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.

• 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" equates 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.

What Does The Bible Say About Consuming Wine?

• All Food And Drink Has Been Declared Clean By God:

          -Issues pertaining to food and drink are of tertiary importance according to New Testament teaching (Romans 14:1-14). These were all given to us by God so as to nourish our physical bodies. They are, therefore, to be received with gladness and thanksgiving.
          -If we are going to view professing Christians who dogmatically condemn the consumption of certain meats as being legalistic, then the same must also be true of those who dogmatically oppose the consumption of wine under any circumstances. Anything can be misused and abused.

          -Just as consuming too much of any food is morally wrong, the same is equally true with wine or any other drink. Addictions are sin, which includes alcoholism (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21). Becoming an alcoholic can be fatal and ruins good morals.
          -We should take measures to prevent becoming a stumbling block to fellow brethren in the church (Romans 14:15-21). Moreover, there is nothing wrong with refusing to drink wine for the sake of conscience.

• Should Churches Use Wine Or Grape Juice In Communion?:

          -Either wine or grape juice is acceptable for use in communion, since both are derived from the same source: grapes (Matthew 26:26-29). The Mishna's Seder spoke of the "fruit of the vine" as intoxicating wine.
          -The juice extracted from the grapes is a part of God's creation. So is the fermentation process of that juice. All things created by God are to be received with thanksgiving because they are good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4).
          -The ultimate question that needs to be answered is not whether the contents of the communion cup are grape juice or wine. Rather, are we as individuals partaking of that cup in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)?

• Drinking Wine Is Acceptable By Biblical Standards:

          -Jesus Christ Himself turned water into wine during the wedding feast at Cana (John 2). If the act of drinking wine in and of itself is sinful, then Jesus would be sinful just like we are and thus disqualified from redeeming us from sin.

          -The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to drink some wine to help with his frequent stomach illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23). It served for medicinal purposes. The biblical view of wine is that it has been given to us by God as a gift to enjoy (Psalm 104:14-15; Ecclesiastes 9:7).

          -Wine in biblical times was generally consumed by the wealthier members of society. This accounts for the warnings to kings against being addicted to such beverages in Proverbs.
          -The only group of people whom God forbade (in the Old Testament) from consuming alcoholic wine were those who took the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21).

• Is The Greek "Oinos" To Be Translated As Wine Or Grape Juice?:

          -It is obvious that this term carries with it connotations of intoxicating drink. This accounts for biblical texts that warn against drunkenness. The Jewish Encyclopedia says the following, "There were different kinds of wine. "Yayin" was the ordinary matured, fermented wine, "tirosh" was a new wine, and "shekar" was an old, powerful wine ("strong drink"). The red wine was the better and stronger (Ps. lxxv. 9 [A. V. 8]; Prov. xxiii. 31). Perhaps the wine of Helbon (Ezek. xxvii. 18) and the wine of Lebanon (Hos. xiv. 7) were white wines. The vines of Hebron were noted for their large clustersof grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Samaria was the center of vineyards (Jer. xxxi. 5; Micah i. 6), and the Ephraimites were heavy wine-drinkers (Isa. xxviii. 1). There were also "yayin ha-reḳaḥ" (spiced wine; Cant. viii. 2), "ashishah" (hardened sirup of grapes), "shemarim (wine-dregs), and "ḥomeẓ yayin" (vinegar). Some wines were mixed with poisonous substances ("yayin tar'elah"; Ps. lx. 5; comp. lxxv.9, "mesek" [mixture]). The "wine of the condemned" ("yen 'anushim") is wine paid as a forfeit (Amos ii. 8), and "wine of violence" (Prov. iv. 17) is wine obtained by illegal means."

Does Ezekiel 37:19 Prophecy The Coming Of The Book Of Mormon?

          "Ezekiel saw in vision [Ezekiel 37:19] the coming together of the stick of Judah, and the stick of Joseph, signifying the Bible and the Book of Mormon...The Nephites were then of the tribes of Joseph, and their record or 'stick' is as truly represented by the Book of Mormon as is the 'stick' of Judah by the Bible." (The Articles Of Faith, p. 276, James E. Talmage)

          Citing Ezekiel 37:19 is ineffectual to serve the purposes of the Mormons. The passage itself is simply too vague. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses could appeal to this text to make the same argument in favor of the Watchtower Society and its magazine publications. Any group of people could appeal to this passage in the way that Mormons have done to support their claims.

          The only thing that Ezekiel recorded on to the stick was the phrase, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." (Ezekiel 37:16) That was all that God had told Ezekiel to write on the stick. Therefore, Mormons are wrong when they assert that the Book of Mormon was what was written on the stick by the prophet.

          In context, the Jewish people asked Ezekiel, ‘Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?’ (Ezekiel 37:18). The joining of the two sticks represents the divided state of Israel. The northern kingdoms and the southern kingdoms constitute the nation of Judah. It is about them being reunited again (Ezekiel 37:21-22). The two sticks represent the union of two kingdoms, not two different religious books.

          Mormons impose 19th-century religious ideas onto an ancient Hebrew prophecy without historical or linguistic evidence. Further, the passage's original context pertains to the reunification of Israel's divided tribes, with no reference to religious texts or future scripture. This interpretive leap, therefore, undermines the legitimacy and historical accuracy of using Ezekiel's prophecy to validate the Book of Mormon.

When America Saved Europe From Islam

"Thomas Jefferson fought back, and ended Moslem piracy in Europe. It was the first time America saved Europe militarily, and no one seems to remember, least of all the Europeans. Although our people don’t remember, they do speak about it whenever they sing or hear the first words of the Marine Corps Anthem: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land and on the sea….” Why don’t we teach our children about the wars these words refer to?"

Patrick Michael Murphy, “How the West Was Lost,” p. 203

Do Church Divisions Invalidate Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Private interpretation of Scripture is the concept of a person using his own reasoning to make a judgment as to the meaning of various passages from the Bible. It is a more individualistic approach to determining what Scripture means. Roman Catholic apologists insist that we absolutely must have their leaders infallibly interpret the Scriptures for us in order to preserve unity and truth. Thus, Rome claims its purpose is to prevent division throughout Christendom.

          -Sola Ecclesia is the Latin term that describes the Roman Catholic belief that the church, not Scripture, is the final authority in religious matters. The Church of Rome touts itself to be the infallible, true church established by Jesus Christ who appointed the Apostle Peter as its first pope. Thus, Rome demands from its members complete and unquestioned submission to its authority.
          -Consequently, the Church of Rome claims that Christians who rely on the Bible alone for teaching and correcting doctrinal error rather than the Magisterium will inevitably end up in a state of hopeless confusion. Irreconcilable doctrinal contradictions will exist for which there is no remedy. No one can know anything for sure because no one is infallible. Thus, Scripture is not to be examined by itself, but must be unpacked by an earthly organization.

          -The claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is essentially the same as saying that the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand. Both ideas use the same logic in their premises in order to reach the same conclusion. If the basic message of Scripture is clear enough for us to understand on our own, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? If Christ entrusted the preservation of His teaching to an infallible office, then why do we even have a Bible? This is essentially an attack on the reliability of human reason and the ability of the mind to recognize what truth is.

          -"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")

          - "Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture? A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written." (Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Michael Müller)

          -“...the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

• Biblical Evidence For The Perspicuity Of Scripture:

          -King Josiah came to repentance as a result of the Book of the Law being found in the temple and him reading its words (2 Kings 22:8-13). He did this on his own apart from an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Psalm 119:97-105 speaks of acquiring more wisdom than even teachers and elders after meditating upon the words of the Law. Paul states that we can understand the revelation of the gospel just by reading his epistle (Ephesians 3:3-5). He also said that the apostles did not write things his audience could not read or understand (2 Corinthians 1:13-14). 

          -With the exception of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, all of the New Testament epistles were written to Christians in general (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philemon 1:1-2; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; James 1:1-2; Revelation 1:3-4).
          -Calls to read and obey Scripture presuppose that we can understand what it says on our own (Acts 17:11; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).
          -The common people understood the teachings of Jesus Christ apart from an infallible interpreter of His words (Matthew 11:25; 13:51; Mark 12:37). There was never such a person sitting next to Him when He was teaching in front of the crowds. He oftentimes attracted the poor and uneducated. The point is that anyone with a humble and prayerful heart can understand what God desires for us, apart from a complex church hierarchy.

• We Cannot Understand Scripture Unless Someone Explains It To Us (Acts 8:28-38)?:

          -There are people with authority to teach in the church. In fact, the doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally clear or easy to understand. We may very well need things explained to us at times. However, this text says nothing about the concept of teaching infallibly or that only an infallible interpretation of Scripture would suffice for the confused Eunuch.
          -The Eunuch was from far away (i.e. Ethiopia), and he had apparently not been given a chance to hear about the teachings of the gospel. Philip, who was at the right place at the right time by the power of the Holy Spirit, was given the opportunity to explain Isaiah 53. The Eunuch was confused simply because he did not know who the prophet Isaiah was referring to (v. 34). The gospel was not spread out back in the day, as it is today. That is what this text is about.

• No Prophecy Of Scripture Is Of Any Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?:

          -How can a person develop a biblical argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura by making a personal interpretation of a verse that allegedly condemns private interpretation of Scripture?
          -How can a person rely on prophecy or compare Scripture to a "light" (v. 19), if they have been forbidden to use it (v. 20)?
          -The context of 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one's reading of Scripture, but rather concerns the origin of Scripture. No true prophecy was given to the prophet by his own interpretation. Prophecy originated directly from God. It is not a product of our imaginations.

• People Twisting The Scriptures To Their Own Destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16)?:

          -First of all, this text only states that SOME things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. It does not even specify which parts those are. This simply means that we need to pray and study Scripture more diligently.

          -This text says that people "twist the Scriptures to THEIR OWN destruction" (v. 16, emphasis added), which indicates that we are responsible for how we handle the Word of God.
          -2 Peter 3:15-16 is only speaking of the unfaithful and the unbelieving, not the humble and prayerful Christian.
          -Although the context of 2 Peter 3 would have been a great place to introduce the concept of an infallible teaching authority, it is not mentioned at all.

• Do We Need Some Special Authority In Order To Make Interpretations Of Scripture?:

          -Interpreting Scripture is not so much a matter of personal authority, but rather something God expects us to do. This does not mean that ministers in local congregations have no special authority to teach. It would also not be correct to say that church authority has no limits at all. Scripture is clear enough for readers to obtain truths related to salvation and godliness.

          -God does not require that we understand Him infallibly, since we are but finite creations. We can have sufficient certainty behind the meaning of Scripture. This is not to suggest that we can interpret the Scriptures in any way that we desire. We should examine Scripture in its proper context, use our common sense, consult commentaries, etc.

• Deliberations On Religious Division:

          -Jesus Christ desires unity in the church. His will is that we be one in the Spirit. Christ despises factions amongst His people. Such is an indicator of carnality. Since truth is of utmost importance, it ought to be sought after and protected at all costs. However, we are imperfect beings, and things are not always clearly defined in Scripture. Divisions have existed in the church since the time Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians.

          -There are scenarios in which division is necessary: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Unity in and of itself does not guarantee truth or preservation of the gospel. Even if an infallible interpreter of Scripture made matters easier, that does not mean God has given us one. Further, that our interpretations are not infallible does not mean that they are always wrong or wrong even most of the time.

          -In a society with millions of people where freedom of speech and freedom of religion exists, there will inevitably be diversity in beliefs. That is simply a logical consequence of being in a free society. In order to obtain the institutionalized unity that Rome requires, there would have to be coercion, threats, and intimidation involved. Otherwise, it is not humanly possible to obtain. Nor was it ever something taught by Christ or His apostles.

          -Essential doctrines that are clearly and repeatedly defined in Scripture would include the virgin birth, sinlessness of Christ, deity of Christ, the veracity of His miracles, the sinfulness of man, and other things. Doctrines that are of secondary importance (i.e. not issues that we should break fellowship over or refuse to acknowledge another as a brother in Christ) would include women's head coverings, musical instruments in church, eschatology, modes of baptism, etc. 

• Is Roman Catholicism A Theologically Divided Body?:

          -While the Church of Rome may appear to be fairly unified because it is organized under the headship of the pope, the unity in which Catholics appeal to is largely imaginary. It is misleading, for there are significant theological differences among the Catholic laity, priests, scholars, theologians, and bishops. There are societies, movements, and orders forming within the chambers of Roman Catholicism. There are liberal and conservative Catholics. Although these divisions are hidden under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, differences still exist and are significant.
          -Many Roman Catholics are unlearned in regards to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Many flatly contradict official teachings on issues such as abortion, artificial birth control, the death penalty, homosexuality, on whether priests should be married, letting females join the priesthood, stem-cell research, and more. Roman Catholics are in a state of division over additional issues such as creation verses evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, charismatic occurrences, whether practicing Jews and Muslims can be saved without conversion, and whether Mary is the co-redemptrix. Catholic theologians are even divided over the interpretation of Vatican II documents.
          -Roman Catholicism is a group that is lead by a single human leader and occupies the same title all throughout its domain (i.e. "Roman Catholic"), whereas Protestantism is made up of individual churches with different labels. Protestantism is not an ecclesiastical structure like Rome. So it is misleading to compare both systems in this regard. The principle of Sola Scriptura was never intended to bring about an institutionalized form of unity. We are to have a sense of genuine love and fellowship toward each other, despite our differences.

• Refuting The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Myth:

          -Scott Eric Alt, at the National Catholic Register, said in regard to the claim that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations: “There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”…How­ever strong the temp­ta­tion some may have to char­ac­ter­ize any­thing not Catholic or Ortho­dox as “Protes­tant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protes­tant apol­o­gists is that you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, or what its dis­tinc­tives are—and they would be right. And why would they take any­thing you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, who are you to be talk­ing about its errors? Not only are Mor­mons, Jehovah’s Wit­nesses, One­ness Pen­te­costals, Uni­tar­i­ans, Pros­per­ity Gospel believ­ers (included among 23,600 Inde­pen­dents and Mar­gin­als) not Protes­tant, they are not even Chris­t­ian; they adhere to a false Chris­tol­ogy. Protes­tants and Catholics are in agree­ment about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.”

Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists depict belief in the existence of God as being nothing but a filler for things that science as of yet has been unable to answer. This objection to the idea of a higher power operates on the premise that it has been assumed on a priori basis the necessity of God's existence in all matters for which we currently posses inadequate knowledge. Science itself will be able to account for all things satisfactorily in the long run. However, there remains intelligent and reasonable arguments for the existence of God, which amount to more than simply assuming things based on incomplete data. They are not appeals to silence or based on a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, they are based on inferences from foundational observations rooted firmly in science. Further, they are made in accordance with principles of elementary logic. More specifically, many of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. Philosophical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. Therefore, it is not all that exists. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions are not assumed but automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in various arguments for the existence of God is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. Biological structures have a degree of complexity that appears to have been designed. These are scientific facts, which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

          The secularism of today's scientific landscape is the polar opposite of what the learned men who came to the Americas from Europe upheld. The latter were primarily Puritans who held that God orchestrated world history in such a way, that He dictated the outcome of even the smallest occurrences. The uncovering of scientific laws seemed to contradict this view of divine sovereignty, opening the door to a view of God who is more distant and uninvolved with creation. The idea of a watchmaker who winds up a clock and lets it unwind fully illustrates this perception. The radical approach to science taken by the Puritans has since been thoroughly discredited, helping to lay the ideological groundwork for the world of science that exists today.

           

           A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are to be focused on truth. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations with the intent of ruling out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions, does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel all foundational questions which shape reality as we understand it.

A Biblical Theology Of Marriage And Divorce

        "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

        People committed to matrimony are, in ideal circumstances, to remain united for the remainder of their earthly lives. Exceptions to this rule would include the passing of a spouse (Romans 7:2-3), desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:14-15), marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), and spousal abuse. If one of these conditions is met, then one is free to seek after a new spouse. It is within the framework of marriage that a man exercises his conjugal prerogatives (Genesis 1:28). It is within that context man discovers for himself a unique kind of love and companionship (Genesis 2:18). Spiros Zodhiates wrote that:

        "Biblical love is based on the spiritual relationship between a man and a woman before any relationship of the flesh. They who are spiritually joined together become one flesh that never separates. They who are attracted only by the physical appearance constantly live in the temptation of seeing someone else who many be more attractive. The possibility of steadfastness in a marriage that is based on looks and mere sexual satisfaction is very small indeed compared to the spiritual relationship based on agape, love that seeks not self-satisfaction primarily, but meeting the need of one’s partner. The satisfaction of meeting the need of another is far greater than the satisfaction of selfish procurement." (What About Divorce?, p. 72-73)

        In Romans 7:2-3, Paul explains that a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. However, if he dies, she is free to remarry without being guilty of adultery. This analogy is used to illustrate that believers are released from the Law's binding power through Christ's death, just as a widow is freed from her marital bond upon her husband's death. Therefore, the passage indicates that it is permissible for a widow to remarry, aligning with the broader theological point that Christians are freed from the Law's condemnation through their union with Christ. 

        In 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, Paul addresses the situation of believers married to unbelievers. He explains that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through their believing partner, which means their children are also under a godly influence. However, if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the marriage, the believer is not bound in such circumstances and is free to let them go. This passage underscores that while a mixed-faith marriage can have a sanctifying effect on the family, the believer is not obligated to remain in the marriage if the unbelieving spouse departs. The Christian is thus granted freedom in such situations.

        In Matthew 19:9, Jesus states that anyone who divorces their spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. This verse allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality, suggesting that remarriage is not adulterous in such circumstances. The passage highlights the sanctity and permanence of marriage, permitting divorce only in specific, severe cases. The exception clause suggests that while marriage is intended to be permanent, severe breaches like infidelity justify dissolution and subsequent remarriage.

        In the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time, Jewish law allowed for divorce on the grounds of serious marital unfaithfulness, such as adultery. This broader understanding of "porneia" included various forms of sexual immorality, which suggests that Jesus' audience would have interpreted His exception clause in Matthew 19:9 as permitting divorce in cases of adultery. Further, different Jewish sects had varied interpretations of permissible grounds for divorce, indicating a less rigid approach than the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage. Thus, the view of "porneia" as solely referring to unlawful marriages does not fully align with the broader and more flexible understanding prevalent during Jesus' era.

        Marriage is intended to be the life-long dedication of one to a partner of the opposite sex. Thus, adultery is wrong for obvious reasons. It involves lying in that the promise of fidelity gets broken and unfair in that the wronged spouse is robbed of due benevolence. Adultery turns what was intended to be a permanent vow right on its own head. If fornication and adultery are morally permissible, then that undermines the purpose for which marriage exists. 

        As for eliminating temptation, that cannot be done perfectly because human nature is fallen and said proclivities will creep up on us from time to time. The best way to dampen down temptation is to identify with certainty its source and find ways to permanently remove or avoid it. Jesus Christ specifically taught that lusting is equivalent to actually committing adultery and fornication (Matthew 5:28-29). It is a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5). However, being physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex is not wrong in and of itself. We were biologically hardwired to be that way.

        God absolutely despises divorce (Malachi 2:16). He regards it as evidence of faithlessness. Divorce was not a part of His original order of things. God only tolerated the termination of marriages because the hearts of men are hard (Matthew 19:8-9). He knew that our relationships could go sour. Therefore, if it be at all possible, it is best for arguing couples to seek reconciliation. That may entail a degree of compromise in either one or both parties. For instance, wives and children should never be placed into a situation that leaves them without sustenance to provide for their needs. Every situation is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

        In order for a marriage to be successful, both partners must agree to fulfill the obligations that have been assigned to them by God. There has to be necessary conditions for the husband and wife to abide by, for households cannot stand in a state of contention. Further, one person cannot realistically be expected to complete a job which requires working with other people. Marriage involves personal accountability. It is based on commitment of the spouses to each other. The underlying principle of marriage is self-sacrifice.

         Wives play a foundational role in the raising of their children (Titus 2:4-5; 1 Timothy 2:15; 5:14). They are free to take on other responsibilities, as long as the duties of husbands are not interfered with. The man is supposed to show loving leadership over his family and provide for it (1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 5:25). The position of the husband is not one of giving orders, but involves a greater sense of personal responsibility. Marriage is the sharing of a mutual goal, a romantic partnership. It represents the different responsibilities that both leading figures of the family have and what they owe each other.

        Marriage was instituted by God, so He has complete authority over it. Divorce could actually be seen as a grace in that it exists when no potential remedies work. This kind of a decision should never be taken lightly and only in sorrow. The best thing to do is marry somebody who shares a similar worldview. Even a person who claims to be a Christian may be a bad candidate for marriage (Matthew 7:21). Some people may have to wait a long time before finally getting married, like Isaac who was forty before he got married (Genesis 25:20). In fact, a person does not have to get married if he does not want to. Even Christ spoke of the celibate (Matthew 19:11-12).

Are All Sins Equal In Severity?

        It is true that all sins are worthy of condemnation because they are a violation of God's Law (Romans 6:23). All of them are unrighteous. All of them are an offense to God because they go against His very nature, which is holy. Any and all sin is sufficient to stop one from becoming a partaker in His kingdom. All sin can accurately be spoken of as mortal before Him. It is also true, however, that any and all sin can be forgiven because of Christ's work on the cross (Romans 5:20). The depths of His grace is deeper than the worst that we can do.

        God's Law does not exist outside Himself as do human laws to judges. It exhibits perfectly who He is in terms of His righteous and just qualities. God is the perfect moral standard of righteousness (Genesis 18:25). Sin, therefore, is not merely in opposition to some principle, but to God Himself. He is not changeable like human theories and rules. Sin merits eternal separation and death because He is holy, impartial, and equitable. It is an offense against God on a personal level. Sin goes against everything that He is.

        Some sins are indeed greater in severity than others (John 19:11; 1 John 5:15-17). That means God judges some with more harshness than others based on what they did during this life, while exercising mercy accordingly. He judges in a way that is both rigid and flexible. Ezekiel 8 speaks of certain acts as being more detestable to Him than others. There are different levels of severity in punishment for those in hell (Matthew 23:14; Luke 10:7-12; 12:47-48). God judges those who have greater knowledge of His truth more harshly (Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1-2). This should foster in us a deeper understanding of the gravity of various actions and the need for sincere repentance.

        That homosexual behavior, adultery, and bestiality were considered capital crimes in Israel shows God does indeed see some sins as more heinous than others in terms of earthly consequences. Unintentional sins could be atoned for in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 4). The former types of sin were more grievous to God because they involve full consent in doing them. Thus, it can be said that He looks at people's motives, circumstances, and their ability to understand propositions in judging them. God is just in executing judgment.

         Some have quoted James 2:10-11 to support the notion that all sin is the same in terms of severity, but that notion is mistaken. Theft, for instance, is not said to carry the same weight of guilt and consequences as does murder. In fact, sympathy is extended to those who steal food to feed themselves (Proverbs 6:30). This passage merely says that if one commits sins such as theft and murder, then he has violated God's Law. In other words, there are multiple ways to break the Law of God. This is true even of various laws instituted by man.