His Word Today

“Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker.” (Philemon 1 (ESV)

As was the case with every one of Paul’s epistles, he immediately identified himself as the author. This marks the difference from the first century letter format with what we are familiar with today. In today’s writing style, the identity of the author is usually revealed at the letters, or emails, conclusion.

However, immediately following his personal introduction Paul addressed the recipient of the letter; Philemon. He was a prominent member of the church at Colossae (vv. 1–2; cf. Col. 4:9). This local church met in his house (Philem. 2). Paul’s letter was not only for him, but also for his family, and the church. It is also for believers in Christ today (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Paul identified Philemon as our beloved fellow worker. The word “our” referred to Paul and Timothy. What does the phrase beloved fellow worker mean?

The word beloved (ἀγαπητός; agapetos) means dear friend. It refers to one who is the object of godly and sincere affection.

The phrase fellow worker (συνεργός; synergos) means a co-laborer. Paul often used this phrase in referring to fellow co-laborers for the gospel ((Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Php. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 3:2; Phm. 1; 3 John 8).

One commentator explains, “He (Philemon) was loved by Paul (“dear friend” is the rendering of agapētō, lit., “loved” or “beloved”; cf. v. 16); and Paul considered Philemon on his level as a “fellow worker” (cf. the pl. “fellow workers,” v. 24). Philemon was a well-to-do Christian of the Apostolic Age, in whose home at Colosse the church met. “Fellow worker” does not necessarily suggest that Paul and Philemon labored together; more likely, Philemon worked to build up the church in Colosse while Paul served in nearby Ephesus. Paul also addressed Philemon as “brother” in verses 7 and 20.”

I encourage you to continue reading Philemon in one setting. Focus upon the words “beloved” and “fellow worker.” Are those words people might use to describe you? Have a blessed day.

Soli deo Gloria!

“Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother…” (Philemon 1 (ESV)

As was the case with every one of Paul’s epistles, he immediately identified himself as the author of the epistle. This differentiates the first century letter format with what we are familiar with today. In today’s writing style, the identity of the author is usually revealed at the letters, or emails, conclusion.

Dr. John MacArthur writes, “Following first-century custom, the salutation contains the names of the letter’s author and its recipient. This is a very personal letter and Philemon was one of only three individuals (Timothy and Titus are the others) to receive a divinely inspired letter from Paul.”

Paul did not identify himself as an apostle or even a servant of Jesus Christ as he was prone to do (Rom. 1:1). Rather, he called himself a prisoner. The word prisoner (δέσμιος; desmios) primarily refers to an individual under arrest (Matt 27:15; Mark 15:6; Acts 16:25; 23:18; 25:14; Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 2 Tim. 1:8; Phm. 1, 9). Within the context of Philemon, along with Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Paul was under arrest in the capital city of Rome. Luke records the details of the apostle’s initial incarceration and eventual imprisonment in Rome (Acts 21-28).

The Greek word desmios can literally mean to be bound or a captive in bonds. However it may also refer, and the context supports this, that Paul was a prisoner for Jesus Christ. His imprisonment was for preaching the gospel.

One author writes, “Paul’s imprisonment (literally “fetter”) has special religious significance in phrases like désmios Christoú Iesoú (Eph. 3:1; Phlm. 1, 9), désmion autoú (2 Tim. 1:8), désmios en kyríō (Eph. 4:1), and cf. Phlm. 13 and Phil. 1:13. Actual imprisonment underlies the usage, but the real bondage is to Christ for whose sake it is suffered and to whom self-will is offered in sacrifice. Imprisonment symbolizes his whole life and ministry.”

Paul indicated that Timothy was with him in Rome. Timothy was not the coauthor of this letter, but probably had met Philemon at Ephesus and was with Paul when the apostle wrote the letter. Paul mentioned Timothy here and in the other epistles (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). This was because he wanted Timothy recognized as a leader and the non-apostolic heir apparent to Paul.   

Dr. MacArthur explains, “Paul was imprisoned for the sake of and by the sovereign will of Christ (cf. Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:19–20; Phil. 1:13; Col. 4:3). By beginning with his imprisonment and not his apostolic authority, Paul made this letter a gentle and singular appeal to a friend. A reminder of Paul’s severe hardships was bound to influence Philemon’s willingness to do the comparatively easy task Paul was about to request.”

In studying this brief epistle, take time today to read the entire letter. It’s only twenty-five verses. Select a couple of verses to mediate upon. Perhaps today’s verse may be one to consider. How can you relate to Paul in being a prisoner for Jesus Christ?

Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

The Apostle Paul quickly grew to love the Onesimus, the runaway slave (vv. 12, 16). He also wanted to keep Onesimus in Rome (v. 13), where he was providing valuable service to Paul in his imprisonment (v. 11).

However, by stealing and running away from Philemon, Onesimus had not only broken Roman law but he also defrauded his master. Paul knew those issues had to be dealt with. Therefore, he decided to send Onesimus back to Colossae. It was too hazardous for Onesimus to make the trip alone (because of the danger of slave-catchers), so Paul sent him back with Tychicus. Tychicus was returning to Colossae with the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 4:7–9).

Along with Onesimus, Paul also sent Philemon this beautiful personal letter, urging him to forgive Onesimus and welcome him back to service as a brother in Christ (Philem. 15–17).

It is important to ask ourselves four important questions when studying any portion of God’s Word. Those questions are (1) What did the text mean to the original audience; (2) What are the differences between the original audience and ourselves; (3) What are the theme or themes contained in the text; and (4) How may the text be applied in our own lives?

The Epistle of Philemon provides valuable historical insights into the early church’s relationship to the institution of slavery.

One author writes, “Slavery was widespread in the Roman Empire (according to some estimates, slaves constituted one third, perhaps more, of the population) and an accepted part of life. In Paul’s day, slavery had virtually eclipsed free labor. Slaves could be doctors, musicians, teachers, artists, librarians, or accountants; in short, almost all jobs could be and were filled by slaves.”

Slaves were not legally considered persons, but were the tools of their masters. As such, they could be bought, sold, inherited, exchanged, or seized to pay their master’s debt. Their masters had virtually unlimited power to punish them, and sometimes severely did so for the slightest infractions.

By the time of Christ and the apostles, slavery was beginning to change. Realizing that contented slaves were more productive, masters tended to treat them more gently. It was not uncommon for a master to teach a slave his own trade, and some masters and slaves became close friends.

One commentator explains, “While still not recognizing them as persons under the law, the Roman Senate in A.D. 20 granted slaves accused of crimes the right to a trial. It also became more common for slaves to be granted (or to purchase) their freedom. Some slaves enjoyed very favorable and profitable service under their masters and were better off than many freemen because they were assured of care and provision. Many freemen struggled in poverty.”

The New Testament nowhere directly attacks slavery. Had it done so, the resulting first century slave insurrections would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead, Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters. By stressing the spiritual equality of master and slave (v. 16; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1–2), the Bible did away with slavery’s abuses.

The predominant theological theme in this letter is forgiveness. Forgiveness is a featured theme throughout NT Scripture (cf. Matt. 6:12–15; 18:21–35; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). Paul’s instruction here provides the biblical definition of forgiveness, without ever using the word.

May each of us become more forgiving of others because of our study of the Epistle to Philemon. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

A familiar common phrase, or idiom, is “good things come in small packages.” What the phrase means is often the things that have the most value or quality are small. In other words, the size of something does not always properly indicate its value.

Such is the case perhaps with the New Testament book, Philemon. This brief Pauline Epistle contains only 25 verses and one chapter. Yet like the familiar phrase, even though Philemon is a small epistle it contains sound theology particularly concerning the doctrine of forgiveness.

Philemon, the recipient of this letter, was a prominent member of the church at Colossae (vv. 1–2; cf. Col. 4:9). This local church met in his house (Philem. 2). Paul’s letter was for him, his family, and the church. It is also for us (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

The epistle identifies the Apostle Paul as its author (vv. 1, 9, 19). This claim has met very few detractors in church history. One of the reasons for this is that Philemon contains no content that a forger would have been motivated to write.

The Epistle of Philemon is referred to as one of Paul’s Prison Epistles, along with Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. It is closely connected to Colossians, which Paul wrote approximately at the same time (c. A.D. 60–62; cf. vv. 1, 16). Paul’s authorship of Philemon was unquestioningly supported by such early church fathers as Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

What is the background and setting for the epistle? Philemon had been converted to Christ several years earlier under Paul’s ministry at Ephesus (v. 19). Due to the fact that Philemon was wealthy, he had a large enough house in which the church could meet (cf. v. 2). Philemon also owned slaves. One such slave was a man named Onesimus (lit., “useful”; a common name for slaves).

We discover that Onesimus was not a believer in Christ at the time he stole some money (v. 18) from Philemon and ran away. Like many other runaway slaves, Onesimus fled to Rome. He sought to lose himself in the imperial capital’s huge and commonplace slave population. It was through the providence of God, in circumstances not recorded in Scripture, that Onesimus met Paul in Rome and was converted to Christ.

What were the circumstances by which you were converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is wise to always remember what we were before our conversion to Christ. This prompts us to appreciate what we are as forgiven believers in Christ.

More to come. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. In June 2003, Dr. Mathison wrote an article in Tabletalk Magazine entitled the Existence and Attributes of God. The following is an excerpt from that article.

For those who wish to begin digging deeply into what Scripture teaches about God, there is no better place to go than to Stephen Charnock’s The Existence and Attributes of God, published by Baker Books. At 1,150 pages, this book is not for the faint-hearted. It involves a major commitment of time and effort. But then, most things that are worthwhile do.

The book is divided into 14 discourses. In each discourse, Charnock takes one topic and exhaustively examines what the Bible tells us about it. He begins with two very helpful discourses on the existence of God and practical atheism. He takes as his starting point Psalm 14:1: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” He examines what it means to deny the existence of God and explains that many who profess belief in God with their mouths deny belief in God with their actions.

As Paul explains, “They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him” (Titus 1:16). Charnock elaborates: “Evil works are a dust stirred up by an atheistical breath. He that habituates himself in some sordid lust, can scarcely be said seriously and firmly to believe that there is a God.…” The old cliché, “Actions speak louder than words,” is certainly applicable here. The essence of practical atheism is to live “as if’ God does not exist.

In the remaining discourses, Charnock discusses at great length various attributes of God: His spiritual nature, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, knowledge, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, dominion, and patience.

One of the most edifying sections of each discourse is that in which Charnock explains the practical relevance of truly knowing and understanding a particular attribute of God. In dealing with God’s eternality, for example, Charnock explains how an understanding of this attribute helps us to overcome our fear of death. He writes: “It is impossible that the believer, who is united to the immortal God that is from everlasting to everlasting can ever perish; for being in conjunction with him who is an ever-flowing fountain of life, he cannot suffer him to remain in the jaws of death.”

In addressing the much-maligned doctrine of immutability, Charnock explains how it is a profound comfort to God’s people: “What comfort could it be to pray to a God that like the chameleon changed colors every day, every moment? What encouragement could there be to lift up our eyes to one that were of one mind this day and of another mind tomorrow?”

Too many Christians think of the attributes of God as obscure, impractical doctrines. To the contrary, as Charnock observes, there are no more practical doctrines in Scripture than those that reveal to us the nature of God.

Charnock has written a book that is a spiritual gold mine. It will drive you to Scripture and to your knees in adoration of the living God who has revealed Himself in His holy Word. Men today have forgotten God. Allow the great Puritan Stephen Charnock to remind you again of who He is.

Soli deo Gloria!

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Argument from Religious Experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God’s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced Him.

While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God’s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God’s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves. The prophet Isaiah faithfully served the LORD, based upon his religious experience recorded in Isaiah 6:1-8:

“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.” (Isaiah 6:1-8, ESV)

We will pause in our survey of the philosophical evidences for the existence of God in order to examine Isaiah’s experience of encountering the One, True God who is holy, holy, holy.

Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Anthropological Argument indicates that man is a unique creation by God. The Scriptures claim that man was created in the image of God(Gen. 1:26-27).

In June 2003, Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote an article entitled Imago Dei in which he accurately evaluated the modern’s world condition in rejecting the God of Scripture.  What then is the answer for a world seemingly without value because it has at large rejected the God of the Bible? The following are further excerpts from Dr. Sproul’s article.

At this point, Biblical Christianity is on a collision course with the secular culture, for it offers a radically different view of humans. First, we are not God or gods. We are creatures, indeed creatures of the dust. Second, we are not mere brutes. Though not divine, there is some sense in which we are like God. An image cannot reflect something utterly dissimilar to it. Rather, an image is a likeness of something beyond itself. It is not the original, but it mirrors the original.

Historically, theology has wrestled over the content of the image, over the issue of how we are like God. Traditionally, the point of likeness has been seen in those areas in which we share in the communicable attributes of God.

For example, God is a rational being—He has a mind and intelligence. Though our minds are limited by our creatureliness, we still have the capacity of thinking. (For centuries many assumed that animals cannot think but act only on “instinct,” a category that may be a distinction without a difference.)

Also, we understand that God is a volitional being in that He acts according to His divine will. His will is sovereign, but that does not preclude or exclude the existence of lesser volitional creatures. We also enjoy the faculty of volition as we exercise our wills in the making of choices.

Others have sought to establish the image of God (imago Dei) in our status. Just as God exercises full dominion over the created order, He has delegated to human beings a lesser dominion over the animal world and the earth. In this role, we function as vicegerents of God, or as His appointed deputies.

Still other attempts have been made to locate the image in our human capacity for “I-Thou” relationships. Karl Barth spoke of man’s uniqueness in his being made homo relationis. Just as the persons of the Trinity enjoy an eternal relationship among themselves, so we find our significance in our male/female relationships.

Finally, the question of dignity is tied to the Imago Dei. From a Biblical perspective, human beings do not have inherent or intrinsic dignity. In other words, our dignity (which is real) is not eternal or self-existent. Rather, we have dignity that is extrinsic—it comes to us from without. We have dignity because God assigns dignity to us. He has taken the initiative to stamp His image upon us.

That we bear the image of the God of glory is an unspeakable blessing. But with this elevated status comes a weighty responsibility. We were made to glorify God—to reflect the character of God. That duty comes in the divine mandate: “You shall by holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2).

It is our ability to reflect the holiness of God that has been shattered by the Fall. Sin distorts the image of God. When the deputy sins, the Regent Himself is slandered.

But even with the Fall, by which the image is marred and the reflection of the Creator is clouded and besmirched, the image itself is not destroyed. Even in our fallenness, the communicable attributes of God are made manifest.

The only hope is for God to restore the shattered image of God in man. He has provided the only means in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; 8:28-30).

Soli deo Gloria!

Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder of Ligonier Ministries, founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., and first president of Reformation Bible College. He was author of more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God.

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Anthropological Argument indicates that man is a unique creation by God. The Scriptures claim that man was created in the image of God(Gen. 1:26-27).

In June 2003, Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote an article entitled Imago Dei. The following are excerpts from that thought provoking column.

There are few theological controversies more crucial than that which rages over the question of the nature of humanity. In our age, we face a real threat of the “abolition of man.”

Modern thinkers have an overwhelming desire to wrench our understanding of ourselves out of any connection with the God of the Bible. But anthropology is married to theology. Take God out of the equation, and the question of the nature of man (anthropos) is left to stand or fall on its own. When God is driven into exile or vanquished altogether, people follow suit, for we are made in God’s image. The image-bearer loses his significance the moment the One whose image he bears is eclipsed.

Thus, the message every young person gets today in the name of science and advanced education is that he or she is a cosmic accident, a grown-up germ that has emerged fortuitously from the slime, garbed temporarily in the guise of intelligence and intentionality (which are really myths that obscure the truth of sheer physical causes). This intelligent animal (homo sapiens) is said to share the destiny of the snail and the octopus, the abyss of nothingness.

Thus, man is reduced to a brute of insignificant origin. And modern culture has embraced this animalistic view of human beings in the arenas of science, law, public education, the arts, and business.

While there is great rancor today over such issues as gender equity and sexual orientation, the deeper question is voiced by the cynic, who asks simply, “Who cares?” What difference does it make whether males exploit females or whether the beast is heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation? We don’t get excited about the sexual proclivities of worms, so why care about those of people? If, indeed, people are sophisticated animals, bestial in their fundamental constitution, then ultimately it doesn’t really matter much whether towers collapse on them or snipers pick them off one at a time.

What then is the answer to this realistic evaluation of a world seemingly without value because it has at large rejected the God of the Bible? Dr. Sproul will provide several biblical answers.

Soli deo Gloria!

Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder of Ligonier Ministries, founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., and first president of Reformation Bible College. He was author of more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God.

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

1 Peter 3:14–15 (ESV) says, “¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, ¹⁵ but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”  

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Anthropological Argument indicates that man is a unique creation by God. The Scriptures claim that man was created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:26–27 (ESV) says, “²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”  

Genesis 2:7 (ESV) says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

The doctrine of God’s image in man is interpreted in the Scriptures as the spiritual image, not the physical image. Most interpret this as referring to man’s ability to think, feel, and make conscious and rational decisions. David speaks eloquently of his own creation in Psalm 139:13-16:

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16, ESV).

To a great extent, man’s behavior is learned while animals are bound by instinct. Characteristic of man alone is that he is a creature of reasoning intelligence who has the capacity of adapting means to an end, along with having a moral and spiritual consciousness.

The implications of this argument for God’s existence is that mankind as a whole, and individuals in particular, possess intrinsic value. However, it should be noted that man’s value is not self-existent. It comes from outside of him. Man’s intrinsic value comes from the self-existent God.

One author explains, “From a Biblical perspective, human beings do not have inherent or intrinsic dignity. In other words, our dignity (which is real) is not eternal or self-existent. Rather, we have dignity that is extrinsic—it comes to us from without. We have dignity because God assigns dignity to us. He has taken the initiative to stamp His image upon us.”

Humans bear the image of the God of glory. This is an unspeakable blessing. It also is a weighty responsibility. We were made to glorify God—to reflect the character of God. That duty comes in the divine mandate: “You shall by holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2; I Peter 1:16).

What are the implications when the God of the Scriptures existence is denied, especially in the realm of man’s significance or value? This significant question is examined in our next post.

Have a blessed day in the Lord. May each of us reflect God’s image, for His glory.

Soli deo Gloria!

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. ² Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. (Psalm 19:1–2 (ESV)

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Moral Argument is the argument from the existence or nature of morality to the existence of God. Two forms of moral arguments are distinguished: formal and perfectionist.

The Formal Moral Argument takes the form of morality to imply that it has a divine origin: morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands. Where can these commands have come from but from a commander that has ultimate authority?

The Perfectionist Moral Argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, that morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to conceive the existence of God. The Bible sets forth this truth in succinctly in Micah 6:6-8:

With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:6-8, ESV)

The Moral Argument is unconsciously set forth by the “so-called” mainstream media each and every time a random shooting occurs at a school or other social setting. Especially when children are victims of violence, media commentators will state that the actions of the perpetrator were evil. The question then is how can anything be called evil if there is no contrasting standard which we recognize as the ultimate good, right or non-evil?

In order to call anything evil implies a righteous standard by which any act can be defined as evil. The righteous standard which defines, and is in contrast to evil, is God and His righteousness. Therefore, whenever society calls something good or evil, it implies an objective standard which can define something as either good or evil. This inherent sense of right and wrong comes from God. Scripture sets forth this truth.

• Then Pharaoh sent and called Moses and Aaron and said to them, “This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong.” (Exodus 9:27 ESV)

Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The LORD is righteous. (2 Chronicles 12:6 ESV)

The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous—you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. (Psalm 7:8-11 ESV)

Gracious is the Lord, and righteous; our God is merciful. (Psalm 116:5 ESV)

The LORD is righteous; he has cut the cords of the wicked. (Psalm 129:4 ESV)

The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works. (Psalm 145:17 ESV).

The LORD is in the right, for I have rebelled against his word; but hear, all you peoples, and see my suffering; my young women and my young men have gone into captivity. (Lamentations 1:18 ESV)

To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. (Daniel 9:7 ESV)

Therefore the LORD has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice. (Daniel 9:14 ESV)

Pray for our nation which has cast off the moral righteousness of God for the immoral unrighteousness of sin.

Soli deo Gloria!