Category: Truth

“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

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

I Can Do ALL Things?

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment

Often times in our day to day interactions we hear someone say something that sounds like it’s from the Bible or even hear something we’ve read or heard in church knowing it’s from the Bible. Therefore, we don’t put much thought into the validity of the quote and we’ll affirm it with a hearty “Amen.”

And, too often, I’ll hear something and I think to myself “that’s not what that means.” Usually, the person speaking isn’t trying to be careless or malicious with their use of scripture. It’s usually just being spoken from ignorance. So, I’ve decided to write about one of the often quoted yet misused scripture quotes that we hear thrown about. One that I’ve even misused in the past:

Philippians 4:13 ” I can do all things through Christ “

We see this verse used on athletic clothing and sports banners. We say it before big tests. We say it when beginning our work week at a place we’d rather not work. We use it as a self affirmation when going to job interviews. It has become a Christian mantra for completing any daunting task.

At first the verse seems pretty upfront and plain. However, there’s a simple principle one can remember when using Bible verses, “Never read a Bible verse.” This means that all verses are surrounded by other verses and chapters and all verses should be read and used in context with the complete message in which it was stated.

So what does this verse really mean? Let’s look at the immediate context.

Philippians 4:10-14 “But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last your care for me has flourished again; though you surely did care, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress.“

Paul, the writer of Philippians had been through great distress during his travels proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles. But these times were full of beatings, stonings, prison, and shipwrecks (2 Corinthians 11:25). It is likely that Paul during his earlier days came from a place of affluence. Paul knew what it was like to have and to have not.

What Paul wants the reader to know here is that because of the power of Christ he can be content in all situations. No matter what he is facing he knows Who is ultimately in control.

As he said earlier in the chapter, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

The Curse Reversed: The Parallels of Genesis and Revelation

~ Theologetics ~ 2 Comments

“Satan Enters Eden” and “The New Jerusalem” by Gustave Dore

“The Bible says light appeared on the 1st day of creation. However, the sun and stars weren’t created until the 4th day. How can there be light and days with no sun and stars?”

Apologists have different ways of answering this question. I once even considered what’s called the cosmic microwave background. However, through further scripture reading, I believe the Bible has answered this question thousands of years ago.

I believe the “light” in Genesis 1:3 is the Glory of God.

The reason I believe this is because of the parallels in the books Genesis and Revelation. In Genesis we have the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden, God’s temple on earth. We also have the fall of mankind and the curse on man and the rest of creation where God dwelt and communed with man. In the book of Revelation we see the reversal of the curse.

Therefore, the light in Genesis 1:3 is the same light that will exist in the New Earth in Revelation.

Revelation 21:23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

There are other parallels mentioned in Genesis and Revelation. Here are some listed below:

Genesis 1:4 -separation of light and darkness
Revelation 21:25 -no night, only day.

Genesis 1:10 -separation of land and sea Revelation 21:1 -there is no more sea.

Genesis 2:10 -a river flows from the Garden of Eden
Revelation 22:1 -a river flows from God’s throne.

Genesis 2:9 -the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden
Revelation 22:2 -the Tree of Life throughout the city.

Genesis 2:12 -God and precious stones in the land
Revelation 21:19 speaks of gold and precious stones throughout.

Genesis 3:8 -God walks in the garden, among His creation
Revelation 21:3 -God will dwell amongst His people.

Genesis 3:17 -the ground is cursed because of man’s sin
Revelation 22:3 -there will be no more curse in the New Earth

Genesis 3:17-19 -sin results in pain and death being introduced to creation
Revelation 21:1-4 -there is no more pain or death in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Genesis 3:24 -Mankind is banished from the garden, and cherub guards the entrance Revelation 21:9 -angels actively invite into the city

In Genesis 3:15 we are given the first Gospel promise of the Redeemer who will crush the head of the serpent. Jesus is that one who is promised. While Adam broke the law given to him and brought death to the world. Jesus kept the whole law and defeated death. Adam disobeyed and ate of the tree God told him not to bringing death. Jesus obeyed and died on a tree bringing us life. As stated in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

Also read: Habakkuk 3:4, John 1:1-14, John 7:37-38, James 1:17, 1 John 1:5

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

What Do You Mean By “God”? Defining Terms

~ Theologetics ~ 3 Comments

When having interfaith dialogues, the word God is often thrown around. “You believe in God? I believe in God!” When in actuality, the “God” spoken of is totally different in the eyes of the respective believer. So it is imperative in these conversations to “define terms”. Ask what does a person mean by God. Ask them who they believe God is.

It’s often said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, the Muslim God has no Son unlike the Christian God. Muslims believe in “Jesus” but their Jesus was not crucified and therefore did not die for the sins of the world. Of course, the Christian Jesus did. These are, in no way, minor differences.

The Mormon god was once a man who is currently married to his heavenly wife. This is a different god.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God but is, instead, the archangel Michael. In Mormonism, he is the spirit child of “God” and his wife and is the brother of Lucifer. This is a drastically different Jesus. Yet, both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons consider themselves Christians.

Many Arabic speaking Christians call God “Allah”. Muslims call their’s “Allah”. It is not the same “Allah”. Though many would have us believe it is.

Many religious groups other than Christians use the term God when speaking of their own deities. Often it is used as a generic term. Even in Christendom, God is actually a title and not a name for Yahweh (YHVH from the Hebrew יהוה). The word “God” actually comes from the German “Gott”.

To some people “God” may just mean some non-personal energy or just the material universe itself. To others we human beings make up the collective “God consciousness”.

To have clear and concise communication in theological discussions, defining terms can make the difference between what we agree on and what we disagree on. It lays the foundation. Understandably, we won’t always be right in everything we discuss. But making the differences known from the beginning can get to the root of the issue.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

Good God, Bad World: The Theodicy

~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

Peanuts rain
Matthew 5:45

the·od·i·cy (thē-ˈä-də-sē ) noun – An explanation of why a perfectly good, almighty, and all-knowing God permits evil

Habakkuk 1:2-3(ESV)
O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not hear?
Or cry to you “Violence!”
and you will not save?
Why do you make me see iniquity,
and why do you idly look at wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.
So the law is paralyzed,
and justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
so justice goes forth perverted.

In a world full of such beauty and love and happiness, we also find sadness, pain, and disaster. There are tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, plane crashes, school shootings, holocausts, wars, rapes, all manner of diseases, death… The Christian view of God is that He is good. That God is in control. That God cares and loves His creation. If this is true, then why is there so much suffering? This is perhaps one of the biggest if not the biggest stumbling block to many people when it comes to understanding God. And not just understanding God, but a lot of people just reject the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God because of what’s known as the “problem of evil.”

Why does a good God allow evil?

Ancient skeptic and philosopher, Epicurus, said of God, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Are God and evil mutually exclusive? Does the existence of evil negate the existence of God? Some would say that to have both in the same universe would be a contradiction.

First let’s start with definitions. Let’s define “God” and “evil.” Merriam-Webster online defines God as “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.” They define evil as, “arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct. The “archaic” form is “causing discomfort or repulsion.” So, for its use in this blog “evil” consists of both natural and man-made trouble.

So God is defined as “perfect in power.” This means He can do absolutely whatever He chooses to do. As the Psalmist said, “He does whatever He pleases.” Being perfect in power He can stop all evil.

“Perfect in wisdom” means that He will never make a mistake and everything He does is absolutely wise. And being perfect in goodness means that all goodness dwells in Him and in Him there is no evil.

So if this all powerful, all wise, all good God exists and sees the evil in the world, why doesn’t He stop it?

Well we must ask ourselves what exactly is it we want stopped. Do we want God to stop all evil? If so and you’ve ever had an evil thought then you would want God to control your thoughts. If you’ve ever uttered an evil word, you would want God to control your speech. If you’ve ever done an evil deed or even made a mistake that caused harm, you would want God to control your actions. Therefore, we are asking for one of two things if we want God to stop all evil: 1. That God take all free will from mankind, or 2. God kill us upon our first evil thought, word, or deed.¹ And we can’t ask that justice be done to others and not to ourselves.

Now let’s break down Epicurus’ argument:

  • Is God willing to prevent evil? Well if He is good we would have to say yes. We also know from the Bible that He is willing to prevent evil. He Himself heals. And He sends people out to heal the sick, warn people of judgement, and free slaves.
  • Is God able? A perfectly powerful God is definitely able to prevent evil. But ability doesn’t mean necessity. A good God may allow things that we deem bad for other purposes. He doesn’t have to stop evil.
  • Whence then is evil? Or from where does evil come? This is an important question to consider when pondering the existence of a good God when evil is so prevalent in the world.

Is evil “bad” just because it causes discomfort and repulsion? If so, the act of a parent correcting a child is “evil.” But of course a parent correcting a child is doing a good thing. But it feels bad. It causes discomfort and no child- nor any adult for that matter – likes correction. And, of course we can say that a parent, or teacher, or friend that corrects is doing it for the other person’s good. Therefore, we would rarely call it evil because we know there is love behind it. So we can logically say there are some things which feel bad that actually aren’t. We can also look at childbirth, growing pangs, the pain we get in our muscles from exercise that facilitates gaining strength: not all pain and discomfort are bad.

But of course there are those things caused by wrongdoing. People with malicious intent doing bad things for a bad purpose. What are we to make of that? And if God can stop them and if it’s in God’s good will to end evil then why doesn’t He stop them? Well as I mentioned earlier, where then would free will be? God can do whatever He pleases, but to stop all evil men from doing evil deeds He would have to stop all evil hearts. As Jeremiah tells us, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” This would mean at best we would all be “robots” with no will of our own, or at worst destroyed at the first bad thought.

What about “natural evil?” Stopping that wouldn’t inhibit human free will, right? Why doesn’t God stop natural disasters? Well, it would seem that most people “accept” natural evil as “nature being nature.” Not that they like all that happens in nature, per se, but that those things that happen naturally are more acceptable than “moral evil” caused by man. But for the atheist, the discomfort “natural evil” may cause has no good or bad to it. Actually, it should be seen more so as a good thing if it is just nature doing what nature does. It would be just the earth or universe replenishing itself or going through its phases. If plagues happen, it’s just nature. So why seek to cure disease? Also, what about nature would the inquirer want God to stop? Many aspects of nature that can harm us are also things that we need to survive on this planet. Would God need to make water less dangerous to prevent drownings? He would need to make the composition different, but then it would cease to be water. Lightning is another example. Lightning strikes kill many people every year. But, we need lightning. All life requires nitrogen-compounds and “the enormous energy of lightning breaks nitrogen molecules and enables their atoms to combine with oxygen in the air forming nitrogen oxides. These dissolve in rain, forming nitrates, that are carried to the earth.” (http://www.biology-pages.info/N/NitrogenCycle.html) Basically, we need lightning for healthy air and fertile soil.

Well, you might say “that’s all well and good but an all-powerful God could prevent lightning from striking people.” And you would be right. But, once again, that would involve preventing me from being in a certain place at a certain time so that I am not struck by lightning. “Well doesn’t Christianity claim that God does, in fact, intervene sometimes to prevent such occasions?” Yes, whenever God intervenes to prevent what would otherwise have happened, that is called a miracle. As Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis writes, “That God can and does, on occasion, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is a part of Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare.” Have you or someone close to you said after some natural or otherwise unfortunate event, “I was supposed to be there at that moment but ________ happened and I’m alive because of it.”?

Now back to God’s wisdom. When we are children, our parents often tell us that we can’t do something we want to do. We think we are smart enough and mature enough to do whatever it is, but our parents spoil the fun with a “No!” or “Stop!” and sometimes, if we’re lucky enough, we get an explanation of why. Sometimes. Those other times we don’t get the reason because we wouldn’t understand it even if they told us. And we definitely wouldn’t agree with the explanation because we don’t understand it. Our parent’s life experiences and wisdom gained from those experiences have given them a better understanding of the world around us than we have as children. So, their no’s to us may seem cruel at times but it is often for our benefit.

God created the world around us and the universe beyond us. God sees the past, present, and future all at once. God, therefore, is more knowledgeable than our parents (and, of course, us) could ever have dreamed of being. Our knowledge is finite and therefore our wisdom and perception are finite. God is infinite and therefore His wisdom is infinite. So while we can’t always know the reasons of the pain and suffering we experience here on earth, we can know that God does. So, because of our ignorance the words of Job ring true, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.” Job 42:3

Evil proves God exists. Why do we hate “evil”? Why would someone question why bad things happen? It is because we know that there is a standard of good and of rightness and therefore whatever is “evil” doesn’t seem to meet the standard. We know a line is crooked because we know of straightness. Anything that goes against the “transcendentals” (truth, beauty, and goodness) is evil, bad, or wrong. Since God is defined as perfect in goodness, He is the standard against which one judges evil. If God does not exist, whence then is evil? What standard does anyone have to judge evil? Evil and goodness would only exist as opinions.

If naturalism is true, the best hope we have is that we will return to the nothing from which naturalists say we came. That not only does pain end when we die but so does any amount of pleasure and joy. Nothing created us for no purpose and back to the void of nothingness we will return. All of our pleasures and pain on earth were for naught. No truth, beauty, or goodness awaits in exchange for all the suffering in the world.

However, the Bible tells us there is a reason that pain and suffering are in the world. Man’s sin is so potent that it affects the world. Adam and Eve’s disobedience caused death to come into the world. Before sin, there was no hard work, pain in child labor, shame, disaster, or death. The Bible also promises us that all will be made right again. That God is a God of justice. That one day man will be free from pain and suffering. That one day even nature will experience this freedom. This freedom is not just an absence of pain. Ceasing to exist could do that. No, this freedom from pain will be because of unconquerable and unending joy. This freedom comes to those who place their faith in God. This promise is for those of us that believe He has this gift awaiting us and that it is only available through His only begotten Son, Jesus. God has promised us that the pain on earth has been used to make a way possible to live eternally. The death that Jesus died on the cross was the death that brings us life. What was meant for evil, God is using for good.

“He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Revelation 21:4-5(ESV)

Footnotes:
¹I present to you that this might be a false dichotomy. And it actually answers the question of “How can evil exist if a good God exists.” The third option is that God uses people to change things. He sometimes uses people to show the world His love and goodness. He uses people to spread His good news, administer justice and benevolence. Anytime God’s people do God’s will, we see God in action.

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

God in the Flesh

~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

20171117_063714
The Nativity by Gustav Dore, late 19th century

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, . ..

In the Bible we learn that God came down and dwelt in the body of man. He was born of a woman, lived, ate, slept, cried, and died. In theology, this is known as the Doctrine of the Incarnation. The word “incarnation” means to be made into flesh. The Incarnation is one of the vital doctrines of the Christian faith although it has had its critics over the centuries. Here I seek to explore and defend the concept of God in the flesh.

In the Book of Genesis, God tells Eve that her Seed will crush the head of the serpent but the serpent will bruise the Seed’s heel (3:15). This was a promise from God that a man born of a woman would be the one to defeat the serpent, Satan. This gospel is the first revelation of who the Messiah would be. As time goes on in human history we are provided more info on this Man (progressive revelation).

In Isaiah 7:14, we are told that there will be a virgin who will give birth to a Child and His name will be Immanuel. Often in the Old Testament times, a name given to a person was actually a description of that person. Such is the case with Immanuel which means “God with us.” So this will be literally God dwelling among us as a man. Isaiah goes on to say in chapter 9, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom…” So more is now revealed. God will dwell among man as a man. He will be of the lineage of David and will establish His kingdom. And from Genesis, Satan will bruise His heel but He will defeat Satan.

Now we come to the fruition of the promise made to Eve and to the people of God. The birth of Jesus. The only man born of a virgin, Jesus came to earth as the Immanuel that Isaiah foretold of 700 years before.

Like I’ve stated previously, in Matthew we see that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. And in the Gospel of John, He is described as the Word that was with God and the Word that was God (John 1:1). In Colossians 1:15, He is the “image of the invisible God.” In Philippians 2:6, He is the very nature, or form, of God. Hebrews 1:3 says He is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

Jesus is the “uncreated incarnate Creator of creation”. All things were created from Him, through Him, and for Him (Romans 11:36). Yet, the Creator came to earth and dwelt in His creation. This is referred to as the Hypostatic Union; Jesus being truly God and truly man. Jesus is the two natures of God and man in a single hypostasis (essence, substance, nature). He is the theanthropos, or God-man.

The dual nature of Jesus may sound confusing, but God is not the author of confusion. John 1 calls Jesus the light. Scientists have discovered that light also has a dual nature. The scientific community was once divided on whether light was wave or whether it was particle. However they’ve discovered that it is both wave and particle, something scientists used to consider an impossibility.

Some have argued that Jesus is not God because the Scriptures says He slept and that an all-powerful God does not need to sleep. This argument basically comes from a person who doesn’t take their own premise to its logical conclusion. That is, that God being all powerful can choose to place himself in a human body and limit that human body to the natural laws that govern all other humans; like the need for rest and food and water. He also came as a Jew meaning that He had to obey the spiritual laws He had given Moses about 1,200 years before. And He did so, perfectly.

Some people would say “is this like Hercules who was the progeny of a god and human mother?” NO. Jesus was fully God and fully man. The fictional Hercules was half-god and half-man. Some would say that Hercules only became a god after his death. Unlike Hercules, Jesus the Son was ALWAYS God. He says in the Gospel of John, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus says in the Garden of Gethsemane that He shared the glory with God before the world began (John 17:5). Therefore, there was no progression, or apotheosis, of Jesus to divinity. He was always God.

Jesus came to earth to be the propitiation, or atoning sacrifice, of our sins. He could only be this as a perfect man, but since there is no perfect man, God came to earth to be just that.

As John Piper states, “In order for Jesus to suffer and die, he had to plan way ahead of time, because … he couldn’t die. Immortal. He didn’t have any body, yet he wanted to die … for you. So he planned the whole thing by clothing himself with a body so that he could get hungry and get weary and get sore feet. The incarnation is the preparation of nerve endings for the nails – the preparation of a brow for thorns to press through. He needed to have a broad back so that there was a place for the whip. He needed to have feet so that there was a place for spikes. He needed to have a side so that there was a place for the sword to go in. He needed fleshy cheeks so that Judas would have a place to kiss and there would be a place for the spit to run down that the soldiers put on him. He needed a brain and a spinal column with no vinegar and no gall so that the exquisiteness of the pain could be fully felt. I just plead with you – when you’re reading the bible and you read water toy texts like “he loved you” and “gave himself for you,” you wouldn’t go too fast over it. Linger, linger, linger, and plead with him that your eyes would be opened.“

Further reading: John 1:1-14, Romans 1:2-5, 8:3, 9:5, Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 1:1-3, 4:2

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

The Self-Sufficiency of God

~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment

Foster_Bible_Pictures_0060-1_Moses_Sees_a_Fire_Burning_in_a_Bush
Moses Sees A Fire Burning In A Bush, 1897

Exodus 3:2 …So he looked and behold the bush was burning with fire but the bush was not consumed.

In the book of Exodus, as Moses had been living as a shepherd for 40 years and as a fugitive from Egypt, his attention was captured by a bush that was on fire. This probably wouldn’t have been a big deal but what he saw made him investigate even further. “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” The flame spoke to Moses and identified Himself, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” God told Moses He will send him to Pharaoh to deliver His people. Moses then asked, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

The name God gave Moses encompasses His attribute of self-sufficiency. “I Am Who I Am.” As Matthew Henry puts it, the representation of I Am Who I Am states “that he is self-existent; he has his being of himself, and has no dependence upon any other…Being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and bliss.”

When a bush is on fire, the fire must consume the bush as fuel to exist. However, God was showing Moses several things in this display. He was showing Moses that He didn’t need the bush to exist as a flame. God doesn’t need fuel. God is the self-existent and self-sufficient I Am. He was also displaying that God didn’t need the bush or Moses to display His power. But by His providence and sovereign will, God chooses the lowly things to be His vessels of special purpose. God knew Moses was an 80-year-old fugitive who was “slow of speech and of tongue”, that in spite of his failings and shortcomings, would still be the man to approach the most powerful man in the land and lead His people to freedom. Moses knew that it would not and that it could not be of his own power and influence that he do what God desired of him. He had to rely on the One who needs no outside source.

The self-sufficiency, or aseity, of God should give us comfort. When God has called us to do something we can rest in the fact that He has all power and knowledge and the God that created the universe will equip us to do the task at hand. Our human bodies require rest and sustenance. According to the laws of nature, set into place by God, we must rely on something outside of ourselves to even exist. God, however, requires nothing. As John Piper states, “God exists ‘from Himself’. God owes His existence and completeness as God to nothing outside Himself.”

“nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;” Acts 17:25

For more of God’s Attributes download this PDF

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

Jesus Hidden in the First Two Words of the Bible

~ Theologetics ~ 4 Comments

biblical_hebrew_modern_hebrew

****Warning: I am retracting my original stance regarding this blog (in a way). I first researched this concept almost 5 years ago and to this day, I still have found that the meanings of the Paleo-Hebrew letters can hold each of the meanings I outline in this blog, however, what I did not fully consider is how drawing meanings in such a vague way can be dangerous. Now, my stance has always been that Paleo-Hebrew letter meanings are certainly no way to derive new secrets or meanings from verses in the Bible. To me it seemed characteristic of our Omniscient God that His purpose and fingerprints could be seen even in the ancient letters used by His chosen people; the Jews. I thought this only because those meanings can already be seen clearly in the text and they only serve to confirm what God already made clear in Scripture. The problem with this, that I see now, is twofold; first, that the process of pulling the desired meanings from each letter requires one to do so inconsistently. So much so that while it is possible the meanings drawn could be true, it is simply too abstract to be evidence of a Messianic prophecy. The second problem is that if we grant this vague way of finding hidden meanings in the Bible, the same inconsistent process could be used by others to confirm almost any idea they want from the Bible. And if we promote this inconsistent process for confirming Christ as Messiah and as Creator, which is already made clear in Scripture, denying the process to be used to promote poor or bad theological ideas would be somewhat inconsistent.****

The claim: The first two words in Genesis act very much like a Messianic Prophecy, so the story of Jesus as Creator and Savior is outlined in just two words which happen to be the first two words in the Bible!

There have been several videos on YouTube and various people who teach about this hidden meaning of the first two words in Genesis (and other words in Scripture). This is a brief blog about my personal research into this claim that the first two words, in their ancient language form, are actually a shadow of Jesus.

This claim is that in ancient Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) there is an idiographic or pictographic meaning assigned to each letter of the alphabet. These are symbols that depict an idea and because of this, the idea of Jesus as Creator and Savior can be seen in the words themselves. Now, I am no Hebraist so I did some research online from various sources to see if the claim about the first two words in the Bible really did hold up and as far as I can tell (and to my surprise), the claim is true (but with a very important caveat; the process used to come to this conclusion is not consistent and is very vague). Since it’s not a perfect science where hermetically you could apply the same rules to all Biblical texts, this idea at best might be said to be used as a shadow of Christ (in my opinion) but as mentioned in the warning above, this is too abstract a process to be good evidence for that.

A few things to keep in mind; Hebrew reads from right to left in case anyone looks this up themselves (which I encourage everyone to do with all claims like these) so don’t let this confuse you. Also, when translated from the Hebrew to English the first verse in Genesis reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While this is accurate for the English sentence structure, the proper reading of the verse in the original Hebrew would be “In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.” So here is a breakdown of the first two words in Genesis;

The 1st word Barasheet translated as “In the beginning”
The letters in order are: Beyt Resh Aleph Shin Yud Tav
Beyt + Resh together form the word Bar meaning “Son of” (in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is Ben)
Aleph = Ox head meaning Power, Authority, Strength; said to be used by the Hebrews to represent “God”
Shin = Two front teeth meaning Sharp, Press, Eat… (the function of the teeth when chewing; consume/destroy)
Yud = Arm meaning work, make and deed; the functions of the hand
Tav = Crossed Sticks meaning Mark, Sign, Signal, Monument

So the first word in the Bible, in the beginning, holds this idea (according to the claim);
The Son of God (will be) destroyed (by His own) work on a cross. Even from the beginning, the Son of God was to die on a cross for us by His own hand to save us from our sins.

Also, the 2nd word Bara translated as “Created”
The letters in order are: Beyt Resh Aleph
Beyt + Resh together form the word Bar meaning “Son of” (again, in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is Ben)
Aleph = Ox head meaning Power, Authority, Strength; said to be used by the Hebrews to represent “God”

The second word in the Bible, “created,” (according to the claim) pictographically means Son of God, so as Scripture plainly tells us (John 1:1-3), it can also be seen in the word “created” itself that Jesus was the one who created us; everything that was created was created by Jesus, the Son of God.

So even though this way of deriving hidden meaning from the text may be too abstract to be a type of shadow of Christ or a Messianic prophecy, there are many other shadows of Christ and Messianic prophecies which are hermeneutically sound. If you would like to know more about Jesus and how to know Him personally, please email us at Theologetics3.15@gmail.com

A few things of note; Beyt alone = house or tent as well as family
Resh alone = head meaning man, chief, top, beginning and first, each of which are the “head” of something
Shin can basically mean “the function of the teeth when chewing” and other sources say “to destroy” which is what the teeth do to food. Yud basically means functions of the hand which could be understood as “by His hand”. And Tav which amazingly looks like the cross and can mean “sign”, “mark” and other online sources say “covenant” so this process is taking the letter itself as a literal sign of the cross.

*Disclaimer: Some Christian organizations teach that Paleo-Hebrew meanings are completely unrelated to the Hebrew language and that it can be dangerous to try to derive meaning from Scripture in this way– and as stated in the warning at the beginning of this blog, this can be true. But I will say I was never condoning or promoting some new secret way to interpret Scripture. I’m not saying this is hermeneutically sound when applied to all words in the Bible, just that it is at the very least, interesting how some key words appear to hold shadows of Christ in their original pictographic form and that it should not be surprising to find that given an almighty, all-knowing God planned Jesus coming to earth from the very beginning, even though it would not have been known to man. With that said, it is my stance now that this process is too inconsistent to be of much help apologetically and at worst opens a door for those who seek to promote non-biblical theologies.

Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

https://youtu.be/W2-o0WI_qz8
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_beyt.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_resh.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_aleph.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_shin.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_yud.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_tav.html

ancient-letters