Author: Theologetics

Christian Theology and Apologetics

Why Am I Guilty For Adam and Eve’s Sin?

~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

Isn’t it true that man stands guilty before a holy and blameless God for his sin nature? And that sin nature comes from our first parents Adam and Eve? Isn’t it unfair that a God of love would punish me for something that I didn’t do but was merely a condition I was born into? Isn’t the following passage from Ezekiel a complete contradiction to the Christian concept of salvation?

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20

Son of Man by René Magritte

In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve broke God’s command by eating of the forbidden fruit. This in turn cursed the ground and the rest of humanity. According to the Christian faith, we have to be saved from this curse and in the end the earth will be restored to its former glory and all that placed their faith in Jesus are forgiven. But is it true that we have to be forgiven for something we didn’t do? We didn’t eat the forbidden fruit.

There are many theological terms concerning our condition of needing salvation because of Adam’s sin. The doctrine of “original sin” states we are sinners from the moment we’re born because we were born to the fallen human family, children of Adam. The concept of “imputation” means that Adam’s falleness is automatically placed upon all who are born from him because he was the representative of all of man. Adam, therefore is our “federal head” and whereever the head goes the body follows. “Seminalism” is that we are now born with Adam’s sinful nature because we were physically born of his seed. Basically, Adam’s nature after he sinned became that of fallen man therefore, everyone born after that is born with the same nature in the same way snakes can give birth to snakes. They can’t help that they have a snake nature.

Therefore, it is our nature that we have to be saved from. Remember though, a snake can only act according to its snakey nature. If we are born with a sinful nature, then we will sin. It’s inevitable. Every single human being will sin because that is our human condition. For this reason, every single human being needs salvation. When people say “I was born this way”, they are absolutely right. We were all born this way and with propensity to various sins. We all sin our different sins. That’s why Jesus said we must be born again. (John 3:3)

Even when we’re “born again” we still maintain our fallen human nature right? We don’t cease to be human. No, the Bible says we actually gain a new nature. Once we have repented and placed our faith in Jesus, we become imputed with His nature; His righteousness. Sin therefore, loses its original appeal because it appealed to our old nature. Have you ever stopped eating a certain type of food or drink for, perhaps, health or lifestyle reasons? Then after a while you tried consuming whatever you gave up and it no longer tasted good or even made you sick? That’s a picture of how sin no longer appeals to the born again believer. Of course, there are those different sins that we still struggle with. There are those that we may even be unaware of until the Holy Spirit illuminates those dark corners. As we continue to live in this body with its aging and ailments and as we continue to live in this fallen world, we will continue to struggle with sin. Sin resurfacing from within us and sin from outside us.

Couldn’t God have just punished Adam and Eve and let those born after them have their original sinless nature? Sure, God could have. However, consider that if Eve listened to a serpent, and Adam listened to his wife, both in their sinless state, how much more so would a sinless child born to them follow their sinful example? Or, one may ask why would they have to have had children at all? Couldn’t God just have killed them or waited till they died and started over fresh? Again, yes He could have, but why do we think anyone else would have done any better? Even if all generations were sinless all the way down to you and I, one of us would have screwed it up. Couldn’t God have just made us so that we wouldn’t sin to begin with? As Clark said in his blog Why didn’t God make us perfect without sin?, “A being that is perfect without sin would also be holy, so this seems to indicate that He would have just created another God…”

It may still seem unfair to you that God holds us accountable for something we didn’t start. I wholeheartedly sympathize. Yet, if we’re honest, this concept doesn’t just apply to matters of spirituality. If someone is born to parents who do nothing but break the law and they teach their child to do the same, that child doesn’t know any better yet as the child gets older he or she is still held accountable. Was it unfair that they were born to bad parents? Sure, but at some point, I truly believe, they are shown that there is another way and they must move from pointing fingers at the condition they were born in to the direction of a higher way of living. Remember, that Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent but God held them all accountable for their own actions. Just because you were put into an “unfair” situation, your reaction is still your responsibility.

While we may not be punished for Adam’s sin, mankind suffers because of it. In the same way the child born to a drug addicted mother may have physical or mental challenges or the employees of a business may suddenly be without a job because the CEO mismanaged funds.

All that is to say, we aren’t punished for Adam and Eve’s sin. We are punished for our own sins. But, the story doesn’t stop there. If we want to say that it’s not fair that we’ve had to suffer for their sin, we must also conclude that it’s not fair that Jesus suffered and was punished for our sins. While generations have suffered for the sin of Adam, Jesus suffered for the sins of generations. How unfair is that? It’s not about what’s fair or unfair; it’s about His love for us. Jesus took on the punishment meant for us when He died at the cross. What a gift! Do you accept it?

“But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s (Adam) trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:15-19

Read: 2 Corinthians 5:17, John 3, Ezekiel 18

Derrick Stokes for Theologetics.org

“Does God Care What We Wear to Church?”

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment
A Man Wearing a Suit by Peter Scolamiero

Earlier today, I read a well written article on a popular Christian website. The name of the website escapes me, though. The name of the article is the same as this blogs title. The conclusion of the article was basically “Yes. God cares.”

Without going into the details of the article (mainly because I can’t remember), I will touch on some reasons that I believe their conclusion was correct, but I will give one reason that I believe they missed altogether.

One often quoted “Bible verse” that’s not found in the Bible is “Come as you are.” Yes, this verse is not in the Bible. However, the concept is. The Gospel message itself is that you bring your sinful, broken self to God and He makes you into a new creature. He changes your heart and conforms you into the image of his Son. So basically we don’t fix ourselves before we come to God. We can’t. We come to God as we are and let him do the changing to us.

In the context of how we dress for church, the phrase “come as you are” is used quite often. The article I mentioned above touches on this phrase. What I think they left out is that, if we are truly saved, we come as we are but we aren’t supposed to stay as we are. When God changes our hearts, even the way we dress may change. And if the way we used to dress was immodest then it is my strong conviction that how one dresses would change also.

I know that anytime the topic is brought up most people immediately think about how some women show up to church. Mine does. However, in no way should this apply to women only. While women may wear skirts or dresses that are too short, men might wear shirts or pants that are too tight.

I’m often told by the older saints that the “church mothers” or ushers would place a small blanket over the exposed legs or shoulders of younger ladies that they feel are dressed immodestly for church. I think there was a time where we expected the older folks in church to hold the younger believers accountable. But now we sneer at anyone who tries to tell us that what we’re doing or what we’re wearing might not be appropriate, even in church. We think no one can judge us but God. We have to remember, though, that “Do not judge” is not a stand-alone verse. Judging rightly is a command stated over and over in Scripture. But are we to judge those who aren’t believers? The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” The outsiders he mentioned here are unbelievers. Paul is saying not to hold unbelievers to the same standard of Christians.

So maybe an unbeliever or a new believer comes through the church doors wearing something we deem immodest. What do we do as believers? First let’s look inward. As my mom used to tell me “If I point one finger at you I have 3 more pointing back at me.” Scripture says in Matthew, chapter 7, “first pull the plank out of your own eye so that you may see clearly to get the speck out of your brothers eye.”

Second, we should ask ourselves if what we claim to be immodest is just tradition mistaken as God’s word. Is it a woman wearing pants? Does the Bible forbid women to wear pants when there were no pants in the Bible? Is it that a man is wearing shorts and sandals? Is that immodest or just not how we think people should dress in church? Is someone wearing jeans when you think they’re supposed to have on a suit immodest? Are any of these examples inappropriate for church? Not really but if it bothers the wearers conscience then, for him, it is. No one should go against their conscience (Romans 14:23). On the other hand, some articles of clothing are inappropriate for church. If an individual is showing too much skin or can barely sit or walk up stairs because they’re afraid of exposing something, it might be a bit much for church. If your clothing is so tight that it leaves little to the imagination, then it’s probably best you leave it at home. If the clothing is so flashy that you’re getting all the attention, maybe save it for another occasion. The focus during church service should be on God, not ourselves.

Going back to the title, the subject is “we”. Who is the “we” in the title? “Churchgoers” one may say. Well, in every attempt to find the original article that I read with that title, I see many Christian websites have articles with the same title. So, to me, the “we” is not just churchgoers but believers. To me asking the question if God cares what we wear to church is akin to asking if God cares how we act, talk, dress, and think in any situation. The answer is emphatically yes!

For the Christian, according to Martin Luther, there are two kinds of righteousness. There is coram Deo and coram mundo. Coram Deo is our righteousness before God. Coram mundo is our righteousness before man, like how we treat each other. As we gather on Sunday, Wednesday, Saturday, or whenever we gather with the saints, we should dress and speak and act in a way that does not cause stumbling to other believers. Our Christian life is not only for our benefit but it should be for the benefit of those within our sphere of influence and for the edification of the Church body. I would dare say that there is no true Christian independence. We’re all in this together.

The way we dress is also a reflection of our coram Deo. To live coram Deo is to live one’s entire life in the presence of God, under the authority of God, to the glory of God. The way we dress, act, speak, and think should always give glory to God. If God has truly changed who we are then the way we think and act will reflect who we are in him. The moon reflects the light it gets from the sun. In the same way the Christian should reflect the light it gets from God. Like the moon, the Christian has no light in and of itself. The moon gives testimony to the existence of the sun. The Christian should likewise give testimony to the existence of God. If there is no change in the life of the Christian from his or her former self or a change in the life of the Christian from the unsaved world around them, then they aren’t giving glory to God. And if they aren’t reflecting the light of God then, perhaps the light of God is not in them.

In conclusion, the problem with the “come as you are” mentality, is that as a Christian, we are not supposed to stay as we are. We are supposed to change from the person we used to be. There is supposed to be an obvious difference in the person we were and the person we are in Christ. There is supposed to be an abundant difference in unbelievers and believers. At times that means our wardrobe changes also. So let us look up, out, and in. During service, as we gather to worship The Most High God (up), let us come in reverence. Let us not forget He is holy and commands us to be holy as He is holy. Let us also do what is in our power to not cause our fellow believers (out) to stumble. Lastly, let us look and judge ourselves (in) first before we tell or suggest anyone else change how they come to worship God. Remember, man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

———

P.S.

Grace. We all need to show each other grace. Even in judgement, we have to extend grace. We extend grace because we have been shown the grace of God. If a brother or sister in Christ needs correction, we should be graceful about it. Likewise, we should be graceful in receiving correction. Sometimes God uses God’s people to do God’s work.

Derrick Stokes for Theologetics.org

God’s Attributes Devotional (Free)

~ Theologetics ~ 2 Comments

Introducing our FREE 1 month Devotional! It’s based on our God’s Attributes poster that can be found and also downloaded for free. We pray this devotional not only informs but draws each reader closer to their Creator. Don’t forget to share it with others!


https://theologetics315.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/derrick-devo-33-attributes-of-god.pdf

Bible Genesis Jesus Christ

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment


Matthew 1:1 “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…”

Translated from the Greek “Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”

Transliterated, it says “Biblos genesis Iesous Christos”

Of course we get our word “Bible” from the word “biblos”.  Therefore, the direct word-for-word English translation would read “Bible Genesis Jesus Christ…”

Which immediately reminded me that all of the Bible, starting from Genesis, is about Jesus Christ.  From the promise to Eve about the Seed who would crush the serpent, to the promise Abraham gave Isaac that God will provide (Yahova Yireh) the lamb for sacrifice, to Noah’s ark that saved those who had faith from the coming judgement, to the Passover Lamb, to the bronze serpent in the wilderness, to Joshua who led the people into the promised land, to the veil in the Temple, to Joseph, to Jonah, to the 4th man in the firey furnace, and every where in between…

All of the Bible points to Jesus our savior.

Click here to learn more.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

Black History: The Ethiopian Eunuch

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place.  And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship  and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:26-39

In the earliest days of the Christian faith, the Gospel was making its way through the Middle East and to Europe. But it is often left out that it also made its way to Africa. On the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, Egyptians heard the good news proclaimed to them in their own language. In fact a good number of the early Christian theologians were African including Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo. However, deeper in the African continent, God was working on perhaps the first true Christian African nation.

We read in chapter 8 of the Acts of the Apostles, that there was a high ranking eunuch of “Candace, queen of the Ethiopians” (Candace was really a title, not a name of queens that reigned in the region from about 150 years before Christ). Him being a eunuch (probably not born so, but made so for service to the queen) would have meant that he would have been barred from certain parts of the temple (Deuteronomy 23:1). Yet, he didn’t let this obstacle prevent him from learning about God. As he read the book of Isaiah, God created a yearning in his heart to get to know Him better. And of course, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. The Holy Spirit led one of the 12 Apostles, by the name of Philip to the eunuch, who then told him about Jesus and baptized him immediately afterwards.

It is unknown if the unnamed eunuch went back to Ethiopia and started spreading his new faith to his friends and family. However, I do believe that this one man might have planted seeds that will 300 years later become the official state religion of Ethiopia.

This not only has significance when it comes to church history, but with apologetics as well. It often claimed that Christianity is the “White man’s religion” and that Blacks only became Christians after it was first beat into them by their white slave owners. However, this shows a lack of knowledge of history. Christianity was the official faith in Ethiopia for 1300+ years before the first slave landed in America. But some will argue that Ethiopia is on the eastern part of the African continent, the trans-Atlantic slave trade brought Africans from the WESTERN part. Well, there is further evidence that Christianity existed in Mali around 1300 AD (Corpus of Early Arabic Sources for West African History, 2011).

The Gospel arrived in Africa and has flourished in various parts for millennia. God has never left His elect without a way to know Him. In fact God has revealed Himself to all of the world in some way (Romans 1:19-20), whether it be general or natural revelation letting us know there is a God. He also reveals Himself and His redemptive plan for mankind through progressive and special revelation. The Ethiopian Eunuch’s desire to know scripture led to his special revelation and, in time sowed a seed for a thriving African church. Reader, God is revealing Him to you also, how will you respond?

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

What Color was Jesus?

~ Theologetics ~ 2 Comments

I’m not sure where to begin here. I guess I’ll start by saying that, growing up, I never considered the color of Jesus to ever be an issue. I would see pictures of Jesus on paintings and in illustrated Bibles. I was given some Bible study books when I was a child and would see perhaps most of the depictions of Bible characters looking “European”, except for a few Old Testament characters and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. But then I would see elsewhere, depictions of Black Jesus mainly in Black churches. I was never confused by either image. I guess I just figured for someone who lived 2000 years ago (before life-like paintings and photos), everyone was just guessing what He looked like. No harm, no foul. His color isn’t the most important thing about him anyway. Right? To me a Jew from the ancient Middle East probably looked, well like a modern Middle Eastern man. I was 8 or 9 when Operation Desert Storm happened and I remember thinking that most Bible people, Jesus included, probably looked like the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Then as I got older I realized that the color of Jesus is a real stumbling block to a LOT of people. Some believe He is White. Some believe He is Black. Some even go to the lengths of giving God the Father one of the two skin tones. I don’t know if this is mainly an American problem. I’ve seen pictures of Asian Jesus as well but I have a feeling its not that much of a divisive issue in Asian countries as it is here in the U.S. I don’t know. It seems that different cultures like to represent Jesus as being like them in appearance. Maybe it makes Him more relatable. Maybe it was done in ignorance.

Some of us feel as though “White Jesus” was forced on to my ancestors in order to see “Master” as being closer to God. Or closer to the image of God. And because of the evil in men’s hearts, I can’t say that some slave owners didn’t do that exact thing. However, physical depictions of Jesus aren’t inspired and infallible. You can’t go to the ancient Greek or Hebrew texts and find a drawing of any person. There are some limited descriptions of certain people. Like David who was handsome and “ruddy” (the same red complexion given to Esau) 1 Samuel 16:12, Genesis 25:25. In Numbers 12 Miriam and Aaron were upset Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian (what I always assumed was the first fight over an interracial marriage). The point is that no one is really described in great detail how they look.

But, then there are those people who say that we can know Jesus was Black because of the description in Revelation 1:15 “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.” I’ve heard the explanation, “Who else has feet the color of burned brass? Definitely not them White Jews!” However, just one verse before that it says “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire.” So, is this saying Jesus is white? Well, it said His head and hairs are white, but His feet were like brass. What color is Jesus?

First, I would like to point out that the Book of the Revelation is full of imagery. Symbolic imagery. Four chapters later Jesus is described as a “Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes.” Ok, well that’s obviously symbolic right? Well, I believe His depiction in chapter 1 is obviously symbolic or metaphoric also. Especially given how it describes His eyes and voice. And in verse 16 of chapter 1, He has a sharp, two-edged sword coming out of His mouth. It’s all imagery.

What does the Bible say about white hair? In Proverbs 16, it says wisdom and old age. Again, I’ve heard the objection, “But it says His hair was like wool. Who has hair like that?” It’s talking about the color, not texture.

In the Torah, bronze was used in the tabernacle for the laver (for cleansing) and the alter (for sacrifice). The Greek words here can be used to describe how bright and shining they are like if the metal is still in the furnace or if it is highly polished.
His eyes are as fire, shining light in the darkness. His face which the scripture says was like sun, as though the intensity is too much to bear. The sword that came out of His mouth pierces and cuts. Hebrews 4:12 states, “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.“

There is also a description of who we believe to be the Son of God in the prophetic Book of Daniel. Chapter 10:5-6, “I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, His face like the appearance of lightning, His eyes like torches of fire, His arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of His words like the voice of a multitude.” Here we see similar descriptions. A face too bright to look at, eyes like fire, a voice so loud, arms and feet like burnished bronze. The “burnished” in the Hebrew means brightened or polished. Now, a simple Google search will show what burnished bronze looks like. And when compared to human skin it is very much non-white. So here, you may have an argument that the man Daniel was describing was a “Black” man. Or a sun kissed Middle Easterner. People didn’t spend a whole lot of time inside.

But what does it mean that His body was like beryl? Beryl can come in many different color variations: red, pink, aquamarine, emerald green, golden. But, it’s always translucent. The book of Daniel is full of imagery like the Book of Revelation, like his vision of the four beasts in chapter 7 and the king’s vision of the statue that represented four kingdoms in chapter 2. Remember that biblical visions and dreams usually are symbolic in nature.

It’s also important to note that even those who followed Jesus during His earthly ministry didn’t recognize Him after His resurrection (John 20:14-15; Luke 24:16).

The point is I don’t believe either depiction of Jesus describes His color. And if it does, I don’t believe that we should get so hung up on it that it distracts and divides us. No matter what, any physical depiction you’ve seen that is supposed to be Jesus is inaccurate. No one really knows what He looked like. At this point I’m almost willing to side with my Reformed brothers and say that all depictions of Jesus are violations of the 2nd Commandment. So much emphasis is being placed on what He looked like instead of what He did, it’s becoming idolatry.

I don’t need Jesus to look like me. The goal is to look like Him.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

Cremation and Resurrection of the Saints

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment
Photo courtesy of EarthPorm

As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness;
I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake. – Psalm 17:15


While listening to Philip de Courcy on his radio program yesterday, I listened to him talk about the resurrection of man. He briefly mentioned cremation and it reminded me of something that I’ve thought of many times throughout my life. Can a Christian get cremated? And by “can” I mean does Christian doctrine teach against it? And since I don’t want to commit the argumentum ex silentio fallacy, I don’t seek to argue that if scripture is silent on it then it is permissible.

So let’s start by asking if scripture does in fact explicitly permit or condemn cremation. The answer to that is no. Nowhere in the Bible is cremation prohibited or permitted. The only instance where cremation seems to be mentioned is in 1 Samuel 31: All the valiant men arose and traveled all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan; and they came to Jabesh and burned them there. Then they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.(verses 12-13) However, in modern forms of cremation the body is burned and the bones are ground into powder. This powder is what we call the “ashes”. So King Saul and his sons weren’t really cremated, per se.

Growing up, I always thought cremation was a bit of a taboo or just flat out wrong in Christianity. I’m not sure if it actually was taboo or if it was just my own perception. Especially as a child, the idea seemed a bit “hellish”. But, with the many articles on Christianity and cremation circling around the internet, I don’t suppose I was the only one thinking this.

One reason I thought it was wrong is because of the resurrection of the saints during the end times. I thought that good Christians should be buried as long as it is feasible to do so. But as I grew and learned in knowledge a few things came to mind.

1. If God can create man from dust then He can resurrect man from dust. He did say in Genesis that we would return to dust.

2. Many Christians haven’t had the opportunity to be buried. Some have been persecuted and torn apart by lions. Some have been lost at sea decaying in water and the marine life eating their remains. Some have been burned at the stake for their beliefs. John Huss, a Czech theologian, was burned at the stake and his ashes scattered in the Rhine river to prevent his followers from burying him. John Wycliffe (whose early English translation of the New Testament paved way for William Tyndale’s first full English Bible) had his remains exhumed from his grave, his bones burned to ashes and thrown into the river all because his writings were considered heretical. What about these people at the resurrection? The particles that made up their bodies are now so far separated that it would seem impossible that they could get pulled back together. But we must remember what Jesus said in Matthew 19:26,”…with God nothing is impossible.”

3. There’s also the fact that the Bible doesn’t just say that the saved will be resurrected. Acts 24:15, “having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” John 5:28-29, “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” And even that the seas themselves will give up their dead (Revelation 20:13).

Therefore, my reasoning was false as to why I thought Christians shouldn’t be cremated. A God that spoke the world into existence can easily form new resurrected bodies. No matter what state the remains of the believer (and nonbeliever) are in, God will assemble.

Does this mean that cremation is a viable option for believers? Well, where scripture is silent, we let the Holy Spirit guide our conscience. Sometimes it would be a better financial choice since the average cremation can be around 90% cheaper than the average funeral. It’s something that should be discussed with loved ones and prayed about earnestly.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

The List of Premises from 16 Arguments for God

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment


Saint Thomas Aquinas by Sandro Botticelli (edited)

We compiled some of the most basic arguments for God’s existence in our Theologetic Table of Evidence and I had the idea to create a single list of all the premises from these basic arguments. Regarding the basics of an argument, if an argument follows the rules of logic then it is valid and if that argument has true premises, then the argument is also said to be sound. Many of the arguments listed are different types of syllogisms. It seemed to me that having a list of all the premises could possibly aid in developing other arguments for God or could be used to simply compare and contrast the different premises to try and deduce if any were at odds with each other (or at least seemingly so). Below you will find the simple list and below that is the list of the arguments the premises were taken from. I did not include the conclusions in this list. There are other arguments out there, some not as basic as the ones we used, but adding their premises could possibly be helpful so this list could potentially be updated in the future.

God exists and we can know this because of nature, revelation, conscience, personal experience and LOGIC!

Premises

a. Logical absolutes exist.
a. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature–are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different–not absolute.
a. Since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
b. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
b. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
c. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
c. The universe began to exist.
d. All designs imply a designer.
d. There is great design in the universe.
e. Objective moral Laws require a Moral Law Giver.
e. There is an objective moral law.
f. If God exists, we must conceive of him as a Necessary Being.
f. By definition, a Necessary Being cannot not exist.
g. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
g. There are numerous well-attested miracles in history.
h. Consciousness is either a property of a non-conscious reality or of an ultimate consciousness.
h. Consciousness is not a property of a non-conscious reality.
i. All natural desires have existing objects that they are desires for.
i. Joy is a natural desire for an infinite object.
j. Beauty is universally recognized.
j. The common definition of what is beautiful transcends the individual and must have an ultimate source.
k. There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system.
k. A degree of free will exists.
l. Information codes and language systems are only known to originate from an intelligence.
l. Within DNA can be found an information code.
l. The only intelligence capable of producing DNA is God.
m. If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
m. If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.
n. Anything that is contingent has an explanation.
n. The universe is contingent.
o. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before the New Testament.
o. The Old Testament contains at least 191 Messianic prophecies.
o. Jesus fulfilled these prophecies as recorded in the New Testament.
p. The more sound arguments there are for a proposition, the more confidence we can have in it’s validity.
p. There are many distinct sound arguments for the existence of God.

Arguments

a. The Transcendental Argument
b. The Degree of Perfection Argument
c. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
d. The Teleological Argument
e. The Moral Argument
f. The Ontological Argument
g. The Miracles Argument
h. The Consciousness Argument
i. The Sense of Divinity Argument
j. The Beauty Argument
k. The Free Will Argument
l. Information Theory
m. The Truth Argument
n. The Contingency Argument
o. The Messianic Prophecy Argument
p. The Abundance of Arguments Argument

If you haven’t already done so, we would recommend checking out our mobile app “Theo Tab” for Apple and Android devices and checking out our developer’s website Presuppositions.org

Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Son of Man

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment
The Descent From the Cross by Gustave Doré


“If Jesus referred to Himself as ‘son of man’ isn’t He saying He was only human and not divine?”

In the Old Testament, the prophet Ezekiel was called “Son of man” 95 times by my count. In the New Testament book of Matthew Jesus was called “Son of man” 26 times. In Luke, 26 times and in the Gospel of John 12 times. Some have said the title Son of man meant He was divine, but if that’s true why is Ezekiel called by that title much more than Jesus?

For one, it’s important to note that while God always called Ezekiel son of man, Jesus always called Himself the Son of man. What would be so special about using this title in the definitive article?

The title Son of man was not meant to convey divinity but rather, as it sounds, humanity. Jesus came to earth as the second Adam. He did what Adam failed to do and restored God’s communion with man.

Jesus also used the title that the prophet Daniel used several hundred years before in the book named after him. In Daniel 7:13-14 we read, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.“

As Matthew Henry commented

” As a title common to him with others. He was called, and justly, the Son of God, for so he was; but he called himself the Son of man; for he is really and truly “Man, made of a woman.’ In courts of honour, it is a rule to distinguish men by their highest titles; but Christ, having now emptied himself, though he was the Son of God, will be known by the style and title of the Son of man. Ezekiel was often so called to keep him humble;Christ called himself so, to show that he was humble. Or, as a title peculiar to him as Mediator. He is made known, in Daniel’s vision, as the   Son of man,   Daniel 7:13. I am the Messiah, that Son of man that was promised.

Son of God

So, did Jesus ever call Himself the Son of God? Searching scripture I can’t find a time when Jesus said “I am the Son of God.” But He was called Son of God by others: demons, disciples, and regular people. Even Satan used the term mockingly when tempting our Lord in the wilderness. And although Jesus never explicitly used the name for Himself, He never rejected it. On the contrary, He affirmed it.
One of the most obvious affirmations is when Jesus was asking His disciples who do they say that He is. Matthew 16:15-17, “He saith unto them,But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”


Jesus gave another confirmation that He was the Son of God and for this was threatened with death.

Matthew chapter 26:63-66, “But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him,Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”

Others have been called “the son of God” (eg. Adam in Luke 3:38, Israel in Hosea 11:1) but only Jesus is called the “only begotten” (John 3:16) or monogenēs, which actually means “singular of its kind. He was the son of God for all eternity. Coexisting with His Father and existing of the same nature.

Jesus the Christ, the Son of man, and the Son of God.


Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

For more theology and apologetics on Jesus, God, the Bible, and Christianity download our FREE app available on Apple and Android.

Paul and the Virgin Birth

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment
Paul the Apostle in Prison

“If the virgin birth is so important to Christians then why did the Apostle Paul not mention it any of his epistles?”

The New Testament is comprised of 27 books. Of those books the Apostle Paul wrote at least 13. In those books, he mentioned many of the important doctrines of the Christian faith. In his letter to the Corinthians, he says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Here we see: 1)Christ dying for our sins, 2)that He was buried, 3)that He raised from the dead. In other books Paul writes about the deity of Jesus (Colossians 2:9, Romans 1:2-5, Philippians 2:6). But he never once mentions the virgin birth. Why?

Some argue that since what may be arguably the greatest evangelist and apologist of the Christian faith didn’t write about the virgin birth of Jesus that either he did not believe it or that he did not know about it. And that he was so knowledgeable it’s highly improbable that the latter is true. So, did Paul just not believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Him as a virgin?

One thing we must remember is that just because he didn’t mention it doesn’t mean that he didn’t believe it. That’s like the common argument that since Scripture doesnt speak of Jesus preaching against x, then He must not have considered x a sin. But the Bible says that “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” So just because we don’t know something didn’t happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Likewise, just because Paul didn’t mention something doesn’t mean that he didn’t believe or that it’s not true.

It’s, in fact, more possible that Paul did know and believe in the virgin birth. The physician, known as Luke, was a companion of Paul during Paul’s second and third missionary journeys. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles, speaks of being there with Paul when meeting with the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. And while Paul wrote 13 books of the New Testament (14 according to some scholars), Luke’s two books contain more volume than Paul’s.

The reason I mention Luke is because he wrote about the virgin birth. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 1, verses 26-34 reads, “Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

Here we see that Luke clearly was aware of the virgin birth. Since we know that Luke and Paul were companions for quite a while, I believe it is safe to conclude that Paul also knew of the virgin birth. Also, Paul was no stranger to airing out his disagreements as he did in Galatians 2 about Peter. Luke also writes of Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas in Acts chapter 15. Therefore, I think it would be safe to assume that Paul or Luke would have written about a disagreement on the virgin conception of Jesus.

I also believe that Paul, in a roundabout way did mention the virgin birth. In the epistle to the Romans, Paul says, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures…” Paul, an educated man, knew the Hebrew scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. Paul calls himself a Pharisee in Acts 23:6 and Philippians 3:4-5. It was required of Pharisees to know the Hebrew Scriptures inside and out. Therefore, he knew the Old Testament book of the prophet Isaiah in which the virgin birth was first prophesied. Paul quoted Isaiah dozens of times in his writings so it wouldn’t be unwise to conclude that Paul also believed in that Jesus was conceived without an earthly father.

Therefore, by Paul being a friend of Luke and knowing the prophetic book of Isaiah, I would argue that Paul indeed believed in the virgin birth of Jesus. We need to be careful about not using the logical fallacy of arguing from absence (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

For more on the virgin birth, you can read my blog here.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org