How much knowledge required, if any?

[McWilliams]

We all acknowledge there is much heresy, error, and all things foreign to what we hold dear as gospel truth in scripture!

How educated do you feel one must be in various religions and their beliefs!
Can you support your belief with scripture?

I have given thought to this and am reluctant to study certain religions and unorthodox beliefs as I've always thought my time to be better spent concentrating on scriptural truth! If one knows scriptural truth, sound doctrine well, then does it not become evident when in contact with the slightest variation from that?

I'm interested in the principle here, not in bringing up and hashing out the various differences themselves.

I know I'm rambling on this but; can you show scripturally that we must be well taught and informed about various heretical variations or not?

 

[heymikey80]

Just a quick comment off the cuff. I think the boundary line here is redemption, not knowledge. If you're trying to resist knowing things, then yes, that's resisting the redemption that would save. But if you simply don't know it and can't be expected to know things, then there's no minimum line to reach yet.

To me the knowledge line is different for different times and conditions. Abe might not have known, "This is Jesus, and he's gonna come and sacrifice Himself to save you from your sins." Nevertheless the Gospel was preached beforehand to Abe.

 

[lmnop9876]

most of the Bible's pretty easy to understand if we just read it straight without putting any of our own interpretations on it. if we have a good grasp of the truth taught in the Bible and summarised in the ancient creeds and definitions of the Church, then without even studying other religions or heresies, we will almost instantly know that they are repugnant to the Truth.

e.g. the Bible says pretty plainly: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
so if we hear someone say that Christ is not God, we instantly know that that is heresy.

there are other heresies that are more subtle than that one, such as justification by "alone faith" (not faith alone, but alone faith). the Bible says "faith works through love", "faith if it has not works is dead, being alone", &c. &c. so we know that faith is not a justifying faith if it isn't accompanied by good works done out of a regenerate heart. or there's the opposite heresy of "alone faith" which is that our works play some part in our justification, when St. Paul says "therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
the list could go on and on.

i know i'm probably making no sense whatsoever, but basically what i'm saying is that we don't necessarily need to study heresies, if we have a good grasp of God's Truth, then they will almost instantly seem alien to us.

 

[McWilliams]

I think I must have muddled my post.

Here's my concern. I see much discussion in various places regarding the study of Islam, to better know how to witness to them. This approach also involves other religions, but this is just an example.

My question is: must we be well acquainted with their beliefs in order to witness? My thoughts were, 'NO' but I wanted to know what others think. I prefer my time being spent in reading scripture, knowing more about the bible, not becoming more familiar with other religions in hopes of knowing how to confront their error.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The more you know the more effective a witness and evanglist you might be.

i've been interested in mormons since i was dating a girl in high school. i've literally read 100's of both mormon and anti-mormon books. however i see no reason to talk to the missionaries that come to my door or confront me on the street as they are so consumed by their faith that they literally can not hear anything else. however i will take the time to talk to a LDS person that i have a long term relationship with (at work for example). i know that my understanding and sympathy for their movement goes a long ways towards making my information credible to them, since i have read and studied the issues. i suspect this is true for whoever God leads you to talk to about the faith, the more information, the more genuine sympathy you have for the group the more effective you might be.

 

[bradfordl]

The more you know the more effective a witness and evanglist you might be.

I disagree. I believe firstly the more it is within the will of God, the more effective you will be, and secondly the more you believe Him at His word, the more effective you will be. Spending time digesting the innumerable false religions and doctrines is a waste of time and valuable memory space in my view. The truth will be heard by the ears that God has opened and no others. Best to concentrate on knowing the truth than knowing the various lies the unregenerate cling to.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I disagree. I believe firstly the more it is within the will of God, the more effective you will be, and secondly the more you believe Him at His word, the more effective you will be. Spending time digesting the innumerable false religions and doctrines is a waste of time and valuable memory space in my view. The truth will be heard by the ears that God has opened and no others. Best to concentrate on knowing the truth than knowing the various lies the unregenerate cling to.

curious position.

one of the most important people in the modern missionary movement in India, William Carey, not only learned the venaculars, for instance, Bengali, but learned the language of their religious writings, Sanskrit. As a result translated not just the Bible into their languages but translated at least parts of the Vedas, the Ramayana and Mahabarata into English himself. but for the point of this argument he also translated them into Bengali as well so that these people could read their own religious writings, something the pundits themselves never did.

It is equivalent to an Islamic missionary in Medieval Europe doing the Bible translation with Wycliffe from Latin into English, or aiding Luther with his German translation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey

 

[arunma]

An interesting question. I think it's important for Christians to be well-informed about false religions. As it says,

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:22)
​

It is important to understand other people, since we are not out to "convert people," but rather to guide people to the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ. So while there is no salvation in false religions, it seems to me like an important endeavor to understand these religions. For example, I've learned enough about Islam to know that if I were to ever speak with a Muslim, I would never hold my Bible below my waist, since it is considered offensive for a Muslim to do this to the Quran. The Gospel itself is already a stumbling block, so I think it is important for us to not put additional stumbling blocks in peoples' way as they come to Christ.

curious position.

one of the most important people in the modern missionary movement in India, William Carey, not only learned the venaculars, for instance, Bengali, but learned the language of their religious writings, Sanskrit. As a result translated not just the Bible into their languages but translated at least parts of the Vedas, the Ramayana and Mahabarata into English himself. but for the point of this argument he also translated them into Bengali as well so that these people could read their own religious writings, something the pundits themselves never did.

This is a very significant and worthwhile thing, in my opinion. Most of my family are Hindus, and while they hold a superstitious reverence for the Vedas, no one seems to have actually read them! While these scriptures certainly have superb literary quality and could surely be read for their own sake, it is rather apparent that there is no salvation to be found in them. I think that if these texts were demystified, more people would recognize the haplessness of practicing this religion.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I think I must have muddled my post.

Here's my concern. I see much discussion in various places regarding the study of Islam, to better know how to witness to them. This approach also involves other religions, but this is just an example.

My question is: must we be well acquainted with their beliefs in order to witness? My thoughts were, 'NO' but I wanted to know what others think. I prefer my time being spent in reading scripture, knowing more about the bible, not becoming more familiar with other religions in hopes of knowing how to confront their error.

McW,

I would say, "It depends." If you are a missionary to Muslims, than you need to know it backwards and forwards. You need to know it as well are better than most Muslims.

If you live around Muslims, than it would be good to have some basic knowledge. But if you have little or no contact with them then thre is no reason to look at it at all.

Personally I enjoy studing other religions and other Christian denominations, but that is something that I like and it has proven useful over the years. GOd gives us different likes and desires that we should use to serve Him. HE has given some Christians a heart to bring the Gosple to Muslims, He has given others a desire to bring the Gosple to Hindus, etc...

I have found out that my own "likes" and areas of study are not very big with most Christians (not very many of us own and read the early Church Fathers or all that Calvin has written on the Lord's Supper). I like those things. My daughter says I'm just weird.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

McW,

I was say, "It depends." If you are a missionary to Muslims, than you need to know it backwards and forwards. You need to know it as well are better than most Muslims.

If you live around Muslims, than it would be good to have some basic knowledge. But if you have little or no contact with them then thre is no reason to look at it at all.

Personally I enjoy studing other religions and other Christian denominations, but that is something that I like and it has proven useful over the years. GOd gives us different likes and desires that we should use to serve Him. HE has given some Christians a heart to bring the Gosple to Muslims, He has given others a desire to bring the Gosple to Hindus, etc...

I have found out that my own "likes" and areas of study are not very big with most Christians (not very many of us own and read the early Church Fathers or all that Calvin has written on the Lord's Supper). I like those things. My daughter says I'm just weird.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

What do you know? We seem to have some similar interests. Like you, I also have quite the affinity for the church fathers. I also enjoy studying other religions. Despite that I believe other religions to be utterly incapable of imparting salvation to anyone, I find that reading an opposing perspective gives me both a better understanding of and appreciation for the Gospel.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

What do you know? We seem to have some similar interests. Like you, I also have quite the affinity for the church fathers. I also enjoy studying other religions. Despite that I believe other religions to be utterly incapable of imparting salvation to anyone, I find that reading an opposing perspective gives me both a better understanding of and appreciation for the Gospel.

We agree again "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. No none Christian religion will do.

Now, as to reading other perspectives, have you read C.S Lewis' introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius? I found On the Incarnation to be quite interesting, but C.S. Lewis' introduction is (IMHO) a must read.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

We agree again "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. No none Christian religion will do.

Now, as to reading other perspectives, have you read C.S Lewis' introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius? I found On the Incarnation to be quite interesting, but C.S. Lewis' introduction is (IMHO) a must read.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

What do you know? Today when I was back in my parents' town and was going to church, the pastor specifically mentioned both St. Athanasius' book and the introduction by Lewis! Knowing that many college students would be back for Thanksgiving, he even said in jest, "and to you college students, this book would be an excellent break from your studies." This morning I resolved to download and read On the Incarnation as soon as possible. We'll have to discuss it sometime.

But from what I know about the great bishop of Alexandria, my guess is that his writings would hardly be an opposing perspective to the average Reformed Christian. Would I be right in this assumption?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

What do you know? Today when I was back in my parents' town and was going to church, the pastor specifically mentioned both St. Athanasius' book and the introduction by Lewis! Knowing that many college students would be back for Thanksgiving, he even said in jest, "and to you college students, this book would be an excellent break from your studies." This morning I resolved to download and read On the Incarnation as soon as possible. We'll have to discuss it sometime.

But from what I know about the great bishop of Alexandria, my guess is that his writings would hardly be an opposing perspective to the average Reformed Christian. Would I be right in this assumption?

There are a few sections in it that may raise an eye brow (Even Calvin has some of that in his writings), but it is a great read. Athanasius was a man greatly used of God. He stood almost alone "contra mundum" (against the world) in his day. Much the church was defecting to the Emperial imposition of the deadly heresy of Arianism. Athansius never wavered though he spent much of his live in exile because of his stance.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

What do you know? Today when I was back in my parents' town and was going to church, the pastor specifically mentioned both St. Athanasius' book and the introduction by Lewis! Knowing that many college students would be back for Thanksgiving, he even said in jest, "and to you college students, this book would be an excellent break from your studies." This morning I resolved to download and read On the Incarnation as soon as possible. We'll have to discuss it sometime.

But from what I know about the great bishop of Alexandria, my guess is that his writings would hardly be an opposing perspective to the average Reformed Christian. Would I be right in this assumption?

There are a few sections in it that may raise an eye brow (Even Calvin has some of that in his writings), but it is a great read. Athanasius was a man greatly used of God. He stood almost alone "contra mundum" (against the world) in his day. Much the church was defecting to the Emperial imposition of the deadly heresy of Arianism. Athansius never wavered though he spent much of his live in exile because of his stance.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Yes, St. Athanasius was indeed a great man. I've read John Piper's short biography of him. The legal defense he employed, when falsely accused of killing a bishop by severing the man's hand, was simply ingenius!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

One more thing (Speaking of other Faiths) have you read Asia's Religions: Christianity's Momentous Encounter with Paganism, by Lit Sen Chang? I'm halfway through it and it is a very good book.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[kimlva]

I haven't read through all the responses, but here is my opinion. I think unless you are an evangelist to a particular people group, in-depth study of other religions is not necessary, nor beneficial. The power to save is in the preaching of the Word of God itself, not in how effective we are in presenting it.

 

[cygnusx1]

We all acknowledge there is much heresy, error, and all things foreign to what we hold dear as gospel truth in scripture!

How educated do you feel one must be in various religions and their beliefs!
Can you support your belief with scripture?

I have given thought to this and am reluctant to study certain religions and unorthodox beliefs as I've always thought my time to be better spent concentrating on scriptural truth! If one knows scriptural truth, sound doctrine well, then does it not become evident when in contact with the slightest variation from that?

I'm interested in the principle here, not in bringing up and hashing out the various differences themselves.

I know I'm rambling on this but; can you show scripturally that we must be well taught and informed about various heretical variations or not?

The reason why people in Banks can fairly easily spot couterfeit money is NOT because they study couterfeit money , but because they are so used to dealing with the real thing.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

The reason why people in Banks can fairly easily spot couterfeit money is NOT because they study couterfeit money , but because they are so used to dealing with the real thing.

Love it!

I asked a question once about Islam and was told to read the Koran. I don't want to read the Koran in its entirity. I would prefer to read about Islam contrasted with Christianity. I don't mind reading selections from the Koran but I prefer not to spend my time in it. Hope that made sense.

CC&E

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Let's look at St. Paul's witness to the people of Athens. When he spoke at the Areopagus (Mar's Hill) he did certainly proclaim the Gospel, but in doing so he also proved that he was fairly well versed in Greek philosophy.

In his sermon to the Greeks he quotes one of their great poet philosophers. He quotes Epimenides who had lived 5 centuries earlier.

Do you know the quote? Sure you do. Here are the words of Epimenides, "In Him we live and we move and we have our being for we are indeed His offspring." THey are an important part of Paul's sermon that day.

St John knew this also and makes a very extensive use of the word logos (Word), which was so important to Greek philosophical thought. Remember what he says in John 1:1? In the beginning was the Logos and Logos was with God and the Logos was God. That word, logos, was an all important woord to Greek thought. The Apostle John new that and he hijacks the word logos and uses it to present Christ. John had to know who the Greeks used this word to make use of it has he does.

If you are to bring the GOspel to Greeks, it is good to know how Greeks think. Pau and John both knew that and we need to remember it too.

Coram Deo,
KEnith

 

[kimlva]

Let's look at St. Paul's witness to the people of Athens. When he spoke at the Areopagus (Mar's Hill) he did certainly proclaim the Gospel, but in doing so he also proved that he was fairly well versed in Greek philosophy.

In his sermon to the Greeks he quotes one of their great poet philosophers. He quotes Epimenides who had lived 5 centuries earlier.

Do you know the quote? Sure you do. Here are the words of Epimenides, "In Him we live and we move and we have our being for we are indeed His offspring." THey are an important part of Paul's sermon that day.

IF you are to bring the GOspel to Greeks, it is good to know how Greeks think. Paul knew that and we need to remember it too.

Coram Deo,
KEnith

I'm not so sure Paul can be used as a defense here. He was already educated in these things prior to becoming "saved," which I am sure was planned by God when He chose Paul to do the job he had for him to do. I agree with LittleLambChild, that the Scriptures never instruct us to educate ourselves in such things, but rather just the opposite. Paul was a special person with a special job, and I am sure God has some of the same even today. (Not apostles, but you know what I mean.)