received support from the State. Members are sometimes divided along ethnic lines (such as Germans, Swedes, and Finns, etc.) and between fundamentalists and liberals.
Lutheran organization varies from congregational to episcopal. According to the World Almanac: “In the United States a combination of regional synods and congregational polities is most common." Although, Lutheranism has ordained ministers. Lutherans believe that everyone can be a priest and commune with God directly.
Lutheran Beliefs
Lutherans believe if they have faith in Christ their lifestyle will be altered, and they will naturally live a true Christian Life. They are generally conservative in personal and social ethics. The doctrine of 'two kingdoms' (worldly and holy) supports conservatism in secular affairs.
Lutherans regard the Bible as the final word on all religious issues. According to the World Almanac: "Scripture and tradition ate spelled out in Augsburg Confession (1530) and other creeds: these confessions of faith are binding although interpretations vary."
Lutheran practices are relatively simple. There is no "formal liturgy and the emphasis is on the sermon." Infant baptism is practiced, During the Eucharist, Lutherans believe Christ's true body and blood are present "in, with, and under the bread and wine."
Martin Luther's Beliefs
Luther believed that faith led to salvation. Rituals, good works, and mediation by the clergy in comparison were not important. He criticized the pope, celibacy, and other rules and recommended that individuals study the Bible rather than having it delivered to them by clergymen. Luther said man can work towards salvation through penances, pardons, and pilgrimages but only through faith that Christ died for mankind's sins on the cross and that faith was freely given with the trust of the word of God. He said also that more could be achieved through prayer and good works than by armed revolt pushed by the fanatic religious cults of his time and expensive indulgences of the Catholic church. The Lutheran is the motto "By grace alone; through faith alone."
Luther asserted that humankind did not need the corrupt Catholic church to mediate between humankind and God. He believed that Christians should be governed by temporal rulers in their own land not by the Pope. He called for the abolition of the papacy and asserted that every Christian could be his or her own priest. Luther based his positions on St. Paul's Letter to the Romans. "Works," Paul said had no bearing on the afterlife." When he was asked if being one with God was based on "the principle of works," Paul said no.
The purpose of Martin Luther's efforts was to give laypeople access to the Bible, the church, and redemption. Luther believed that the Bible should be read by everyone, not just the clergy, and promoted literacy, education, and making scriptures understandable to ordinary people. Luther is famous for highlighting the importance of a direct relationship between God and the individual without clergy and translating the bible into the everyday language of the people. He did not intend to displace the Catholic religion, only to reform it, and he was appalled by the development of the Lutheran church.
Presbyterianism
Presbyterianism was inspired by the teachings of the Swiss Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) and his fiery friend John Knox (1505-1572), who took Calvin’s doctrines to Scotland and founded the Presbyterian church there. There are around 50 million Presbyterians worldwide. Presbyterianism is the established religion in Scotland around 1560.
John Calvin was a French reformer and humanist scholar. He arrived in Geneva, a city whose citizens he described as "perverse and ill-natured people," and established theocratic states. Calvin preached a stern and demanding God and was back to basics. He stressed the concept of predestination (that god's people were predestined for salvation), good conduct and success were signs of selection. He restored the New Testament four-fold ministry: pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. Calvinists differed with the Lutherans over sacraments and church government.
Presbyterian organization and rule are democratic with a "highly structured representational system of ministers and laypersons (presbyters) in local, regional, and national bodies." The individual church is governed by the "session" consisting of a "teaching leader" (an ordained minister) and "ruling elders" (members elected from the congregation)
Presbyterian Beliefs
Presbyterians believe in the Trinity and the existence of heaven and hell. "Although traces of belief in predestination (that God has foreordained salivation for the 'elect') remain, the idea is no longer a central element of Presbyterianism.
Presbyterianism emphasizes the sovereignty and justice of God. There is not as much emphasis on the doctrine as there once was. According to the World Almanac: "A simple, sober service in which the sermon is central" is the norm. Traditionally there has been a tendency towards strictness, emphasizing the church and self-discipline, otherwise, it is tolerant.
Presbyterians believe the Scriptures are "the only infallible rule of faith and practice." The Westminster Confession (1645-1647), the most famous doctrinal attempt of English Calvinism, is the basis of the Presbyterian creed."
Presbyterian rites include infant baptism. In the Eucharist, bread, and wine symbolize Christ's spiritual presence.
Baptists
The Baptist Church is the largest non-Catholic religious group in the United States. It has no recognized founder and grows out of the Anabaptist movement in the 16th century. Most Baptists are in the United States. The Baptist churches together form the fifth largest Christian group in the world. One of its basic beliefs is that all believers must be fully immersed during baptism.
According to the BBC: Baptist churches are found in almost every country in the world and have about 40 million members worldwide. In Britain 2,150 churches belong to the Baptist Union of Great Britain, between them having 150,000 members.
“The name 'Baptist' comes from the Baptist practice of immersion in water. It was coined in the seventeenth century by opponents to the new movement but rejected by followers themselves. It wasn't until the nineteenth century that Baptists accepted the use of the label to describe themselves”.
“Technically there is no such thing as a Baptist denomination. The organization has a 'bottom up' rather than 'top-down approach... Today, Baptists are represented globally by the Baptist World Alliance which was founded in 1905. It provides an international forum for the exchange of Baptist thought, paying special attention to matters concerning Christian education, religious freedom, human rights, and missions. In 2009 Baptists celebrate the 400th anniversary of the birth of the Baptist movement.
Anabaptism, Baptists, and Mennonites
The Anabaptists were the most radical members of the Reformation movement. They objected to infant baptism and demanded church and state separation. During the sixteenth and early seventeenth, the Anabaptists were behind dozens of violent uprisings. In the 16th century, a group of Anabaptists fearing the end of the world was imminent took over the town of Leiden, Netherlands, and their leader John was declared a messiah. They abolished money and all books except the Bible and instituted polygamy.
Anabaptism began in Zurich under the stewardship of Conrad Grebel (1498-1526), who preached personal religion, separation of church and state, and adult baptism and rejected the formal organization of the church. Grebel was persecuted for his beliefs. Anabaptist beliefs were embraced by John Smyth in England, who founded the Baptist church in 1609, and Menno Simons, the founder of the Mennonites, in the Netherlands in the 1600s.
Early Baptists were split into two groups: the General Baptist who believed that Christ died for people, and the Particular Baptist who agreed with the Calvinist doctrine that Christ died only for the select. The Puritans who settled in New England were early Baptists who escaped from religious persecution in Britain and sought refuge in Holland before coming to the New World.
History of the Baptist Church
According to the BBC: “The roots of the Baptist movement date back to the sixteenth century and the post-Reformation period, although the first Baptist congregation appeared in 1609 in Holland. It was here that the Church of England minister, John Smyth, performed a radical and scandalous act of baptizing himself by pouring water on his head. He then baptized his fellow reformer, Thomas Helwys, and other members of the congregation. [Source: BBC, June 25, 2009.
“Smyth and Helwys had left England for Holland in 1607 after being persecuted for wanting to purify the Church of England of all traces of Roman Catholicism. Both Smyth and Helwys had joined a group of 'Separatists' in Gainsborough in 1606. Their three core beliefs went on to shape later Baptists. They were: 1) The Bible, not church tradition or religious creed, was the guide in all matters of faith and practice.; 2) The church should be made up of believers only, not all people born in the local parish.; 3) The church should be governed by those believers, not by hierarchical figures like bishops.
“Eventually Smyth and Helwys parted company in Holland as Smyth questioned the authenticity of his self-administered baptism. In 1612 Helwys and others returned to England to establish the first Baptist Church on English soil. Baptists initially developed in two streams of theological thought: 1) General Baptists believed that when Christ died on the cross, he died for everyone in general.; 2) Particular Baptists followed the Calvinist tradition of believing that Christ died for a particular group or elect. |These two groups eventually came together in 1813 to form a General Union, which became the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland in the late nineteenth century.
“Throughout the seventeenth century Baptists were persecuted for their beliefs, being known as 'nonconformists' or 'Dissenters'. They refused to become members of the Church of England, saying Christ - and not the monarch - was head of the Church. The nineteenth-century saw a period of significant growth for the Baptist movement. Great preachers such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon in London and Alexander Maclaren in Manchester drew crowds in their thousands.
Baptist Organization
The Baptist church is congregational. Each local church is autonomous. Baptists believe no authority can stand between the believer and God. Baptists have traditionally been strong supporters of its independence and church and state separation.
According to the BBC: “In the Baptist movement, everyone is equal. There is no hierarchy of bishops or priests exercising authority over members. Baptists reject the idea that authority flows down from previous church leaders who can be traced back to the apostles in apostolic succession. [Source: BBC, June 25, 2009.
“Baptists are congregational: each church is self-governing and self-supporting, made up of members, each with a role to play. The churches encourage those attending to become church members through baptism. This entitles them to vote at the church meeting where all decisions are made. Final authority rests not with the minister or deacons but with church members at the meeting. It appoints ministers, elders, deacons, and others who take a leadership role, agree on financial policy, and determine mission strategy.
Despite their autonomy, local Baptist churches have always come together in regional, national, and international associations for support and fellowship. Baptists believe that churches should not live in isolation but be interdependent. As each Baptist church is autonomous there can be no outside interference in decision making. This applies to any secular power, such as the state, being involved in church matters. Therefore, Baptists reject the idea of an established or state church.”
Baptist Beliefs
Baptists are strong believers in "soul competency," the belief that each person is possessed by the Holy Spirit which helps an individual interpret the Bible. There is no creed other than a true church that is made of believers who are all equal.
Baptists hold that one is saved by faith in Christ and by the grace of God. They believe that the main thing is to accept Jesus into one's heart. Baptists believe that only believers (not infants) may be baptized and baptism must be done by total immersion rather than pouring or a sprinkling of water.
Baptists take the Bible literally. They are strong believers in heaven and hell as real places and that there will be a physical resurrection of the dead on Judgement Day. They also believe in the Trinity and the virgin birth of Christ. Worship style varies a great deal from mellow to evangelical. “Usually opposed to alcohol and tobacco; sometimes tends toward a perfectionist ethical standard." Baptists are involved in extensive missionary activity.
Baptists believe that the Bible is the supreme authority on every matter. Many Baptists are fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally and do things like speak in tongues. Baptism usually takes place in the early teens by total immersion.
Baptist Practices
According to the BBC: “Baptists share the Trinitarian tradition of all the major Christian denominations. However, there are several features that mark them out from other traditions, although none of them is exclusive to Baptists alone:
“Baptism of believers by full immersion: This is perhaps the most obvious difference between Baptists and other denominations. Baptists reject infant baptism, thinking instead that baptism is for believers only - those who can personally declare Jesus as Lord. Some churches will re-baptize those who were baptized as infants in another Christian tradition, others respect those various denominations do things differently.
“The baptism is carried out by full immersion. Most Baptist churches have a baptistery, which is a pool (about 4m by 3m) in the church. During a baptismal service, the minister and the person being baptized enter the water. The minister, holding the person, will lie them back in the water so they are totally immersed, and then bring them back up again. Baptists believe this practice is in line with the New Testament practice of baptism, as carried out by John the Baptist.
“Priesthood of all: Baptists believe everyone, ordained or lay, is responsible before God for his/her own understanding of God's word and what it means to them. They believe God created every individual as competent, with the skills to be a priest for themselves and others. That means that in Baptist churches which appoint a minister, he or she is an equal member in the church meeting but with special responsibilities as outlined by the congregation.
Methodists
Methodism developed in England out of the teaching of the Anglican clergyman John Wesley (1703-1781). The word "Methodism" was originally applied in a negative way to describe the methodical way Wesley and his followers went about their religious duties. Most Methodists are in the United States. It is the fourth largest Christian Church in England: its history and founder John Wesley and its values. There are Methodist Churches in nearly every country in the world and global membership numbers some 70 million people. The Methodist Church is traditionally known as non-conformist because it does not conform to the rules and authority of the established Church of England.
The Methodist church is organized under the conference and superintendent system. In the United Methodist Church, general superintendents are bishops—not a priestly order, only an office—who are elected for life."
According to the BBC: “The Methodist Church in Britain is divided into circuits, made up of local churches in a defined area. A Superintendent Minister is the senior minister appointed to provide pastoral leadership to a circuit. Several circuits make up a district. Each District has a Chair (in some regards like a Bishop in the Anglican Church) whose job is to lead the ministers and laypeople in the work of preaching and worship, evangelism, pastoral care, teaching, and administration. Each district has a District Synod which decides policy for that district, within the parameters laid down by the annual Conference.
“Each local church has a Church Council, which together with the minister is responsible for coordinating and leading the work or ministry of the church. However, the Methodist church describes itself as having a connexionally structure. This means the whole denomination acts and makes decisions together. A local church is never independent of the rest of 'The Methodist Connection'. The worldwide umbrella organization for all Methodist Churches is the World Methodist Council, set up in 1951. Its headquarters is in North Carolina in the USA. The World Methodist Conference meets every five years in different locations around the world.
John Wesley and the History of the Methodist Church
According to the BBC: “Methodism has its roots in eighteenth-century Anglicanism. Its founder was a Church of England minister, John Wesley (1703-1791), who sought to challenge the religious assumptions of the day. During a period in Oxford, he and others met regularly for Bible study and prayer, to receive communion, and do acts of charity. They became known as 'The Holy Club' or 'Methodists' because of the methodical way in which they carried out their Christian faith. John Wesley later used the term Methodist himself to mean the methodical pursuit of biblical holiness.
Wesley began the Methodist church within the Church of England. In 1738 he had a profound religious experience in London. "I felt," he wrote, "my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins."
The experience transformed Wesley and inspired him to become one of the greatest preachers of all time. Taking on the role of an evangelical preacher, Wesley roamed the countryside stressing the notion of a personal conversion over the formalism of the Church of England. Although he considered himself an Anglican after some time he wasn’t allowed to preach in Anglican churches. After more time his following had grown large enough Methodist and Wesleyan societies were established in Britain and the United States.
Robert Colls, Professor of English History at the University of Leicester, wrote in for the BBC: “ In Bristol, in 1739 he began preaching to crowds of working-class men and women in the outdoors. This 'field preaching' became a key feature of the Revival when thousands came to hear Wesley preach up and down the country. He formed local societies of those converted and encouraged them to meet in smaller groups on a weekly basis. He insisted, though, that they attend their local parish church as well as the Methodist meetings. Every year, by horse or carriage, Wesley traveled the country visiting the societies and preaching. Preaching radical ideas took great courage in those days. Wesley and his followers were denounced in print and from pulpits, his meetings were disrupted and he was even physically attacked and threatened with death.
Recalling a sermon, he gave in Hull in 1752, John Wesley wrote: "A huge multitude, rich and poor, horse and foot, with several coaches, were soon gathered, to which I cried with a loud voice and a composed spirit, 'What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?' Some thousands of the people attended, but many behaved as if possessed by Moloch. Clods and stones flew about on every side, but they neither touched nor disturbed me. When I finished my discourses, I went to take a coach, but the coachman had driven clear away."
“John Wesley always declared that his movement should remain within the Anglican Church but the Church of England was keen to distance itself from him and his followers. He declared "I live and die a member of the Church of England". However, in 1784 he set up a structure, the Yearly Conference of the People called Methodists, to ensure the continuation of the Methodist movement after his death. In the end, the strength and impact of Methodism made a separate Methodist Church inevitable. In 1795, four years after Wesley's death, Methodists in Britain became legally able to conduct marriages and perform the sacraments.
“The new church wasn't without its internal schisms. In 1808 the Methodist lay-preacher, Hugh Borne, was expelled from the movement. He and his 200 followers became known as Primitive Methodists. They differed from Wesleyan Methodists in several regards, including the encouragement of woman evangelists. Both Wesleyan and Primitive Methodist communities grew rapidly during the 19th century. It was from among the Primitives that many Trade Union leaders emerged towards the end of the century.
Methodist Beliefs
Although Methodists accept the Trinity and practice baptism and communion, individual love of God and individual religious experience are regarded as more important than formal doctrine. Salvation is achieved by a life of holiness, repentance, and faith, and is available to everyone. Most believe in judgment after death, in which the morally good will be rewarded and wicked punished."
Worship style varies widely by denomination, local church, and geography. There has always strong been an emphasis on social activity. In the early days, Methodists were involved in welfare projects such as caring for the poor and prisoners. This emphasis continues today. Scripture is interpreted by tradition reason and experience. Baptism is done with both infants and adults.
According to the BBC: “Methodists stand within the Protestant tradition of the worldwide Christian Church. Their core beliefs reflect orthodox Christianity. Methodist teaching is sometimes summed up in four ideas known as the four all’s. 1) All need to be saved - the doctrine of original sin; 2) All can be saved - Universal Salvation; 3) All can know they are saved - Assurance; 4) All can be saved completely - Christian perfection
“Methodist churches vary in their style of worship during services. The emphasis is often on Bible reading and preaching, although the sacraments are an important feature, especially the two instituted by Christ: Eucharist or Holy Communion and Baptism. |Hymn singing is a lively feature of Methodist services. The founder's brother, Charles Wesley, was a prolific hymn writer and many of his works are still sung today both in Methodist and other churches.
World Religions
While there are only a few major religions in the world, it’s believed that there are tens of thousands of belief systems that branched off from those few. Each one has its own doctrines, beliefs, practices, and forms of deities or non-deities. If you asked the followers of each religion why they believe what they do, their answers would be as varied as the number of religious sects that exist.
So what is religion and why are there so many variations from which to choose? Simply put, religion is a particular system of beliefs usually involving some type of moral code followed by its followers. And as everyone seeks to find meaning in life, their own unique journey takes them on an exploration of various religious experiences as seen through the lens of their faith.
Today, I will look at what skeptics and atheists say about religion as compared to what the Bible says.
What Do Skeptics and Atheists Say?
Skeptics believe religion to be a coping mechanism for human beings - a mechanism of self-comfort and a way to make themselves feel like their life has a higher purpose. While they aren’t necessarily anti-religious, they’re skeptical of one religion being valued over another. Not only do skeptics question the authority of religion, but they also doubt many of the claims people make regarding the religious practices they follow.
Atheists view religion as an evolutionary adaptation that’s made people vulnerable to whatever belief system they choose. They insist that religious practices are without reason and unsupported by scientific facts. Because atheists reject the existence of God or any form of a higher power, they claim that most religions are based on superstition. Some even believe religiosity is man’s attempt to make sense of why humans exist in the first place.
The Bible talks about religion in James 1:27 by saying, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” This simplistic description is far different from the rules, rituals, and hard-to-follow standards found in many of the world’s religions today.
While some would argue that Christianity is just another religion, each with its own set of beliefs and doctrines, the key difference between Christianity and other religions is that it’s based around relationships. As stated in Zephaniah 3:17, “The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.”
This passage shows that Christianity is more about a relationship with the Living God rather than a set of rules to follow. From this relationship stems the guiding principles that improve relationships with others, including those of love, of friendship or fellowship, of family, and even of business or work affiliation, which is one of the reasons it remains so relevant in today’s world. Christianity has a strong focus on community and connecting with each other through a shared connection to Christ, and while there’ll always be many different religions to choose from, Biblical Christianity is the only one that invites people to enter a relationship with the Savior of the world. Perhaps, Christianity is worth a second look, as it sets itself apart from every other religion on the planet in its own unique way.
In the seventeenth century, a famous philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, encouraged people to make a wager when it came to belief in God. If a person chose to believe in God and God did exist, that person would gain everything (eternal life). If a person chose to believe in God and God did not exist, that person would lose nothing. On the other hand, if a person chose not to believe in God and he was right, he would lose nothing. But if that person did not believe in God and he was wrong- he would lose everything (lose eternal life).
The major religions of the world (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Christianity, Taoism, and Judaism) differ in many respects, including how each religion is organized and the belief system each upholds.
Answering Skeptics Questions:
Don’t All Religions Basically Teach the Same Thing?
Many people wonder why we make such a fuss about Jesus Christ and Christianity since they believe all religions are basically the same. They assume that all faiths are all talking about the same thing but are putting it in a different way.
One man once gave this illustration. He said, “Suppose you take ten men and blindfold them, and lead them over to an elephant. You now let each of them touch a different part of the elephant—tail, trunk, etc.—without telling them what they are touching.
“You lead them back inside, take off their blindfolds, and tell them to describe what they touched.” The man then asked, “Would their descriptions agree?” The answer of course is no.
The man then made this observation: even though these ten men touched the same thing, they did not agree because each touched a different part or, if you please, experienced it from a different angle. He went on to conclude, “Isn’t it the same in religion?
“Aren’t all the different religious groups— Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc.—experiencing the same God, yet explaining it in different ways? Thus, can’t they all be true, but with each giving a different emphasis?”
The problem with this illustration is identifying the elephant with God. You are assuming that all these people are experiencing the same God, when in fact this is not true. Christianity and Islam cannot both be true at
the same time. Neither can Mormonism and Buddhism both be correct simultaneously nor can Christian Science and Hinduism.
All religions cannot be true at the same time because they teach many things completely opposite from one another. They all may be wrong, but certainly, they all cannot be right, for the claims of one will exclude the other.
As to matters of salvation and the person of Jesus Christ, only historic Christianity recognizes Him as the eternal God becoming a man who died for the sins of the world and arose again the third day. Salvation is obtained only by putting one’s trust in this Jesus.
The Jesus of Islam is not the Son of God who died for the sins of the world; neither is the Jesus of Mormonism- or Christian Science the same Jesus as revealed in the Bible.
Salvation is not by grace and through faith in these religions, but it is a matter of works. It can then be observed that we are dealing with different religious ideas that are not compatible with one another.
Even though many religions seem to be the same on the surface, the closer one gets to the central teachings the more apparent the differences become. It is totally incorrect to say that all religions are the same.
The God of the Christians is not the same God as that of the Mormons, Muslims, or Christian Scientists. If the God of the Bible is the only true God, then the other gods are nonexistent and should not be worshipped.
Our lives are oriented around our belief (or lack of) spiritual things. No wonder, as religious philosophies concern what counts as ultimate reality, and pertains to our souls and the deepest questions of life. So, what are the common religious philosophies today, and how should we view them? Let’s look at nine philosophies, in alphabetical order.
Agnosticism
Sometimes Agnosticism is not a philosophy at all; it is simply ignorance, or not knowing what to believe. But there is a particular kind of Agnosticism, a “hard” or so-called “ornery” Agnosticism, which teaches that we can’t know things pertaining to religion; that the search for religious truth is considered a hopeless endeavor.
Reasons for holding a hard form of Agnosticism vary, but it is not difficult to imagine why. There are so many different views and opinions about spiritual things, so many arguments and so many different claims to truth that are difficult to sort through. By taking the hard, “we can’t know” Agnostic position, a person is able to stay out of the mess and carry on with life as he or she deems fit. But is this really a wise approach to the most important questions of life?
Atheism
Some Atheists say, “I believe God doesn’t exist.” But many simply say, “I lack belief in God.” The distinction is that many of them don’t like to be associated with having beliefs of any kind pertaining to God, and they want to be clear that the burden of proof for belief is on the theist.
Atheists typically, Atheism includes a lack of belief for anything pertaining to spirituality. Atheists operate under a naturalist worldview, where matter is all that there is, and everything — thoughts, feelings, consciousness, pain, suffering, etc. — can be reduced to chemicals in motion. There are no spirits, no seers, no reincarnation, no channeling, no karma, and no providence. The life you live now is the only life you
are sometimes demonized in the minds of those who are spiritual/religious. This is unfortunate, as most Atheists care about people and the state of the world. They are concerned that spiritual/religious people believe through “blind” faith (which is sometimes true), which they would never do. They consider themselves students of Science and empirical evidence.
Atheism struggles to provide satisfying solutions to questions of purpose, meaning, destiny, and morality — at least, in any kind of absolute sense.
Buddhism
Buddhism is a popular Eastern religion founded by Siddhartha Gautama in the late 500s BCE. As the story goes, while sitting under a Bodhi Tree in deep mediation, Siddhartha became enlightened and was thus called a Buddha (often translated as an “Enlightened one “). Siddhartha spent the remainder of his life teaching what he came to believe.
Buddhism recognizes reincarnation, but the goal is to get out of it and break from existence. The way of
Buddhism is based on recognition and acceptance of these “Four Noble Truths”:
Life is suffering.
We suffer because nothing is permanent, and we are trying to hold onto things that are lasting.
We eliminate suffering by ending attachment to this life.
We must break from desire in the cycle of life and reincarnation.
By following the 8-fold path (a set of moral guidelines to life), we are in a better position to understand the first three noble truths.
There is a psychological appeal here, as most people would agree that suffering is often (perhaps always) a result of something changing that we don’t want to change. The challenge for Buddhism is substantiating the rest of the system. What reason do we have to believe in reincarnation, and why should we believe the solution proposed by Siddhartha?
Christianity
Christianity teaches that there is one God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who loves and desires to be in a relationship with His creations. Yet all of humanity has done wrong in His eyes. This “sin” separates us from God, which He must punish because He is holy.
But all is not lost, because God sent his Son, Jesus, who willingly died on the cross as payment for our sin. Three days later He rose from the dead in bodily form, to offer eternal life as a gift to those who confess their sins and receive Him for the salvation of their soul (see Ephesians 2:8-9).
Unlike most religious philosophies, the leading role is held by God, not people. God is the one who saves the day. In the Christian system, moral character is not the means to a relationship with God; it is a result of it.
It is also worth noticing that the central piece of Christianity is connected to an event in history. Christianity stands or falls on whether this historical religious figure named Jesus really existed, died, and was resurrected. This event can be evaluated and weighed on historical grounds. We offer numerous resources on this website that answer these questions of history, to show why believers don’t simply rely on “blind faith.”
Hinduism
Hinduism is an Eastern religion with great diversity. Hindus believe in karma, reincarnation, a caste system, and the Brahman, the absolute universal singularity in which everyone and everything is a part. The goal of life is to escape perpetual reincarnation by accumulating enough good karma over multiple lifetimes. Adherents tend to orient themselves toward one of three divinities in the Hindu system: Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi. Oriented around a caste system, it is difficult to be a Hindu in a non-caste culture, especially if the culture values humanity having equal potential and freedom.
It’s a mistake to think of Hinduism as having a set doctrine. Many Hindu follow the Vedas, Upanishads, and/or the Bhagavad-Gita. Some forms of Hinduism involve gurus going into trance states, becoming possessed by various powers to provide specialized help. The culture of Hinduism varies by region, family influences, and other factors, and tends to change or evolve. For this reason, Hinduism has often been called a way of life rather than a religion.
Islam
Islam considers itself the religion of Adam, Abraham, and Moses. Despite their similarities with Christianity, Islam theology differs dramatically in its view of God, Jesus, Scripture, and Salvation. Jesus was a great prophet, for example, but to call him “God” is a major abomination. Islam teaches that the Bible is corrupted and that the prophet Muhammad provided the Qur’an, the only true word of God.
Of the most significant differences, salvation is a matter of moral character. This is largely determined by adherence to Islam’s “five pillars”:
To confess, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”
To pray five times daily.
To fast from sunrise until sunset during the month of Ramadan.
To make the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in your lifetime, so long as you are able.
To give at least 2.5 percent of your earnings to the poor.
These pillars, along with adherence to the Qur’an, are imperative for the salvation of Muslims. They are left to hope that they have been good enough to earn Allah’s favor into eternal life.
Judaism
Jews trace their roots to Adam, Abraham, and Moses, like Christians. But Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah — because their Messiah has yet to come. The Jewish sacred text, what the Christian Bible calls the “Old Testament,” places special emphasis on the Torah, the first five books.
Judaism also developed an extensive oral tradition, which was written down as the “Talmud.” Judaism typically adheres to Rabbinic teaching and the Law of Moses. Adherents see themselves as belonging to the covenant of God, but they don’t share the New Testament view of God’s radical self-giving to forgive sinners and grant them full access to his presence.
New Age
New Age spirituality is one of the most diverse, and therefore most difficult, religious philosophies to succinctly define. Broadly speaking, this movement beckons followers to strip the different religions of their doctrine to fashion a spiritual smorgasbord from which to pick and choose.
It can be as simple as believing in your fortune cookie message, to being a full-fledged spiritual guru who performs healing therapy by channeling the energies with magic beads and crystals. Sometimes, New Age spirituality appears as a mystical movement that explores the idea of God-consciousness within. Other times, it takes the form of a more magical movement with psychics, mediums, healers, and spiritual forces. Followers talk about enlightenment, about the exciting dawn of spiritual pluralism, and about helping people awaken to their self-potential.
New Age spirituality has become popular in the U.S. because it promises a have-it-your-way non-judgmental path to spirituality — it serves to “catch” those who forsake their former religious upbringing but desire to remain spiritual.
Paganism
Modern Paganism is often called Neopaganism to distinguish itself from the old local village religions that we typically think of. Modern Pagans base their spirituality on nature, with an emphasis on practice, rather than belief. Their practices usually involve the use of magick (the “k” is used to distinguish it from fake “magic” tricks used for entertainment).
The most well-known form of Paganism is Wicca, of which there are variations. The basic form of Wicca worship involves creating or casting a circle somewhere, invoking or inviting deities into the circle, and using their powers to produce change. This can be concerning to any Christian friends, who understand that not all spirits are good ones.
I understand how difficult it might be for you to absorb all of this as a first-time reading. I suggest you look at each of the individual presentations as an overview and then find a particular one to research deeper.
My blessings to all of you
Jack
Morality
The core idea of a common morality is that all humans, at least all morally serious humans, have an awareness of certain moral norms. Common morality refers to the shared moral beliefs of a society. The claim is that normal humans intuitively, or in some other way, know there is something wrong with lying, breaking promises, or killing people. Perhaps humans are biologically programmed with an innate moral sense of ethics and morality. When they are born into a cooperative world, with good care, they become cooperative.
The basic idea that there is something generally wrong with killing other humans will be articulated very differently in different cultures, some referring to the sacredness of life; others to a duty not to kill, a right to life, or a prohibition on killing the innocent. Some may extend the insight to a duty to prolong living, others limit it merely to a prohibition of direct, active killing. Some may endorse more exceptions, for killing of unjust aggressors, for killing in just war and for killing in self-defense; others, such as pacifists, will be much stingier in doling out exceptions. Certainly, people at different times and places will articulate the norms in different language and embed them in different theories. There is no such thing as a universal morality, and it is surprising to me that people are still asking this question in the 21st century.
Culture
Culture refers to the outlook, attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by a group, organization, or society. Interpretation of what is moral is influenced by cultural norms, and different cultures can have different beliefs about what is right and wrong.
Culture is a powerful force and is multidimensional. The same person placed in different cultures will act differently, because a strong embedded culture creates social ideals that guide individual behavior. Shared assumptions are the heart of any culture.
Social ethics is the collection of values and behaviors of a given culture or people group. Social ethics vary greatly from culture to culture, but most often the social ethics of civilized societies reflect the moral standards given in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17). For example, most civilized cultures recognize that murder, theft, and taking another man’s woman are morally reprehensible, while courage, generosity, and kindness are laudable. Some scholars point to this universality of inherent moral values as evidence that humanity was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). His moral code is stamped on our DNA.
The religious beliefs of a specific culture plays a huge part in forming its social ethics. In societies where Judeo-Christian values have been influential, the social ethics are generally higher. For example, in countries where Christianity has had an impact, women are generally treated better and have more rights. Human life is given greater value, and the poor and handicapped are cared for instead of ostracized, as they are in some cultures. When comparing cultures with a Christian influence to those with no Christian presence, we see a vast difference in the value placed on education, charitable work, and individual freedom.
Atheists and Believers
Atheists and believers have moral awareness, but not in the same ways.
Moral awareness is alike between the two groups in that they both highly rate fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people and both groups highly endorse liberty, but not oppression.
However, the groups diverge when it comes to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority.
Thus, there are differences between believers and disbelievers on three values: first is respecting authority figures, such as police, parents, and teachers; second is loyalty, meaning being loyal to one's group, such as a country and not burning a country's flag and third is sanctity, which is not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous.
In contrast, atheists don't really think of these three values as relevant for morality.
If you don't grow up surrounded by religious people and related activities, you're less likely to endorse matters of group cohesion. Similarly, perceiving the world to be less dangerous and being an analytical thinker can also predict atheism.
Inclusivism verses Exclusivism
Is a personal faith in Jesus Christ the only way to heaven - exclusivism, or did Jesus’ death also provide salvation for those who do not believe - inclusivism? This question is often posed by non-Christians when first confronted with the claims of biblical Christianity. Many skeptics charge that it is unreasonable for God to demand allegiance to Jesus Christ to receive the forgiveness of one’s sins. In the last several decades, many Christians have begun to opt for a different answer than that which has traditionally been given by most Christian believers. The trend is toward “inclusivism.”
Inclusivism is the view that people appropriate God’s gift of salvation based on Jesus Christ’s atoning work, but that the sinner need not explicitly believe the gospel to receive this salvation. Inclusivism teaches that Christianity is the only true religion, including the belief that Christ is the only Savior of men, but that this salvation could be made available through means other than explicit faith in Christ. The inclusivist believes that adherents of other religions and even atheists can be saved by responding to God’s revelation in creation or through the elements of truth contained within their non-Christian religion.
Inclusivists will quickly point out that any person who is saved is ultimately saved by Jesus Christ, but the sinner need not believe that Christ is Savior to receive this salvation. Inclusivists will sometimes refer to such people as “anonymous Christians.” Inclusivists refer to several biblical texts to support their view; however, their primary argument is more philosophical than exegetical - derived directly from the Scriptures. The question of the ultimate destiny of the un-evangelized is often raised by inclusivists, along with issues related to the salvation of infants, the mentally handicapped, and others who are prevented from making a rational choice for or against Christ.
“Exclusivism” or “Restrictivism” is the traditional evangelical Christian view dealing with the salvation of non-Christians. This is the view that a sinner can only be saved by a conscious, explicit faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Exclusivists argue that a positive response to general revelation is simply insufficient to ensure salvation from a biblical perspective. Exclusivists appeal to multiple scriptures to support their view, including John 14:6; John 3:16–18; and Romans 10:13–15.
It appears to me that a straightforward reading of these texts reveals the inspired Scripture is clearly teaching Christian exclusivism meaning that one must place faith in Christ to be saved. It is important to point out that there may be exceptions to this principle, such as the death of infants or children of a very young age who have not yet developed sufficiently to comprehend their sin and to make a rational choice of trusting in Christ. Second Samuel 12:23 states that King David’s infant child went to heaven after death.
Exceptions would in no way undermine the position of Christian exclusivism. Rather, they show the infinite mercy of God in providing salvation for those who might otherwise not attain it. My position is that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for all sinners who can trust in Christ and believe the gospel. Christian exclusivists believe that the biblical texts used to support inclusivism are far from compelling and that the texts used by exclusivists are clear. It is difficult for me to see how the inspired writers could have been clearer that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation - for those who are capable of it.
It is also important for me to point out that the Christian exclusivist does not necessarily believe that the un-evangelized person will be condemned for failing to believe in a Jesus of whom they have never heard. Rather, such a person would be judged for his or her failure to respond to the message of general revelation and for sinning against God’s moral law that has been written on their heart.
In the end, I believe we can all be confident that God will not judge anyone unfairly. The un-evangelized will only be judged based on the sins that they have willfully committed. Christian exclusivism certainly should provide the church with more than sufficient motivation to evangelize every person on Earth, for literally, people’s eternal destiny hangs in the balance!
God has simply not informed us of any back-up plan He may have for those who do not hear the gospel in this life. I must assume that there is none.
General Revelation
General revelation can be defined as “the revelation of God to all people, at all times, and in all places that reveals God exists and that He is intelligent, powerful, and transcendent.” Scriptures such as Psalm 19:1–4 and Romans 1:20 clearly state that certain things about God can be understood from His creation around us. Creation reveals God’s power and majesty, but it does not reveal the plan of salvation through Christ. There is only salvation in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12); therefore, a person cannot be saved simply through general revelation. Usually, the question, “Can a person be saved through general revelation?” is asked in relation to another question, “What happens to those who have never heard the gospel?”
Sadly, there are still parts of the world with absolutely no access to the Bible, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, or to any means of learning Christian truth. The question then arises, what happens to these people when they die? Is it fair for God to condemn a person who has never heard the gospel or of Jesus Christ? Some propose the idea that God judges those who have never heard based on how they responded to general revelation. The presumption is that, if a person truly believes what can be known about God through general revelation, God will judge the person based on that faith and allow the person entrance into heaven.
The problem is that Scripture declares that, unless a person is in Christ, he, or she “stands condemned already” (John 3:18). Romans 3:10–12, quoting Psalm 14:3, pronounces the unregenerate nature to be universally sinful: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” According to Scripture, the knowledge of God is available through general revelation, but mankind perverts it to his own liking. Romans 1:21–23 states, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” The status of those without God is one of rebellion, darkness, and idolatry.
People rebel despite general revelation. Sinful man willfully rejects what can be known of God through nature and seeks ways to avoid the truth (see John 3:19). Since man does not naturally seek God, God must seek him—and that is exactly what He did, in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus came “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).
A good example of our need for the gospel is found in Acts 10. Cornelius knew about God and was “devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly” (Acts 10:2). Did God save Cornelius because of his devotion to Him based on the limited knowledge he had? No. Cornelius needed to hear about Jesus. God instructed Cornelius to contact the apostle Peter and invite him to come to Cornelius’ home. Cornelius obeyed, and Peter came and presented the gospel to Cornelius and his family. Cornelius and his household believed in Jesus and were therefore saved (Acts 10:44–48). No one, not even a “good” man like Cornelius, is saved simply by believing that God exists or by honoring God in certain ways. The only way of salvation is the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
General revelation can be seen as a universal call for people to acknowledge God’s existence. But general revelation, by itself, is not enough to lead a person to salvation in Christ. That is why it is so important to proclaim the gospel throughout the whole world (Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8). Romans 10:14 declares, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Faith in the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation (John 3:16).
Disabled and Handicapped
The Lord is God of the physically healthy and the mentally strong, but He is also the God of the physically disabled and the mentally handicapped. He is sovereign over the fragile and feeble as well as over the adroit and mighty. The Bible teaches that every person conceived in this world is a unique creation of God (see Psalm 139:16), and that includes the disabled and the handicapped.
A natural question is why God allows some people to be born disabled or handicapped or why He allows accidents that bring about a disability or handicap later in life. This issue falls under the umbrella of a theological/philosophical debate known as “the problem of evil” or “the problem of pain.” If God is both good and omnipotent, why does He allow bad things to happen? What is the point of someone losing his sight or being forced to walk with a prosthesis? How can we reconcile God’s goodness and perfection with the fact that so much of His creation is broken and wounded?
Before I proceed, I should acknowledge that I believe we are all disabled or handicapped in some way. The need for eyeglasses indicates impaired or “handicapped” vision. Dental braces are a sign of imperfect teeth. Diabetes, arthritis, rosacea, a “trick” knee - these can all be considered disabilities to some extent. The whole human race lives with the reality of imperfection. Everyone experiences less than ideal conditions. We are all broken in some way.
The handicaps we live with are a matter of degree.
When a person is disabled or handicapped, to whatever degree, it is a symptom of original sin, when evil came into the world. Sin entered the world because of man’s disobedience to God, and that sin brought with it sickness, imperfection, and disease (see Romans 5:12). The world is blemished. One reason God allows people to be disabled or handicapped is that such conditions are the natural result of mankind’s rebellion against God. We live in a world of cause and effect, and it is a fallen world. Jesus said that “in this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33). This is not to say that every disability is the direct result of personal sin. Jesus countered that idea in John 9:1–3 but, the existence of handicaps and disabilities can be traced back to the existence of sin.
I understand this is a difficult concept for many of you to accept.
Another basic reason that God allows some people to be disabled or handicapped is that God will glorify Himself through it. When the disciples wondered about the man born blind, Jesus told them, “This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). When the same disciples later wondered about Lazarus’ sickness, Jesus told them, “It is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it” (John 11:4). In both instances, God was glorified through the disability - in the case of the man born blind, the temple rulers had incontrovertible proof of Jesus’ power to heal; in the case of Lazarus, “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (John 11:45).
God allows disabilities or handicaps so that we learn to trust in Him rather than in ourselves. When the Lord God called Moses in the wilderness, Moses was reluctant at first to heed the call. In fact, he tried to use his disability to excuse himself from service: “Moses said to the Lord, ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent… I am slow of speech and tongue’” (Exodus 4:10). But God knew all about Moses’ problem: “The Lord said to him, ‘Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say’” (Exodus 4:11–12). In this amazing passage of Holy Scripture, we see that all human ability and disability is part of God’s plan, and that God will help His obedient servants. He doesn’t call the equipped so much as He equips the called.
Finally, God allows some to be disabled or handicapped because in His overarching plan, He has chosen the weak things of this world for a special purpose: “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1 Corinthians 1:27–29).
God doesn’t need human might or skill or fitness to accomplish His work. He can use disabilities and handicaps just as well. He can also use children: “Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger” (Psalm 8:2). He can use anyone! Remembering this truth can help handicapped believers to maintain focus on who God is. It’s easy to “curl up in a ball” and have pity on yourself when life makes no sense, but Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).
In a sense, when Jesus came into this world, He became voluntarily disabled. He handicapped Himself as He left the perfection of heaven to live among the sinners on this earth. He laid aside His glory to wrap Himself in inglorious humanity. At the Incarnation, Jesus took on human flesh in all its frailty and vulnerability. “He made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). The Son of God took part in our human condition and suffered on our behalf. And that is why “we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15); rather, we have an Intercessor who understands our weakness, relates to our disability, and identifies with our pain.
God promises that disabilities and handicaps are temporary. Those conditions are part of this fallen world, not the world to come. God’s children - those who by faith in Christ are made children of God (John 1:12) have a bright and glorious future. When Jesus came the first time, He gave us a taste of good things yet to come: “People brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them” (Matthew 4:24). When Jesus comes the second time, “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy” (Isaiah 35:5–6).
I pray that the Lord our God bless you as you seek to learn more and to share your knowledge.
Jack Bell