It is clear that even God’s covenant people are sinners. For example, in Jesus’s answer to the Canaanite woman’s plea (“Have mercy . . . my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon”; Matt. 15:22) and the disciples’ strong suggestion (“Send her away . . .”; Matt. 15:23), he speaks of being “sent . . . to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). The “sent” language emphasizes the Father’s role. Jesus is an agent of God, commissioned by God, and sent to “save his people [the Jews] from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The phrase “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), which is probably epexegetical (“the lost sheep which are the house of Israel”),8 depicts the whole nation (God’s “people Israel”; Matt. 2:6; cf. Ezek. 34:23) as “lost.” 

Jesus on Sin and Depravity
There are various texts within the Gospels where our Lord highlights man’s inner and outer depravity. Perhaps the clearest example is recorded in Mark 7:15–16, 18–23, where he taught:
“There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. . . . Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean). . . . “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
While there are other theological issues discussed here (the nature of what is clean and unclean in regard to Jewish ritual purity), it is evident that Jesus does not present an optimistic anthropology. He does not merely declare “all foods clean” (Mark 7:19), but he announces that all humans are not clean. What is found in a septic tank (“whatever . . . is expelled”; Mark 7:19) is cleaner than what is found in the human heart (cf. Jer. 17:9). Like Paul in Romans 1:29–31, where he describes sin as both interior attitudes (like greed and arrogance) and exterior acts (like murder and disobeying parents), Jesus sees internal sins (evil thoughts, coveting, envy, pride) and external sins (sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, slander, foolishness; Mark 7:21–22) as inseparable and at the very core of fallen humanity (“from within, out of the heart of man”; Mark 7:21).
Elsewhere Jesus says, “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart” (Matt. 15:18) and, “On the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36–37). Words are windows to our hearts. Our lips are unclean because our hearts are unclean. The “evil things” we see on the outside “come from within” (Mark 7:23). From head to toe, body to soul, all aspects of ourselves are pervasively depraved.1
“You without Sin, Cast the First Stone”
While Jesus’s statement, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7), is not found in our earliest and best Greek manuscripts, the assumption of universal guilt before God is evident throughout Jesus’s teaching in the Gospels. Proof of this reality is manifold. Below are four evidences to support this claim.
First, Jesus teaches that all people are “evil.” In his teaching on prayer, Jesus uses an analogy between the heavenly Father’s generosity and that of an earthly father: “Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matt. 7:9–11). The point of the comparison is not to highlight the sinful nature of humankind but to show the abundant generosity of God. However, Jesus’s statement about the earthly fathers who “give good gifts” being “evil” (ὑμεῖς πονηροί), in an ontological sense, is in striking contrast with a view of man’s innate goodness. According to Jesus, that we might do “good things” and “give good gifts” does not mean we are “good.” Even “good” people are fundamentally “evil.”
Second, in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:9–14), Jesus commends the tax collector’s realistic view of himself as “a sinner.” The Pharisee, who holds a high view of himself and an optimistic opinion of his own nature, with his wordy prayer in the temple about his overt piety (Luke 18:11–12), is contrasted with the tax collector, who, away from the notice of the crowd (“standing far off ”), offers the postures (he “would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast”) and prayer of humble confession (“God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”; Luke 18:13). The point of the parable, told to those “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Luke 18:9), is that the self-acknowledging “sinner” (Luke 18:13) was “justified” (Luke 18:14) by God and the so-called “righteous” (Luke 18:9) Pharisee was not.2
Third, Jesus teaches that all humans are morally indebted to God. As mentioned above, Jesus compares the forgiveness of the sinful woman (“a woman of the city, who was a sinner”; Luke 7:37) to canceling a large debt (Luke 7:43). Another example can be found in the final two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our sins [we will sin], for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us [others will sin against us]. And lead us not into temptation [everyone will be regularly tempted]” (Luke 11:4; Matt. 6:12–13).3 A final example is found in Jesus’s parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23–35), where God’s forgiveness of our sin is compared to forgiving a debt of “ten thousand talents” (Matt. 18:24).
Read More
Related Posts:

If Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer. No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!

Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.
How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?
Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”
A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.
No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!
This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Mann, a Unitarian, said that the Church should not educate because it teaches “divisive doctrines” such as the Trinity. According to Mann, children do not need to learn Truths (doctrines) such as Trinity. They need to learn Virtue (ethics): to honor parents, elders, and teachers; to not covet or steal someone’s pencil or pear. The Bible should be taught, said Mann, as the source of values, but not as the source of truth. This distinction became spiritually fatal.

In February 2022, President Joe Biden nominated Mrs. Ketanji Jackson Brown to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA. During the confirmation hearings, she was asked, “What is a woman?”
The learned graduate from Harvard Law School refused to answer on the ground that she is “not a biologist.” 
Why don’t the intellectual elite know what a woman is? 
Well, the only way to define a woman is to differentiate her from man: Is “female” different from “male”? 
By
Vishal Mangalwadi
In February 2022, President Joe Biden nominated Mrs. Ketanji Jackson Brown to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA. During the confirmation hearings, she was asked, “What is a woman?”
The learned graduate from Harvard Law School refused to answer on the ground that she is “not a biologist.” 
Why don’t the intellectual elite know what a woman is? 
Well, the only way to define a woman is to differentiate her from man: Is “female” different from “male”? 
If male and female are different, then how can they be same and equal? If they are the same, how can a rationalist define a woman? 
Fifty years ago, it would have sounded preposterous that a supreme court nominee could not answer a basic question about the distinction between male and female. How did the West get here? While Carl Trueman has done an admirable job of showing the western philosophical scaffolding that makes transgenderism possible, there is surprising stream of thought that has fed into the larger confusion over male and female: A stream of thought with eastern garb. In this article, I’ll briefly outline how Hindu Monism undermined male-female dualism, renunciation of marriage, and male-female inequality. Finally I’ll outline how Hinduism’s rise in the West became a factor in homosexual and transgender acceptance. 
Hinduism and Transgenderism: Unlikely Allies? 
Hindu Monism is a crucial factor that explains a Rationalist’s dilemma of defining a woman. The belief that All-is-One suggests that every human being may have male and female chakras (energies). Dualism of male and female—the traditional binary view of gender—may be an illusion, Maya. Monism asserts that there is only one Soul: it is God—Infinite. That divine soul incorporates both male and female within it. 
Monism means that every male has female energy (Shakti) within him and every female has male (Shiva) chakra (psychic center) within her. 
The Hippies of the 1970s, came to India and learnt Tantra. They were taught that the female chakra lies at the bottom of the spine, a few millimeters above the rectum. It is called Kundalini. The male chakra, Shiva, resides in the crown chakra, on top. According to Hinduism, everyone has both male (Shiva) and female (Shakti) energy centers. Salvation, Enlightenment or Self-realization dawns only when female and male energies merge to become One. 
This “Enlightenment” is experienced when one awakens his feminine energy or Kundalini,. For normally it lies dormant, coiled up as a serpent. Meditation awakens the Kundalini. Tantric meditation includes manipulation of one’s genitals. That may require the expertise of a guru or a sex partner—whether male or female, the gender of the partner is irrelevant. 
Once awakened, Kundalini, that is, the feminine Shakti, travels up the spine through five different chakras or psychic centers. The meditator gets different psychedelic/occult/mystic experiences when the Kundalini passes through one of these chakras. The climax comes when one’s female energy merges into male energy and the two become one. At that stage, the Enlightened soul experiences its divinity.
This mystical philosophy understands Salvation as Enlightenment, not as forgiveness of sin or a sinner’s reconciliation with his Holy Father. For a Monist, to be saved is to experience or to “Realize” one’s Divinity. It means transcending the finiteness of being male or female; becoming One with everything. Thus, it is somewhat incidental whether a romantic relationship involves a man and a woman, or two men, or two woman—since the ultimate goal is oneness with everything. If two men enter into a homosexual relationship, even in this arrangement one of them experiences himself as a female. But in Hindu Monism, the ultimate belief is that they are neither male nor female, but one with the universe.
Hindu Renunciation of Marriage
Biblical marriage presupposes that each of us is finite. I am male, not female. Therefore, in order to be complete, I need my wife—my better-half. God-likeness means being one with my spouse for the rest of my life. But what if my Self is already Infinite? What if the female is already within me? In that case, I don’t need my wife; I need to experience my own Divinity/Infinity. 
It is for this reason that in Hinduism, the mystical quest for Self-Realization begins with renunciation of marriage. That ceremonial Oath of renouncing spouse and family is called taking Sannyas. Abandoning one’s wife and family is called Brahmacharya—a term wrongly translated, “Celibacy.” 
In English, Celibacy connotes renunciation of sex. Brahmacharya, on the other hand, harnesses sexual energy to become God or Infinite. Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990), the guru who taught Sex for Salvation, was honest in translating Brahmacharya as neo-sannyas. It is neo-asceticism because it admits that a seeker does not renounce sex. He uses sex to transcend the finite self—the binary view of sexuality as male or female. In his blockbuster novel, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown expounded Tantric Sex, calling it Gnostic Christianity. 
To summarize: some post-Christian intellectuals that believe that male and female are interchangeable, find it difficult to make sense of the dualism of two distinct genders—male and female. They feel that Monism may be a possible explanation against the binary that the Bible enjoins. The problem is that denying the difference between male and female messes up these intellectuals’ traditional definitions of gender, sex, marriage, love, childcare, family or faithfulness. It gets to the point where a person cannot even answer the basis question of what a woman is. Their confusion ends up destroying wisdom and the family—the foundations of society. As the prophets lamented, a people without understanding condemn themselves to self-destruction (Hosea. 4:6, 14). 
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.