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). J.N. Darby's translation of the Bible has this excerpt on the meaning of the words holy and pure in Hebrews 7:26:

        "There are two Greek words used for 'holy' in the New Testament -- hagios and hosios (hosios is used in this passage). The word most commonly used is hagios (corresponding to the Hebrew word kadosh). This, when applied to God, designates him as holy, knowing good and evil perfectly, and absolutely willing good and no evil. When applied to men, it designates them as separated, set apart to God from evil and from common use. The corresponding verb is commonly translated 'to sanctify;' and the word when used as a substantive is the ordinary word for 'saints.' The word hosios, on the other hand, conveys the thought of pious, that which is not profane. It speaks of God in mercy and grace, and of Christ, in whom all gracious qualities are concentrated, as well as perfect piety. It corresponds to the Hebrew chesed, of which the plural (chasadim) is the word translated 'mercies' or 'sure mercies' in the Old Testament. When applied to men, it is in general the sum of qualities which suit and form the divine character in man, as opposed to the human will. It refers to the exercise of gracious suitable affections in the relationships in which we are to God, and (e.g.) to parents. Hence, as suitable affections to God practically constitute holiness, the word is used in this sense for holy. The two Hebrew words are used side by side in Ps. 89.18,19, 'The Holy One (kadosh) of Israel is our king. ... Then thou spakest in vision to thy Holy One (Chasid).' The beginning of the Psalm speaks of the mercies or gracious ways (chasadim) of the Lord. (See, for hosios, Acts 2.27; 13.34, 35; 1 Tim. 2.8; Tit. 1.8; Rev. 15.4; 16.5)."

          The Greek words and their Hebrew counterparts have related shades of meaning that are determined by the way they are used in context. By that, it is meant that the difference lies in how they are applied or to whom. Christ is the showcase of God's love for sinners. He is the physical expression of God's mercy and longsuffering. Both mercy and truth intersect in Christ. He not only had perfect outward obedience, but did everything without evil thoughts. The Mosaic system was brought to a close in Christ.

         The Old Testament 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.

        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 implies 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 any divine attributes.

• Biblical Texts That Explicitly Call Jesus God:

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

            *The Greek of John 20:28 literally reads, "The Lord of me and the God of me."
            *If Thomas was speaking blasphemy, then why did Christ not rebuke him for saying what he did? Instead, Thomas' profession of Jesus' identity as God was accepted (John 20:29).

          -"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 subject (Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31). Thus, he uses "God blessed forever" to describe Jesus.

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

            *The Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of His claims to 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 A Doctrine Such As 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 decades, churches have been divided over the issue of the functions of women in ministry. In other words, there are varying points of view as to whether Scripture permits women to serve in ordained, authoritative positions of the church. Even if they can, the question remains for what offices or to what extent. Is it appropriate for a woman be a pastor in God's church? For illustrative purposes, note that some congregations have only male deacons while others allow for deaconesses. Although Christians will not be disqualified by God from salvation for attending a church with female pastors, it is not something to be ignored or overlooked. Such may be symptomatic of a church seeking to be politically correct. It may be indicative of being influenced by feminism. 

• Paul's List Of Qualifications For Those Seeking To Become Elders Or Deacons Makes The Most Sense Within A Framework Of Male Only Leadership: 

          -The New Testament plainly tells us that appointed ministers of the church are to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:1; Titus 1:5-9). These passages discuss other characteristics of appointed men such as not being alcoholics, greedy, selfish, foul-mouthed, and being responsible in general. Scripture provides a thorough list of stipulations for men who desire to take on the obligations of a bishop or deacon. We are told what morals these individuals must uphold and how they must conduct themselves in order to qualify for a position of leadership. These men are to set the primary example of godliness for others to follow. However, Scripture does not apply this list of qualifications for female pastors or deacons. We know that these passages address men because they say, "the husband of one wife." Scripture affirms heterosexual marriage. These passages are silent about female bishops, elders, or pastors (these terms have a synonymous meaning in biblical usage).

• On The Interpretation Of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 And 1 Timothy 2:10-15:

          -The church authority structure pointedly rules out women from exercising spiritual authority over men. This principle does not in any way pertain to the political, social, or economic categories of the secular world, but specifically in the context of church leadership. Male headship in the church is grounded on the order of the creation of human beings and how sin entered the world, as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Adam was created before Eve. He is the federal representative of mankind. Therefore, all humanity falls in Adam (Romans 5). The grounding in creation gives Paul's reasoning a universal application. He affirms that what he is writing is the "Lord's commandment" (1 Corinthians 14:37). When the apostle says that women should remain silent in churches, he means they should not be interruptive but peaceful and orderly. We can infer that Paul did not advocate for the silence of women at all times because he mentioned elsewhere them praying and prophesying in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5). Interestingly, all twelve apostles were men. 

• Outlining The Function Of Women In Ministry:

          -Generally speaking, women excel in areas pertaining to hospitality, instruction, and support. They are not restricted from occupying gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women are neither forbidden from educating children nor from exhorting other women to remain in the truth (Titus 2:3-4). They, just like men, have been called to demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), contend for the faith (1 Peter 3:15), and to proclaim the Gospel of Salvation to the lost world (Matthew 28:18-20). 

          -Some women were direct witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, even when other disciples went into hiding (Matthew 27:55; John 19:25). Moreover, the Apostle Paul acknowledged individual women for their work in ministry and even addressed some as "co-workers" (Romans 16:1; 6-7; Colossians 4:15; Philippians 4:2-3). Scripture is not in any way sexist, biased in favor of one specific gender over the other. The accomplishments of women ought to be acknowledged accordingly.

A Case For The Resurrection Of Christ

         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 playing head games to deceive them. This fact provides us with foundational grounds to embrace the story of His resurrection. 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)

        We have testimony of the resurrection from female disciples recorded in the four gospels. This is significant because the Greco-Roman world viewed woman as having a lower social status. They were thus considered less credible in presenting testimony. This would have made the male disciples of Jesus appear foolish to others. This is not characteristic of a forgery.

        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 do not doubt biographies if they are carefully written. In fact, the New Testament itself records people having doubt about the resurrection of Christ.

        1 Corinthians contains an oral creed uttered by the Apostle Paul that even most 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 gospel message has been preserved through the centuries. This counts as a 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. The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow, has this excerpt on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:

         "The present passage is the oldest account of the appearances of the risen Lord, written years before any of our Gospels, and only about twenty-five years after the events, while hundreds of witnesses were still living. It is thus a most valuable piece of evidence as to the certainty of our Lord’s Resurrection, which would remain firmly attested even if the authenticity of our Gospels were denied."

         Why are there no accounts from non-believing sources attesting to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? This should not really be surprising to us. If any person did report on such an event and said that it had happened, it would mean that he believes that the resurrection actually occurred. Only Christians would say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave is a real thing. Robert C. Newman gives perspective on how ancient unbelievers 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.)

        Another support for the resurrection is the incredible life transformation of the disciples of Jesus Christ. The New Testament records the disciples as being cowards who did not want to suffer any 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 or she knows to be a lie? The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary has this excerpt:

        "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 is a powerful support of His resurrection because the Jewish and Roman authorities failed to produce a corpse, which would have permanently terminated this 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. 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."

        Are the four gospels legends or historical narrative? 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 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. It is better reserved for adults.

• Baptismal Regeneration:

          -Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various denominations within Protestantism 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, other passages explicitly state that justification before God is by faith alone and not by works, reinforcing that we cannot earn a right standing with Him in that way (e.g., Romans 3:20-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:4-9; Galatians 2:21).

           *To add baptism (or any other ritual) as an additional 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 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/