A Christian Response To Transgenderism

          In today's society, much debate and perplexity has emerged over some of the most basic aspects of life. Unfortunately, some people have found themselves unable to answer questions about themselves that are foundational such as their gender identity. While the Book of Genesis presents us with the obvious framework of there being only the two genders of male and female, liberal educators, psychiatrists, and politicians believe that it is wrong for parents to be labeling their children as being boys or girls. In other words, it is being suggesting that things are not as they appear to our eyes, which defies basic logic. Thus, these people maintain that our children should be able to choose their own personal gender identities and even receive surgery on their genitalia that corresponds with such. 

          Gender is a biological reality determined by our DNA. The same elementary scientific principle regarding the determination of gender is equally applicable to our skin and hair color. We cannot alter our gender, any more than we can choose to have different skin or hair colors. Furthermore, we know that only two different gender possibilities exist because only two different pairs of genitalia exist. There are only XX (female) and XY (male) genes. God has given us these bodily designs for the sake of human procreation. If transgenderism is to be accepted as normal and valid, then why not also choose to identify as two or three persons? Can a human being cease to be human? Can we identify as an age other than our date of birth? Can we claim that our weight and height do not actually correspond to what is found on a scale or stadiometer? The only thing that medical procedures can do is change the outer appearance of people.

          Any notion of common sense can exist only in an environment in which there is a common morality accepted. Ever since the existence of objective moral truths has been denied, Western culture has degenerated exponentially. Although any amount of conditioning through physical, psychological, or sexual abuse may cause a person to experience confusion regarding his gender, such struggles can be overcome through sufficient encouragement, discipline, and psychological training. We can assume, imagine, or have a desire to be a different gender, but having such mental does not change our internal genetic makeup. Our beliefs do not determine reality. An affirmation of transgenderism is an assault on the nature of truth.

          In 2016, the Obama Administration ordered public school systems to allow members of the opposite sexes to share restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Since then, other public places such as grocery stores, parks, and universities have adopted the idea of using "transgender" bathrooms. Can anybody not see the inherent moral flaws of this ideology? First of all, any pervert can claim to be any random gender. Secondly, our right to privacy has been violated. Thirdly, the innocence of our children is at an elevated risk of being corrupted. They have no understanding of the real world. And fourthly, it is evil to brainwash people into believing that they can choose to be a different gender only to be enslaved to a lifetime exposure of carcinogenic, toxic hormones. It is wrong to mutilate healthy functioning parts of the body.

          God created man in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). He also called creation "good" (Genesis 1:31), and our natural bodily design is a part of that. Scripture says that God made male and female. The dichotomy between man and woman is a foundational and unchangeable reality. If that is rejected, then any notion of reality becomes an illusion. Things are not as our senses tell us. Identity is fluid and has no fixed meaning. Romans 1:22 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Are The Religions Of Christianity And Islam Compatible?

• Introduction:

          -The Islamic religion was established during the seventh century by an Arabian merchant named Muhammad. This man claimed that the angel Gabriel repeatedly visited him for the purpose of giving him divine revelation from God. Hence, Muhammad recorded the words of Allah, the Arabic name for god which is occupied by Muslims, into the sacred religious text known to us as the Koran. He spread his new-found ideological system through brutal conquest, torture, and execution.

• Contrasting The Christian and Muslim Worldviews:

          -While both religions profess monotheism, Islam denies the biblical concept of the Trinity, which teaches that one God exists in three separate, divine Persons (Matthew 28:19-20; John 10:30 Ephesians 4:4-6). The Koran identifies the Trinity as God the Father, Mary, and Jesus Christ. If the Muslim holy book is divine revelation, then why does it misrepresent Christian doctrine?
          -While Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, is co-eternal with the Father, the Son of God, was crucified, and resurrected from the grave (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24; John 2:19-20; 20:26-28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), the religion of Islam flatly denies all of these essential Christian doctrines. Moreover, Islam teaches that Jesus was only a good moral teacher who was subordinate to the Prophet Muhammad. So it appears that the religions of Christianity and Islam are not compatible. We do not worship the same god.
          -While Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity who testifies in favor of Jesus Christ (John 14:26), Islam teaches that He is the angel Gabriel. Also, the Muslim religion calls Muhammad the "helper." It is also interesting to note that Islam affirms the virgin birth.
          -The Koran teaches that man is saved entirely on the basis of good works. Consider, for example, the mandatory completion of the Five Pillars, which are: 1. profession of Islamic faith, 2. daily prayer, 3.) almsgiving, 4. fasting during the month of Ramadan, and 5. making a pilgrimage to Mecca. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone through our faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). Scripture affirms that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Islam offers adherents no assurance of salvation, which results in them living lives of fear and anxiety. Is a life characterized by such even worth living? 
          -In Christianity, the kingdom of God is for all people who have been saved by the grace of God. It is complete, eternal unity with our divine Creator. However, to Muslims the place of paradise is a place of debauchery, that is, where all worldly desires ranging from sexual pleasure to alcoholic consumption can be fulfilled. It is believed by Muslims that they will receive seventy virgins. Islam denies original sin. So it is difficult to see how Muslims can consistently condemn evil behavior.

• Countering The Islamic Claim That The Christian Bible Has Been Lost And Corrupted:

          -How can Muslims claim that the Bible has been corrupted when their own holy book admits to the divine inspiration of the Torah (Sura 2:87), the Psalms (Sura 4:163), and the gospel (Sura 3:3-4; 5:46)? According to the Koran, the words of Allah cannot be perverted (Sura 6:34; 6:115; 10:64).

          -It follows that the Muslim claim that the Christian Bible has been lost and corrupted is false. Ironically, the Koran never even makes such a claim. But how can we embrace two sources of divine revelation that contradict each other?
          -If Muslims are going to be consistent with their own argument, then they will have to call Allah a liar. Moreover, it needs to be told who is the culprit for any alleged corruption in the Bible, where, and when this all happened. The text cannot be dismissed just because it conflicts with the Koran.

• Inconsistencies In Muslim Logic:

          -"In Surah 29:46, the Quran commands Muslims to say to Christians, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you, and our God and your God is one, and we are all Muslims to Him." Yet many Muslims say something very different to Christians. They say, "We don't believe in your book, because it's been corrupted and your God is a false god." If Muslims are commanded to say that they believe in what has been revealed to us, why do they instead say that they don't believe in the Bible, the only revelation we have? And if they're commanded to say that our God and their god is one, why do they instead say that our God is a false god?" (Excerpt taken from a tract titled "The Bible God's Word Or Not God's Word The Islamic Dilemma")

Can God Contradict Himself?

        If God is capable of contradicting Himself, then it follows that He is imperfect. He would be liable to error. He would not be much different than man himself. If God is not infinitely superior to creation in every way, then why should the pagans abandon their polytheistic worldviews and submit to Him? If God is capable of contradicting Himself, then the Judeo-Christian tradition has been built on a shaky philosophical foundation.

        First of all, it is vital to recognize that Scripture teaches God is immutable (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). His character, will, and promises are unable to be changed. God can act only in a manner that is consistent with His own nature. For example, Scripture tells us that God is unable to lie (Numbers 23:19). Therefore, God is unable to contradict Himself. Does this fact mean that God is somehow not omnipotent and omniscient? Of course not.

        The fact that God cannot contradict Himself is not proof of limitation, but rather, expresses a degree of perfection. This degree of perfection is beyond the human perception of perfection. His qualities far exceed perfection, as He is beyond the scope of all. God has no limitations or boundaries. The human mind cannot fully grasp the character of God because it is finite.

        We are unable to comprehend the fullness of His being and glory. God is perfect. He is the ultimate source of truth and goodness. His ways are righteous. Logical propositions that seem problematic to us are not so in the mind of God. Things that seem incomprehensible to the human mind are not that way to God. He can do anything that accords with His nature.

The Historical Development Of Papal Authority

• Introduction:

          -Primitive Christian churches were governed by pluralities of bishops, not by an individual head, as is the case with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It is also important to note that the New Testament uses the terms "elder" and "bishop" interchangeably. The New American Bible Revised Edition has this excerpt on Titus 1:5-9 in regard to the meaning of such terms: "This instruction on the selection and appointment of presbyters, substantially identical with that in 1 Tm 3:1–7 on a bishop, was aimed at strengthening the authority of Titus by apostolic mandate; cf. Ti 2:15. In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons." The Papal office as such was not established by Jesus Christ in the first century. 

• Examples Of Early Extra-Biblical Writings That Speak Of Pluralities Of Elders In Congregations Rather Than Being Led By A Single Man Over The Rest: 

          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (The Didache 15.1)

          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (1 Clement 42:4)

• The Benefits Of A Church Having Pluralities Of Elders:

          -The plurality of elders and the autonomy of each assembly was cemented doctrine before the end of the apostolic age. The weakness of the flesh always pursues efficiency, organization, and control in any group. God's plan for the government of the local assembly is nothing short of divine brilliance. It diffuses ambition, curtails pride, and distributes authority among the saints, with elders leading (never ruling) by example only.

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Second Century:

          -In 150 AD, a difference was made between the offices of elder and bishop. This is when individual congregations started being governed by individual bishops. One bishop began to have authority over the other bishops, like a senior pastor amongst elders. This development was gradual in other churches and is attested to by Ignatius' epistles as first appearing in Asia Minor. 

          -"Caird notes that in the latter half of the first century three events occurred that altered the character of the church: (1) the final break between Christianity and Judaism, (2) the beginning of persecution by Rome, and (3) the death of many who had been principal leaders in the early church. The death of the apostles, the crumbling of the old covenant, outbreaks of persecution, and the prevalence of heresy and false prophecy led to the rise of the monarchical bishop. Caird suggests that the vigor with which Ignatius states his case for the bishop’s role implies that this new development had been “vigorously opposed” by many in the churches. In any case, the rise of the monarchical bishop is best understood as the expedient by which the early church asserted its right to condemn divergent views in the absence of the apostles. Cf. Caird, The Apostolic Age, 141–55 (esp. pp. 141, 151-52)." (Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 21)

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Fourth Century:

          -Archbishops, who presided over a group of churches along with their respective assemblies of worship, moved up from the most prominent cities of their time. These men came to be known as the patriarchs. This excerpt from Canon Six of the Council Of Nicea shows that the Roman bishop had jurisdiction only over Rome at this point in time: "The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them." (cited by Philip Schaff)

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Mid Fifth To Late Sixth Centuries:

          -We see the five patriarchs, which were Jerusalem (officially recognized as such in the fifth century), Antioch (officially recognized as such in the first century), Rome (officially recognized as such in the first century), Constantinople (officially recognized as such in the fourth century), and Alexandria (officially recognized as such in the first century). Each patriarch governed itself. Though Rome and Constantinople were perceived as having equal authority, the Church of Rome was viewed in highest regard. Constantinople was the leading patriarch of the East. But neither of the two competing patriarchs at the time possessed universal authority over the rest of Christendom.

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Late Sixth Into The Early Seventh Centuries:

          -There was a major, final struggle between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches for the title of universal bishop. The two most powerful patriarchs fought for jurisdiction over the entire Christian church. Although Constantinople was first to appoint its head as being the universal bishop of Christianity, the Roman bishop Gregory condemned the usage of that title as being characteristic of an anti-Christ. He declared that no man, not even himself, was worthy of possessing such an title! In the end, the Church of Rome prevailed in this battle for supreme authority. Gregory's successor Boniface III reserved it for himself. Thus, we see the historic origin of the Papal office in its current organizational structure.

Sin And Temptation

        Our consciences have been designed by God to sense the dangers of presently existing temptations. They are unavoidable in this life. He has inscribed His moral precepts into our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). God has programmed our minds to recognize the difference between good and evil. Thus, our conscience is the underlying reason we instinctively feel as if temptation, by definition, is wrong. That assumes one's conscience has not been desensitized by evil. 

         Everybody experiences temptations to different degrees. Moreover, it is important for us to recognize the differences between sin and temptation. For instance, forgiveness is required for debts and trespasses. Temptation requires deliverance (Matthew 6:12-13). Jesus Christ was tempted in the same manner as we are, yet remained unblemished from the stains of sin (Hebrews 4:14-16). That is how He can sympathize with our weaknesses and failures. He was tested and shown to be faithful.

        Temptation can originate from one of three sources: Satan (Ephesians 6:11; 1 Peter 5:8), our surroundings (1 John 2:15), and our own flesh (Romans 7:18). Man has an inherent desire to entertain sinful ideas. While Satan is the ultimate source of all evil, our sinful nature works alongside him to ensnare our souls. The process of spiritual temptation begins with desire, blossoms into temptation which leads to sin, and can then lead up to spiritual death (James 1:14-15). 

         Temptation itself is not sin. After all, even Christ experienced it (Matthew 4:1-11).We know that He lived a sinless live. Temptation becomes sin when we choose to act in accordance to our sinful desires. It makes no difference whether they take place in our minds where such desires are not made manifest to others. They are not hidden from God. Christ was tempted externally, but not internally inclined to act sinfully. He does not have a sin nature.

        Worldly thoughts would include characteristics such as pride, lust, greed, and covetousness. They stem forth from our hearts and defile us (Matthew 15:11). We need to flee from temptation. That is the best thing we can do in such contexts. Temptation revolves around sin. Evil thoughts are sin. Temptation makes us want to act contrary to the commandments of God. What both sin and temptation have in common is that they can ruin our souls.

        What we need to do is replace the works of the flesh with the works of the Spirit. Despite the fact that overcoming temptation can refine our character, we need to do our best to avoid situations that will place us into a state of temptation (Romans 13:13-14). We need to distract ourselves from the sources of temptation by focusing on the promises of God. Only through Him can we have true and lasting joy, hope, peace, and fulfillment.

A Discussion On The Human Soul

• Introduction:

          -The concept of the soul has long captivated humanity, serving as the "life-principle" that formulates our understanding of existence. Often referred to as the immaterial essence that animates the physical body, the soul represents the source of all consciousness and self-awareness. This non-physical entity dictates our thoughts, aspirations, and actions — essentially shaping our character and individuality. It is within the intricate tapestry of the soul that the essence of our being is woven: our hopes, dreams, fears, and desires are manifestations of this profound, non-material core.
          -Distinguishing ourselves from the plant and animal kingdom, we recognize that the soul is what lends humanity its unique qualities: intellect, emotion, and will. These attributes not only allow for an enriched experience of life but also endow us with the capacity for critical reflection and moral judgment. The soul encapsulates the essence of our personalities, functioning as an independent entity that transcends the physical boundaries of our physical existence. It is our capacity to make choices on our own rather than reacting on the basis of stimuli. It is these factors which distinguish man from the plant and animal kingdom. They cannot be said to have a soul in the sense that we do.

• On The Origin And Nature Of The Soul:

          -The origin of the soul, as illustrated in religious texts and philosophical musings, holds that human souls are imparted directly by a divine entity, echoing the biblical narrative from Genesis 2:8 where God breathes life into humanity. This act of divine infusion not only bestows existence but crafts our spiritual identity — our very essence. While our physical bodies are composed of earthly elements—molecules and atoms derived from the natural world—our souls arise from divine craftsmanship, thus creating a duality: a physical vessel intertwined with an eternal spirit.
          -The soul's immaterial nature poses profound implications, particularly regarding scientific exploration. Traditional methods of inquiry — grounded in empirical observation and physical existence — are limited when faced with the enigmatic realm of the soul. The soul eludes scientific quantification; it exists beyond the methodologies of physical science, calling into question the very nature of reality and existence. In Hebrew thought, the term "pneuma" refers to this immaterial aspect of humanity, highlighting the intricacies of the soul as it navigates the balance between the tangible and the ethereal.
          -With its immaterial essence, the soul possesses qualities that assert its immortality. Contrary to the transient nature of physical forms, the soul is believed to transcend death, allowing for the potential continuation of consciousness beyond corporeal existence. This enduring nature evokes questions of purpose, morality, and the afterlife, with theological frameworks asserting that the soul is subject to divine trust and judgment. Luke 16:19-31 suggests an active engagement of souls beyond physical death, indicating that our journeys do not culminate with our last breath but rather evolve into an intricate interplay of spiritual continuance.

• On The Immateriality Of The Soul:

          -Central to understanding the immateriality of the soul is the human capacity for abstract thought. Unlike lower forms of consciousness, humans possess an extraordinary ability to think beyond the immediately visible world. The mind's ability to categorize and theorize illustrates that our reasoning capabilities extend into realms that cannot be tangibly touched or observed. This notion compels us to acknowledge that human cognition transcends physical constraints, fostering an affinity for philosophical inquiry, mathematical abstraction, and artistic creativity.
          -Fundamental to this discourse is the assertion of free will. Distinctive of human experience, our freedom to choose and be influenced showcases the responsiveness of our souls. Such volition denotes an agency rooted in the immaterial, as choices arise from deep introspection and emotional engagement. The process of intention — the act of deciding to take a particular course of action — offers testimony to the soul's vibrant and active presence, despite the absence of empirical validation. This unquantifiable essence underscores philosophical debates that have persisted for centuries, inviting exploration into the deeper meanings of existence, morality, and the universe's mysteries.

          -"...if life were nothing more than materials, then we'd be able to take all the materials of life-which are the same materials found in dirt-and make a living being. We cannot. There's clearly something beyond materials in life. What materialist can explain why one body is dead and another body is not dead? Both contain the same chemicals. Why is a body alive one minute and dead the next?" (Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 129)

Moral Considerations On Abortion

• Introduction:

          -From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the fact that cultural liberals are obsessed with depicting abortion as being a woman's right and a personal healthcare choice is wicked. It has been defended with religious vigor. The underlying reasoning for opposition to abortion by Christians is that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. It would be unthinkable to destroy that. 

          -The existence of controversy on this matter pertaining to the birth of children shows that our society does not value human life as it should. It is a rather distorted aspect of our culture. Tens of millions of babies throughout decades have been denied a chance at life because of the choices of their mothers. They have been robbed of a chance to reach their full potential in life.

          -The abortion movement is one of the offshoots of the feminist movement, which sought to obtain equal rights for women. Hence, this is the reason that pro-choice advocates proclaim that they want "equal rights" with men. How free can a person be to make his own choices? Can he infringe on the rights and safety of other people?

• Refuting The "My Body, My Choice" Slogan:

          -The life developing inside a womb has a different body. The fetus is a life of its own. To illustrate this point: epiphytic mushrooms extract nutrients from the trees that they grow on, yet are still distinct living organisms. So, the decision is not up to the woman to terminate that life. 

          -There are situations in which we prevent people from making decisions with their own bodies such as suicide and substance abuse. We know these things to be wrong.

          -If a baby does not have the "right" to use a woman's body for a period of nine months (it is attached to her through an umbilical cord), then why should an infant have a right to nurse on his mother, since he also depends on her for survival? Using this line of reasoning, why not perform a surgical procedure to end the lives of infants at the whim of parents?

• Arguing That Human Life Begins At The Moment Of Conception:

          -When can a fetus correctly be recognized as human life, three hours before birth? When exactly does a fetus transform into a baby? If a fetus is not a baby, then what is it? If the answer is a "glob of cells," then how come it cannot be formally recognized as being a "human," since we are also a "glob of cells?"
          -The claim that an embryo or cell in another stage of development in the womb is not a human is scientifically inaccurate. They all have DNA, 46 chromosomes, a unique blood type, brain waves, and organs that function independently of the mother's body. They all have a human nature, as further evidenced by the myriad of photos of aborted babies. 

          -The only difference between us who are fully grown and the beings found in a woman's womb is the stage of development. However, the stage of development does not determine "how human" a person is. The value of human life is not dependent on how well a human body is formed.

• What About Cases Of Rape, Incest, And When Women's Lives Are In Danger?:

          -Women who were raped by selfish men may feel violated and thus not want to possess children (or any material items) that bring back terrible memories of such occasions. Neither would families want a product of incest to be born into this world because of the possibility of a damaged reputation, various genetic health conditions, or abnormal bodily features on the baby. But these reasons do not amount to a valid rationalization of the abortion procedure because the scenarios presented still involve the murder of an innocent human being.
          -Despite the fact that perpetrators of such crimes should be penalized to the maximum extent of the law, that still does not mean that we should murder other people because we have been victimized. It is equally wrong to take somebody else's life because he not wanted by others. Children should be loved, regardless of how they were conceived. The conclusions to these kinds of arguments have been constructed entirely on selfish logical premises.

          -These pro-abortion arguments could actually be used to demean women. The implication of them is that they are weak and unable to deal with negative circumstances in life. We must set aside emotional barriers in order to make rational decisions, which are built on the proper application of moral principles.

          -In cases when the lives of mothers are in danger, every effort ought to be made to preserve both the lives of the mother and unborn child. This premise is grounded in the philosophy that all human life has value. Necessary treatments should be provided by doctors to ensure that mothers survive, even if they prove injurious to the fetus. The intention in that case is not the terminate the life of an unborn baby (as is the case with an abortion), but to save the life of the woman carrying it.

A Refutation Of Christian Mortalism (Soul Sleep)

• Introduction:

          -Soul sleep is the belief that after a person dies, his soul "sleeps" until the resurrection and final judgment. According to this theology, the souls of people who are in this condition are unaware or unconscious of the things taking place around them. As a side note, two positions on the nature of the soul would be the dichotomous (i.e. the elements of a man are body and soul) and trichotomous (i.e. the elements of a man are body, soul, and spirit) view. 

          -In the Bible, the word "sleep" is used in relation to the word "death," for a corpse indeed appears to our eyes to be sound asleep. A person's body is "sleeping" while his soul is in the location of his eternal destiny. Man is a unity, but that does not mean the elements of his being cannot be separated. The material and immaterial aspects of man are what make him who he is in his entirety.
          -We face judgment with God the moment we die (Hebrews 9:27). Hence, our fate is eternally sealed at them moment of physical death. While some people enter into the presence of God in the heaven, those who were unfaithful to Him in this life will end up in a state of eternal condemnation by God in hell (2 Thessalonians 1:8-10). References to the "soul" do not always refer to the immaterial aspects of man (Psalm 42:5; 43:5).
          -There is a temporary heaven and hell that exists until the final resurrection (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 1:18; 20:13-14). In the resurrection, each person's "sleeping" body will be "awakened." The righteous will receive perfected, permanent bodies that will be possessed for all eternity. People who are accepted into heaven after judgment will be allowed into the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1-5). Those in Hades will be thrown into the lake of sulfur and fire (Revelation 20:11-15).

• For Paul, To Be Absent From The Body Is To Be Present With The Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8):

           -Paul’s desire should not be strictly interpreted within the context of the resurrection alone, but rather as an indication of an immediate post-death experience with Christ. While Paul emphasizes the resurrection, his groaning to be clothed rather than found naked does not reject an intermediate conscious state. It simply highlights his hope for the final, glorified state. This does not negate a post-death consciousness, but rather expresses a preference for complete, glorified existence. Therefore, Paul's teaching in this passage supports the concept of an intermediate conscious state. It emphasizes the ultimate hope of bodily resurrection.

• For Paul, It Is Better To Depart From This World To Be With Christ (Philippians 1:23):

          -Philippians 1:21-24 provides critical insights that counter the soul sleep theory. In verse 21, Paul states, "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain," implying the gain of immediate presence with Christ post-mortem. Verse 23 furthers this, where Paul expresses his desire to "depart and be with Christ," indicating an active and conscious existence with Christ immediately upon death. The Greek word "analuo" (depart) often denotes a swift transition, underscoring that there’s no intermediate state of unconsciousness. This passage suggests a continuous, conscious fellowship with Christ, refuting the soul sleep notion that posits a dormant soul awaiting resurrection.

• The parable of the rich man and Lazarus clearly reveals to us that souls will not cease to be conscious in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-31):

          -The references to the "finger" and "tongue" of the rich man in this passage are obviously figurative, since the mentioned individuals are disembodied spirits. The punishment for the rich man and bliss of Lazarus are still very much real. Much concerning the spiritual realm remains a mystery to we who are alive on this earth.

• Physically dead tribulation martyrs were fully conscious in heaven (Revelation 6:9-11; 7:9-17):

          -While Revelation contains symbolic elements, not every passage must be interpreted symbolically. The souls under the altar signify awareness after death, reflecting divine justice for martyrs. Symbolic language in scripture often conveys literal truths; the imagery underscores the continued existence and consciousness of martyrs. Thus, dismissing this passage as merely symbolic limits its rich, layered meanings and theological implications.

• Moses and Elijah were spiritually conscious during the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-9):

          -Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven by God, but the presence of Moses poses a problem for soul sleep. He died thousands of years before Christ, yet is here found to be speaking with Christ.

• Paul was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words (2 Corinthians 12:2-4):

          -The Apostle Paul did not think leaving the body meant a loss of consciousness. We are given no commentary as to how this out of body experience was. It may possibly be a reference to Paul's conversion on a journey to Damascus. Nevertheless, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is problematic for soul sleep proponents because it shows us that a separation of body and soul does not denote a loss of consciousness. He remained aware of his surroundings despite being separated from the body. Paul’s uncertainty about being “in the body or out of the body” can be seen as an acknowledgment of an experience that transcends mere physical presence. This ambiguity itself could be taken as evidence of a conscious existence independent of the physical form.

• Biblical prohibitions against necromancy pose a problem for soul sleep (Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:1-12; Isaiah 8:19-20):

          -Why even try contacting dead people, if their souls are not consciously existing? Biblical prohibitions against contacting deceased persons presuppose conscious life after death. These prohibitions would hardly be meaningful or necessary in a soul sleep framework.

"Lord of The Flies" Theme Reflection

        In the novel titled "Lord of The Flies," which was authored by William Golding, a choir of boys got sequestered on an island due to a plane crash. The setting of this fictional work took place on a vacant island during World War Two. In other words, a large group of British boys who participated in a choir were unable to reach their originally planned destination because of a forced plane landing during the Second World War. Because of this tragedy, this group of boys needed to learn how to properly fend for themselves. The choir needed to function as a whole in order to survive because there was no source of bodily nourishment being provided by responsible adults who worked to maintain the health of the economy. The book "Lord of The Flies" attests to the depths of human depravity. The formation of societal values and any degree of success is entirely dependent on the compromise of individuals who work together for the sake of the common good.

        A large group of choir boys from England were separated from the world on a small island by the ocean due to a plane crash and thus needed to learn how to establish a civilized, well-organized assemblage of people in order increase the probability of prolonged survival or getting rescued. But the boys failed to grasp the severity of their life-threatening situation. For example, most members of the choir became so preoccupied with hunting wild boars that they repeatedly failed provide fuel for the rescue fire and thus missed an opportunity to get rescued by a war ship that passed by the island. Most of them viewed life on the island as solely an opportunity for constant entertainment. Their reasoning was based on the fact that no adult figures were present on the island to govern their decisions each day. Most members of the British choir instantly developed the false notion that they could do whatever their hearts desired. Consequently, no formal structure of societal function was formed on the island. There was no submission to authority. There was no standard of certainty, consensus, or organization. The meaning of obedience was completely forgotten. The distinction between good and evil became blurred because of the continual reluctance to submit to an authority. Their starting behaviors paved the road to moral corruption and built a foundation for the household of death. This is what happens when people fail to recognize the weights of accountability on their shoulders when placed in a position to make moral or rational choices in life independently.

        As the time the boys thrived on the isolated island became lengthier, the overall moral character of the choir members also began to deteriorate. Most of them began to act purely animalistic in nature. The character named Ralph, who was originally supposed to function as the leader appointed by the crowd, possessed a conch which was representative of authority. However, most members of the British choir either willfully ignored the call of his conch or took his words of reason as a joke. In other words, they ignored the voice of their conscience by rebelling against rightly ordained authority. They eventually became so rebellious to authority that they wrongly revoked his position of authority by replacing him with another main character named Jack, who was cruel, savage, and immoral. He directly influenced the crowd of boys to create a tribe that functioned apart from Ralph's lawfully given authority. They even painted their own faces as a means of covering their actual character. They appointed Jack because he suited their desires to partake of their own selfish lifestyles. Each individual boy wanted to go his own way. The boys reached a point where they no longer cared about appearing visibly in the sight of civilization again. They acted in the manner they did because their consciences were seared with a hot iron. We need to recognize that morals decline as people refuse to submit to rightful authorities and fail to recognize the needs of others. What all the boys in the novel needed was to get rescued. They needed to return back to their regular life patterns at home and look to taking on a career. But this could only be made possible, if the boys decided to focus on the welfare of each other.

        What happened to the boys on the lost island was that they never dedicated time to any form of self-reflection. Hence, they were completely unwary of their darkened hearts. Most members of the choir became so perverse in their morals that they ended up killing a female sow that was nursing piglets. Only moments after the kill, one of the boys portrayed the stabbing of the female pig's rear as being a sexual reference. Not only is the murder of a nursing mother considered as an incomprehensibly evil action to all rational people, but it is also beyond the minds of most people to liken a female animal to a woman. On the night of the same day there was a thunderstorm, and there was a wicked feast being held in praise of the successful hunting. Simon peered through the bushes of the jungle at the tribal chanting and had an illusion of the maggot infested boar head talking to him. It told him to relinquish to the brutal ways of the tribe, nevertheless he refused to succumb to the evil enticements. The decomposing boar head clearly resembles the work of the devil at hand in the hearts of mankind. The other main characters Simon and Piggy were murdered for not conforming to the corrupt values of the island tribe. Members affiliated with the tribe later kidnapped the twins Sam and Eric so that Ralph would have no means of support. They attempted to murder him the next day by lighting the island on fire. The scenario described in the story line of "Lord of The Flies" clearly reveals the inevitably disastrous results of refusing to work together for the sake of the common good. The poor formation of a societal structure on the island clearly enhanced the careless, selfish, and abominable side of the choir members. The shattering of the conch symbolized the destruction of authority. Indeed, we have the same tendency in our fallen nature to act in the same manner as that of a spoiled child who knows nothing of disciplinary action.

        The novel titled "Lord of The Flies" gives thinking readers valuable insight into the ramifications of failing to form a society with morally sound values. The theme of this fictional work strives to give us the impression that we need to work for the common good in order for society to continually survive, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. In order to be successful, we need to submit to members of authority. The choir boys on the island never bothered to listen to the handful who tried to form an organized civilization on the island because of inherent selfishness. They wanted to have things their own way, which reveals their internal sense of evil. Just as the choir boys began their quest for survival on the island in a disorganized manner, they ended up getting rescued in the same manner. The island was ablaze because of the tribal attempt to hunt down Ralph, the boys were all filthy from covering up their faces, and were running to the shore in a savage manner when adult figures finally arrived on the island to save them. They were caught in the middle of acting as if they were savages who had never been exposed to the light of civilized life. It would be better for us to continually heed to the voice of reason, lest we end up in a state of hopeless anarchy as the British choir boys on the island did and perish.

Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

                                                                 By James Swan

Have you ever been in a discussion in which it was asserted that Martin Luther added words to the Bible?

Here Are Some "choice" comments from the depths of cyber-space:

"Martin Luther ADDED words to the Bible that were not there. When he was confronted with this sin of adding to the Bible he replied: "Bacause Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!" This man was one ego-maniac with delusions of popehood." [Source]

"Romans 3:28 states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (NKJV). Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Martin Luther reportedly said, "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127). This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther." [Source]

"By September 1522, Luther had translated the New Testament into his version of the German Bible. It is to be noted that Luther taught a false doctrine that man was saved by faith alone, and upon his own recognizance and without any authority, he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, ... thereby ignoring all of the verses which admonish anyone not to add to or take away from, the Holy Word of GOD. He displayed his inflated ego and total arrogance, when he wrote the following regarding his addition:"If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom."Amic. Discussion, 1, 127. Demonizing again! My My, tsk tsk, such language Dr Luther, and didn't he elevate himself above everyone on earth?This is the example set by the first Protestant, for his version of the command of Jesus Christ of, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:36-40)." [Source]

"...Luther insists on his own (in effect) absolute infallibility. In defending his addition of the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 ("faith alone"), Luther railed: Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough . . . Dr. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery. (O'Connor, 25; Letter to Wenceslaus Link in 1530)One wonders whether Luther uttered these absurd sentiments with a smile on his face, or with tongue in cheek. In any event, such boastful, essentially silly and foolish rhetoric is not uncommon in Luther's voluminous writings." [Source]

The arguments above are fairly simple: Luther simply inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28. Luther is painted as outrageous: he shows a total disregard for the sacred text, simply making it say what he wanted it to.

How to respond:

1. First, locate the context.

The main text of Luther used for these type of comments are his Open Letter on Translating (1530). Luther says in the introduction:

“…there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the enemies of truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which has startled and shocked many simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is devoutly to be hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. Perhaps it may even give rise to more writing on such questions and matters such as these. Therefore I ask all lovers of the truth to take this work to heart seriously, and faithfully to pray to God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom.”

The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Emser) did just that:

“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

2. Put this context into the quotes being misued.

With this context in mind, point out that Luther was blasting away at his Papal critics:

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope." Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”

One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

3. Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28

This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28

Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”