A Discussion On The Morality Of Homosexuality

• A General Survey Of Biblical Teaching: 

          -The Levitical Law expressly forbade homosexuality and prescribed the sentence of death to those who partook in such actions (Leviticus 18:22-25). In fact, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of sexual immorality, which included homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-13). Interestingly, Jude describes this instance of divine judgment happening as a result of men going after "strange flesh" (Jude 5-8). The Apostle Peter described those same people as "lawless" (2 Peter 2:7-10). Thus, sexual sin is associated with apostasy in the New Testament. Paul warns that any person who practices homosexuality will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). Homosexuality involves the reversal of a creation ordinance, and so degrades that which is sacred. It a form of idolatry that prioritizes personal desires above divine design, aligning with the worship of 'me, myself, and I' over God’s intended order for marriage.

• Homosexual Behavior Is Plagued With Problems:

          -Homosexuality is unnatural for us in that all are born heterosexual by bodily design. It is, therefore, not a matter of when we choose to have an orientation, but something fundamental to who we are. Further, homosexual unions do not result in the production of human life, which at least remains a possibility for heterosexual couples who utilize contraception. If homosexual behavior were to be practiced on a wide enough scale and for a long enough time, then a populace would be guaranteed to face self-extinction. Homosexuality, therefore, can be said to be, in a very real sense, destructive to life. Finally, such behavior carries with it risks of getting HIV, Syphilis, AIDS, and even abnormal personality changes. Even if methods of prevention or cure were successfully discovered for these conditions, that would only reinforce the notion that homosexuality is harmful. The ethical thing for Christians to do in that scenario would be to remain opposed to that way of living and continue in reaching out to such people with the gospel.

• What About Equal Rights?:

          -If the legalization of same-sex marriage means equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community, then why cannot there be equal rights for people who want more than one partner in marriage? If we redefine the concept of marriage to include two homosexual people, then why would it be wrong for us to also redefine marriage to include more than one person? The move to officially change the definition of marriage as being something other than a male and female union is unprecedented in history. Even societies like ancient Greece did not take matters this far, judging by available historical records. It would be incorrect to say they were opposed to homosexual practice. 

• Sex And Gender Are Different Things?:

          -Sex and gender have always been interchangeable terms. The only reason that they have been separated in our culture is to enable people to identify as something other than what they were at birth. The terms "male" and "female" were basic categories that were not intended to represent our views of reality, how one's brain is wired, or hormone levels. Those are determined by our chromosomes and genitalia.

• Interaction With The "Born Gay" Argument:

          -Homosexual desire is acted on, just as heterosexual desire is. It is in that way distinguished from our skin color, height, and gender, which are genetic traits. Those things are not behaviors. They exist independently of our thoughts and cannot be acted on.

          -Possible causes of homosexuality are environment, culture, and free will (i.e. genetic identity disorder, women getting abused by men, children getting abused by homosexuals, etc.). It involves a complex combination of factors. 

          -There is no credible evidence to rule out the claim that homosexuality can be caused by social issues: "LGBTs report childhood sexual abuse at 3x-8x the rate of heterosexuals. LGBTs have similar order of magnitude higher rates of substance abuse, suicide, mental illness and obesity (among lesbians). The failure to consider this possible causal relationship has lead to a widespread assumption that homosexuality is an inborn and immutable characteristic." Cramer, Clayton E., An Open Secret: Child Sexual Abuse as One Possible Cause of Homosexuality (July 10, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629445 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2629445

          -"Of 327 homosexual and bisexual men participating in an ongoing cohort study pertaining to risk factors for HIV infection who completed a survey regarding history of sexual abuse, 116 (35.5%) reported being sexually abused as children. Those abused were more likely to have more lifetime male partners, to report more childhood stress, to have lied in the past in order to have sex, and to have had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months (odds ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 1.15-3.95). Sexual abuse remained a significant predictor of unprotected receptive anal intercourse in a logistic model adjusting for potential confounding variables." Lenderking WR, Wold C, Mayer KH, Goldstein R, Losina E, Seage GR 3rd. Childhood sexual abuse among homosexual men. Prevalence and association with unsafe sex. J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Apr;12(4):250-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.012004250.x. PMID: 9127231; PMCID: PMC1497098.
          -Even assuming that genetics can influence homosexual behavior, being born with the potential to act in a certain manner in no way provides justification for any behavioral patterns. There is no genetic excuse for homosexuality, anymore than there is a genetic excuse for theft or lying. Note that the Apostle Paul himself placed all these acts in the category of sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The moral standard reflected here is that of the Old and New Testaments, not public opinion, which is not reliable because it is always changing.

          -These tendencies, whether they are genetic or not, cannot simply be justified on the grounds of being born with proclivities for them. Human nature is the breeding ground for all sorts of atrocities. The presence of temptation in our hearts is not sin, but acting on such is. God forgives those who repent of their homosexual sin, just as He would forgive repentant thieves, adulterers, murderers, or anyone else (1 Corinthians 6:11). People who struggle with homosexuality are not without hope of redemption, but they may need ongoing counseling assistance.

• Refuting Attempts To Justify Homosexuality By Appeals To Nature: 

          -Just because animals do senseless things to each other, does not mean that human beings ought to follow suit. We should actually be able to rise above that of the life of beasts. The following behaviors have also been observed among various animal species: 1.) Raping other animals, 2.) Eating their young when threatened, 3.) Eating their sex partner, 4.) Injuring sex partners, and 5.) Having intercourse with their own offspring. If this means anything at all, then it would only be that homosexuality is brutish behavior. It represents the absence of culture. Christians, like the Jews of old, are called by God to reject pagan notions that are not pleasing to Him.

Demonstrating His Love For Sinners

                                   Christ died on the cross because of His love,

                                   He ascended into heaven above.

                                   We spread His love by the words we preach,

                                   So others know it is not out of reach.

                                   We demonstrate God’s love through our good action,

                                    So more join Love’s magnetic attraction.

                                    We show love though generous deed,

                                     So that putrid sin will therefore impede.

Is Faith Irrational? (A Refutation Of Scientism)

• Introduction:

          -Atheists commonly portray Christians as establishing their beliefs on an empty shell of faith. It is claimed that religious people base their beliefs on superstitions or personal hunches. Religion is made out by atheists to be a mere coping mechanism. Many of them reject the validity of anything that cannot be tested or proven in a laboratory. People who subscribe to this view, known as scientism, automatically deem the supernatural realm to be nonexistent because it transcends the scope of the study of the natural world. A tendency of atheists is to automatically rule out the possibility of truth in anything miraculous because they subscribe to naturalism, which is the philosophy that nothing exists beyond the material world.

• The Inherent Inconsistency Of Scientism: 

          -It is unreasonable to dismiss any given idea (i.e. the miraculous) as being false when there is no scientific basis for establishing such a denial. Thus, people who subscribe to scientism (including famous proponents such as Richard Dawkins) are being inconsistent with their own ideological framework. Those who hold to this view are not making a verdict in accordance with established fact, which is how they claim to operate.

• Misrepresenting The Concept Of Biblical Faith To Advance An Argument:

          -Biblical faith is not simply a mental conviction that is founded without evidence or equivalent to blindly accepting ideas as true. It is not a form of wishful thinking. If biblical faith were any of these things, then God never would have sent prophets who foretold future events or take on human flesh and perform miracles for people. These are things which can be seen, heard, and felt. Our faith must be tested or proven (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Thus, biblical faith is not at odds with scientific investigation. It is based on what we know to be true and reasonable. What Christians argue against is a "science only" worldview, not science itself.

• Scientism Is An Unworkable Philosophy:

          -It is impossible to examine the truth of everything that we encounter on a daily basis. Our lives are simply too short to test the validity of everything that we may have learned, whether we obtained knowledge from experience or education. To doubt the truth behind everything would inevitably result in infinite regression. Asking ourselves how we know that things we see or hear are true past the point at which they can be broken down to their simplest forms renders truth unattainable to human reason. This only goes to show the interplay of faith in daily life. Human beings inescapably possess a degree of it in something or something else. Do atheists have faith in their own existence?

• The Limits Of Scientific Investigation Undermine Scientism:

          -Let us consider for a moment some of the essential features of human life. We have free will. We have conscience. We have rationality. We have intellect. We acknowledge the existence of moral truths. We know that human life has intrinsic value. We yearn for an ultimate purpose in life. Mathematics consists of several infallible formulas, proofs, and theorems. Universals, propositions, and possible worlds are examples of abstract realities. There are principles of beauty and artistic innovation, which are known as aesthetics. The universe came into being for a reason. Physical constants have a fine-tuning. Scientific laws themselves are based on foundational, yet empirically unverifiable, assumptions. If scientism is true, then all of the aforementioned ideas must be rejected as false because they cannot be verified by the scientific method. In fact, science itself would be self-refuting.

The Wisdom of The Words of God

     The Word of God is the key and foundation for all wisdom in life. The Bible is the infallible compass to all divine truths pertaining to salvation and godliness. It is nourishment for the minds of those who hunger and thirst for the righteousness of God. The words of the Creator impart wisdom to the simple. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" [Psalm 19:7-8]. If the precepts of the Lord are perfect, then continually studying His words will enrich the mind with valuable lessons about life and morality. Life is like a book; God is the author and we are all the main characters. The Word of God covers moral aspects of life such as honesty and generosity.

      People learn many great lessons about wisdom when Scripture is closely examined. One of its most important teachings is to always be grateful. People should appreciate and remember the magnificent works of the Lord such as the creation of life and the materials that we use each day. "Give thanks to the God of heaven, For His loving kindness (graciousness, mercy, compassion) endures forever" [Psalm 136:26]. We should show much gratitude because of what He has done for us. "You are the God who does wonders; among the peoples you have revealed your might" [Psalm 77:15]. We have in principle been told to view the glass of life as being at least half full, rather than as half empty. Otherwise, human life becomes joyless. We must give the Lord praise for everything that He has provided us.

      We have instruction from the Word of God to continually be cautious of our own words. We must always remain truthful. We must exercise caution as to what we say and how we say things. “A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends” [Proverbs 16:28]. How would a person feel if his or her reputation was ruined as a result of slander and libel? People who never think before they speak are foolish, failing to take into account the repercussions of their behaviors. A man who has wisdom has control over his words. Unwise speech is like a virus, pass it around and the minds of other people will be infected with the stain of meaningless thoughts. Those who wish to be wise with their mouths will also heed to message of the Proverbs.

      Another moral lesson that we can learn by studying the inspired words of God is the necessity of remaining honest. We can never trust a person who spreads falsehood. Lying can severely damage a person's reputation for a long time, if not forever. "An honest witness does not deceive; but a false witness pours out lies" [Proverbs 14:5]. The only reason that a person spreads lies about others is for selfish motives. People talk behind other's backs because they want to inflict physical or emotional harm. Gossip is like a double-edge sword; when it cuts, it harms the confidence of others and slashes the armor of the perpetrator's conscience. A lie leaves an everlasting slash on the person who tells it. Dishonesty is only the springboard for more dishonesty, whether it is about oneself or other people.

      The Word of God repeatedly reinforces our obligation to love and honor other people. "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one above yourselves" [Romans 12:10]. Care is what keeps the world turning. It is the underlying basis for all relationships. It is necessary for human communication. Love is the foundational virtue for the development of all other virtues. We must choose to help those who are less fortunate than we are. "Love your neighbor as yourself..." [Leviticus 9:18]. All other moral imperatives issued in the Old Testament follow from this single commandment. It is reiterated in the New Testament [Matthew 5:43-48]. This is true wisdom. Hatred is like a raging fire; let it burn and the house of companionship will be incinerated entirely.

      People can learn the virtue of self-control by observing the words of God. We need divine revelation in our lives because conscience alone is not an infallible moral guide. All learning must originate from an outside source, which eventually points to an ultimate standard that governs every aspect of our lives. That final court of authority is God Himself. We must place our trust in God, rather than the vain imaginations of our hearts. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" [Jeremiah 17:9]. Only through Him can we find complete satisfaction in life. The way of sin is finite and therefore will never satisfy the human heart which desires lasting meaning and fulfillment. Wisdom teaches us to reject foolish lusts. We learn self-control by observing the commandments of God.

      The Holy Scriptures are the cornerstone to all wisdom because they are an inspired record of the words of God. They were recorded on scrolls by faithful prophets and apostles. Those who truly hunger and thirst for righteousness will find satisfaction when they enter into His presence. People gain wisdom when they meditate on His statutes. The words of the Lord are pure. The words of the Lord are flawless. There is therefore no valid reason for us to object in imitating His ways. God is our Rock and Salvation. Deuteronomy 8:3 says, "...man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord." The sanctifying power of His Word makes it more vital to us than food and drink itself.

A Refutation Of Moral Relativism

• Introduction:

          -Moral relativism is the philosophical stance that no existing moral standard or belief system is better than ones found in different societies. In other words, relativism is the belief that all points of view are equally correct or valid. According to this philosophical perspective, the acceptance of all aspects pertinent to knowledge, truth, and morality are governed by individual, separate societies, civilizations, and different periods of time. Moral relativism teaches that truth is changeable and is determined by each person. This viewpoint denies the existence of a universal standard of morality that dictates all of our moral thoughts and behaviors. It teaches that truth is relative to the individual.

• Equal Validity of Perspectives:

          -If all moral perspectives are of equal validity, then that means that the rejection of moral relativism is also valid. Moral relativists must accept the belief that moral relativism is false.

• Relative or Absolute Proposition?:

          -To say that all truths are relative is to either make a relative or absolute proposition. If relative, then one cannot simply deny the existence of absolutes. If the statement is meant to be an absolute, then absolute statements must exist. This would testify to the existence of objective truths. In this case, not all truths would be relative to the individual.

• Self-Contradiction:

          -Those who claim that no absolute truths exist have subscribed to a completely untenable position, for it is self-contradictory. While denying the existence of absolute truths, moral relativists make an absolute statement: "There are no absolute truths." Can moral relativists be absolutely sure that no absolute standards exist? How do they know that they are not simply deceiving themselves?

• Contradicting Perceptions of Truth:

          -If two (or more) perceptions of truth contradict each other, then how can we know which view is correct? Which perception of truth is more trustworthy? Can truth be self-contradictory?

• Logic and Moral Relativism:

          -If moral relativists want to claim that moral relativism cannot be critiqued by any form of logic to search for fallacies within the boundaries of such a mindset, then by what standard or final court of authority can they exclude moral relativism from being critiqued by logic? What criteria was used to exclude moral relativism from being evaluated by logic?

• Judging Actions Across Societies:

          -If moral relativism is true, then how can we judge the actions of people living in different societies? How could we condemn murder, theft, or rape? Is there anything that is morally wrong? If so, then why? How can we know?

The Balance Between Grace And Law

        Antinomianism is the belief that Christians are not obligated to obey moral commandments set forth by God. Adherents of this position maintain that our faith "frees" us from the obligation of living in according to the moral laws of God, which can only be done by His grace. The word "antinomianism" is derived from two Greek words, which are "anti" (i.e. against) and "nomos" (i.e. law). It is argued that since Christians are not saved by the keeping of the Law (which is true), God has no commandments that He expects us to obey (which is not true). Therefore, this doctrine distorts the biblical teaching on grace by formulating an unbiblical conclusion as to its nature.

        The Apostle Paul wrote that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:5-7). That strongly suggests He has moral imperatives for us to obey. True Christians will bring glorify to God for the free gift of salvation that He has given. The New Testament operates on the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2), which is a law of unmerited grace. This "law" instructs us to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40). Thus, the Law of Christ is simply the moral law of God that the Mosaic Law confirms. It reflects His character and His nature.

        The Law of Christ is not a comprehensive list of legal codes, as was the case with the Levitical Law. The Law of the New Covenant stands on love of God and love of neighbor, just as did the Mosaic Law. Our hearts are changed by His grace. We are filled with the Holy Spirit. True Christians obey God (John 14:15-24; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 1 John 2:3-4). We do not obey the Law of Christ to earn eternal salvation in heaven, nor was that the purpose of the Mosaic Law. Rather, we obey God out of gratitude for the sacrificial work of Christ. Our new nature is one is holiness. This is not a matter of doing something in order to merit for ourselves divine favor. It is just what we are, like the inherent properties of the sun ensure that it is bright or water is wet.

        The Apostle Paul describes the direction of sanctification as becoming more like Christ (Romans 6:1-2). We shall know people by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-23). We will be judged according to our conduct in this life (Romans 2:6-13; 2 Corinthians 5:10). We demonstrate the reality of our faith by our deeds (James 2:14-26). Grace and faith do not nullify, but fulfill the Law (Romans 3:31). Grace is not to be treated as a smokescreen against holiness in the Christian life. Believers ought to be good moral examples. Every person needs to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord through faith (Romans 1:5; Jude 4). Salvation, broadly speaking, is a moral transformation.

         The belief that Christians are not bound by moral laws is not only a misinterpretation of grace, but also undermines the catalytic effects of salvation. The grace that God bestows upon us is not a license to indulge in sinful behavior, but rather a divine empowerment to live a holy life. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit guides and convicts us. He helps us to bear fruit that aligns with God’s will. As we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, not by our own strength, but through the enabling grace of God. Thus, our obedience is a testament to the work of the Holy Spirit in us. It showcases a life that seeks to honor God in every aspect.

The Intercession Of The Holy Spirit

          "Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God." (Romans 8:26-27)

          We do not know what kind of prayer that we should utter before God or how those prayers should be said. The disciples themselves asked Christ to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1). The Spirit of God searches the depths of our soul and goes on our behalf before God with needs that we cannot even begin to express with words.

          The searching of the human soul is something that only God Himself can do (1 Samuel 16:7; Proverbs 20:27; Jeremiah 17:10). To affirm that the Holy Spirit can do the same thing indirectly indicates He is God. He knows the limitations of our being. He understands the wide range of human emotions. He understands us better than we understand ourselves.

          Jesus Christ told the twelve apostles that He needed to depart from the world so that the Advocate can come, who is identified as the Holy Spirit (John 16:6-8). If Jesus never left this earth physically, then the Spirit could not come to fulfill His designated purposes. Further, John spoke of Christ also being our Advocate before God the Father (1 John 2:1).

          What did the Holy Spirit do for the apostles? He guided the twelve disciples to all truth (John 16:13), which has been written down for us in the New Testament. The Spirit of God gave first century Christians necessary revelation for learning about God's general will for us (John 14:16; 26). Today, the Holy Spirit continues to fulfill the same tasks that He was originally appointed for. He leads people who are searching in honesty to truth.

          The Holy Spirit is a source spiritual nourishment to us. He comforts believers in their infirmities, whether they be temptations or persecutions. While always active in ministering to people, the Holy Spirit is one of those mysteries that were not revealed to the people of God until New Testament times. His work is now more heavily pronounced.

           The Lord Jesus Christ is eternally present in His divinity along with the Holy Spirit. Both members of the Holy Trinity intercede on our behalf in prayer. The Father and Son come to and dwell with believers in the Holy Spirit. Christ ascended into heaven to pour out the Spirit on the body of the redeemed. The Holy Spirit is at work, despite us not seeing Him.

The Intercession Of Jesus Christ

        "But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." (Hebrews 7:24-28)

        Appointed members of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood were finite creations of God. They continually needed to be replaced because of physical death. These men were limited by the confines of their mortality. The High Priests of the Jewish community needed to repeatedly offer the blood of sacrificed lambs and goats to temporarily stay off the wrath of God. The offerings presented by these men were not perfect like Christ's one offering for sin. The customs of the Law were only a shadow of the greater things to come. They prefigured the arrival of a newer and better Covenant, which is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The shed blood of animals pointed to the forgiveness provided by God for sin through Christ. That cannot happen apart from the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22).

        Levitical priests were sinners in need of redemption, just like the rest of us. Because of what He has done for us, we are able to approach God with confidence in His promises (Hebrews 4:14-16). Christ can sympathize with us not only because He already knows everything in His deity, but also because He took on human flesh. We have constant access to the grace of God because of His work. We can rest secure in Him, since He is perfectly reliable. He does not have any of the weaknesses that Jewish priests had. Unlike most ancient kings who could only be approached by their closest diplomats and ambassadors, Christ can be approached directly by everyone without distinction.

        The perfection of Christ's priesthood is not only a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, but a transformative invitation to live under the New Covenant. His unchanging and eternal nature ensures that His priesthood remains active and relevant to every believer across all generations. Unlike the temporary rituals of the Old Testament, which only symbolized reconciliation, Christ's priesthood accomplishes it fully and eternally. His intercession is not bound by time or the limitations of the earthly temple. It connects heaven and earth, giving believers direct access to God’s presence. This divine accessibility reshapes the relationship between humanity and God, replacing fear and distance with confidence and intimacy.

        Jesus Christ is both the High Priest who offers a sacrifice before God and the Lamb to be slain for our sins. That paradox undoubtedly perplexes the human mind. It is to be received only by the person of faith. The concept of a sacrifice goes hand in hand with one who offers a sacrifice. Only God could do both things at the same time. The justice of God necessitates the punishment of sin (Genesis 18:25; Exodus 20:5). He despises evil (Deuteronomy 13:17; Romans 1:18). He is as a consuming fire to sinners (Deuteronomy 4:24). Christ offered Himself in our place to satisfy the wrath of God. It was foreordained from the foundation of the world that He would make this atonement sacrifice.

The Biblical Basis For The Trinity

• Defining The Trinity: 

          1.) God is three persons (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Each of these persons are fully divine in nature.

          2.) Each person is divine. One person does not equal the entire Godhead. The three persons of the Godhead are related to each other, but distinct at the same time.
          3.) There is only one God. The Bible affirms monotheism (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6-8). The Trinity is three persons in one essence.

• Biblical Texts Showing Unity Among The Three Divine Persons Of The Trinity:

          -"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)

            *Christ shares the same divine nature as God the Father, but are distinct persons. "I" stands as separate from "my Father."

            *We know that this statement supports the deity of Christ because the Jews wanted to stone Him for making it (John 10:32-33). They accused Him of blasphemy.

          -"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." (2 Corinthians 13:14)

            *This is Trinitarian logic in that three divine persons are given equal exaltation. Christ bestows divine grace. We are bound in purpose and devotion to God through the Spirit.

          -"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6)

            *Christians experience unity with the three persons of the Godhead through worship and prayer. Three persons share the one divine essence.

• Biblical Texts Showing That Christ Is Co-Eternal With The Father:

          -"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

            *The "Word" is spoken of as having a continued existence, without a beginning. It is described as being God, yet distinct from God Himself. Jesus Christ is the divine logos. He is the way that God has spoken to man and reached out to him.

            *John used a word picture to convey that Jesus is revelation from God the Father. He communicates to man what God is like. Christ shares the attributes of God because He shares the same essence as God Himself. He is the Word who took on flesh (John 1:14).

            *John was versed in both Greek philosophy and the Old Testament Scriptures. He introduces his gospel narrative with an allusion to creation in Genesis and God speaking everything into existence by the power of His own word. John communicated in a way that could be understood by both Jew and Gentile.

          -"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:56-58)

            *Christ spoke of Himself as existing before Abraham. He did not speak of Himself as, "I was." Christ affirmed His own preexistence. God in the Old Testament called Himself the "I am" (Exodus 3:14). Jesus applied that language to Himself. The Jews tried stoning Him for that reason.

          -"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:6-8)

            *This text speaks of Christ as being both fully human and fully divine. God the Son in His humility took on human flesh. He temporarily suspended His divine prerogatives. Jesus did not set aside His deity or divine attributes.

• Biblical Texts That Explicitly Call Jesus God:

          -"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)

            *This passage is a profound moment in the New Testament. After the resurrection of Jesus, when Thomas encounters Him and is invited to touch His wounds, he declares, "My Lord and my God." The Greek text emphasizes the personal nature of Thomas' declaration, "The Lord of me and the God of me," showcasing his recognition of Jesus' divinity in a deeply personal way.
            *The absence of a rebuke from Jesus is significant. Instead of correcting Thomas, Jesus affirms his belief, saying in John 20:29, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." This affirmation suggests that Jesus accepted Thomas' confession of His divine identity, further reinforcing the understanding of Jesus as both Lord and God within Christian theology.

          -"whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)

            *Whenever Paul used the expression "blessed forever," he was making a statement about the nature of the subject (e.g. Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31). Thus, he uses "God blessed forever" to describe Jesus, ascribing full deity to Him.

            *The assertion of Christ's deity balances the statement "according to the flesh."

            *The Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah due to His claims of being God (Mark 2:7; John 5:23; 19:7).

          -"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8)

             *The author of Hebrews interprets Psalm 45:6-7 in a Messianic sense. He understood that passage to mean God the Father anointed God the Son. 

• Do Statements Concerning Jesus Christ Not Knowing About Certain Things Prove That He Is Not God?:

          -People reject the deity of Jesus because of His statement regarding His lack of knowledge regarding the day and hour (Mark 13:32). This is used to deny that He is all-knowing. However, this objection does not hold water because He was speaking from the aspect of His human nature. He was not speaking concerning His divine nature. Christ in His divine nature knows everything. He took on human flesh so that He could make atonement for our sin.

• If Jesus Is God, Then Why Did He Pray To God The Father? Would God Pray To Himself?:

          -This argument is fallacious because it fails to recognize the two separate natures of Jesus Christ: human and divine. He prayed to the Creator in the state of His humanity. That is something which we as human beings ought to do. This action was appropriate and thus does not diminish Christ's intrinsic divinity. Him praying to God the Father is a necessary part of His intercession on our behalf (Hebrews 7:24-28).

• If Jesus Is God, Then How Can He Be Called The Son Of God?:

          -Some believe that Jesus Christ is lesser than God the Father in terms of authority because He is called the "Son of God" (John 3:16). However, this title only lends credence to the divinity of Christ, since it means having the same essence as God. In other words, both are equal in the sense that they possess the same divine power and authority. They are equal in essence. The Lord Jesus Christ became a servant by taking on the form of a man. He is lower in position than God the Father.

• The Holy Spirit Is God:

          -"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things." (Acts 5:3-5)

             *Lying to the Holy Spirit is said to be lying to God Himself.

• The Holy Spirit Is All-Knowing:

          -"But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

             *The Holy Spirit searches even the depths of God, which would be impossible for any created being. The power of omniscience is something only associated with deity.

• The Personality Of The Holy Spirit And Neuter Gender:

           -"...the argument that is often heard is that the phrase "Holy Spirit" in Greek is in the neuter gender, and it is. But Greek genders do not necessarily indicate personality. Inanimate things can have masculine genders, and personal things can have the neuter gender. We cannot automatically insert the pronoun "it" when referring to every neuter noun any more than we should always insert the pronoun "she" for "love," since love in Greek is feminine. Instead, we determine whether the Holy Spirit is personal the same way we would demonstrate that the Father or the Son is a person." (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart Of Christian Belief, p. 141)

           -Languages such as German assign gender to inanimate objects as well as living things. The Holy Spirit does things that only a personal being would and could do. An inanimate object cannot bear witness as does the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:12-17). An inanimate object cannot intercede for us as does the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26). An inanimate object cannot be lied to as can the Holy Spirit. An inanimate object cannot reveal the things of God as does the Holy Spirit. Any claims that such language is "personification" abuses the term and makes excuses to make the theory fit the facts.

• Titles Shared By God The Father And God the Son: 

          -King of Kings (Deuteronomy 10:17; Daniel 2:47; Revelation 17:14); Lord of Lords (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:3; Revelation 19:16); the only Savior (Isaiah 43:10-11; Acts 4:12; Titus 2:13; 3:4-7); The First and The Last (Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 22:13); Rock (Isaiah 8:14; 1 Peter 2:7-8); Shepherd (Psalm 23; Hebrews 13:20-21); Lord (Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 4).

• Identical Functions Of God The Father And God The Son: 

          -Both are worshiped by angels (Nehemiah 9:6; Hebrews 1:6); both are unchanging (Psalm 102:27; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8); both created everything (Nehemiah 9:6; Hebrews 1:10); both answer prayers (Matthew 6:6-14; John 14:13-14; Acts 7:59); both give eternal life (John 10:28; 1 John 5:11); both judge the world (Psalm 96:13; John 5:22).

• How Could Monotheistic Jews Come To Embrace The Trinity?:

          -"The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not. Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy." (drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/two-powers-in-heaven)

An Exposition Of The Virgin Birth

• Introduction:

          -Many of us are familiar with the biblical narrative of the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14). The fulfillment is attested to in the New Testament (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:27-36).
          -Scripture records events which took place within that same time period such as the Angel Gabriel's appearance to Mary, the baby needing to be taken out of Israel due to King Herod wanting to exterminate Him, the visit from shepherds, and the gifts of the Magi (which were gold, frankincense, and myrrh).

• How Does Matthew's Narrative Of Jesus Being Taken To Egypt Fit With Luke's Account Of Him Being Taken To Nazareth?:

          -This assumes on a priori basis that Matthew and Luke wrote about all the details of Christ's early life, when that is simply not the case. Also, it goes without saying that gaps of time existed between these two events.

          -It is possible that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus returned to Nazareth before traveling to Egypt. He could have been born up to two years prior to Herod ordering the killing of infants (Matthew 2:16). His decree included all males under the age of two.

          -One of both gospel narratives may have been consulted by either author or were dependent on separate sources that no longer exist.

• Acceptance Of The Virgin Birth Is Ultimately A Matter Of Underlying Philosophical Presuppositions:

          -The doctrine of the virgin birth can be deemed absurd if, and only if, an individual rejects the existence of the supernatural realm. A deity who knows how to create the universe can most certainly bring about a pregnancy in a woman without sexual intercourse. He understands how every part of creation works. Just as God created Adam without a father or mother, so He caused Mary to conceive in her womb without a man. The virgin birth should sound more plausible in light of scientific breakthroughs such as embryonic transfer and artificial insemination.

• Did The Apostle Paul Affirm The Virgin Birth?:

          -It can be argued Paul implicitly believed in the virgin birth on the grounds that he cited Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. If he believed the gospel of Luke to be divinely inspired revelation, then that would mean he upheld the virgin birth because that event is recorded in the narrative from which he quoted.

• Was The Virgin Birth A Later Invention?:

          -"Some have argued that the Virgin Birth is a later mythical addition since it is mentioned only in two Gospels and is not spoken of by any other New Testament authors. Over a century ago one biblical scholar answered this objection with a very practical observation: If the Virgin Birth was common knowledge among the apostolic community, the New Testament authors "would have abstained from mentioning it for prudential reasons, lest they should expose the mother of our Lord to scandal during her lifetime—such scandals did in fact arise as soon as the virgin birth was declared." Hence the apostles may have kept silent concerning the doctrine until after the death of Mary." (J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You, p. 245)

          -"...it would have been very risky to document and claim that He was born of a virgin. In the Middle East there were "honor killings" for women who conceived out of wedlock, so to speak of a virgin birth was extremely dishonorable. In fact, the Bible alludes to some disparaging remarks made by the opponents of Jesus. In addition, if you look at the anti-Christian literature at the time, much of it focused on this aspect of Christianity. This makes one wonder why, if Christians were just making up a religion, they say something that would offend virtually everybody in the Middle East. It makes no sense to make up something offensive, unless it were true." (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/virginbirth.html)

• The Virgin Birth Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding Of Christ's Nature:

          -Jesus Christ is eternal (John 1:1-3). He has no beginning or end. If Joseph, Mary's husband, was Jesus Christ's biological father, then He could not possess any divine attributes that Scripture ascribes to Him. He most certainly could not be God, as He oftentimes asserted. If Christ is not God, then He could not save us from the eternal consequences of sin. If He could not atone four our sins, then we could never receive forgiveness from God. And if we cannot be forgiven for sin, then we are destined for eternal condemnation in hell.

• The Virgin Birth Provides The Basis For Jesus Christ Being Sinless:

          -If Jesus had a biological father, then He would in reality be just like everybody else. He would not in any way be different than we are. He would have our sinful nature that we inherited from Adam (Romans 5). However, the Scriptures enforce the sinlessness of the Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). If Jesus was the son of Joseph in the sense of being of his earthly seed, then His sinlessness could simply not be true.

• The Virgin Birth Provides The Basis For The Atonement Of Jesus Christ:

          -If Jesus Christ is not sinless, then it would have been impossible for Him to make the necessary atonement sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. Jesus needed to be sinless for our justification because only a perfect sacrifice for sin will satisfy the wrath of God (Exodus 12:5; Hebrews 10:1-18). Atonement for sin requires a perfect substitute. If He was a sinner like everybody else, then He could not save us from our sins. The purpose of Jesus Christ coming down from heaven to earth was for the redemption of sinners (Galatians 4:4-5). The doctrine of the virgin birth is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity because it directly relates to the salvation of our souls.

• The Virgin Birth Emphasizes The Uniqueness Of Jesus Christ:

          -Just as nobody is able to resurrect from the dead and depart from this world in the manner that Christ did, nobody other than Him can be born in the same manner, without the need of sexual intercourse. He was conceived into Mary's body through the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the earthly life of Jesus Christ is a in itself a miraculous act of God.

Does The Bible Permit Women To Be Pastors?

• Defining The Issues:

          -For centuries, churches have grappled with differing perspectives on the role of women in ministry. At the heart of this debate lies the question: does Scripture permit women to hold ordained, authoritative positions within the church? Furthermore, if women can serve, to what extent is their involvement appropriate? For example, some congregations limit leadership roles to male deacons, while others include deaconesses. Although a believer's salvation is not contingent on attending a church with female pastors, the issue reflects deeper theological and cultural currents. This ongoing debate may reveal influences such as modern feminism or efforts to align with societal norms of political correctness.

• Paul’s List Of Qualifications For Elders And Deacons:

          -The New Testament provides clear criteria for church leaders, emphasizing male leadership through phrases like “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). These qualifications include moral standards such as temperance, generosity, and responsibility. Appointed men are expected to exemplify godliness, serving as role models for the congregation. In the patriarchal Greco-Roman world, this framework would have aligned with societal expectations where leadership was predominantly male. Interestingly, the emphasis on moral and spiritual integrity set early Christian leaders apart from many contemporaneous leaders in civic and religious settings.
          -The exclusion of explicit qualifications for female leaders in these texts has led many to conclude that Paul envisioned male-only leadership. However, it's worth noting that Paul's cultural milieu was one in which women often occupied subordinate roles in public and religious life. The emphasis on male headship reflects not only theological principles, but also the prevailing social structures of the first century.

• Interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 And 1 Timothy 2:10-15:

          -Paul’s instructions on women remaining silent in churches and refraining from exercising authority over men have sparked considerable debate. Contextually, these directives align with the hierarchical norms of the Greco-Roman world, where public roles for women were highly restricted. Within the church, Paul grounds male headship in the creation order described in Genesis, emphasizing the theological importance of Adam’s federal role as humanity’s representative (Romans 5).
          -It is important to note, however, that Paul did not call for complete silence or inactivity from women. He acknowledged women praying and prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), indicating their active participation in worship. The principle of orderly worship, rather than outright prohibition, seems to be Paul’s focus. Further, the fact that Jesus selected twelve male apostles reflects the cultural and symbolic norms of his time but does not necessarily preclude future discussions on women’s roles.

• Outlining The Function Of Women In Ministry:

          -Women have played vital roles in ministry throughout church history. The New Testament highlights women’s contributions, including their presence at the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:55; John 19:25)—a striking contrast to the male disciples who fled. Paul himself commended women like Phoebe, a deacon, and Junia, described as “outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:1, 7). The inclusion of these women underscores their significance in the early church.
          -While women are not restricted from exercising spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12), they excel in ministries of hospitality, teaching, and nurturing. Titus 2:3-4 encourages older women to mentor younger women, while Galatians 5:22-23 reminds all believers, male and female, to embody the fruit of the Spirit. Women are indispensable in fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and defending the faith (1 Peter 3:15).

• The Social Context Of The New Testament:

          -The New Testament was written in a patriarchal world where societal roles were often determined by gender. In Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, women typically held domestic roles, and public leadership was rare. Early Christian communities challenged some of these norms by recognizing the spiritual equality of men and women (Galatians 3:28). Women like Priscilla (Acts 18:26) and Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) are celebrated for their contributions to the faith.
          -Understanding this social backdrop enriches our interpretation of passages on church leadership. While Paul’s writings reflect the cultural realities of his time, they also reveal the transformative power of the gospel, which elevated women’s status in ways that were revolutionary for the era.

A Case For The Resurrection Of Christ

          The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ stand as the cornerstone of Christian faith, shaping the beliefs and lives of millions across centuries. From the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the gospels to the cultural and historical context of early Christianity, these events have been meticulously examined and debated. This article delves into the wealth of evidence supporting these foundational claims, addressing alternative theories, and highlighting the transformative power of the resurrection narrative. By exploring the lives of the disciples, the role of women, and the theological implications, this piece invites readers to consider the enduring significance of Christ's resurrection in both history and faith.

         The crucifixion of Jesus Christ on a cross is not a seriously disputed point. The Jewish authorities and the Roman executioners would have known with certainty, if He was plotting to escape or was trying to manipulate them into believing falsehoods. This lays the groundwork for embracing the narrative of Christ's resurrection. As for the alleged discrepancy between the Talmud and the gospels on the crucifixion, Robert C. Newman writes:

        "...The Talmud says Jesus was "hanged" and "stoned and hanged." The Gospels speak of crucifixion, along with Paul and all Christian literature. This is supported by Josephus (both versions) and less directly by Tacitus, who has Jesus put to death by a Roman method. Since the term "hanged" is used by the rabbis for crucifixion as well as for the traditional hanging up of the body after stoning to death, it is not unreasonable to suppose the Talmud gives a somewhat garbled account, perhaps based on the facts that Jesus had a religious trial and was "hanged," but supplying other details from traditional practices." (Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, p. 293-294)

         As an additional matter, the gospels record the testimony of the resurrection from female disciples. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus even includes four women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. This was done perhaps to convey that no one is beyond the scope of redemption. The Greco-Roman world viewed woman as having lower social status. They were considered less credible in presenting testimony. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment as that would have made the male disciples of Jesus appear foolish to others.

         The New Testament tells us that there were several hundred direct eye-witnesses to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, at least a handful of the people would have been conscious enough to expose the story as being a fraud, if it was one in reality. Eyewitness accounts are trusted on a daily basis in courtrooms. We tend not to doubt biographies, if they are carefully written. In fact, the New Testament itself records people having doubt about the resurrection of Christ. This is not characteristic of a forgery.

        1 Corinthians contains an oral creed uttered by the Apostle Paul that even liberal scholars date to the time frame of Christ's death in the A.D. 30's (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Thus, the basic message of the gospel has been reliably preserved through the centuries. This counts as one piece of evidence in favor of the gospels being historically reliable. Christ is a historical figure who affirmed the existence of God and claimed to be God Himself.

         Why are there no accounts from non-believing sources attesting to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? This should actually not be surprising to us. If any person did report on such an event and said that it had happened, then it would mean that he believes that the resurrection of Christ actually occurred. Only Christians would say that His bodily resurrection from the grave is a real thing. Robert C. Newman provides historical backdrop on how ancient pagans would treat this kind of phenomena:

         "...For a Roman, such as belief would mere be another Christian "superstition" (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny). A Stoic like Mara would also reject bodily resurrection, and the Talmud has chosen to ignore it. In any case, we know from Justin's debate with Trypho (in the 130s), from the anti-Christian polemic of Celsus (ca. 180) and from the Talmud that the Jews were aware of the Christian Gospels, and from Matthew and Justin that they sought to explain away the Resurrection as a case of body-snatching by the disciples." (ibid.)

         The drastic change of character of the disciples of Jesus Christ is another support for the veracity of the resurrection accounts. The gospels record the disciples as being cowards who did not want to suffer persecution to later becoming bold speakers who were even willing to die for the gospel. How does one explain this phenomena? Why would somebody die for something that he already knows to be a lie? The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary has an excerpt building on this point:

        "BISHOP PEARSON proves the divine origination of Christianity from its success being inexplicable on the supposition of its being of human origin. The nature of its doctrine was no way likely to command success: (1) it condemns all other religions, some established for ages; (2) it enjoins precepts ungrateful to flesh and blood, the mortifying of the flesh, the love of enemies, and the bearing of the cross; (3) it enforces these seemingly unreasonable precepts by promises seemingly incredible; not good things such as afford complacency to our senses, but such as cannot be obtained till after this life, and presuppose what then seemed impossible, the resurrection; (4) it predicts to its followers what would seem sure to keep most of the world from embracing it, persecutions."

        The empty tomb of Jesus Christ in and of itself is another powerful support of His resurrection being true. The Jewish and Roman authorities failed to produce a corpse, which would have permanently terminated the Christian movement. However, they were incapable of producing the dead body of Jesus because they did not have it. Moreover, the tomb was tightly secured with a huge rock blocking the entrance and was constantly guarded by Roman soldiers, which would have made it virtually impossible for Jesus Christ to escape on His own. New Testament Scholar Gary Habermas published this study in a peer-reviewed Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus:

        "Of these scholars, approximately 75 per cent favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25 per cent think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."

        The four gospels were written during a time when most of the eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus Christ were still alive. They would have naturally disputed fabricated details. Men such as Peter and John were Jewish. That point is worth consideration because lying was forbidden in Jewish culture (Exodus 20:16; Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 19:5). The Jewish leaders were not recorded as disputing the miracles performed by Jesus (John 11:45-48). The authors of the four gospels intended to convey points rooted in history, reflecting knowledge of geography and recording what took place in Galilee and Judea. The gospels flow in a style similar to Greco-Roman biographies. They are indebted to the Old Testament in regards to what they are composed of.

        The Swoon Theory was originally proposed by opponents of the resurrection during the nineteenth century. It is claimed that Christ never really died on a cross, but came near to facing death due to being crucified. This theory is further elaborated on by the postulate that Jesus was simply removed from the cross and that He reappeared after three days to His disciples by escaping from His tomb. The Swoon Theory claims that such an occurrence was made possible as a result of alleged recuperation in the coolness of a tomb for a period of three days. In summary, this theory states that Jesus Christ only appeared to have died on a cross and thus deceived His disciples into believing in His resurrection. This alternative explanation has many problems:

          *Jesus was beaten on the face and mocked during six trials among Jewish and Roman authorities (Matthew 26-27; Luke 23; John 18). He even suffered from thirty-mine lashes on His back.
          *His scalp was severely torn by the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29).
          *Jesus' heart stopped pumping due to nails being driven through His wrists onto a wooden crossbeam, which was raised directly into the air. Not only did Jesus asphyxiate from His chest cavity being filled with liquid, but He also became extremely dehydrated while He was suffering on the cross. Jesus' side was pierced with a spear (John 19:34-35).
          *The body of Jesus Christ was tightly encased in thick layers of linen (John 19:38-42).
          *Jesus' body would have gone without any sort of medical attention or be given a source of bodily nourishment during the three days of being buried in the tomb.
          *If He was alive during that period of three days, then He would have had insufficient strength to remove the bulky stone from the cave, to put up a fight with the Roman soldiers, or to even have accomplished both tasks.

        Critics have attempted to dismiss the biblical resurrection narratives of Jesus by laying the charge that the apostles merely had visions of Him rising from the grave. In other words, His earliest followers did not actually see the body of the risen Christ. This explanation too comes with problems of its own:

          *If "hallucinations" could provide a plausible argument for denying the biblical resurrection accounts, then they could only provide a possible justification for rejecting post-resurrection appearances. 

          *If one decides to go with this theory, then how does he offer an explanation for the empty tomb, the removal of the huge bolder, and the mysterious disappearance of the dead body?
          *It would be next to impossible for several hundred people to experience the same hallucination for a period of forty days, especially at the same time and location (1 Corinthians 15:1-8; Acts 1:3). In fact, most hallucinations are not repetitive in nature or able to converse with people.
          *How can hallucinations eat or be physically touched (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:42-43; John 20:27-28)?

A Biblical Presentation On The Sacrament Of Baptism

• Defining The Purpose Of Water Baptism:

          -The purpose of baptism is to make a public profession of faith and discipleship. In other words, water baptism is the sign of dedication to serving Christ. It is symbolic for the Lord's burial, death, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5). It signifies the forgiveness of sin and spiritual cleansing that comes to us through faith. In this ritual, we are identifying ourselves with our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, which also means that we already had faith in Him. People who got baptized were putting their very livelihood, every cherished thing, at stake in serving Jesus Christ. In getting baptized, one places Him above all else in this life. This is the reason for baptism being so closely associated with salvation in the New Testament. Baptism is not a mere formality. It serves as a reminder of our new identity in Jesus Christ. It is a picture of our salvation. Jesus took the Jewish ritual of immersing converts and imported to it a new meaning. Baptism signifies being a new person in Christ, which is brought about by the regenerating power of the Spirit of God.

• Infant Baptism:

          -The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and various Protestant churches advocate the practice of baptizing babies. It is maintained that the ritual itself removes the stain of original sin.
           *There is no command or example of infant baptism found in the New Testament. The consistent pattern of those who get baptized in biblical history is believing on the gospel and repenting of sins beforehand (Mark 1:15; 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-41; 8:12; 36-37; 16:14-15; 30-33; 18:8).

           *People who were baptized as children may apostatize from the faith when they grow up. In that case, the baptism served no good purpose. Therefore, it is better reserved for adults.

• Baptismal Regeneration:

          -Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and certain Protestant churches maintain that people must get baptized in order to be saved from their sins. These people believe that baptism is essential for salvation, with exceptions usually being infants or those who desired baptism but died before getting a chance to go through that ritual.
           *The necessity of baptism is not mentioned in biblical passages that link faith directly with salvation (e.g., John 1:12; 5:24; 20:30-31; Romans 1:16-17; 4:2-8; 10:9-13; Galatians 2:16; 3:1-3; 5:4-5; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 3:15; Titus 3:5). Further, certain texts even explicitly exclude works from justification before God, thereby eliminating baptism as a necessary condition for being considered righteous by Him.

           *To add baptism (or any other ritual) as a stipulation to believing on Jesus Christ for salvation is equivalent to saying that we must be circumcised to get saved. Thus, the "baptismal regeneration" teaching falls into the same category as the Judaizing heresy (Acts 15:1; 23-24). Baptism in certain respects corresponds to (but is not equivalent to) circumcision in the Old Testament (Colossians 2:11-12). However, circumcision did not save anyone (Romans 4:9-12), even though it was commanded by God (Genesis 17:10-14). This indicates that we are not saved by water baptism. We are not saved by these rituals because they are works.

           *We have biblical examples of people who were saved from their sins before they got baptized in water: 1.) the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:35-38); 2.) the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:17-18); 3.) Cornelius (Acts 10:42-48). Having heard the message of the gospel, these people had received the Spirit of God prior to getting baptized. They placed their trust in Jesus Christ as Savior. No one in Scripture is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, yet unsaved.

• Baptism By Sprinkling Water:

          -The Roman Catholic Church, along with various Protestant churches, baptize by sprinkling a little water on people, rather than fully immersing converts into water.

           *The Jews at Qumran practiced baptism by immersion. Other groups did the same during the Second Temple period. This practice likely influenced early Christian baptismal practices, as seen in the baptisms performed by John the Baptist in the Jordan River.

           *The New Testament describes the ceremony of baptism as being a "burial" into water (Mark 1:5; 9-10; John 3:23; Romans 6:3-5).
           *The Greek word for baptism (i.e. "baptismo") literally means immersion. There are separate words in Koine Greek for sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. But only the Greek word for immersion is used for baptism in the New Testament.

           *This does not mean that there are no situations in which baptism by sprinkling water is acceptable. Nor is it being suggested that people who were baptized in ways other than immersion in water have to get re-baptized or that their baptism is invalid. 

The Philosophical Incoherence Of The Islamic God

“In Islam, there is no fatherhood of God and no purpose of redemption to soften the doctrine of the decrees.” Samuel Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, page 100. (see link to Zwemer’s book)

* by “decrees”, Zwemer is meaning Allah’s decrees of Sovereignty and Predestination ( قدر – Qadr = power, sovereignty; جبر – Jabr = force, destiny ) in that Allah causes some to be guided to the true path and paradise and the rest to be guided to hell.

* there is “no purpose of redemption” in Islam – This is why Muslims see no need for the atonement and so in Islam, there is no purpose in God redeeming some from all nations (Rev. 5:9) by His own grace in the incarnation and work on the cross for His own glory. So Muslims don’t see the need for atonement or redemption or the incarnation, because they don’t see that people are sinners by nature and cannot earn their salvation by doing good deeds. They think they can earn paradise by believing in the doctrines of Islam and by doing good deeds.

” The attribute of love is absent from Allah.” Zwemer, ibid, p. 100

Here he means that there is nothing in Islam or the Qur’an like there is in the Bible that God’s nature is love – as in 1 John 4:8-19 – “God is love.”

The Qur’an says “Allah is loving or friendly” or “congenial”. = wadood ودود (other native Arabic speakers have told me that is the difference between wadood – ودود and Mohabbat محبت / محبه . Wadood is more like “friendly” whereas Mohabbat conveys the Greek word “agape”. One of the 99 names of Allah is “wodood” ودود , but not “Mohabat” محبت / محبه or “hobb” حب in essence. The Qur’an says “Allah does not love sinners”, but only loves those who love Allah first. They don’t have anything like Romans 5:8 – “God demonstrates His love toward us even while we were still sinners, that Christ died for us.” Allah is compassionate ( رحمان = Rahmon) (the one who does actions of compassion) and merciful (رحیم = Rahim ) (the one who does actions of mercy); but the Islamic theologicans have debated for centuries over if one can say “Allah is . . . ” It seems that many Muslims theologians have even said, “We cannot say “Allah is ….. (something)”; ” we cannot say what Allah’s nature/substance ( ذات = dhat / zat ) or essence ( جوهر = johar) is.

“The mystic love of the Sufis (widespread and weighty though it be in its influence) is not a characteristic of orthodox Islam, but arose in rebellion to it.

The Fatherhood of God and the repeated declarations of Scripture that God loves the world, loves the sinner, loves mankind – that God is love – all this has had its influence on Christian speculation regarding the problem of God’s decrees. In like manner the character of Allah has been the key to the same problem among Moslems. Islam, as we have seen, reduces God to the category of the will. He is at heart a despot, an Oriental despot. He stands at abysmal heights above humanity. He cares nothing for character, but only for submission. The only affair of men is to obey His decrees.

2. The Moslem doctrine of hell is in accordance with their coarse beliefs regarding Predestination and Mohammed’s utter want of conception of the spiritual. According to the Koran and Tradition, Hell must be filled, and so God creates infidels.2 Of all religions in the world, Islam is the most severe in its conception of the capacity and the torments of hell. “On that day We will say to hell, Art thou full? and it will say, Are there any more?” (Surah 50:30.) The conception of hell is brutal, cruel and to the last degree barbarous. The whole picture, as given in the Koran and commented on by Tradition, is horribly revolting. “Hell shall be a place of snares, the home of transgressors, to abide therein for ages. No coolness shall they taste nor any drink, save boiling water and liquid pus. Meet recompense!” (Surahs 88:1-7; 2:38; 3:197; 14:20, 43:71-78, etc., etc.) The word Jehannum [ جهنم ] occurs thirty times; fire (nar= نار ) – is still more frequently used; there are six other words used for the place of torment. One cannot read the traditions which give what Mohammed said on this subject without feeling how heartless and loveless is the creed of Islam. Yet it is in connection with such ideas of God that the Moslems believe in Predestination.

It is not difficult to surmise whence Mohammed got his ideas of a Predestination after the pattern of fatalism.” (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 102-103; with my comments in brackets)

—————

1Theol. Studien, 14 Jahrgang, p. 240.

2 Surahs 32:13; 97:5; 4:11; 9:69. Cf. Commentaries.

Muslims as people have great capacities for loving each other and others, and their culture of hospitality is really great, but this is because they are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) and they retain those good qualities because of that. But the doctrines and the religion itself, with its principles of controlling external society in Sharia, the Khaliphate (historically up until 1924; and the desire for the restoration of the Khalifate), Jihad with Qatal (fighting, killing, slaying) and Harb (war) (struggle against the unbelievers and commands to fight and kill the Christians and Jews (Surah 9:5; 9:29; 8:39), Dhimmitude (subjugation of Christians and Jews and not allowing freedom for evangelism and debate and disagreement); no assurance of salvation, and fatalism, and laws of apostasy (death for Muslims who turn from Islam), result in a harsh life and seem to be the reasons for the lack of freedom and harshness and war and violence in Islamic history, and we are seeing the results of this today in many places all over the world.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/the-result-of-a-man-made-religion-with-no-love-no-atonement-no-concept-of-the-fatherhood-of-god/

Is Justification By Faith Alone Consistent With Old Testament Theology?

• Introduction:

          -Contrary to what certain people might believe or what has been popularized by authors such as C.I. Scofield, the Jews were never saved by keeping the Mosaic Law. The performing of animal sacrifices did not resolve the problem of sin for the Jewish people. In other words, the basis of justification before God has always been by the grace of God through trust in Him, even prior to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There is no transition of justification by works to grace through faith recorded in the Scriptures.

          -Isaiah 55:1 communicates a theology of grace alone. Spiritual strength and joy are given to us freely in Christ. Isaiah 53:11 explains that the righteous servant (interpreted as Jesus) justifies many through his suffering and knowledge, emphasizing grace and faith rather than human actions. Micah 7:18 highlights God's unique and unparalleled nature, as He delights in showing mercy, forgiving sins, and not holding onto His anger forever, which underscores His grace and compassion.

          -It would be inconsistent to believe that justification during the Old Covenant was on the basis of keeping the Law and that, in the New Covenant, it is by the grace of God apart from works of merit. Both assert the sinfulness of mankind (1 Kings 8:46; Psalm 14:1-2; Romans 3:9-23). If we had to earn a right standing before God by performing good deeds even in part, then no one on earth would be going to heaven because he requires perfect obedience and no one lives up to that standard of righteousness (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10). The penalty for sin is death, and the genealogies of the Old Testament bear this point out.

• Exegetical Commentary Of Genesis 15:6 And God Imputing Righteousness To Abraham:

          -In Genesis chapters 12 and 15, Abraham believed God according to the promises and new revelation pertaining to the gospel. He would be given descendants as numerous as the stars. This man's faith was the instrument of his justification before God (Genesis 15:6). How could Abraham be justified by keeping the Law when he lived approximately 500 years before it was given to the Jews? Moreover, he was in Gentile territory when God spoke to him, which leaves open the door to the gospel message which includes both Jew and Gentile.

          -God showed Himself to Abraham and promised Him multitudes of spiritual descendants who would become so through faith. In response, he trusted in God. He took Him at His word. God considered Abraham to be righteous because of his trust in Him. That status was accorded to him by faith. It was really that simple. Abraham was declared righteous by God because he believed the promises that He made. Works are nowhere mentioned in Genesis 15:6. Thus, they had nothing to do with God's pronouncement.

          -It was his faith in the Living God that marked out his life from that of other believers. Just as only God is able to number the stars of our galaxy, so only He is able to raise up descendants from Abraham. Only He can bring about regeneration of the human heart. Abraham did not have a righteous status given to Him by God because of his obedience, but that he believed His word. It was God who considered him righteous, not that he did something to deserve being called so. The only kind of "work" that believers do which is accepted by God is that of faith (John 6:28-29).

          -The phrase "he believed in the Lord" (v'he'emin ba'YHWH) signifies a deep, trustful belief or faith in the Lord. This term reflects not just an intellectual assent, but a heartfelt trust and reliance upon God. The second part, "He counted it to him" (va'yachsheveha lo), indicates an accounting or reckoning, reinforcing the idea that God considered Abraham’s faith as equivalent to righteousness. The term tzedakah, meaning righteousness, here implies a moral status or standing before God. Thus, this verse encapsulates the concept that Abraham’s righteousness was not due to any works or adherence to law, which came centuries later, but solely due to his faith.

• Abraham And King David In Romans Chapter Four:

          -In his epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul uses Abraham and David as examples of people who were saved by faith in God apart from the merit of works (Romans 4:2-8). These people lived during the course of Old Testament history, which shows continuity between the Old and New Testaments concerning God's plan of redemption. We are all justified in the same manner: by His grace through faith. It is not by works of righteousness which we have done. Furthermore, Paul quoted Psalm 32:1-2, thereby proving that King David experienced the full forgiveness of sins as do believers under the New Covenant upon repentance.

• Abraham And Galatians Chapter Three:

          -Paul in Galatians chapter three uses Abraham as an example of justification before God without consideration of good works. In fact, it says that he was given the gospel in embryonic form (Galatians 3:8-9). We become descendants of Abraham through faith in the promises of God, and it has always been that way. We receive the blessings that God had promised to him. We are to trust in Him, just as Abraham did. The promised seed is Jesus Christ Himself. He fulfilled the demands of the Law in our place so that we did not have to, nor could we.

• The Purpose Of The Mosaic Law Was Never To Save Anyone:

          -The Law functioned as the blueprint for Israel (i.e. morals, ethics, worship, administering justice, etc.). Its designated purpose was never to save anyone (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 3:20). Nor did it have the power to do so. It was to make us conscious of our sinful nature (Galatians 3:22-26; Romans 10:4). The Law points out our need of a Redeemer. The moral aspects of the Law are a reflection of God's character and transcend the boundaries of national Israel. The Law is "weak," not because of anything wrong with it, but man's sinful nature (Romans 8:3). The only thing that it can do is condemn us. Christ is now God's standard of righteousness. He embodies the fulfillment of the Law.

• What About The Animal Sacrifices Performed During The Old Testament?:

          -The Old Testament sacrificial system never really took away sin. The priests who performed the sacrifices were themselves imperfect beings. The debt of sin could only be fully dealt with by Christ Himself (Hebrews 10:10-18). He is everything that the priests and their sacrifices are not. The offerings of animals were only temporary "coverings" for sin. These multiple sacrifices prefigured the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1). He fulfilled the Old Covenant. Sins were, to borrow monetary language, put on credit as God forgave them and Christ would make atonement at some point in the future.

• The Gospel And The Old Testament:

          -Right after the fall of Adam and Eve, we see the promise of a coming Savior (Genesis 3:15). In fact, the Old Testament describes this Person in many different ways. Examples would include "Ruler" (Micah 5:2), "Counselor" (Isaiah 9:6), "Suffering Servant" (Isaiah 53), and "The Lord Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6).
          -Old Testament saints knew about the coming of a promised Redeemer (Job 19:25), though they did not know who specifically He would be. The Jews were saved in the same way as we are today: by grace through faith in God.

• Progressive Revelation:

          -This is the teaching that God did not reveal His entire plan of redemption to man at one point in time. In other words, the clarity concerning God's intent to save repentant sinners increased as further divine revelation was penned (Romans 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians 2:7-8; Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Ephesians 3:1-6). Examples of progressive revelation would include the Trinity and the acceptance of the Gentiles as being a part of the people of God. Both Testaments are equally inspired and important (Psalm 119:89; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). The requirement for salvation has always been trusting in God. Jesus Christ has always been the object of salvation.

A Study On Salvation And The Atonement

• Introduction: 

           -Different theories on the atonement of Jesus Christ have been developed throughout the history of Christianity. Examples of theories on the atoning work of Jesus Christ are the "ransom theory," "moral influence view," "governmental theory," and the "example theory." These developments were all attempts to understand how God reconciles sinners to Himself. The doctrines of atonement, justification, sanctification, and glorification articulate a coherent theological framework that emphasizes God’s justice and mercy in the process of salvation through Christ. Understanding these concepts is vital for grasping the essence of the Christian faith and the nature of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

• Understanding Different Shades Of Meaning In The Old Testament Usage Of The Term Atonement:

           -The following excerpt was taken from a study by William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament, in his study of the atonement: "The Septuagint (LXX) evidences a pre-Christian Jewish understanding of atonement (especially in the use of the Hebrew words for atonement, 19 [kipper) and 19 [koper]) as propitiation since it employs é u dokopci (exilaskonal) 83 times for translating kipper." Summing up a detailed analysis, Morris deduces that the basic meanings of kipper and ĆELA.COkouci involve the thought of the offering of a ransom which turns away the divine wrath from the sinner." In addition to ransom and divine wrath, kipper "denotes a substitutionary process... so plain as to need no comment in the cases where life is substituted for life. Since the OT reveals the reality of divine wrath, it cannot be ignored or explained away as impersonal wrath, mild displeasure, mere irritation, or capricious passion. In nearly 600 OT texts more than 20 different Hebrew words provide a rich wrath vocabulary. Divine righteousness, holiness, and justice require divine retribution. Without divine retribution, divine mercy becomes nothing more than a vestigial appendage without function or purpose."

           -Dr. Barrick's exploration of atonement cited here delves into the fundamental theological principles of substitution and propitiation. His analysis shows that the Hebrew term "kipper," often translated in the Septuagint as "hilasterion," carries the profound implication of turning away divine wrath through a ransom or substitutionary sacrifice. This concept is not about appeasing a capricious deity, but addressing the inherent justice and righteousness of God. Divine wrath, as presented in the Old Testament, is a consistent, principled response to sin, necessitating a mechanism for reconciliation. Barrick’s argument ties the concept of divine retribution directly to God's attributes of holiness and justice. Without such retribution, the very essence of divine mercy would be undermined, becoming an empty gesture. The rich vocabulary surrounding wrath in the Old Testament emphasizes the gravity and complexity of this divine-human relationship.

• Defining The Biblical Doctrine Of Atonement: 

           -Vicarious atonement, which is also known as penal substitutionary theory, means that Jesus Christ died in our place to pay the price for sin and its penalty. He resolved the problem of the separation of mankind from God on the cross. Jesus bore the punishment that we deserve in our place. In exchange, God gives to us His perfect righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness). That is the grounds by which we are accepted before our Creator. The one sacrifice of Christ satisfied both God's wrath and His righteousness. We are in need of a redeemer because our hearts and minds have been corrupted by the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12).

           -In the Old Testament, bloody animal sacrifices were needed to atone for unintentional sin (Numbers 15:22-29; 16:47). There were no such said provisions, however, for people who sinned wilfully and habitually. The performance of these rites were thus indented to evince one's faith in the Living God. He was the object of the various offerings, which symbolized divine forgiveness. None of these sacrifices could actually get to the heart of man's problem.

           -The high priest offered sacrifices on behalf of himself and Israel. Consider the Day of Atonement, which is known in the Hebrew language as "Yom Hakippurim" (Leviticus 16). All of these bloody animal sacrifices pointed to the final, perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-4). Everybody, including the high priest, needed a true and perfect sacrifice that only a High Priest with those same characteristics could provide (Hebrews 8:3-6; 9:6-15).

           -In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is presented as being God's ultimate provisional sacrifice for our redemption. He is described as being our reconciliation to God (2 Corinthians 5:18). His work is described as being propitiatory in nature (1 John 2:1-2), which means that it turns away divine judgment on sinners. Christ's life was given as a ransom for the people (Matthew 20:28). His blood was "poured out" for the remission of our sins (Matthew 26:28).

• The Origin Of The Vicarious Atonement Theory: 

           -Penal substitutionary atonement was a further development of Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory, also known as the commercial theory of atonement, by the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century. It best fits with the language of Scripture and was articulated most explicitly by them.

• Background Information On The Commercial Theory Of Atonement:

          -The atonement theory of satisfaction teaches that because sin robs God of His honor, it was necessary for Him restore it by either punishing sinners or through atonement work. Since He chose to make atonement for sin by offering up Jesus Christ, He was able to fully recover any lost honor. Any surplus honor remaining from Jesus' sacrifice was given to God in our place, only if we do good works.
          -"Scholars such as F.W. Dillistone have observed that Anselm's view of the atonement is set within the context of criminal law, where concepts such as honor, debt, and satisfaction feature prominently. The Reformers, by contrast, set the atonement within the context of criminal law, emphasizing guilt, punishment, and substitution. Yet both systems involve forensic interpretations of the atonement." (Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther, p. 141)

• A Patristic Exposition Of The Doctrine Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement:

          -"And so, when our unrighteousness had come to its full term, and it had become perfectly plain that its recompense of punishment and death had to be expected, then the season arrived in which God had determined to show at last his goodness and power. O the overflowing kindness and love of God toward man! God did not hate us, or drive us away, or bear us ill will. Rather, he was long-suffering and forbearing. In his mercy, he took up the burden of our sins. He himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us—the holy one for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins except his righteousness? In whom could we, lawless and impious as we were, be made righteous except in the Son of God alone? O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable work of God! O blessings beyond all expectation! The sinfulness of many is hidden in the Righteous One, while the righteousness of the One justifies the many that are sinners. In the former time he had proved to us our nature's inability to gain life; now he showed the Saviour's power to save even the powerless, with the intention that on both counts we should have faith in his goodness, and look on him as Nurse, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, Mind, Light, Honor, Glory, Might, Life—and that we should not be anxious about clothing and food." (Mathetes to Diognetus, 9)

          -In essence, penal substitutionary atonement revolves around the idea that Christ, who is sinless and righteous, took upon Himself the punishment that was due to humanity for their sins. This passage speaks to that notion by emphasizing the "sweetest exchange" where the "holy one" is given for the "unjust," highlighting the sacrificial act where the sinless Christ endures the penalty that humanity deserves.
          -The above cited paragraph also reflects on God's forbearance and mercy, stressing that God, in his overflowing love, does not hate or drive humanity away despite their unrighteousness. Instead, he takes up their burden, offering his own Son as a ransom. This directly ties into the concept of penal substitution. Christ pays the penalty on behalf of humanity, so their sins are covered by His righteousness.
          -Finally, it touches upon the transformative aspect of this atonement. The Righteous One justifies the many sinners, illustrating the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice. This transformation is profound: those who are powerless are saved, not by their own merit but by the Savior's power, reinforcing the complete dependence on divine grace.

• The Biblical Basis For The Theory Of Vicarious Atonement: 

           -Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ being "pierced" for our transgressions and "crushed" for our iniquities. Romans 3:25-26 says that the atonement of Christ is the way that God can forgive our sins without compromising His holiness. Texts such as Romans 4:25 and 1 Corinthians 15:3 speak of Christ dying on our behalf for sin. Ephesians 5:2 employs rich sacrificial imagery to communicate the same idea. 1 Peter 2:24 speaks of the wounds of Christ as being the cause of our sins being forgiven.

          -Consider how Abraham ended up offering a ram as a sacrifice to God instead of his son Isaac (Genesis 22:13). An animal was offered in the place of Abraham's son. This typology reveals the relationship between the application of the work of Christ and the sinner.
          -Jesus Christ made the propitiatory sacrifice to satisfy God's wrath, which occurred as a result of us breaking His Law. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins. His sacrifice is a legal act. It reconciles those who believe to God, who is holy. Christ is our advocate before the Father.

• What Is Justification?: 

          -God declares a sinner to be righteous on the basis of faith (Romans 4:1-11; 5:1). This status has been accorded to us apart from our actions. It is done apart from meritorious works. Justification is an undeserved, free gift of God (Galatians 2:16-21).

• When Is One Justified?: 

          -A person is justified the moment that he first believes. Christians are saved from eternal condemnation and spiritual death the instant that they place their trust in God and His work. Thus, justification is not a process, but a one time event (Luke 18:14; John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Acts 13:38-39; 1 John 3:14). In this sense, salvation can rightly be spoken of as a done deal.

• What Is Sanctification?: 

          -This is the process of being set apart for God's work and being confirmed to the image of Christ. We contribute to sanctification through human efforts and through the Holy Spirit's power (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 9:13-14).

          -This process occurs after justification and ends at the moment of physical death. Only after our sins are forgiven can we begin to lead a holy life. The ongoing process of sanctification is about growing in holiness, not re-earning salvation or forgiveness.
          -To sanctify means to be set apart for holy use (1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:9-11). We are called for the purpose of sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:7) and are therefore expected to act in a holy manner (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26).
          -Even if we do not live a perfect life, we are still justified. There may be times in life where believers may stumble into sin, but they turn themselves to God in repentance and keep moving forward in their spiritual walk.
          -So, while we are more holy at the end of our life than the beginning, we will never be perfectly holy until we are in heaven. As long as we are on this earth, we still exist in fallen human nature. In Jesus Christ, God sees us as without blemish because we are covered in His blood.

• What Is Glorification?: 

          -This is the end of the sanctification process and takes place when we get to heaven (1 John 3:2; Ephesians 3:15; Philippians 3:20-21). The agent of glorification is the Holy Spirit. We are then in an eternal state and have been fully perfected in our nature.

• On The Three "Tenses" Of Salvation:

          -The New Testament uses three tenses in describing salvation. The initial tense simply involves God pardoning the iniquity of the sinner. Christians are no longer under the penalty of sin. That is justification. The ongoing tense involves being conformed gradually to character of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is sanctification. The future tense involves being utterly taken away from the presence of sin in heaven. That is glorification.

• Confusing Justification With Sanctification:

          -Certain professing Christian groups, such as the Mormons and International Churches of Christ, teach that a person is not justified until the final Day of Judgment when their works are evaluated, determining their worthiness of a place with God in heaven. These groups blur the lines between justification and sanctification, treating them as one and the same. This theology results in a works-based salvation, allowing humans to boast before God.

• Labeling Justification As A Process Is Highly Illogical:

          -The idea of justification being a process makes no logical sense. How would it work? The notion of being "a little justified now" or "more or less justified tomorrow" is absurd. If we are guilty in God's eyes, then we face His divine wrath and eternal condemnation in hell. We cannot be simultaneously justified (and thus going to heaven) and unjustified (and thus heading to hell). We are either justified or not at all.
          -The false notion that justification is a "process" amounts to a works-based system of righteousness, where, at the moment of physical death, God would tally our deeds to decide if we have performed enough good works to earn entrance into heaven. This is not a valid theological definition of justification. Such a description only outlines a process (with an unknown name) leading up to justification.