# videos

title: Two Warnings for Christians
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/25/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-warnings-for-christians
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/yC96O2zVnmA?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>There are troubles facing Christians both in the world and in the church. Greg describes what form these troubles take, explaining why Christians need to be alert and equipped with the truth.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>In any event, on this notion that we’re dangerous—as the smoke still billowed from the wreckage of World Trade One and Two, Thomas Friedman, New York Times writer, wrote an article called&nbsp;“The Real War,” and in this particular article, he claimed that the real war that we are fighting now is not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is just a means to an end. The war is against something else—what he called&nbsp;“religious totalitarianism.”</p>

<p>Now, what is religious totalitarianism? Simply put, it is any religious view that thinks its view is correct. Any religious group that teaches an exclusivist view of religion. Those people are dangerous.</p>

<p>Now, was it true of the people who flew those planes into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, into the field in Pennsylvania? Did they think their religion was correct? Sure.</p>

<p>But that’s also true about virtually everybody in this room and [those] who sit in churches around the country every Sunday morning. They think their religion is true&nbsp;too. What Thomas Friedman did is, he lumped all fundamentalists together. Never mind that the Christian fundamentalists likely would pray for your salvation, where the Muslim fundamentalist would likely kill you. And we’ve seen lots of examples of that since then. But this is a distinction that he didn’t make. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist. If they think they’re right, they’re dangerous.</p>

<p>Now, I presume that whatever views that Thomas Friedman has about religion himself, he thinks they’re right, which is why he holds the views. Which would mean, by his own definition, he’d be a fundamentalist who’s dangerous as well. But never mind that. That requires a little consistency in thinking here, which is not characteristic of these kinds of challenges.</p>

<p>The point I’m making is the same theme. Keeps being repeated everywhere I go. And that is, we are the enemy. And sometimes&nbsp;this is subtle, and sometimes it’s explicit, which puts any church committed to participating in the Great Commission directly in the crosshairs of the spiritual battle. So, there’s trouble in the world. Trouble from the outside.</p>

<p>But there’s also serious trouble on the inside. And here, I want to be very careful because on the one hand, you know, you don’t want to beat up the bride—the bride of Christ. On the other hand, there are serious concerns that have to be addressed for us to be a proper bride.</p>

<p>Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8, he says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ.”</p>

<p>Paul made it clear that there are two ways to see reality: God’s way and any other way. And there’s a whole multiplicity of other ways that people are following. And Paul’s saying, don’t be taken captive by that. Be careful. We’re in the midst of a culture;&nbsp;we’re immersed in it. It’s hard to get immersed in a lake and not get wet. By the same token, we are going to collect something from our culture, but we also have to be very careful that it does not corrupt and pollute our true understanding of reality. And that’s the warning. And unfortunately, this is something the church has not been very careful of.</p>

<p>Christian lives are not, I think, characteristically informed by a robust Christian worldview. Oftentimes, they have the right pieces of the puzzle—they have particulars and details. They haven’t put it together to see the big picture, and this makes them vulnerable. Sometimes they don’t know the particular details. Sometimes there’s just almost nothing there but religious affections, and religious language, and religious activities, but no depth in understanding.</p>


title: Worst Pro-Choice Argument I’ve Ever Seen
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/01/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/worst-pro-choice-argument-i-ve-ever-seen
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/1vr-gzMjiFQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/redpenlogic_tapewormanalogy_khole.001.jpeg/5c3885f0-8d06-9955-d71a-899b042a6dd2?t=1611848270312" style="height: auto; width: 511.989px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>K Hole Adventurer uses an analogy to show that the pro-life&nbsp;position is silly—that it’s kind of&nbsp;like arguing for the rights of a worm. Now, an argument&nbsp;from analogy is a special kind of inductive argument. Basically, it reasons that because two things are similar, what is true of the first is also true of the second.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Of course, no analogy is perfect—there will always be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial—well, then, we have a problem.</p>

<p>Unfortunately for K Hole, this is a false analogy. The argument doesn’t work because tapeworms and humans are really different. The similarities are superficial, but the difference is a big deal. And you already know what it is. It’s the difference between the value of worms and the value of humans. Killing a worm is not the same as killing a human being.</p>

<p>But there’s a second problem. The analogy misunderstands the pro-life argument. We are not saying that anything inside your body with a heartbeat that feels pain has a right to life. We are not pro-life because something has a heartbeat, or feels pain, or is inside your body. We are pro-life because abortion kills a human being inside her own mother’s body. Our argument is that human beings at any stage of development have intrinsic value and should not be killed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>So, the tweet uses a faulty analogy to argue there’s an inconsistency in the pro-life view. But there is nothing inconsistent about pro-lifers being <em>against</em> killing human beings who are intrinsically valuable and being <em>for</em> killing tapeworms because they’re just worms. Get it?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>This surprisingly popular pro-choice challenge trades on the similarity between unborn humans and tapeworms. Yep, you heard me right. Tapeworms.</p>

<p>This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B, where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking. And we like to have a bit of fun while we’re doing it.</p>

<p>In today’s tweet, K Hole Adventurer offers an analogy to show an inconsistency in the pro-life position.</p>

<p>(K Hole Adventurer...what does that mean?)</p>

<p>Here’s what he says, “If any of you pro-lifers get tapeworms, you better suck it up and be a good host, because tapeworms have a heartbeat and feel pain. It deserves a choice and it chose you...to be its mother.”</p>

<p>This tweet has over twenty thousand likes. Twenty thousand. Twenty thousand. That means over twenty thousand people read this tweet and thought it actually made sense. It’s because they don’t know the difference between an argument from analogy—good—and the false analogy fallacy—bad.</p>

<p>K Hole Adventurer uses an analogy to show the pro-life position is silly. It’s kind of like arguing for the rights of a tapeworm. Now, arguments from analogy are a special kind of inductive argument. Basically, it reasons that because two things are similar, what’s true of the first is also true of the second. Of course, no analogy is perfect. There are&nbsp;always going to be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant, and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial— we have a problem. In K Hole’s tweet, he points to three explicit similarities between tapeworms and unborn humans.</p>

<p>First, they have a heartbeat. (Actually, tapeworms don’t have a heartbeat because they don’t have a heart. Maybe he’s thinking of earthworms.&nbsp;Let’s just overlook this for the moment.) Second, they both feel pain. Third, they’re both inside a human being. So whatever is true of a tapeworm, the argument goes, is also true of an unborn human being. If it’s okay to kill the tapeworm that has a heartbeat, feels pain, and lives inside the host, then it’s also okay to kill the unborn human that has a heartbeat, feels pain, and lives inside the mother. Are you still tracking with me?</p>

<p>Here’s the problem, and it’s a big one. This is a false analogy. The argument doesn’t work because tapeworms and humans are very different. I don’t know if you’ve noticed. The similarities are superficial, but the difference is a big deal, and you already know what it is. It’s the difference between the value of worms and the value of human beings. I’m not going too quickly here, am I?</p>

<p>Killing a worm is not the same thing as killing a human being. The analogy breaks down because tapeworms are not intrinsically valuable. They’re worms. No one thinks parasites have the same value as people. Which is why, by the way, when you’re backing your car out of the driveway on a rainy day, you check for toddlers, not worms.</p>

<p>Second, this analogy completely misunderstands the pro-life argument. We are not saying that anything inside the body that has a heartbeat and feels pain has therefore a right to life. We are not pro-life because something has a heartbeat, or feels pain, or is inside your body. We’re pro-life because abortion kills an innocent human being inside the mother’s body. Our argument is that human beings at any stage of&nbsp;development are intrinsically valuable and therefore should not be killed. So it all comes down to one question: What is the unborn? If the unborn is not human, like a tapeworm, then you don’t even need a reason to kill it. But if the unborn is human, then no reason is adequate. So this tweet relies on a faulty analogy to show an inconsistency in the pro-life view. But there’s nothing inconsistent about pro-lifers being against killing human beings who are intrinsically valuable and being for killing tapeworms because they’re just, well, worms. Get it?</p>

<p>So, what have we learned? First, arguments from analogy can be a good way to argue, but the analogy has to be a good analogy. In this case, there’s a major difference. It’s the difference between the value of worms and the value of human beings. Second, this analogy completely misunderstands why we’re pro-life. We’re not pro-life because something has a heartbeat, or something feels pain, or something is inside your body. We’re pro-life because abortion kills humans, and that’s wrong.</p>

<p>So here’s the moral of the story: Worms are worms. Humans are humans. And you need to know the difference. Class dismissed.</p>


title: Was Jesus a Social Justice Warrior?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/08/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-a-social-justice-warrior-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBBR3cYvmsw?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Why did Jesus come to earth? Was it to help the poor and promote social justice? Greg explains that though Jesus cared about those issues, his main purpose was much weightier than resolving temporal problems.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Let me correct a misunderstanding about Jesus, and I’m amazed that there’s so much confusion on this, but the main purpose of Jesus’ life was not to spread peace, and love, and help us to all get along, okay? That is not why he came. He had some things to say about that stuff, but that was not what he said about his own purpose. I’m not saying he never mentioned things like social justice or the poor, but it turns out he didn’t mention it very much.</p>

<p>And just as a little point of information—and to me, this is one of those little tidbits that allows me to say a lot in a little or to make a powerful point from a small bit of evidence. So I don’t have to go through all the Gospels to weigh the emphasis that Jesus had on social gospel or social justice to things like salvation, eternal spiritual matters. I can just look at one Gospel, the Gospel of John, which I read from John 1:1 all the way to the end, which was chapter 22 or something like that. And there’s only one time that Jesus mentions the poor. One. And that’s when he says, “The poor you always have with you,” which he’s dismissive—and in that context, he’s only dismissive because what’s at stake is the poor compared to <em>him</em>.</p>

<p>And in that entire Gospel, there is no reference to anything that could be construed as social justice. And so, I ask myself the question: Why is it, then, when John wrote the last Gospel after the other three had been written, he gives the final statement, he never mentions anything that has to do with so-called social justice? And the answer to me is very simple: It’s because Jesus’ life was not about that. It was about something else entirely.</p>

<p>What did <em>he</em> say? He said he came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). He said that he came to call sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). He said that he came to give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Those were <em>his</em> words about his mission.</p>

<p>And when he said he came to give deliverance to the poor, keep in mind he is talking there about the poor in spirit. Notice how he starts the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit....” Spiritual poverty—those people who understand their need for him. Didn’t matter how much money you have in your pocket. Didn’t care about that. Rich or poor, you come to him with your spiritual poverty, and he’s there to receive you. That’s what he’s about.</p>

<p>In any event, when we proclaim <em>this</em> message which is <em>his</em> message, then we’re courting conflict.</p>


title: The Trinity Explains This!
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/15/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-explains-this-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/MYvo-Vm4og8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_AreYouThereGodCounterApologist.001.jpeg/4bcb06e3-9a11-d778-2cdf-878a93c1f20e?t=1613071977227" style="height: auto; width: 420.994px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>In today’s tweet, Counter Apologist offers a meme meant to mock Christian theology. It’s a picture of Jesus praying, and it simply says, “Are you there God? It’s me…you.”</p>

<p>Get it? If Jesus is God, and Jesus is praying to God, then Jesus must be praying…to himself. Well, if that’s what you think, you better stick around.</p>

<p>First, the meme relies on a misunderstanding to get a laugh. But Christian theology is Trinitarian theology. God is not one Person. Rather, he is one eternal being and three persons. Once you understand the important distinction between a being—a “what”—and a person—a “who”—it’s easy to see how this meme falters. Jesus wasn’t praying to himself. He was praying to the Father.</p>

<p>Second, the Trinity is not contradictory. Three persons in one God may be weird, but it’s not a contradiction.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Many who criticize Christianity think that the Trinity is weird. Well, it is. But that doesn’t mean it’s false. Lots of things that are real can be weird. I know because I look in the mirror. That’s part of the problem with this tweet. Plus, it’s based on a big misunderstanding.</p>

<p>This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B, where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking. Plus, we try to have some fun while we’re doing it.</p>

<p>In today’s tweet, Counter Apologist offers a meme meant to mock Christian theology. It’s a picture of Jesus praying, and it simply says, “Are you there, God? It’s me...you.” Get it? If Jesus is God, and he’s praying to God, then that means Jesus is praying to himself. Well, if that’s what you think, you better stick around.</p>

<p>This meme trades on an imprecise understanding of God, so let’s carefully define some terms together. Once we do, you’ll see that this meme fails to be funny.</p>

<p>There are two terms that we need to understand: unitarianism and Trinitarianism. Unitarianism is the belief that God is one person, just as you are one being who is one person, one consciousness. God, on this view, is one being who is one person, one consciousness. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are all unitarians.</p>

<p>Trinitarianism, on the other hand, is the belief that God is one, but within God, so to speak, are three centers of consciousness, three completely distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And those persons interact with each other in personal ways, like talking to each other.</p>

<p>Now, this concept of God makes a very important distinction between being and person. Obviously, it would be a contradiction to say three beings are one being or three persons or one person. So then, what’s the difference between being and person? I’m glad you asked.</p>

<p>Being has to do with what something is—its nature or its essence. For example, a tree has being, a rock has being, and my hamster has being. (Hi, Teddy, where you going?) So, rocks and hamsters aren’t persons. (Sorry, Teddy.) And you have being, too. You’re a human being. So far, so good.</p>

<p>Now, some beings are also persons. “Person” has to do with who someone is. When it comes to human beings, we all recognize both the being and the person. That is, what you are is distinct from who you are. For instance, I’m a being—a human being to be exact. But I’m also a particular person. (Hi, I’m Mr. B. Nice to meet you.) Persons have unique personal qualities like will, and emotions, and mind. So, rocks and hamsters aren’t persons. (Sorry, Teddy.) But humans are. We’re personal beings. So, the difference between being and person is the difference between what and who. A rock is one what and no who. Mr. B is one what and one who. And God is one what and three whos: Father, Son, and Spirit.</p>

<p>Now, listen carefully because here’s where some people get confused. Each person within God shares the same single nature—the what—but is a distinct person—the who. So, for example, the Father is God, and the son is God, but the Father is not the Son because they’re distinct persons.</p>

<p>Now, let’s go back to the original challenge. Jesus prays, “Are you there, God? It’s me...you.” Now, you probably already see the problem. It fails to differentiate between the Father—who’s being prayed to—and the son—who’s the one praying.</p>

<p>Jesus isn’t praying to Himself. He’s praying to the Father. We could easily restate this meme: “Are you there, Father? It’s me...your Son.” Why is this better? Why would Jesus—who is God—pray to the Father—who is God? Because no one prays to a nature (in this case, the divine nature of the Father and the Son). Instead, we pray to another person, like the Father, and that’s exactly what Jesus is doing.</p>

<p>There are two things to think about. First, Jesus isn’t merely God. Unlike the Father, the Son took on a real human nature. He is the God-man. And as the God-man, he is a perfect man who worships, honors, obeys, and, yes, even prays to God the Father. In fact, the man Jesus is actually dependent on the Father. But how can the Son be dependent if he is God? The apostle Paul tells us: “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”</p>

<p>Now, watch this because it’s really important. The Word, the second person of the Trinity, did not cease to be God when he came to earth as Jesus. Rather, he laid aside his privileges as God and became a servant to us. That’s why Paul says he humbled himself, just like we’re supposed to. So, when God the Son prays to God the Father, he is not denying his full deity. Rather, he’s 1) affirming that he’s a different person than the Father and 2) that he’s put himself under the Father’s authority as he walked the earth.</p>

<p>So, what have we learned? First, the meme relies on a misunderstanding to get a laugh, but Christian theology is Trinitarian theology. God is one eternal being, three eternal persons. Once you understand the important distinction between a being—a what—and a person—a who—you can easily spot where this meme goes wrong. Jesus wasn’t praying to himself; he was praying to the Father. Second, the Trinity is not contradictory. Three persons in one God may be weird, but it’s not a contradiction.</p>

<p>Hello, are you there, dad? It’s me...your son. Sorry, I gotta take this. Class dismissed.</p>


title: Scientist Denies How Science Really Started
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/15/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/scientist-denies-how-science-really-started
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tjTsCAvvTzM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_ChristianityLedToScience_godFreeWorld_NewtonRemoved.001.jpeg/39e20b2b-f5ad-dbb2-6e01-a89e398e189f?t=1615505902457" style="height: auto; width: 435px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>According to godFreeWorld, Christianity not only had nothing to do with laying the foundations of modern science, faith is actually toxic to science. Christianity, then, takes credit for something it didn’t do…kinda like your high school lab partner, who lets you do all the work&nbsp;then&nbsp;takes credit for it.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
This is a serious accusation. Now let’s see where the evidence points.<br>
<br>
First, godFreeWorld is just plain wrong about the facts. It turns out that most of the fathers of modern science—you know, the guys with laws named after them—were Christians.<br>
<br>
Second, the Christian convictions of the founders of modern science led to the birth of modern science because these Christians saw the world in a very particular way. Firstly, they believed there was an orderly creation because there is a God of order who made it.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
Second, to do science you need smart people using their rational minds to study the world. Where did rational minds come from? A rational God. They were convinced they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him” (Kepler said that). So, not only is the world governed by rational laws, we can discover the world’s rational laws with our rational minds.<br>
<br>
Finally, they believed that studying the acts of creation was actually an act of worship. Kepler wrote, “I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy.”&nbsp;<br>
<br>
So, godfreeWorld got his facts wrong. It’s simply not a “Christian myth” that Christianity led to science. Ironically, the idea that Christian faith is toxic to science is the real myth. Some atheists claim Christianity is a science stopper. The facts of history show the opposite. Christianity was the modern science starter.&nbsp;</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Many have been told that there’s been a long war between Christianity and science. Well, they were misinformed, but we’re gonna fix that right now.</p>

<p>This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B, where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking.</p>

<p>And we try to have some fun while we’re doing it.</p>

<p>In today’s tweet, godFreeWorld denies that Christian theology was central in getting modern science going. He says, “It’s a Christian myth that Christianity led to science. The promotion of ‘faith’ as a virtue—so central to Christianity—is directly toxic to science. No, Christianity loves to attempt to take credit for everything of value and rarely, if ever, deserves it.”</p>

<p>According to godFreeWorld, Christianity not only had nothing to do with laying the foundations of modern science, but faith is actually toxic to science. Christianity, then, takes credit for something it didn’t do. Kind of like your high school lab partner, who lets you do all the work&nbsp;and then he takes credit for it. (I’m talking to you, Derek Smith.) This is a serious accusation. Now, let’s see where the evidence points.</p>

<p>First, godFreeWorld is just plain wrong about the facts. (“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”) This is where the tactic “Just the facts, ma’am” really comes in handy. Here’s how it works: You simply counter bad information with good information—the facts. It turns out that most of the fathers of modern science (you know, the guys who have scientific laws named after them) were Christians.</p>

<p>For example, check out these facts. Francis Bacon, the guy who developed the scientific method, he was a Christian. Johannes Kepler, you know, the brilliant scientist who discovered the laws of planetary motion, a committed Christian. Galileo, the scientist who convinced the world that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth, a Bible-believing Christian.</p>

<p>Robert Boyle, he founded modern chemistry. Yep, also a Christian. And Gregor Mendel, he monkeyed around with pea plants and founded genetics—he was a monk, for goodness sake. And what about Louis Pasteur? You got it, a Christian. Lord Kelvin (hey, can you turn up the heat in here, Stacey?)—Christian. You get the idea.</p>

<p>Virtually all the founders of the disciplines of modern science—most of them Bible-believing Christians—believed that the world they were studying was God’s world. Those are the facts, and we’re supposed to believe that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of modern science?</p>

<p>Now, you might be thinking, well, nearly everyone was a Christian back then, so big deal. That’s true, but it misses the point. Well-known sociologist Rodney Stark says that not only was there no inherent conflict between religion and science, but Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. Why? Why did modern science develop in Europe, for example, and not in Africa, or Asia, or India? Stark says it was because of the unique features of Christian theology.</p>

<p>Award-winning author Tom Holland (the historian, not Spider-Man)&nbsp;says this:&nbsp;“Without Christianity, we would not have science.” The Christian convictions of the founders of modern science led to the birth of modern science because these Christians saw the world in a very particular way. Holland attributes the rise of modern science to what he called the goldilocks qualities of the Christian God. Well, what are these qualities?</p>

<p>First, they believed in an orderly creation because they believed in a God of order who made it. Science relies on an orderly universe that behaves in a particular, regular way. But why would the universe behave this way? Well, the early scientists believe that an intelligent God made it that way. C.S Lewis says, “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator.” Makes sense.</p>

<p>Second, to do science, you need smart people using their rational minds to study the world. And where did rational minds come from? A rational God. They were convinced that they were thinking God’s thoughts after him (Kepler said that). So, not only is the world governed by rational laws, but we can discover those rational laws by using our rational minds.</p>

<p>Third, they believed that studying the acts of creation was actually an act of worship. Kepler wrote, “I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy.” And Copernicus said, “To know the mighty works of God... must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High.”</p>

<p>So godFreeWorld gets the facts wrong. It’s simply not a Christian myth that Christianity led to science. Ironically, the idea that Christian faith is toxic to science is the real myth. Some atheists claim that Christianity is a science stopper, but the facts of history tell us just the opposite. Christianity was the modern science starter.</p>

<p>James Clerk Maxwell was one of the most important physicists who ever lived. He predicted the electromagnetic waves that help you heat your leftovers, text your friends, and get a tan. Or in my case, a sunburn. Maxwell had a Latin inscription carved into the doors of the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge University. It translates, “Great of the works of the Lord studied by all who delight in them.” Now, let me ask you a question. Was Maxwell’s faith toxic to his science? Of course not. For Maxwell and many others, Christianity was the inspiration for science, not a hindrance to it. To avoid giving credit where credit is really due, godFreeWorld has to deny the facts and propagate false information.</p>

<p>So, what have we learned? Sometimes, the best way to combat bad information is to use good information. Christianity gave rise to modern science. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, like it or not. According to godFreeWorld, the world would be better off without God. But according to history, a God-free world would likely be a science-free world, and I kind of like science.</p>

<p>Class dismissed.</p>


title: A Better Alternative to the H-Word
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/22/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-better-alternative-to-the-h-word
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/wj02BoRi3BI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>The word “Hell” can carry so much baggage that it ceases to be helpful in conversations with non-Christians about the afterlife. Tim shares an alternative to the H-word that can be more productive.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Let’s start with this. Here’s our strategic plan. Point number one: Watch your language. Watch your language. If you want to be strategic, start watching your language. That is, don’t use, stop using the H-word.</p>

<p>See, growing up in a conservative home, we weren’t supposed to swear, okay? Now, of course, that didn’t always stop us. I mean, am I the only one here that’s well acquainted with the taste of Ivory soap? Right? Maybe some of you it’s Dove or something, you know? Been there, right? “Hell” was one of those words that was off limits in our home, at least in the way I wanted to use it.</p>

<p>I think for Christians, the word “Hell” should be off limits too, but for a different purpose. For a different reason. Some words carry with them so much baggage that they cease being helpful in our conversations.</p>

<p>Take the word “faith.” Today, the word means almost the opposite of what it used to mean, okay? You ask most people today, “What does the word ‘faith’ mean?” and they will tell you something like, “It means belief without evidence.” That’s what they think it means. But that’s not what the New Testament authors meant when they used the word. In fact, when they used the word, they were thinking of something akin to trust, active trust often based on evidence, okay? And so, when talking with unbelievers, I do my best to use the word “trust” instead of “faith.” I watch my language.</p>

<p>Now, in the same way, this four-letter H-word carries with it a lot of baggage. It conjures up images of red devils, and pitchforks, and torture racks, and burning bodies, and the list goes on and on. Our ideas of Hell often look more like something out of the TV show&nbsp;“The Good Place” than the Good Book, right? And so, we’ve got to clear this up. How do we do that? Well, instead, I think we should substitute a different phrase.</p>

<p>Now, please hear me. Please hear me. The goal isn’t to soften the original meaning. It’s not to air condition Hell. That’s not what I’m about here. But rather, it’s to help focus the conversation, bring clarity rather than confusion.</p>

<p>So, the first part of our strategy is watch your language. Don’t talk about Hell. Now, you’re thinking, “Don’t talk about Hell? This is a conference on Hell and apologetics.” So, what do we talk about, right? What do we talk about? Here’s what we talk about: The same thing the disciples talked about. We talk about final judgment.</p>

<p>So here’s the second step in our strategy: Watch your language, now focus on final judgment. Focus on final judgment.</p>


title: Does God Give People the Best Opportunity to Respond to Him?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-situation-we-re-born-into-affect-our-opportunity-to-receive-christ-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/E7V1CySJb5w?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg answers a caller’s question about whether the life situation a person is born into affects their accountability before Christ and opportunity to receive him.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is free will—is it reasonable or fair, if God knows that somebody’s going to be in a circumstance, that those circumstances will not incline them towards the gospel, is it fair for them? And this is something that different people, I mentioned, satisfy or solve in different ways.</p>

<p>Now, there is a verse in Acts, and I don’t have it right in front of me here, but you might be familiar with it—I think it’s when Paul’s in Athens, and where he may be on the Areopagus—where he says that God has placed people in the world in such a way as they will have the best opportunity to know God if they would seek and find him, though he’s not far from them.</p>

<p>Okay? So, what that suggests is, God is concerned with people knowing him and maximizing the circumstances in which that’s the case—that they would know him.</p>

<p>However, there is also this other factor, and that other factor is, there are people who, no matter what circumstances they’re going to be in, are not going to respond to the gospel. And if they respond, if they reject the gospel, they do so, or they reject whatever knowledge of God is apparent to them. And in Romans 1, part of the argument there is that everybody has the knowledge of the Father even though not everybody has the knowledge of the Son.</p>

<p>And if they reject that, they are culpable. They are without excuse. And the grounds for the judgment, ultimately, is going to be their immoral behavior. And we see that in Revelation 20—and they were each judged according to their deeds.</p>

<p>So, I guess to answer, to sum up real quickly here, and then you can come back at me in the last couple minutes, is that God is concerned. He does, to some degree, adjust the circumstances so people have the best opportunity to get the revelation they need—that’s the Acts passage, Areopagus—but at the same time, people still are going to rebel and still not trust him. And regardless of the level of revelation about Jesus, their rebellion is still blameworthy.</p>

<p>And so, when God punishes...the unrighteous, he is not unjust even if no message of salvation has been given to them because God doesn’t owe guilty people a pardon.</p>


title: How to Respond to the Problem of Evil
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/29/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-respond-to-the-problem-of-evil
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/xjZMRrgtxCI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg answers a question about how to respond to someone who rejects God because of the problem of evil. Listen to the entire #STRask podcast <a href="/w/-strask-may-27-2019">here</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What is a gracious, effective response to someone who pushes away from the idea of God because of the problem of evil?</p>

<p>Well, my first question is, what exactly is the problem? Now, of course, this is a question I’m asking to get the other person to spell it out because it’s not that I am ignorant about the kinds of ways people factor in the problem of evil into the existence of God. I want them to spell it out because I actually think there are serious problems with using evil as an argument against God. So, I want them to spell it out.</p>

<p>Now, I know the way it’s usually characterized: Well, if you think God is good and he’s powerful—and that would be God, right?—but if he’s good, he’d want to get rid of all evil. If he’s powerful, he’d be able to get all rid of all evil, but there’s evil, right? So, there you go. God probably doesn’t exist.</p>

<p>And it turns out, though that sounds like an argument, like a step-by-step syllogistic argument leading from premises to a conclusion, it turns out that when you press the issue, you can’t build a valid argument from those facts. If God were good, for example, then he wouldn’t allow any evil. Really? Is that true? That’s a question, and we talk about this—I talk about this (I’m looking at you because I’m saying “we” because you were such a help to me in editing <em>The Story of Reality</em>)—but you recall from <em>The Story of Reality</em> how I talk about how my daughters don’t like shots, you know? That’s evil for them because it causes them pain, but Daddy makes them get shots, so why does he do that? Because Daddy’s evil? No. Because I know that the short-term evil to them is going to result in a longer-term good. And so, there is a moral justification for the shorter-term bad.</p>

<p>All that does is point out that it certainly could be possible (and that’s a very simple illustration—there’s dozens and dozens we can think of)—it certainly is possible how something bad could be justified. There could be a morally sufficient reason for allowing it because it leads to something good, okay? Or maybe something bad that prevents something even worse from happening. So, there’s different ways to construe this, to demonstrate that it is not the case that if God were good, he would never allow anything evil. Rather, he could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it for a time. And that, by the way, is all we need to parry the objection about the problem of evil.</p>

<p>Now, the possibility that he could have a reason, we don’t have to tell them what that reason is. Remember, the type of objection that this is, is a strong defeater: It’s <em>not possible</em> that there is a God because there’s evil in the world. And my response is, well, wait a minute. Maybe so. And this, by the way, I step out a little step by step in <em>The Story of Reality</em>. So, anybody wants to go there, they can see the chapter where I deal with this. It’s not tricky, but it has some steps to it.</p>

<p>This is why it makes it a little bit more difficult when you’re having a conversation with somebody. Somebody’s even listening to this, saying, “Well, I can’t remember all that stuff that he just said.” Well, that’s true, I can understand that. But if you don’t know why the problem of evil is not a good argument <em>against</em> God, but a good argument <em>for</em> God, then it’s going to be hard for you to make that point. And that, I think, is the most powerful point that can be made from the problem of evil.</p>

<p>This helps us. Evil is on our side, in that sense, because if there were no God, there would be no evil at all...because there’d be no lawmaker. It’s just molecules clashing in the universe. Okay, so then, what is wrong? Says who? Your grandma? Kind of thing. So sometimes I get to the point in a little different way: What’s the alternative? So, somebody says, “Well, there can’t be any God; there’s evil in the world.” Really? There’s real evil? What do you mean by evil? So, I would just want them to emphasize that. Okay, so if there is no God, how can there be evil? What do you mean? Well, there’s no lawmaker. There would be no law, right? Notice, those are questions, and I’m trying to lead to make this point: Or what’s the alternative?</p>

<p>Well, the alternative is there is no God, okay? Let’s say there is no God then, right? So, what makes anything evil? You just complained about the problem of evil. There must be evil in the world, right? So, what do you make of evil now that God doesn’t exist? How do you get traction to even complain about evil in the world? You can’t. And I make this point again in <em>The Story of Reality </em>because people think that they somehow solve the problem of evil by getting God out of the equation.</p>

<p>And what I point out is, okay, now you got God out of the equation, okay? Now you’re an atheist. Yeah. Okay, that’s our view now. Right. How do you solve the problem of evil? What do you mean? Well, you got God out of the picture. You didn’t get rid of evil. You still got all the things that you used to call evil. They still are existing, and you still probably consider them evil. Okay, now solve the problem. The point I’m making is, atheism can give you no traction to even make sense out of evil to begin with. And if somebody wants to say, well, okay, then evil is just an illusion of evolution or something. Really? Wait, just a few moments ago, you were saying it’s so real that it disqualifies the existence of God, and now you want to say it’s an illusion?</p>

<p>See, our answer makes sense of all the facts. We don’t have to play games like that. The world is broken. That’s why there’s evil in the world. Broken means it ain’t the way it’s supposed to be. It started out one way, and now it’s a different way. And we broke it. And so, we’re responsible. Some people haven’t thought about it this way, Amy, but our whole story is about the problem of evil. It starts in the third chapter, it doesn’t get solved till 66 books later. If there was no problem of evil, we’d have no story. We’d have no Christianity.</p>

<p>So, in a certain sense, we could say that evil is quite at home in our view. It��s central to our story, and our story is not over yet. But it has no place in an atheistic worldview. It does not make any sense whatsoever in an atheistic worldview. Now, people can get that notion in their mind, and I do walk through fairly carefully not only in <em>The Story of Reality</em>, but in the last couple chapters of the book on relativism that Dr. Beckwith and I wrote called <em>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, </em>and lots of things we’ve done on the air here, and lots of things we have on the internet make the same point. If there is no God, there is no morality. But there is a morality, since the problem of evil, therefore, there is a God. That’s your basic modus tollens argument for God—moral argument for the existence of God.</p>


title: Are We Supposed to Share the Gospel with Everyone We Meet?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/05/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-we-supposed-to-share-the-gospel-with-everyone-we-meet-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/AsAlRLvh85o?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>As Christians, we know we’re called to share the gospel. But are we held accountable for sharing the gospel with every person we come into contact with? Greg and Amy respond, explaining relevant passages about Paul’s ministry. Listen to the entire #STRask podcast <a href="/w/-strask-june-24-2019">here</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Amy (reading question): Given Paul’s statement in Acts 20:26, are we held accountable for everyone who is lost that we come into contact with if we don’t share the gospel with them? Also, see 1 Corinthians 9:16.</p>

<p>Greg: Okay, Acts 20:26 says, “Therefore—” now, Paul is at Ephesus, he’s on his way back to Jerusalem, this is the end of his, I think, third missionary journey. He is saying goodbye to the elders at Ephesus because they will never see him again. He knows this. He’s going to Jerusalem where he is going to be bound, and bad things are going to happen to him, in a certain sense. And we know the rest of the story because we read the book of Acts, but he’s saying goodbye to the Ephesians. It’s a very emotional moment, and he says there that, “I testify to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.”</p>

<p>And so, this is a bit of a mysterious statement. On the one hand, there’s a sense in which Paul is not innocent of blood because he oversaw the execution of Stephen earlier in the book of Acts. So, what is he getting at here? Well, he is identifying the fact that he’s fulfilled a certain responsibility that he has. He says in another place, “Woe to me if I don’t preach the gospel.”</p>

<p>Okay, are these claims that are universalizable? I don’t think so. It’s not that we are not supposed to preach the gospel, but it’s clear that Paul had a very specific kind of calling, and I mean that quite literally. He was literally called by Jesus: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And then when he got his sight back in that occasion, if you remember the book of Acts, it was communicated to him the things that God was going to do through him and cause him to suffer for the kingdom’s sake. So, Paul had a very precise kind of calling on his life, and it was obligatory to him to fulfill that calling, which he did, and I think that’s his testimony here.</p>

<p>Notice that he says, “I am innocent of the blood of all men, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.” Now, he’s speaking to the Ephesian elders. He is not speaking about the whole world because he didn’t speak to the whole world. Okay. So, I think we have to be careful about universalizing this concept. I think he’s saying, “I am innocent because I fulfilled the task that I had with you, Ephesian elders,” or maybe a little bit broader to others that he’s preached to.</p>

<p>But I don’t think this implies that we are somehow guilty of the lack of faith that others have that we don’t preach to properly. If this were the case, every Christian would be guilty of other people’s blood, and if we’re guilty, why are they guilty, you know? It doesn’t indicate—when the judgment comes, they are judged according to their own deeds, and we are not judged, because of what Jesus was judged in our place. There may be a different kind of bema seat judgment where there’s awards giving, that that kind of thing, but I don’t take away from this text that teaching. And I think that would be a burdensome, debilitating kind of load to carry if we thought every person that we did not share Christ with, if they perish, that that blood is on our own head.</p>

<p>Amy: Well, we know that, like you said, we know that Paul did not tell every single person he met the gospel. I mean, that’s very unlikely. So, I think he’s fulfilling the ministry God has given him. And so, we’re all limited human beings, so we all do our limited role, and we fulfill that, and when we fulfill what God has called us to, then we’ve done our job.</p>

<p>Greg: Yeah, and you know, everybody can probably look at their life, even, you know, maybe Paul—I won’t speak for him right now—but we can all look at our lives and say we’ve worked really hard, but we could have done better, you know. There were opportunities that we missed, kind of thing.</p>

<p>Amy: And of course, like you said, we’re all called to tell people the gospel. It’s not like, I’m not saying that we’re not all called to that, but we are limited people.</p>

<p>Greg: In a broad sense, but that doesn’t mean that we have to communicate the gospel to every single person in every circumstance. That would be excessively tedious and, seems to me, would potentially cause more harm than good.</p>

<p>Amy: Even Paul said, there were times when he said, I’m going to the Gentiles now, and I won’t go to the Jews now. So, he was turning away from them and moving to other people.</p>

<p>Greg: One group and going to another group, right. And notice how he closes 2 Timothy, which is the last thing that he wrote. He said that I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. And those are general statements where he’s acknowledging that he did the things that he was obliged to do before God, and now he’s done. And he’s saying goodbye to Timothy. He’s passing the baton. I want to be able to say the same thing myself, but I don’t think I’m obliged to have witnessed to every person it was possible for me to witness to in order for me to be able to say I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.</p>

<p>Amy: Now, having said all that, I think it’s a good idea that we probably take this seriously and remind ourselves that we do have the gospel and there are people who don’t have the gospel. I think we could all probably feel the urgency of that a little bit more.</p>

<p>Greg: I think there certainly was that urgency in Paul’s life. There’s no question about that. And he had a particular desire. I mean, he’s expressing himself in very particular ways to the Ephesian church here of building that up. And in fact, he has a whole—his farewell is from verse 17 to the end of the chapter, verse 38. So, he has a lot to say about the way he comported himself among the Ephesians, and there’s a lot that we can take from that as well.</p>


title: Progressive Christian Gets Jesus Completely Wrong
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/19/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/progressive-christian-gets-jesus-completely-wrong
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/QXrXIIBRRX0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>In this video, Robertson makes an unusual claim:&nbsp;Jesus...was racist.&nbsp;And he uses Scripture to prove it. It really is amazing to me that someone can misread Jesus so badly. Rather than trying to get the meaning out of the text, Robertson reads his own uncharitable meaning into it.</p>

<p>Robertson misses the point completely. On his view, Jesus was a prejudiced, biased, bigoted sinner who needed to repent. But the text teaches just the opposite. Jesus countered the prejudices and bigoted attitudes of his day by responding the same way he always did to every Gentile who put his trust in him—with grace and mercy. Maybe Reverend Robertson’s Jesus is racist, but that is not the Jesus of history. That is not the Jesus of the New Testament. That is not the Jesus of reality.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Jesus was a magnificent moral teacher...and a racist. But don’t worry, he repented. Jesus repented? Really? You all know what we gotta do, right?</p>

<p>This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B., where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking. Plus, we try to have some fun while we’re doing it. Today, I want to do something a little different. Instead of responding to a graphic with my red pen, I want to reply to a recent TikTok video from Reverend Brandon Robertson. In this video, Robertson makes an unusual claim: Jesus was racist. And he uses Scripture to prove it. See for yourself:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Did you know that there’s a part of the Gospel of Mark where Jesus uses a racial slur? In Mark chapter seven, there’s the account of the Syrophoenician woman—a woman who is Syrian and Greek, both of which there were strong biases against within the Jewish community—and she comes to ask Jesus to heal her daughter, who’s possessed by a demon.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Robertson begins with some background. Good start. Historical context is really important in properly understanding a historical event. Robertson says the Jewish community would have strong biases against this woman. He’s right, and here’s why. First, she’s a she. A woman. And women were not highly regarded at that time. For her to even talk to a Jewish rabbi—Jesus—in public, was a big no-no. Strike one. Second, she’s a Gentile. That means she’s not Jewish. Because the Jews were separated from the Gentiles by the laws of the Mosaic Covenant, Gentiles were considered unclean. Strike two. Third, her daughter had a demon, and it doesn’t get more unclean than having an unclean spirit. Strike three.</p>

<p>So, the fact that Jesus, a Jew, was interacting with this woman was scandalous to other Jews.</p>

<p>But if you’ve read the Gospels, you know that this isn’t scandalous for Jesus because Jesus is different. Robertson gives historical information about the Gentile woman, but he ignores the historical information of the Jewish Jesus. So, he completely misunderstands Jesus’ statement.</p>

<p>The reverend’s charge seems to make sense if you look no further than Jesus’ words in Mark 7, but what’s our rule? Never read a Bible verse. So, what do we know about Jesus from the rest of the record?</p>

<p>First, Jesus was really good. The greatest moral teacher ever, some think. And you can see why. Look what he taught: Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. The greatest among you shall be your servant. That’s radical good. Plus, you don’t have to look very far to find that Jesus was pro-Gentile, not pro-racist towards Gentiles. Remember Mark 5, when Jesus cast the demon out of a man into a herd of pigs? He was a Gentile. Or when Jesus tells a Roman centurion that he has the greatest faith in all of Israel? Another Gentile. Or how Jesus almost got himself killed at the beginning of his ministry for saying nice things about...drumroll please...Gentiles. Jesus, an anti-Gentile, racist bigot? Please.</p>

<p>Do you think this is relevant background information about Jesus? And yet, Robertson doesn’t even mention it. But it gets worse:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“And what is Jesus’ response? He says, ‘It’s not good for me to give the children’s food (meaning the children of Israel’s food) to dogs.’ He calls her a dog.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, here’s the crux. Why does Jesus refer to this woman as a dog? Is it because he’s racist like the reverend says? Let’s take a closer look.</p>

<p>First, this is totally out of character for Jesus. Jesus loves Gentiles. He’s in Tyre, for goodness sake. A Gentile region. For three years, Jesus has been fighting the bigoted attitudes towards the Gentiles. And now, Robertson wants us to believe he’s now embracing those attitudes? Seriously?</p>

<p>Second, calling this woman a dog amounts to slander, and just five verses earlier, Jesus condemns slander as evil. Is Jesus a hypocrite too? No. Obviously, something else is going on here. Note the context. Just before this encounter, Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites because they’re more interested in being clean on the outside than clean on the inside. They’re more interested in clean hands than clean hearts, and it’s the heart of faith that Jesus is interested in. Then, after this teaching, where does Jesus go? Tyre, a pagan, unclean nation. This is not a coincidence. Spoiler alert: He’s about to apply the lesson that he just taught the Jews.</p>

<p>A Gentile woman comes to Jesus and begs for mercy. Jesus says, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Jesus said it. No question. But is this Jesus’ theology? Does Jesus really think that this woman is a dog? No. Here’s why.</p>

<p>By Jewish standards, she’s unclean. She’s a dog. But Jesus has just been teaching that what really matters is a clean heart, a heart for God. So, it isn’t Jesus’ view that she’s a dog. It’s Jesus’ view that the children’s food isn’t just for the children of Israel. It’s for everyone because Jesus has already said, “Many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.” Gentiles who put their trust in Jesus will eat at the same table with the children of Israel in the kingdom, not on the floor with the dogs. But that’s not how the reverend sees it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“What’s amazing about this account is that the woman doesn’t back down. She speaks truth to power. She confronts Jesus and says, ‘Well, you can think that about me, but even dogs deserve the crumbs from the table.’ Her boldness and bravery to speak truth to power actually changes Jesus’ mind. Jesus repents of his racism and extends healing to this woman’s daughter. I love this story because it’s a reminder that Jesus is human. He had prejudices and bias, and when confronted with it, he was willing to do his work, and this woman was willing to stand up and speak truth.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a classic example of reading a foreign theology—in this case, progressive theology—into the text. This woman isn’t confronting Jesus about his racism. She isn’t speaking truth to power. She’s humbly submitting to Jesus and pleading for mercy. Look carefully at her reply. She says, “Yes Lord,” not, “No, bigot.” She is happy with even the leftovers. She recognizes she’s outside the covenant, and she wants in.</p>

<p>So, why does Jesus call this woman a dog? Jesus parrots this common sentiment for a purpose, and it’s not because he’s racist. It’s because he wants to make a point to those who view her as a dog, to those who follow the laws but don’t have a heart for God. He wants this woman to express her faith so his disciples can see past her gender and her race and see what he sees: her heart. Her faith in him. Impressed, Jesus casts out the demon and rescues her daughter.</p>

<p>But Reverend Robertson paints a very different picture. It really amazes me that someone can misread Jesus so badly. Rather than trying to get the meaning out of the text, Mr. Robertson reads his own uncharitable meaning into it. Robertson misses the point completely. On his view, Jesus is a prejudiced, biased, bigoted sinner who needed to repent. But the text teaches just the opposite. Jesus countered the prejudices and biased attitudes of his day by responding in the same way he always did to every Gentile who put their trust in him—with grace and mercy.</p>

<p>Maybe Reverend Robertson’s Jesus was a racist, but that’s not the Jesus of history. That is not the Jesus of the New Testament. That is not the Jesus of reality. Class dismissed.</p>


title: How Can We Confront Apathy in the Culture?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/12/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-we-confront-apathy-in-the-culture-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/v_PjjGDUk-I?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>How can we fight against the apathy regarding spiritual matters that is so prevalent around us? Greg and Amy respond. Listen to the entire #STRask​ podcast <a href="/w/-strask-march-26-2020">here</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Amy (asking the question): How can we fight against the apathy that is so prevalent around us in church, school, everywhere?</p>

<p>Greg: Well, this is a very common question I get, and I’m always at somewhat of a loss to answer it. Okay, people are apathetic about things they don’t care about. That’s the nature of apathy. They’re not apathetic about things they care about.</p>

<p>So, I guess I’ve been saying more recently, one way to deal with apathy in non-Christians is to ask them questions about things—which is a standard tactical approach. But by asking them questions, if they’re willing to answer them, we may be able to use questions that can get them thinking about spiritual things.</p>

<p>One question that I got from J. Warner Wallace—but he got it from somebody else—the great little question is, “What do you think happens when you die?” It’s a great question. You could lead up to it, you know. Don’t just spring it on somebody. Say, you know, “I want to ask you a question if it’s all right. Maybe a little personal or not, but something I’ve been thinking about. And if you don’t answer, that’s fine with me too, but I was just curious. Do you mind if I ask?”</p>

<p>Well, if you place it that way, people are always going to be curious enough to find out what the question is. “What do you think happens when you die?” Then you let them answer. Who knows what they’re going to say? But now you’re getting them to be actively thinking about spiritual things. But they might say, “Well, I don’t know, and I don’t care.” Then I would say, “Why wouldn’t you care?”</p>

<p>If you don’t know, then there’s a number of possibilities, which would be Hell. Certainly a possibility. “Well, I don’t believe in Hell.” No? Okay, fine. But is it possible? If it’s possible, then why don’t you believe in Hell anyway? I’m just curious.</p>

<p>So, in other words, if the environment is such that you can continue to pursue with more questions, virtually anything the person responds with will invite more probing questions for your understanding of them, or maybe the reasons why they think they believe what they do. So, there’s a way of kind of sparking some interest-probing questions, I think, to get Christians less apathetic. A lot depends on what they’re apathetic about.</p>

<p>If they’re apathetic about their relationship with God, I’m not sure, you know, well, that’s different. If they don’t—they’re apathetic about Christianity, though they call themselves Christians, why are they wasting their time? Christianity is not fun. It’s inconvenient. So, if you don’t care about it, why do the inconvenient stuff that’s associated with Christianity? I don’t know.</p>

<p>That’s another issue, but sometimes people are apathetic about—they are genuine Christians, it seems, but they’re apathetic about engaging other people or apathetic about apologetics, and this is where we think of something like atheist role play is really good.</p>

<p>“Yeah, our whole church is really apathetic.” Oh, good. Invite an atheist to speak on Sunday morning. Have him come in and give his talk. “We can’t do that.” Why not? “That’ll really get people stirred up.” That’s the point!</p>

<p>So, people who are confronted with the challenges, now that changes things a bit, so there’s another idea.</p>

<p>Amy: Yeah, I think especially when you’re talking in terms of non-Christians, there probably is no really good short-term—like if you just have a few minutes with someone, it’s hard to imagine getting someone who’s apathetic really excited about anything.</p>

<p>But I think you have more of a chance with somebody you know because the Christian worldview encompasses everything. It touches on everything. So, they must care about something. There must be something they care about. And if you know them well enough to know what they care about, how does the Christian worldview affect that thing? How does it interact with that thing? That could be a way to get started because it’s something they already care about. And if it’s something worth caring about, then it’s connected to Christianity because all good things come from God. And so, you can show them how that works and how, if God doesn’t exist, how that thing that they love won’t be there.</p>

<p>Greg: But let me just close with this thought: There’s no silver bullet on this. Some people just don’t care, and it’s going to take an act of God to get them to care. And generally, that act of God means certain things happen in their life that shock them out of their complacency, and that’s the way a lot of people get straightened out. They get racked out of their complacency, and they realize the world’s a lot more dangerous place than they thought, and there are more important things to think about than their own personal satisfaction in the moment.</p>

<p>Amy: So, don’t be surprised if you’re praying for someone and their life falls apart. It’s your fault for praying.</p>

<p>Greg: But, it’s a good thing oftentimes.</p>

<p>Amy: Yeah.</p>


title: God Does Give You More Than You Can Handle
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/29/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-does-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/gbSzGWOmrfc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_MoreThanYouCanHandle_JoelOsteen.001.jpeg/77559f66-aa73-6dc4-3eaf-dbea47cb39e7?t=1619651515836" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><br>
&nbsp;</p>

<p>In today’s tweet, Joel Osteen offers a familiar slogan. He says, ”God will not give you more than you can handle. If you have a big challenge today, that means you have a big destiny.”</p>

<p>First, Osteen’s catchphrase creates confusion. It sounds like God won’t let terrible circumstances befall you. But that’s not true. God never promises we will escape the difficulties of life. Jesus promises just the opposite—tribulation.</p>

<p>Second, even though our circumstances may feel overwhelming, God is still good. Because he has not left us, we can rely on him. In fact, he has promised to work all things together for good for those called according to his purpose.</p>

<p>Third, some might be thinking, what about 1 Corinthians 10:13? Two quick thoughts:&nbsp;First, this second passage is about temptations, not trials. When we look at the context, Paul warns the church not to fall for the same temptations the Israelites fell for. They engaged in idolatry (v. 7), sexual immorality (v. 8), and grumbling (v. 10).</p>

<p>Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 10 is clear. We experience temptation just like the Israelites did. But with every temptation, God faithfully provides a way of escape from the temptation so we’ll able to endure it. In other words, God has given us the ability to beat the temptation with the help of the Spirit.</p>
  <br>


title: Why Does the Bible Often Use a Woman to Represent a Sinful Figure?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/10/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-does-the-bible-often-use-a-woman-to-represent-a-sinful-figure-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/OcxQAQB5_ko?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg and Amy address a common misconception about the Bible’s view of women and offer counterexamples to the claim that the Bible associates sin with women more often than with men.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Amy (reading the question): “Revelation’s Babylon prostitute, Hosea’s unfaithful wife, the Proverbs 7 woman—where in the Bible is there a comparable passage showing a man as a disgustingly sinful figure? I feel like it’s always a woman. If it is, why?”</p>

<p>Greg: Well, in the case of Proverbs, keep in mind that Solomon was instructing his son. It’s right there in the first chapter. And so, he’s giving instruction to his son about problematic circumstances, and one big one to avoid because it was so destructive was adultery. And the counterpart to a male in adultery is a female. And the particular counterpart in those cultures were prostitutes. Prostitution I don’t think was illegal. It was part of—when you read through the Old Testament, I mean, prostitutes were pretty handy, and people went into them. I mean, they took advantage of them. Samuel, not Samuel, but—who’s the guy who killed all the people? 300? Samson. Samson, you know, took prostitutes and etc., etc.</p>

<p>So, if Solomon is warning a son against sexual sin, he’s going to warn his son against the commercial prostitutes who are regularly available. And then, he used that, in addition, as a metaphor for foolishness because it was foolish, and it came to epitomize foolishness, and so he contrasted that with the lady wisdom crying out. Both are crying in the streets, you know, and calling. And so, in that case, I think that explains Proverbs.</p>

<p>And when I teach about things in Proverbs like, you know, as a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman without discretion. Well, he’s telling his son how to choose a wife. The same principle applies in reverse. You know, like a gold ring in the snout of a handsome man, you know, a pig—is a handsome man without discretion, I guess. So, you just have to make the adaptation because he’s not talking to his daughter, he’s talking to his [son]. But so many of those things are legitimately reversible, and I don’t think it’s misogyny in those cases.</p>

<p>Many people will think that a patriarchy is misogynistic, like anti-woman by nature. I don’t see it that way. The Bible isn’t anti-woman, but it is patriarchal. And so, I want to warn anybody with reading patriarchy as misogyny, okay? And we do have some nasty guys like David.</p>

<p>Amy: That’s what I was gonna say.</p>

<p>Greg: Like Samson. I mean, these guys did nasty stuff.</p>

<p>Amy: There’s Judges. There’s plenty in there.</p>

<p>Greg: Well look at—yes, I mean, and so and you have a gruesome thing where a body is cut up and spread out, you know, sent out. You’ve got the guy who sacrifices his daughter, whatever that is, but it could be human sacrifice. You’ve got all of this bizarre stuff that males do. When males are in charge, lots of things, bad things—they cause a lot of harm. It’s not because they’re males, I don’t think. It’s because—I’m just pointing out these guys are in charge, they are male, and they do bad things, they have big consequences.</p>

<p>So, notice how in the book of Proverbs all of the warnings against rulers. All right? Rulers weren’t women. Not then. They were men. A couple of exceptions in Judges, but they stand out as exceptions. So, these are also charges against the dangers of men in power, so I think there may be some selective reading here or whatever, understandable. But that’s like saying the God of the Old Testament was mean, and the God of the New Testament is nice. You know, I got a lot of mean stuff in the New Testament, a lot of nice stuff in the Old Testament if you’re looking for it. So, this is a misunderstanding, I think.</p>

<p>Amy: Greg, I was thinking as I was reading this, there are plenty of disgustingly sinful figures who are men in the Bible. Just have to look for it. But even if you look at this just in terms of, well, what about if it’s being used as a metaphor? But you glossed over this, Greg. You mentioned this, but this is a big deal. Wisdom is a woman. Wisdom is depicted as a woman.</p>

<p>And you also have Proverbs 31, which is about the—</p>

<p>Greg: —woman of virtue.</p>

<p>Amy: And I was also thinking about in Revelation 12, a woman is a symbol for Israel and giving birth to Jesus. So, there are examples, and I think then the question becomes, okay, so if, when they use a metaphor for something, whether it’s good or bad, and it’s a woman, why are they using a woman? And I was thinking about this. Well, it might have something to do with, why do men name all their boats women’s names?</p>

<p>Greg: Used to.</p>

<p>Amy: Why was that a thing?</p>

<p>Greg: Or hurricanes. They used—</p>

<p>Amy: Well now, yeah, now they use both, but I think it’s just—</p>

<p>Greg: Hurricane Fred. I mean, this doesn’t really resonate in the same way. Anyway, go ahead.</p>

<p>Amy: I don’t know why that is, but it could be that maybe women just get men’s attention. I don’t know, maybe that could be why they use women as metaphors—whether it’s for something good, or something bad, or for your boat, or for whatever.</p>

<p>Greg: Right. Well, I think the boat is a good thing. This is like a wife to, you know—we’re in its womb. She’s caring for us. She’s mothering us. She’s carrying us along, you know, so that’s all a positive thing, it seems to me. So, there may be reason. I don’t—I think it’s a mistake to read—</p>

<p>Amy: That’s just a wild guess.</p>

<p>Greg: No, but it’s a good observation. But there is a tendency, and I’m not faulting the questioner here, but there is a tendency, especially nowadays, to read misogyny into things that simply are not misogynistic.</p>

<p>Amy: Yeah, and I just wanted to say one last thing about this because there is a lot of imagery about a prostitute, and in Revelation, because the idea is that of unfaithfulness, is what they’re trying to convey. And as you said, Greg, the prostitutes were women, and so that’s why they’re using the imagery of a woman because they’re trying to convey unfaithfulness, and that’s how you do that. So, I think obviously there are good metaphors in there also. So, that that can’t be the reason.</p>

<p>Greg: I think it’s a great observation that you say wisdom is a woman. I mean, that’s massive in the book of Proverbs. They are two different females after a fashion that are calling out for the attention of Solomon’s son, and he said don’t listen to one; listen to the other.</p>


title: What Kind of Communication with God Should We Expect?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/17/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-kind-of-communication-with-god-should-we-expect-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/wNUJlk516xQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses whether or not new converts should anticipate affective encounters with God.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Caller: ...I put this effort into trying to figure out the best arguments. I come to the conclusion Christianity is correct. I read this article—I have a very significant amount of respect for William Lane Craig. He’s always been one of my favorite apologists. And he wrote an article said that someone in my position—similar to me, at least—asked a question on his website, and he responded saying, when you become a Christian, God is supposed to do a work of regeneration in your heart, so you can distinguish between the old version of you and the new version of you. And when that happens, you’re supposed to know it. Like, there’s supposed to be some type of sense. It doesn’t have to be like a big experience, but there’s supposed to be some type of idea that you have that’s happened. And I guess I haven’t really felt any type of communication or perceived any sense from God. I don’t know too much about this. I’ve always focused more on the intellectual side of schooling. And so, I guess I’m wondering what a realistic expectation is.</p>

<p>Greg: Okay, yeah. I am so glad that you called me on this because I suspect that dispositionally—and I think a lot of what you’re asking about relates to individual disposition—people are individuals. God made different people in different ways, and so you’re going to have somebody who’s an atheist who is just a bubbling, effusive, overflowing-with-emotion atheist that becomes a Christian, and then they’re a bubbling, effusive, overflowing Christian, all right? You’re going to have some people that are matter-of-fact atheists, and they become Christians, and they are still themselves. They are more matter-of-fact Christians, okay? I’m not saying there’s no distinction in the internal life, all right? I’m just making the point that much of that part of life is tied to individual dispositions. Does that make sense to you so far?</p>

<p>Caller: Yeah. So, case-by-case, basically.</p>

<p>Greg: Yes, a case-by-case, all right? And, I think that I’m more similar to you probably, or you’re more similar to me, than maybe other people. So, for me,&nbsp;as a Christian, I was deeply committed to Christ from the very beginning. Got discipled for a number of years, very aggressively, and then started all kinds of adventures with God. And here I am now, 48 years later almost, and I can look back and see God’s hand in my life in dramatic ways. However, this doesn’t mean that my emotions have been carried along on some kind of high spiritual plane with God. That has not really been characteristic of my life.</p>

<p>Now, I have had moments where I felt really close to God. And actually, most of those have been in worship experiences that I’ve had and where I’m in corporate worship with other people. That’s when the affective side of my Christianity is more accessible to me. Or I should say, and over time, as I’ve nurtured my time alone with God in a steady fashion, I have felt closer to God as a result, okay?</p>

<p>Now, as far as I know, I have never had—I mean, as far as I know. I mean, this is an incorrigible kind of thing—I’ve never had God speak to me. I’ve never had a sense where God said this, that, the other thing. I’m not saying that God hasn’t influenced me in some way.</p>

<p>And I had a very dramatic experience once in Romania 1976, where it is fair to say that I was led to a specific location in the city of Romania. And I can’t go into the details, but I didn’t feel anything except for, while looking for this place, I had just an impulse to walk down a sidewalk and look at a door. I saw a door down the sidewalk. Turned out to be the very place we were looking for, and we didn’t know where in Bucharest this was at in the entire city. So, there was a dramatic thing that happened to me, but it wasn’t like I was kind of following the leading of the Lord. I just ended up in the right place because of God’s sovereign hand.</p>

<p>So, it isn’t like my life has been filled with these kinds of affective experiences from God. Some people seem to have that, and that’s the way God chooses to deal with them. And I will say—and this, I think, is what you got from Bill Craig’s site—which, by the way, is a fabulous place to make regular stops, in my view, okay? We differ on a couple of significant things, but I love Bill Craig, and I’ve known him for many years now. We’ve worked a lot together, and he’s had a great influence on my life, and his site and podcasts keep me sharp. I always read those letters when they come down just like you have been doing. So, when you become a Christian, something changes inside. You go from spiritually dead to spiritually alive, and this results—this has a number of very particular consequences, okay? And you’ll learn more about these as time goes on. However, these consequences are not necessarily affectively experienced. They open a door to a new kind of affective experience with God because you’re just entering into a relationship with God.</p>

<p>Now, think about it this way. When you’re single, you are not in a love relationship. When you get married, now you’re in a love relationship, but that love relationship is expressed in different ways by different people. Some guys are very modest in their emotional experience with their wives, and some guys are over-the-top in their experience. But now they’re in a relationship where there is this aspect that, if attended to, will be developed in a way that would never have been developed if they weren’t in that relationship. Does that make sense so far?</p>

<p>Caller: I’m tracking with you.</p>

<p>Greg: Okay, good. And I figured you were, but I’m just checking because I could talk a lot, and every once in a while, I want you to have a chance to say, “Uh-huh, okay, I got it.”</p>

<p>And so, I think that there’s an analog there with being a Christian, you know. I’m capable of speaking with some authority on this because this really reflects my own life. I have had to work at the affective side of my relationship with God, just like some guys have to work at their affective side of their relationship with their wives, okay? And some wives have to work with their husbands too.</p>

<p>So, there is a new avenue open to you, Michael, as a Christian, and characteristically, when a person becomes a believer, there is a season that sometimes is referred to as the honeymoon with God, where there seems to be a lot more things going on spiritually and, “Whoa, this is cool man, I have never experienced that or felt that. God’s answering prayers,” or whatever. But that’s like a honeymoon. Like when you get married. You’re not on a honeymoon for 25 years, you know. You’re on a honeymoon for a couple of weeks, and then you get down to the realities of living. And God is the same way with us, then he starts working on us. And sometimes that’s not fun.</p>

<p>I became a Christian on September 28th, 1973, and I started 1974, January 1st in tears. So, I was already getting worked on. I had a short honeymoon&nbsp;kind of thing. God was real to me, but he wasn’t as real to me as some other people who just have different temperaments. I had to work more at developing that affective relationship, and now it’s much much more powerful, more significant, than it ever was before.</p>

<p>So, I guess my comment to you and your circumstance, and I’d like to hear your feedback, is I’m glad that you became a Christian. You made the right decision for the right reasons. It’s well substantiated. But take God as he comes to you. If we feel God or don’t feel God, it’s irrelevant to the question of whether Christ rose from the dead or not. And if he rose from the dead, then Christianity is true, and if we trust in him, then we’re Christians. Those are the facts of the matter. The affective elements, the emotional parts, they come and go. They’re in and out, they’re up and down, and some have them stronger than others in virtue of their temperament or in virtue of the way God works in their life.</p>

<p>So, don’t set yourself up for disappointment in this area, especially if you’re talking with people who are really overflowing and bubbling with emotion about God and start thinking, “Well, man, I don’t have that. I’m not that way. What am I missing? Maybe I’m not really a Christian,” or something like that. And people get themselves in the ditches that way.</p>

<p>So anyway, that’s my take on this. And I think it’s sound.</p>


title: Should Religious People Legislate Their Beliefs?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/24/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-religious-people-legislate-their-beliefs-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/sSnvmtLq7SY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_LegislatingMorality_RichardDawkins.jpg/8c90a400-a545-7486-5633-3acb57454445?t=1621542441957" style="height: auto; width: 600px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="600"><br>
The Richard Dawkins Foundation wants to disqualify religious people from enshrining their beliefs in law. But this fails for two reasons. First, you can’t prohibit someone from legislating their moral beliefs since all laws legislate someone’s moral beliefs. That’s how the legislative process works.</p>

<p>Second, not all beliefs held by religious people are strictly religious beliefs. This distinction is really important since some want to simply label a belief as “religious” just so they can reject it. As it turns out, no one is trying to legislate strictly religious beliefs. And the examples typically given as religious beliefs are held with equal confidence by non-religious people.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Hey, religious person. Yeah, I’m talking to you. You’re welcome to your beliefs, but don’t even think about trying to bring your beliefs into the public square. Your beliefs are not allowed.</p>

<p>This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B, where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking. Plus, we try to have some fun while we’re doing it. In today’s tweet, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science offers a tweet—ironically, with little reason and no science.</p>

<p>The tweet says, “We really really really really really really really really really really really really really...” (three days later) “really really really really really need religious people to stop believing that they’re entitled to having their beliefs enshrined in the law.”</p>

<p>According to the Dawkins Foundation, religious people should be disqualified from having their beliefs influence public policy. But with religious people excluded, who then gets to participate in the political process? Non-religious people like Richard Dawkins, perhaps? Well, that’s convenient. This kind of thinking isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous. But don’t worry, danger is my middle name. (Actually, it’s Edward.)</p>

<p>The Dawkins Foundation wants to exclude religious people from enshrining their beliefs in the law. This thinking fails for two reasons. Here’s the first reason: All laws legislate someone’s moral beliefs. Each word in that sentence is important. Everyone has beliefs—things they hold to be true. I have beliefs, you have beliefs, and Dawkins has beliefs. I believe I have a beard. I don’t know if you’ve noticed. I believe I have a Morkiepoo who is super adorable. (Ah, so cute.) And I believe stealing my Morkiepoo is wrong. (Isn’t that right, Polly?)</p>

<p>Now, that last belief is different than the other two. It’s a moral belief. A moral belief concerns what is right or wrong, good or bad, and it’s moral beliefs that are the kind of belief that gets legislated. Think about it. Why do we have laws against stealing other people’s stuff? This isn’t a trick question. We have laws against stealing because people believe stealing is morally wrong.</p>

<p>In other words, stealing is illegal because it’s immoral. All legitimate laws are grounded in some moral belief some person holds. Without moral grounding, laws would simply be exercises in power, and that’s not right.</p>

<p>For example, murder laws are good because they’re based in the belief that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Every law reflects someone’s moral point of view. So, the question then isn’t, “Should we legislate moral beliefs?” but rather, “Whose moral beliefs should we legislate?” So, everyone has moral beliefs they think should be enshrined in the law, as Dawkins puts it, not just religious people. So, why does Dawkins single out religious people, saying their beliefs should be disqualified? This leads to the second reason why this tweet fails.</p>

<p>Not all beliefs held by religious people are religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are very particular things. They are beliefs about religious things. (I’m not going too quickly here, am I?) So, only religious people hold these beliefs. They include doctrinal beliefs about things like baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or how people get saved. Yes, it would be inappropriate to legislate one of these beliefs. But who’s trying to do that? No one, as far as I can see.</p>

<p>Now, you might be thinking, what about laws against abortion or against same-sex marriage? Aren’t these examples of legislating a religious belief? No. Here’s why.</p>

<p>The argument against abortion isn’t based on religion. It’s based on moral common sense. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being, and pro-lifers point to science and philosophy, not religion, to point out that abortion kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong. Likewise, arguments for traditional marriage can be made without quoting chapter and verse. Remember, just because a religious person holds a belief doesn’t mean it’s merely a religious belief.</p>

<p>Look, most religious people are against stealing. In fact, the Bible says you should not steal, but that doesn’t mean that the belief that stealing is wrong is a religious belief. Just ask your non-religious friend why he’s against stealing. I bet he doesn’t quote the Bible. Here’s the basic rule. If a non-religious person can make the same basic argument about a belief that a religious person can make, then it’s not a religious belief.</p>

<p>So, what have we learned? The Dawkins Foundation wants to exclude religious people from enshrining their beliefs in the law. This fails for two reasons. First, you can’t prohibit someone from legislating their moral beliefs since all laws legislate someone’s moral beliefs. That’s how the legislative process works.</p>

<p>Second, not all beliefs held by religious people are religious beliefs. This distinction is really important because some want to label a belief as religious just so they can reject it. (I’m looking at you, Dawkins.)</p>

<p>As it turns out, no one is trying to legislate strictly religious beliefs, and the examples that are typically given are held with equal confidence by non-religious people. Since all people legislate their moral beliefs, no people—religious or non-religious, black or white, gay or straight, with hair or without—should be excluded from the public policy process. Class dismissed.</p>


title: Discerning Truth in a Divided World
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/31/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/discerning-truth-in-a-divided-world
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/9u-XbP3dxMA?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg gives advice for discerning truth in a world where people have such wildly different understandings of what is happening.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Caller: In a world that we’re in right now, in fact, it constantly comes to a head day after day, and it’s almost seeming like we live in an alternate universe. I mean, friends and family who watch the same events that I do, including, most recently, the Israel—what’s going on with all the bombing and how half the country—or maybe more—act like it’s all Israel’s fault. And you can obviously, from my question, see where I stand, but this happens in every area, whether it’s men competing in women’s sports, or politics, or Christianity, religion, sex, as you guys were talking about, sexuality. And I just wonder if you could give some advice to me, and probably the listeners, how to discern, really, truth from error in issues in our world—and I’ll leave it at that.</p>

<p>Greg: Sure, I’d be glad to. In fact, just as you were closing there, I thought of an analogy. We have a fireplace. It’s an old one, and we weren’t sure if it was sound or not. And we had a guy come out and take a look at it yesterday and give us some recommendations. But he was the third person out. And the reason that we had three people come out is because we wanted a different opinion. We wanted a second opinion, so to speak. And the second person who came out contradicted, to some degree, what the first person said. And so then, [with] the third person coming out, we can get another perspective.</p>

<p>When you get three perspectives on something—and characteristically, the common conventional wisdom is, if you’re going to have work done on your home, you want to get three bids because you end up talking to three different people about the same thing who sound different to you.</p>

<p>Now, may be that they all sound alike, and if they all sound alike, then they probably all got the same accurate take on the circumstances, all right? But if there are differences, then you have to weigh which one might be telling the truth. It turned out the first guy said I need all these changes here, and it was thousands of dollars, and he was going to sell it to me. Well, maybe I did need it, but I wasn’t sure. The second guy said, “You don’t need any of that.” The third guy said, “If you want to get what the first guy said, you’ll be up to code, but you don’t need to be up to code for safety, and your thing is safe. We just need to have these smaller changes.” So, because I’m getting kind of the back story from different people, different perspectives, it puts me in a better position—you’re going to see how this analogy works, here—better position to know what’s actually happening.</p>

<p>And not only that, when you’re listening carefully and getting the story, if you’re paying attention, some things are just going to ring true for you because the way they’re characterized is straightforward and unembellished, and there doesn’t seem to be any trickery going on, okay? I noticed that in some points of view, there’s a lot of screaming going on—pounding the pulpit kind of stuff. If a person has a weak point, they’re going to make more noise, and they’re going to take detours—rhetorical detours—that are called demagoguery. That means it’s kind of highfalutin rhetoric to make up for weak arguments. They’re demagogic. There’s yelling and carrying on.</p>

<p>Well, when I see people that are demagogic, I ask myself, why are they doing this? Why are they making all this noise? Why are they screaming? Because they have weak points. That’s why they’re doing it. It’s a tell for me. Or they’re trying to silence dissent. If they’re trying to silence dissent, then I don’t trust what they have to say because if what they had to say could survive peer review, they wouldn’t have to silence peer review. They’re silencing it because it probably can’t withstand it.</p>

<p>So, a lot of ideas now that are paraded by what’s called now “the legacy press” are paraded out in that fashion. This is the way it is. The discussion is over. The debate is over. These are settled facts. We’re not letting anybody disagree, and you’re bad if you try. I know immediately that I can’t trust what they say because I can see the tricks.</p>

<p>So, on the one hand, when you’ve got all this other stuff going on, try to get a couple of different perspectives. Maybe three on that issue, okay? And I have resources, and everybody does. You can go on the internet and get other views, and not just the legacy press’s take, but what other people are saying about what the legacy press says, and then you could judge for yourself. Are these guys—who’s making the better case? And if you have three, then that’s really the magic number, kind of thing.</p>

<p>And also, if you have some skills at clear thinking—and this is what we hope you’re not just gaining through what we write but catching through interaction, listening to the radio and stuff like that, then you’ll recognize errors, mistakes, or ploys, like when there’s a misrepresentation of a view, a straw man, or when there’s just rank name calling: “You’re a hater.” Okay, well maybe I’m a hater, but that’s an assessment of my character. That’s not an assessment of my view. You changed the subject. Right? So, you can see those maneuvers, then you know when somebody’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes.</p>

<p>So, I think a combination of getting multiple sources, all right? Not just hearing one side, but asking yourself, “I wonder—that sounded fairly persuasive, but I wonder what somebody who disagrees with that person would say in response?” This is a question we ask a lot of times here at Stand to Reason when we’re writing. We’re saying, what would they say in response? We better cover that. We better cover that if there’s a weakness in our view. But that’s a way to assess somebody else’s view. What are other people saying about it? What’s the critique of that view by others—thoughtful people? And then the ability to be able to see things for yourself. When maneuvers (either fallacies or power plays) are in place, that’s going to be a red flag and alert you to look closer and dig deeper on that issue.</p>


title: Can One Forgive Another Person Who Doesn’t Want to Be Forgiven?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/07/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-one-forgive-another-person-who-doesn-t-want-to-be-forgiven-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Aq-BKdNyqT4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg answers a caller question about our ability to forgive someone who won't apologize.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Caller: When someone has done something to you that they are not sorry for, I'm wondering how that can be resolved when the most general response is, "Well, you need to let it go. You need to forgive them." And I sort of understand what they mean, to the sense that it's eating you up inside.&nbsp;That kind of stuff is emotionally helpful. But I'm looking around as purely—how can one be forgiven that doesn't want to be? I mean, presumably God doesn't forgive us if we don't actually want it.</p>

<p>Greg: Right. I think this is a little bit of a tricky question, and the reason is, is because I think the issue of forgiveness—there are a couple of different angles to it in Scripture. Now, one of my mentors, Doug Geivett, philosopher over at Biola, wrote a piece or a chapter in a book about this, and his point was that your responsibility to forgive another transgressor a transgression is dependent upon their willingness to admit their wrongdoing and, in a sense, turn from it. In fact, Jesus made comments to this. If he repents, then forgive him. Well, how many times? Seven times? No, 70 times seven, but there are conditions there. It's not unconditional.</p>

<p>And so, I think there's a point there, all right? That is, that you are not going to give the person the sense that they are released from their guilt if they are not repentant of their behavior, okay?</p>

<p>So, the reason part of this—there's another part to this I want to mention, but the part that is so weird is that, how do we release somebody else from the guilt when they're really guilty before God more than anything else? So, I don't quite understand how all that works, but if you were to sin against me badly, I would say then you're not forgiven for what you did because you're not repentant about it, okay? Period. Now, that's kind of the judicial side of it. Let's just call it that. Then, there is that personal side.</p>

<p>If what I am doing—in light of the absence of your request for forgiveness and your subsequent repentance which would result in my forgiveness by obligation—is&nbsp;seething over it, and I'm turning it over, and I'm dwelling on it, I'm saying, "You dirty rat," you know, "You're doing this, you did that. Oh man, I just..." and over, and over, and over, this simply is soul-destroying.</p>

<p>And I'm thinking of relationships I've been in where I find myself—for things that were done that were wrong to me, and for which there is not the hint of repentance, no sense that there's been any impropriety—and I'm going, "Oh my gosh," and over, and over, and over, and this is where I got to go to God and say, "Okay, God, I'm stopping doing this. I'm just not going to do that." This is my self-talk.</p>

<p>So, maybe this is what is being spoken of when people say you just have to let it go. Yeah, there are times when a person is not going to repent. Maybe they're dead. They can't undo, they can't repent, they can't say they're sorry. None of that stuff. Now what? It is foolish to let those things continue to eat away at your heart. And this is where, you know, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is good, whatever is lovely, and anything worthy of praise...any excellence, let your mind dwell on these things. And so, this is where you have to go just for your own mental health.</p>

<p>Caller: And I have completely done that. It's more of—it strikes me as somewhat unserious of someone to say, "You should forgive someone something horrible that they aren't actually sorry about." I'm like, that wound is real. I don't want to minimize that by pretending that everything is forgiven when it's not even capable of me granting that, okay? Harbor nothing. Nothing emotional tied to it, you know, I still want to keep that distinction.</p>

<p>Greg: Well, I think according to what Doug Geivett has written, that's a legitimate distinction. The person is not forgiven. They're not released. Jesus said, "Forgive as you've been forgiven." Well, we're forgiven as we go before God and ask for cleansing and that kind of thing. Now, I don't think we're forgiven sin for sin in that way. It's the idea that we go and confess we are sinners, and then we are cleansed and made whole and that kind of thing. But nevertheless, the dynamic is in place.</p>

<p>And so, I guess I could say, well, I'm not, in a sense, forensically offering forgiveness to that person. The slate isn't clean. You haven't dealt with that. That has not been resolved yet. However, I am not going to ruin my life over the fact that you refuse to acknowledge your wrongdoing. I'm moving on emotionally. So, that's the kind of two-fold element I think that it's probably healthy to keep in mind.</p>

<p>Caller: Thank you, Greg.</p>

<p>Greg: Does that make sense?</p>

<p>Caller: I appreciate that very much.</p>


title: Thoughts on What Secures a Marriage
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/14/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/thoughts-on-what-secures-a-marriage
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/280iAS_d87w?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg reflects on his anniversary, discussing the implications of the marriage promise.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>We went out to breakfast on Sunday morning, the day of our wedding anniversary, and my daughters were with us. So, the four of us went out—let’s just go out, you know, let’s celebrate. And while we are sitting there, I mentioned to my daughters—now, they knew it was the anniversary, right? But I just wanted to mention this to them.</p>

<p>It’s a daddy parenting discipleship moment. Now, just saying, there’s nothing magical about this daddy doing that with his daughters. It isn’t because you listen to me that my daughters listen to me, okay? My daughters don’t care who I am or who you think I am. I’m just Dad to them.</p>

<p>So, my daughters listen to me probably as much as your daughters or your kids listen to you, kind of half an ear. But nevertheless, I wanted to make a particular point. And I said, “Girls, we—your mom and I—have been married 23 years.” I said, “That’s a long time.” In fact, most people don’t make it that far.</p>

<p>Do you realize that, friends? Twenty-three&nbsp;years. A lot of people have been married longer than that, but most marriages don’t last that long. Half the marriages, or maybe more now, end in divorce. I don’t know what the actual statistics are, but they’re pretty alarming. And so—and most of them that end in divorce don’t end after 23 years. That’s a little rare. So, we’ve lasted longer than most people.</p>

<p>So, I asked my daughters, “Why do you think that is? Why do you think we lasted 23 years?” Now, I’m just throwing this out for you to think about. If I were to ask you that question, what would you say? What would you say the rationale is or the reason is? I have a feeling that your reasons probably are a little bit more substantive than my daughter’s.</p>

<p>My 16-year-old didn’t take the bait. My 13-year-old jumped right in because she’s very talkative. She likes to give her point of view, and so immediately she gave the Hollywood answer. What’s the Hollywood answer? “Because you love each other.”</p>

<p>I’m chuckling along with every other married person who is listening who has been married more than 10 years because you know that love is not what’s going to do that. I’m not saying I don’t love my wife, or you’re not saying you don’t love your wife. But you know that love—the feeling of love, I’m talking about, the sense of love, the sense of love that my daughter meant and Hollywood means—is a fickle thing. It comes, and it goes, and it comes, and it goes, and sometimes it goes for a long time.</p>

<p>This is why we are obliged to be loving as a virtue—because we choose to act loving, oftentimes when we don’t feel loving, which is true of a lot of the virtues, by the way. We choose to do them because they’re right to do, not because we feel good about doing them. Now, after a while, if we are aggressive in pursuing the virtues in our lives, if we are intentional about being virtuous, what’s going to happen is, as we acclimate ourselves to virtue, we come to it. We become habituated to the virtues. They become habits, and they become enjoyable for themselves. Enjoyable for themselves. It feels good to do the virtuous thing.</p>

<p>But that takes practice, and I’ve been working on it a long time, and it doesn’t always feel good for me to do the virtuous thing, but that’s the way it is with marriage. You know, when you don’t feel loving, well, then you have to act loving because there’s a virtue to that, and it’s a good thing to do. It’s like loving your neighbor. Jesus isn’t asking us to have nice feelings about them. He’s asking us to act in a certain kind of way towards our neighbor, who we may not even like, okay?</p>

<p>So, when my daughter offers her first rationale, “Because you’re in love,” that’s the Hollywood answer. That is not real life. And people that have been married for a while understand that that is not what keeps you together. In fact, I heard a priest once at a wedding say something very profound on this line. He said, “You have come together this day for this wedding to get married because you love one another. From this day forward, that order is reversed. That is, you love one another because you’re married.”</p>

<p>And that really gets a little closer to my point, which I’ll share with you in a minute because I have to tell you about the second thing my daughter said when the first one didn’t work out so well: “Oh, you lasted this long because you love each other.” I said, “No honey, that’s not it,” and then she said, “Well, you lasted this long because divorce lawyers are really expensive,” which is a fair observation.</p>

<p>And I do think sometimes when things get really hard for people, if they thought about the consequences in their life of getting unmarried, they may realize that they’re probably much more burdensome than staying married. That’s just a cost-benefit analysis, all right? But a lot of folks don’t think about that, and the attorney’s fees are only one little bitty part of it. There’s a whole bunch of more chaos that goes along with it. But, “No,” I said, “That’s not the reason, honey. Here’s the reason. The reason we lasted 23 years. Very simple, we made a promise.”</p>

<p>We made a promise.</p>

<p>And by the way, the promise we made wasn’t to last our lifetime. That was only part of the promise. And, by the way, I’ve mentioned this before. It’s been a while since I brought it up, but this is something a lot of people do not think about regarding rough times in their marriage, where they might be considering, “Gee, maybe this isn’t a great thing. Maybe I shouldn’t continue. Maybe the grass is greener,” and then they think of their promise, and their promise holds them or holds their marriage together. They don’t realize that the promise is not just “until death do us part.” It’s something <em>else</em> “until death do us part.” It is something along the lines of, depending on your own particular version, to have and to hold, and to love and to cherish, and to serve in sickness and in health, in good times and bad times, until death do us part.</p>

<p>So, when I say we made a promise, I’m not just thinking about, “We promise to never get divorced.” I’m thinking about the whole thing, that my promise is to have and to hold, and to love and to cherish—this is for my part—and continue doing that until I die. That’s my promise.</p>

<p>Now, I am the first to admit that’s not always easy to do, and this has nothing to do with my wife. It has everything to do with marriage and human beings who are fallen.</p>


title: What Should Christians Be Looking for in a Church?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/21/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-should-christians-be-looking-for-in-a-church-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/zyCpohvSk2o?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg gives five principles to consider when deciding on a new church home.&nbsp;</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Let me tell you what I think, in general, you should be looking for in a church, okay? I think I’ve written on this before, so I hope I get all of the points. Amy’s gonna check it out here and see if she can find it, but the first thing that is really critical, and I mean, it kind of goes without saying, but nothing this important should go without saying. The things that we presume end up sometimes being false presumptions, okay? There’s got to be, first of all, a very high view of Scripture.</p>

<p>Now, when I say a high view of Scripture, I do not mean simply that the church believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, okay? Because most Christian churches or Evangelical churches will say that, but that does not mean they are careful in the way they use the Scripture, okay? And lots of pastors have lots of bad habits here, in my view. And that is, they look for—they try to be clever. They look for something nobody else has seen before. They, you know, they try to read between the lines. They take historical accounts, and they make metaphors out of them like, you know, Jesus calming the storm: “Well, what storms can Jesus calm in your life?” This is not why the gospel writers put that in there. They put that in there because it evidenced the deity of Christ, and we know this because the disciples, what they did when he did that, they fell on their face and worshiped him. This is about Jesus. It’s not about how Jesus helps us. It’s about the person.</p>

<p>Anyway, so a lot of pastors are just going to make metaphors out of important texts, and it’s a bad habit. Let the text speak for itself. Don’t get clever. Don’t find secret stuff. There’s plenty of good stuff right there on the surface, right? So, when I say respect they have a high view of Scripture, that means they declare a high view and they practice a high view, okay?</p>

<p>So, I think another element that’s really important is that they have opportunities for you as a member of the community to function productively in that community, okay? Every single Christian has a spiritual gift. And as you are given a gift, Peter says, then you are to use it and employ it by the power that God gives you as a good steward, and it’s for the edification of the body. And Paul talks about that in either Romans 12 or 1 Corinthians 12.</p>

<p>So, you have something, Jeff, that you can offer. I don’t know what it is, and it may not be on the list, but it’s something you can give to the church to build up that local community. And many churches do not give opportunity for their people to be involved except they say, “Well, volunteer and pack up the chairs after the service”—whatever, you know, that kind of thing. But in terms of being useful in a regular way, ongoing way, because you have a spiritual gift, they’re not too good about that. They don’t have a good habit. So, this is another thing I think that you need to look for, okay? A place where you can be useful.</p>

<p>I do think there’s also what might be considered an aesthetic element that I think is valuable. I think that to find a church that you could call your home, you have to go in there and feel like you’re at home in a certain sense, all right? There’s something about the community and the way they express themselves that resonates with you personally, and that’s gonna be different with different people.</p>

<p>I know Hugh Hewitt said he became a Presbyterian because it was the denomination where guys hug each other the least, right? So, well, that’s him. You know, some people want to be hugged all the time by everybody. Well, that’s going to be a Pentecostal church or whatever, you know. So, there are personal elements there that I think are meaningful and valuable.</p>

<p>Here’s the difficulty, though. Some people just put that right up front, okay? They walk in: “Do I feel good about this environment? Oh, I like this church. Oh man, these people are great,” and they don’t ask the substantive questions. That’s the subjective one that has to do with personal likes and dislikes. They don’t ask about high view of Scripture, they don’t ask, “Where can I be useful here?” They don’t ask, “Is there any accountability that I’m going to have? Is somebody going to be, in a good way, close enough to me in this church to look over my shoulder and put their foot—their boot in the back of my pants if I need it?” And we all need it sometimes, okay?</p>

<p>And the other thing, too, is that this is a place that you can be fed spiritually. I mean, just because a church has a high view of Scripture does not mean that they are capable in the leadership of giving a good scriptural meal, you know? That’s another thing entirely. Can you be fed spiritually there from the Word? That’s what I’m talking about, from the Word. So, that’s another real important issue.</p>

<p>So, a high view of Scripture, a place where you can be useful with your spiritual gifts, a place where there’s some level of accountability, okay? You’re not just footloose and fancy free. It’s a place where you can be fed spiritually.</p>

<p>Another thing that wasn’t on my list, but I’ve thought about it a lot is—and this usually comes up in the negative. Something happens in an otherwise good church environment for an individual, and something happens to the leadership that causes them to disrespect the leadership. I’m not saying that their leadership is involved in heavy sin or anything, but it might be a consistent abuse of Scripture where they keep doing the same kind of mistake. It may be a certain kind of, maybe, self-aggrandizement that’s discomfiting when you watch it.</p>

<p>But if you lose respect for the leadership, I think that’s really a significant problem because part of your responsibility and mine as you go into a church is to respect the leadership of the church. This is in 1 Peter 5. I mean, we’re supposed to do what they say, you know, by and large. There are limits to their authority, but we are to follow them. Who? These shepherds who have given their life to serve us. Now, if we lose respect for the leadership, then it’s going to be very difficult to follow them, so that’s another factor in that mix, okay?</p>

<p>So, high view of Scripture, place where you can be useful, place where you are accountable to somebody, you can be fed spiritually, and the leadership, you respect.</p>


title: Watch the Stand to Reason Podcast on YouTube
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/28/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/watch-the-stand-to-reason-podcast-on-youtube
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4yHSs6-8vQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Are you subscribed to Stand to Reason on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos">YouTube</a>? An hour of the Stand to Reason podcast is available each week. If you prefer to watch your podcasts on YouTube, consider checking it out, and don't forget to subscribe!</p>
  <br>


title: Do Students Care about the Reasons for Christianity?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/05/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-students-care-about-the-reasons-for-christianity-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLAiRlLGH8k?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Do apologetics matter to young people today, who base their convictions on feelings?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>One of the things that was asked of me about my own perspective doing apologetics, and especially doing it with youth, was a claim that came up from a leader of—I’m not going to say the ministry because I don’t want to embarrass them—but a leader of a youth ministry. The national leader for a youth ministry, a well-known youth ministry in England. It’s actually a worldwide presence, but he was the England leader of the group. And the point about apologetics came up, which my friends were deeply committed to, had read the <em>Tactics</em> book, were happy that I made my contribution to their organization the week before in a conference, and in fact, want me to do some work with their local churches in Atlanta and can see the significance and importance of apologetics, in their opinion, for youth and want to see more happening in their own churches.</p>

<p>But this particular leader of youth in Britain said, “Don’t waste your time. The young people don’t care about this kind of thing. They are led by their feelings, not by their minds.” So, I was asked my opinion about that statement.</p>

<p>Well, let me tell you something. It’s true in one sense, or at least half of that is true. They are led by their feelings, largely, and not by their minds. They’re socialized to believe what they believe, and when they’re in Christian circles, socialized in Christianity and having their feelings reinforced regarding Christian things, then they’re going to believe Christianity. When they leave, however, then those feelings can change. And we know why the feelings change because we’ve seen the exit polls when Christians—I should say, former Christians—that as young people have left the faith, and you ask them why, it’s because they found a new group of people who think a different way and persuaded them that Christianity wasn’t right. Now they have a new set of feelings. But why do they have a new set of feelings? Because they’ve been persuaded to another view, and there’s some social pressure that’s involved too.</p>

<p>And the social pressure works really well when you don’t have any good reasons to stick with those old-fashioned beliefs and those old-fashioned ways of life. And when they’re polled, the students are quite candid: “We left Christianity because we had no good reasons to stay in Christianity. It didn’t make any sense to us.” What made sense is what their new group was telling them: “Be kind, be loving, be tolerant, be accepting, don’t be a bigot.” And it’s easy for our students who are led by their feelings to be taken down by those approaches if they have no good reasons.</p>

<p>Now, when they have good reasons not to buy into that notion, well, that makes a big difference. So, turns out apologetics do matter for the youth even if feelings play a huge role in their convictions. And even when they don’t want it, they still need it. And so, if you are a leader in a Christian group, Christian organization, then lead, don’t follow. “Our kids don’t want this kind of stuff. They’re just into feelings” Well, we have a way of changing their feelings at Stand to Reason. We beat them up. I mean, after a fashion. That is, we send one of our staffers in as an atheist into their youth groups—they don’t know he’s an atheist, but they think he’s a doctor from a local college or university—and then they give their atheist talk and answer questions, and these guys are taken down. I want to tell you something: That changes their motivation. It certainly changes their feelings. And this kind of role-play thing can be very powerful to help people to see what they don’t know.</p>

<p>Now, these kids are going to encounter this sooner or later—a lot sooner than most parents think. And they will be amazed at how quickly years of religious education can evaporate, sometimes in a matter of months. Their good Christian kids go off to college, they come back for Thanksgiving, and they’re atheists. This happens all the time. Why? Because someone who they respected as smart told them Christianity was dumb, and they believed him. So, do these things matter to kids? Yes, they do.</p>

<p>And our experience has been, from the turnout—say, for example, our [Reality] Apologetics events and also the evidence of Hume Lake. We’ve been invited for the last some four or five years to do a session every single week up there, so we get a shot, at least, at these kids if they will come to our session, but there’s competition. There’s like three or four different speakers that they can choose. And I’m just saying that when our speakers come out, and then they make their pitch before the group with the other speakers as to what they’ll be doing in their session, and they’re not trying to put down the other speakers or, you know, put themselves up in an inappropriate way. They’re just saying, “We’re going to cover these things,” they’re apologetic kinds of things, and they get mobbed out. Standing room only. And the other speakers end up with the scraps. Why? Because these kids want answers.</p>

<p>I was speaking with a brother just a week ago Sunday in England who was raised a Christian and now is struggling with his own convictions, his own confidence. And, in fact, his father was in ministry, and he was a smart guy, and he had questions like anybody else. But what he got mostly was, “Hey, just have faith.” And now he’s struggling because he didn’t get answers. Well, I’m going to tell you something. There are answers, and there’s no good reason that we shouldn’t be giving our kids the answers. And if the answer is, “Well, we don’t know the answers,” well, there are plenty of people that can help you with that. We’re one of them. Str.org. Thousands of pages of information. Literally thousands of pages, and I mean literally <em>literally</em>. We have hundreds of video vignettes, short four, five, six-minute video responses to challenges, or questions, or issues. I just did one, two, three, four, five today. I had a video session where they’ll be stretched out over the next few weeks because they’re video podcasts. You can sign up for those two in addition to this podcast. So, these are things that we make available, and we’re not the only ones. There are lots of other organizations out there that are doing good work and putting stuff out on the web for free. We got answers to these questions.</p>

<p>In fact, we’ve got a huge, deep bench. Our people have great answers, and there’s nothing that has been brought up as a challenge to Christianity that intelligent, thoughtful, gracious followers of Christ have not effectively responded to. Now, you may not know what they’ve responded to, but it’s out there. It isn’t like we’ve got a whole bunch of questions we haven’t been able to answer. Obviously, theologically there are some things that are mysteries, but theological issues are not the ones that people are bringing up. Occasionally, they come up. Most of them, they’re just the standard thing. In fact, that was one of the questions that was put to me: What are the standard kinds of challenges that young people are going to encounter? And you know what? He asked me for ten. I couldn’t give him ten. There aren’t that many. I guess if I strained a bit, I can find some things. But there’s probably five or six main things.</p>

<p>I mean, the problem of evil, of course. The reality of truth—that we can actually know something. The reliability of the Bible, both historically and in terms of its transmission. And how many times it’s been copied and recopied, has that changed it? That’s an issue that comes up. The person of Jesus. Did I mention evil and suffering? I think I mentioned that.</p>

<p>By the way, with regards to the problem of evil and suffering—which is a significant issue people bring up all the time—I just want to emphasize something: That Christian theists are not the only ones that have to answer that question. And this is something that’s a challenge to Christianity, but I don’t know why people haven’t seen that this is a challenge to every single worldview. So, if you’re a Buddhist, you’ve got to answer the question “What about the problem of evil and suffering?” If you’re a Hindu you’ve got to answer the question “What about the problem of evil and suffering?” If you’re an atheist, you have to answer the question “What about the problem of evil and suffering?”</p>

<p>Now, that may surprise you, but it shouldn’t, because the problem of evil and suffering is not a Christian problem. It’s a human problem. Human beings across the world, spanning all periods of time, have raised this issue and offered this challenge: what’s wrong with the world? Why is there so much evil and suffering? Everybody knows something’s wrong. The world is broken, and that means that the real issue is not whether Christians answer it; it’s who can give an answer that makes sense out of the problem to begin with and can also give us the resources to answer. That’s how I approach this problem when I lecture on this. Even the atheist has to answer the problem of evil.</p>

<p>Now, if he’s an atheist because of the problem of evil, I get it. But he hasn’t gotten away from the problem. He hasn’t solved anything. He says, “I can’t believe in God because there’s so much evil in the world.” All right, I get that. So, God’s out of the picture. But guess what? You still got evil in the world. So, you tell me, atheist—as a materialist, as a naturalist, as a physicalist—now, why is there so much evil in the world? And don’t tell me it’s an illusion because just a few minutes ago you were barking pretty loudly about it as if it were real, so we all have to answer this question, not just the Christian theists.</p>

<p>Well, these are the issues, and there’s now a new category of sexual issue—the homosexuality/transgender issue. But most of this is just meant to show that Christians are mean, and God is nasty, and so that’s the broader issue because we don’t go along with all of this stuff, and well, we have an answer for that. We can tell you why we don’t go along with that, and we can also tell you why this isn’t because we’re mean and God’s nasty.</p>

<p>One other thing I didn’t mention was the religious pluralism issue: Why is Jesus the only way of salvation? But what have I given you? Just about six main things. Person of Christ, evil and suffering, reliability of the Bible, truth, relativism, what’s that? Five? Why Jesus is the only way. Six. That’s kind of a relativistic issue, too. And then it kind of falls off after that.</p>

<p>Now, here’s what this means, friends. It means that if you can master—more or less master—six issues, you’ve got them covered. You’re able to stand tall and demonstrate why Christianity is worth thinking about over and above all these other points of view. I guess Islam should be thrown in there too, maybe. Let’s make that seven because it’s just a growing problem, but it is not an overwhelming task. It isn’t a task that we cannot resolve, that we cannot answer, that we cannot speak to, okay? It’s something that can be managed by Christians, and that’s why Stand to Reason is here. Confidence for every Christian, clear-thinking for every question or challenge, and grace in every encounter. It’s equipping you, essentially, to be capable.</p>


title: Is the Rapture Biblical?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/12/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-rapture-biblical-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WyDiQw13OqM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is the concept of the rapture found in Scripture? Greg shares his findings with a caller.</p>
  <br>


title: How to Respond to a Deconverting Loved One
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 07/19/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-respond-to-a-deconverting-loved-one
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bTPT_OmU480?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Jon Noyes and Tim Barnett discuss how Christians can lovingly respond to a deconverting loved one in a way that both maintains boundaries and continues the conversation.</p>
  <br>


title: New Live Series with Jon Noyes - To the Point
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 07/26/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/new-live-series-with-jon-noyes-to-the-point
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/85Gewe-7lEg?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Join Jon Noyes each month for a live teaching series called To the Point where he explores relevant topics like New Testament reliability, atheism, suicide, and more. He’ll be live on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos">YouTube</a> from 8:00-8:45 p.m. Pacific Time, but the recordings will continue to be available.</p>

<p>Last month, Jon discussed why we can trust the New Testament and answered the question: Can the New Testament documents be relied upon to give us a true picture of the important details of Jesus' life?</p>

<p>Jon will be back again live on Wednesday, July 28th for the next installment of To the Point.</p>
  <br>


title: How Should Christians Approach Spiritual Warfare?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/02/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-should-christians-approach-spiritual-warfare-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/rnjzoDpxrRI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>The world is held in the power of the Evil One, but the truth sets us free. Greg Koukl gives a biblical case for why truth matters when we enter spiritual warfare.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Now, I've said a number of times it bears repeating that I think that spiritual warfare is misunderstood by a lot of Christians, because I think many Christians understand spiritual warfare to be a kind of power encounter with the Devil, and what that looks like is a kind of a way of addressing demonic powers, using our authority as Christians and using prayer that is meant to push against the Devil and his designs. Now, I'm not against that. I mean, I think there certainly is an element of that. I'm not really comfortable with the binding and loosing things, because, you know, when Jesus told us to pray, he didn't tell us to pray at the Devil, rather he said ask the Father, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil.” I think that's the literal rendering of it. It usually says “the evil one,” but when I pray this, I say, “from the evil, evil circumstances, the evil one, deliver us–me, my family–from all of that.” So, prayers are to be not directed at the devil, but I pray this other way because that's what Jesus said to do.</p>

<p>In any event, regardless, the bulk of spiritual warfare, the substance of the content of it is not in power encounters where prayer is involved. Now, it does say towards the end of Ephesians 6, where it talks about our spiritual weaponry, verse 18, “with all prayer and petition pray at all times in the spirit, and, with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints.” So, in the context of spiritual battle and spiritual armor, there's a reference to prayer, no question. However, I don't think that's what the substance of spiritual battle is all about. It isn't the heart and core of it.</p>

<p>Something else is going on, and, when I look at what Scripture says about the Devil and his impact on humanity, I learn a couple of different things that are relevant to the broader issue that we're talking about of spiritual warfare. I read, for example, in Revelations 12:9 that the Devil has deceived the whole world. I read in 2 Corinthians 4 that he has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving. I read in 2 Timothy 2, right at the end, Paul talks about us being gentle and patient when we are wronged by others in order that God might grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and that they come to their senses and escape. Listen to the language. “…from the snare of the Devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” And finally, to kind of cap it all off, in 1 John 5:19, John writes, “The whole world lies in the power of the Evil One.” So, what this teaches us is that the way that the devil controls the world is by blinding them, capturing them, deceiving them, lying to them, and controlling them in that way. And, indeed, this is consistent with what Jesus told us about the Devil. He's a liar. He speaks from his own nature. And this is why I think, to put it most directly, I think that the bulk, the vast majority of spiritual warfare is not a power encounter, but a truth encounter.</p>

<p>Remember, Jesus said, “It is the truth that sets free,” and, specifically in that context, it's the truth that he teaches. “If you abide in my word, and my word abides in you, then you're truly disciples of mine, and the truth will set you free.” That truth sets you free, and he goes on to talk about freedom from sin, but we're not free from sin, because we are slaves to sin before as unregenerate people and slaves to the Devil, who uses that slavery to encourage us to sin more, because, prior to regeneration, the Devil is our father. This seems to be a straightforward application of things that Jesus says to the Jews in John 8.</p>

<p>This concept of spiritual warfare being a truth encounter is reinforced by something Paul says directly about spiritual battle in 2 Corinthians 10. He says the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh. They're not human powered. Flesh could be mean the fallen self. That could also mean just basic humanity. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven, Jesus said. So, it means you didn't figure this out on your own. God is the one who was operating so you'd have that knowledge. So, I think that's what he means here. He says the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh. They are not human powered, but they are divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. All right. Hey. Wow I want some of that stuff, that divinely powerful weaponry. Well, then he tells in the very next verse exactly what it is.</p>

<p>He says we are casting down speculations. We are casting down speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. There's the truth part. And we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. He's talking about thinking accurate, true thoughts. In other words, we tear down the falsehoods and we replace them even in our own mind with truth. Okay? That's why the first piece of our spiritual weaponry in Ephesians 6 is the belt of the truth.</p>

<p>So, now, with all that in place, what I'm saying here is that spiritual battle entails a truth encounter, principally. Therefore, Stand to Reason, we're in the spiritual battle business, because what we're trying to do is tear down those speculations and lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God and take our thoughts and your thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, captive to the truth.</p>


title: How Can We Stay Motivated When Things Look Bleak?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/09/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-we-stay-motivated-when-things-look-bleak-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uhU9sj9jc4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>If you feel like Christians are losing the battle, you’re not alone. But Greg Koukl and Jon Noyes remind us that we’re “more than conquerors through him who loved us”&nbsp;(Romans 8:37).</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Caller: I was listening to your podcast, and it was a very good summary. In fact, your newsletter is going to come out dealing with, I guess, the subversion of truth—how we’re being silenced and how things are being twisted. That was like the worst halftime coaching. They’ve got everybody. They’ve got Google. They’ve got the universities, the schools.</p>

<p>Greg: You’re right. This can be very, not only unsettling, but discouraging.</p>

<p>Caller: So, my question was, I think we’re probably going to lose this battle, but you know we definitely win the war, and what’s the game plan look like in the meantime? I mean, there’s going to be a lot of casualties. Two of my three grown children are “woke.” I mean, we have to be very careful of how we talk, right? I speak with them, but you know, I still try to throw some truth in there, just to put more of a pebble in there.</p>

<p>Greg: You’re a dad. Dads are better at rocks than pebbles.</p>

<p>Caller: So, I guess I wanted your take, because you see it even more so than me. My faith is strong, and in many ways it’s much stronger. I’m reading through the Bible and, in fact, I got that book&nbsp;<em>Valley of Vision</em>&nbsp;that you talked about. I really love that too. I think it is more effective if we aren’t a sad sack or finger wagging.</p>

<p>Greg: Well, let me respond to it quickly&nbsp;because I think I know where you’re going. We got a pretty good picture, Jon and I both do, and before I pitch it over to Jon, I just want to make an observation. There’s a certain sense in which all of this going on confirms the validity and truthfulness of my own worldview, because what’s going on is so ridiculously upside down—where black is white and white is black, and up is down and down is up, and good is bad and bad is good—that the only persons that can affirm what’s going on are people that are completely blinded, and this is exactly what Scripture says the Devil has done to the world. It’s a grave situation, I admit. Still, at the same time, it verifies for me the truthfulness of my worldview. It doesn’t undercut it. It raises concerns for my family, and for the future,&nbsp;and for the church, and Christians that are being duped by the language and by the power moves and by the progressives and the wolves in our midst, but it does serve to confirm my convictions, because it fits perfectly into our understanding of a Christian view of reality. That’s my first thought.</p>

<p>Jon: I think that’s a great observation, and also a struggle, I think, many listeners are probably wrestling with right now. I love Romans 8, specifically Romans 8:37, where we’re told that we’re conquerors. We’re more than conquerors through him who loved us, and that comes on the heel of Paul talking about the trials and the suffering that have to take place before our glory.</p>

<p>Ultimately, it’s in the suffering, right? In suffering is affirmation that our worldview is true. And if our worldview is true, the promises of God are true. So, that’s where I run, and I hold really fast to the promises of God&nbsp;and my identity of who I am in that. I’m able to face the trials and the tribulations knowing who God is, knowing my worldview is true, and knowing that the trials and the tribulations that are here aren’t for naught, that actually the things that we’re going through actually are doing something right.</p>

<p>These are momentary, light afflictions producing in us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison. There’s something that is being produced in you and in me through these trials that otherwise would not be there, and I think it’s important for us to understand that it’s also important, Paul tells us, that the trials are producing patience in us, and that patience is producing proven character, and that proven character, a hope, and then he says a hope that will not disappoint. So, I hold on to these things in the midst of it.</p>

<p>Greg: I do not view my responsibility to the world to be one of persuading the world or even changing the world. I want to qualify this, because I don’t want it to be misunderstood. Changing the world and persuading people ultimately are not in my control. It doesn’t mean I can’t have a salutary impact on the way people think and on the way the world is, but the ultimate end is not within my control. What is in my control is what I choose to do in response. So, what I can do, say, with regards to the gospel and communicating that, I can communicate the truth as graciously and persuasively and as accurately as possible, but there’s no guarantee that the people are going to be persuaded. It’s not my goal to persuade them. It’s my goal to do what I just said, and it’s God’s responsibility to do the persuading. So, if I’m a Jeremiah-type speaking the truth accurately and faithfully, and nobody listens, I can still look at my own behavior and say, “You have succeeded in what you sought to do. You were faithful to the audience of one to do what was right.” Whether or not it had a long-term impact on the individual or the culture is not under my control. That is not my responsibility.</p>

<p>So, part of the way I approach this is, I say, “What can I do that is within my power to accomplish, to succeed in doing? My role is to be faithful. God’s role is to make a difference. That helps me there, as a first principle. So, if nobody listens to me, I’m not surprised, and it’s not the end of the world, because that wasn’t my goal anyway. If what I am doing is being faithful to the Lord in the way I communicate and in what I communicate, then I have accomplished my goal, and I have been successful, if you want to use that language.</p>

<p>I have said multiple times in the last year or so that we are not limited to our four score and ten. Many people, when they get to be my age, 71, they’re looking over their shoulder&nbsp;because there’s not much of their life left compared to what’s passed, and they haven’t accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. There’s not enough life left to do that, and so it’s deeply disappointing for them. But for me, I’m not measuring this four score and ten. I’m thinking in a much broader sense, and if it turns out that I’m laboring away being faithful in the way that I just described, I am storing—I’m making deposits. It’s just like you say. I really worked hard this week, but I’m putting aside all of my 401k so I can cash it in later. I’m not going to enjoy it now, but that’s okay because I know I am going to cash it in later. Something along that line. It’s kind of, maybe, a weak parallel, but it gives you a sense. I know that I am going to cash all of this in later. I know that because I have a promise. I have a hope, as Jon said, that will not disappoint&nbsp;because God is the one who secures that. And&nbsp;so, when I read 2 Corinthians 4:16–18, what Jon just cited, that there’s momentary light affliction that is producing for me—note, the verb is really important—an eternal weight of glory. I’m making a deposit in the bank. So, this period of time, it’s like you got to work a week, five days a week. Why? So you can enjoy the weekend. So, this is a work week for me, and fighting all these battles, this is just part of the work week, and the weekend isn’t a weekend. The weekend is the rest of eternity. It’s a long weekend far beyond all comparison.</p>

<p>I don’t know what’s going to happen next year or next week. For goodness sake, it does look bleak from a human perspective, but I know the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church, and we have 2,000 years of history to demonstrate that’s the case.</p>

<p>Caller: It really validates the Bible so much more, and I think I’m about five years younger than you, but we grew up in a very cushy time, and to see it kind of going over a cliff is tough for us, but it’s really validating the Bible more and more. Look at Paul’s life. You’re reading the Old Testament, you say, oh this will never happen. It’s happening. So, it just makes it so much more powerful to me, and, you know, at some point, I think people are going to be woke the other way, as well—like, hey, wait a minute. This doesn’t make sense. And then, when it doesn’t, say, “Hey, I remember this guy saying this about, you know, a Christian point of view&nbsp;that seems to make sense.”</p>

<p>This is our moment&nbsp;because it is so crazy. And to keep our head, when everyone else is losing theirs,&nbsp;because we’re grounded in the truth. People are hungry for that. I mean, deep down inside, I think, at least for me, even though it stings sometimes, I want the truth, even if it’s truth against the church or whatever...or, you know, let’s discover it. I’m not going to silence you. I’m going to, you know, look it up. I’m going to reference. I’m going to do the leg work. But, you know, I want the truth&nbsp;because I don’t want to waste my time.</p>

<p>Greg: I just think you just touched on something. I’ll make this my final remark to you. But there is a sense in which that, even though we’ve had a cushy life up until now, Americans in general, with regards to these issues, it is time to gird our loins. It is time to, as Paul put it, act like men, and I don’t mean sexist. I mean, rise to the occasion with strength, to be strong, to be on the alert. These are all biblical exhortations, and this is the time to do that, and those who are Christians need to be willing to say, “I’m going to stand in the gap and take whatever the world is going to dish out to me&nbsp;because this is temporary. It is just temporary, when eternity is forever. That’s the definition of the word.</p>


title: Don’t Let Fear Keep You from Thinking Critically
topic: Philosophy
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 08/16/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-let-fear-keep-you-from-thinking-critically
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/XxhTGCf46Fg?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>When we’re afraid discussions about truth will get us&nbsp;labeled intolerant,&nbsp;that fear stifles critical thought and hampers productive discussions about religion, values, ethics, morals, and worldviews.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I want to say something that’s really, really important here. Okay? This is the big deal. This is the point. All people are equal, but not all ideas are equal. And I say that this is really important to understand because we want to make sure that we treat people equally, right? People are valuable apart from their ideas because they’re made in the image of God. That’s what makes people equal. We’re all equal because we’re all made in the image of God, regardless of what we believe. But not every idea is equal.</p>

<p>There is such a thing as a dumb idea. There is. I’m sorry. I remember in grad school, Clay Jones actually taught me that there is such a thing as a stupid question. I’m sorry. There is. Peter Kreeft actually—he’s out of Boston College—he says it this way. I think it’s amazing. He says that we should be egalitarian regarding persons and be elitists regarding ideas. So, we think of others as equals, but we realize that some ideas are better than others, and this is where we get ourselves into trouble. This is where we start to think—or I used to, as an atheist—to start to think the Christian or anybody who held to an objective standard was intolerant.</p>

<p>You know, one of the reasons that relativism has become so popular is because of the fear and then the awkwardness of saying that we think we’re right, and then when we say that we think we’re right, usually it’s in the context in the discussion with somebody, and we’re also saying that the other person is wrong. Now, for me, I’ve always enjoyed the argument. I have. My background is in legal. I like the fight. You know? I like the debate, but a lot of people don’t, and that’s actually one of the reasons relativism crept into the church, because there’s conflict. “Oh, I don’t want to be intolerant.” We’re afraid of that label, and then this fear stifles critical thought, and I think it hampers productive discussions about religion, and values, and ethics, and morals, and worldviews. And this fear is unjustified because people are confused about what tolerance is and what it isn’t.</p>


title: How to Respond When You Don't Know the Answers
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/23/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-respond-when-you-don-t-know-the-answers
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/wDylRVuUFIE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>As ambassadors for Christ, we need wisdom and character in our conversations, but how should we act when we don’t know the answer to a skeptic’s question? Greg explains why sometimes it’s all right to say “I don’t know.”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>
    Being an ambassador is an important part of what we’re training other
    people to do. We don’t want to just give info, we want to produce a certain
    type of person called an ambassador, and, as we characterize this—and many
    of you already know this—ambassadors have three areas of skill, and that
    would be knowledge, wisdom, and character, is the way we put it. You got to
    know a few things if you’re going to be a good ambassador. Even in foreign
    affairs, you have to have a tactical skill to maneuver with wisdom in
    conversations if you’re going to apply your trade, and you also have to
    have a character that commands the message and doesn’t detract from it.
    Now, as I develop this idea of character in my talks, and also on the Stand
    to Reason University course that I teach on this, I mention different ways
    to make our message more palatable, and for us to be more amicable in our
    engagements with people when we disagree, and I mention a couple of things
    that it’s important to be able to say to other people that can soften the
    atmosphere in an appropriate fashion. One of the things I tell people is be
    ready to acknowledge that you could be mistaken about some things.
</p>
<p>
    It’s not a rhetorical trick. It’s an expression of appropriate epistemic
    humility. We are humble about the limitations of our own knowledge, and we
    are aware that that we can have a confirmation bias. We could be looking
    for things to confirm our own view and not see the facts for the way they
    really are, if they are contrary to our view. This is just my attempt at
    encouraging Christians to be careful and be willing to admit to other
    people that, in some circumstances, they might be mistaken about something.
</p>
<p>
    Now, this does not mean that you are mistaken or that you think you are
    mistaken. It just means that you’re acknowledging that it’s possible you
    could be, and, by saying that, it really softens things a lot, I think. And
    I think it’s an expression of personal integrity. Why would I say that I
    could be mistaken? Because I have been mistaken. I actually have been.
    Well, I mean, once or twice, and my wife will tell you, and my kids will
    tell you, yeah, Greg’s been mistaken. So, I know that I’ve been mistaken,
    and I pretty much know that I still am mistaken, at the moment, on things
    that I already believe. Now, wait. You mean you think you believe things
    that are wrong? Of course, I do. But why don’t you change those things?
    Well, because I don’t know what it is that I’m wrong on, but I can’t be the
    only guy on the planet who’s got everything right.
</p>
<p>
    So, I’m willing to say, to a detractor, well, here’s my view. I could be
    mistaken on this, but here are the reasons why I hold the view that I hold.
    Now, could I be mistaken on, well, just about everything? I mean, there’s a
    couple of things, some things, that I can’t say that with integrity, but
    the point I’m making is that, with most of the things we believe, it
    certainly is possible that we could be mistaken on them. The objection that
    gets raised to me if I say, “Well, I could be wrong,” is that it seems like
    it might cast doubt on my conviction, that I’m not communicating with
    confidence. Nobody has ever accused me of not communicating with
    confidence, with being equivocal about the points that I’m making, unless I
    am genuinely equivocal and acknowledge it, well, it could be this. It could
    be that. I don’t know. I’m kind of going here, but I could be mistaken.
    Maybe it’s this. But even in the things that I have strong justification
    for, even in those, it is possible I could be mistaken.
</p>
<p>
    I want to cling to my convictions with the vigor and intensity that my
    justification allows for. So, there are things I’m going to hang on real
    tightly to, and I’m not going to let go, because I have really, really good
    justification...reasons for them. And other things, well, you know,
</p>
<p>
    maybe not so strong, I think I’m right, and here are the reasons, but I
    could be mistaken.
</p>
<p>
    Now, I think that when we have this...when we demonstrate a certain kind of
    epistemic humility—that’s a humility about what we think we know—it
    actually softens the conversation, and, I think, makes our views more
    palatable to others, because we are not coming across with a kind of
    unmitigated dogmatism: “I’m right. I’m writing everything I believe. You’re
    wrong. You’re wrong in every way you disagree with me. It’s my way or the
    highway.” I mean, that’s not a very persuasive atmosphere to be engaged in.
</p>
<p>
    If we don’t think we could be mistaken, then we’re not going to be alert
    about possibly being mistaken, which means we’re not going to know it when
    we are mistaken. If you have an unshakable belief in something that is
    false, then you have an unshakable delusion, and there are a whole lot of
    people who have an unshakable delusion.
</p>


title: What Do I Really Know? A Practical Approach to Doubt
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/30/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-do-i-really-know-a-practical-approach-to-doubt
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/iZczuBTm1sA?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>In an excerpt from our “Why Apologetics?” <a href="https://training.str.org/">Stand to Reason University</a> course, Tim Barnett explains how even a trained apologist like himself benefits from a practical application of apologetics.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>When I experienced doubt in my own life, apologetics wasn’t an abstract concept. It was as practical as it gets. I needed it, and you might too.</p>

<p>By the end of this class, you’ll be able to give an example of apologetics in action, explain how John the Baptist responded to his doubt, and show how Jesus used apologetics.</p>

<p>Let me give you a practical outworking of apologetics in the life of a Christian. Namely, my life.</p>

<p>In 2018, what was a tough year for my family, we lost three family members and a very close friend. The morning of my grandpa’s death in March of 2018, I was overwhelmed with feelings of doubt. The night before, I was able to share the gospel with him, and, by God’s grace, he chose to receive the message of salvation. It was absolutely unbelievable. However, the next morning, as I headed to the airport to fly to an apologetics event, a constant refrain echoed in my mind: “Who am I to share about eternal life with a dying man? How can I be so sure I’m right? I’m not that smart. Maybe I’m wrong about all of this.” The feeling was overwhelming, nearly paralyzing.</p>

<p>The irony of the situation wasn’t lost on me. Here I am, a professional apologist, on my way to speak at an apologetics conference, and I’m overwhelmed by doubt. A paralyzing question was like a broken record playing in my mind: “What do I really know?” After a few deep breaths, I did the only thing I could think of—what I trained people to do—I started answering my doubts. True, I’m not that smart, and I don’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know anything.</p>

<p>So, what do I know? That is, what can I reasonably conclude from the evidence? So I began to make a list. I know that truth exists. I know that God exists. I know that the Bible is trustworthy, and not just because the Bible tells me so. I know that Jesus is God in the flesh. I know that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.</p>

<p>How do I know these things? Is it because I’m special? No. Well, I am special, but that wasn’t it. Is it because I have some secret insights? Not at all. It’s because these beliefs—listen—are the best explanation of reality. They fit the way the world really is. They’re true. In that moment, apologetics wasn’t esoteric or abstract; it was as practical as it gets. And so the church—Christians like you and me—they need it because apologetics helps to provide real responses to the reasons people leave the faith.</p>

<p>By the way, the same thing happened to John the Baptist. As John the Baptist sat in prison for his faithfulness to God, he was afflicted with doubts about Jesus. In fact, John sends word to Jesus by his disciples and asks, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” Remember, this is the same John who at one time leapt in his mother’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. This is the same John who confidently declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” It’s the same John who baptized Jesus and heard a voice from Heaven say, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.” It’s the same John.</p>

<p>But now John is sitting in a Roman prison, awaiting a probable execution, and he’s wondering if he got it all wrong. I wonder if he also thought, “What do I really know?” He spent his life proclaiming that the Messiah would come and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire, but the chaff isn’t burning. No, they’re partying. So John begins to doubt.</p>

<p>Now, notice Jesus’ response to John’s disciples. “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” This is Matthew 11:4–5. Jesus doesn’t tell John, “Look inside your heart for some subjective feeling.” He doesn’t tell John to ignore his doubts and just blindly believe. Rather, Jesus points to objective evidence to substantiate who he is. What’s the evidence? The blind are seeing. The lame are walking. The deaf are hearing. In sum, Jesus tells him to believe based on the works he is doing. Jesus is doing apologetics. He’s giving evidence for who he is.</p>

<p>So, why apologetics? Because when doubts come, and they will come, Christians like you and me need it.</p>


title: Are Some Things Morally Wrong Just Because God Said So?
topic: Theology
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 09/06/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-some-things-morally-wrong-just-because-god-said-so-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/2SGehlJMY9Y?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Jesus asks his followers to obey him and keep his commandments, but are certain actions wrong just because God said so? Jon Noyes responds in this excerpt from <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoCtBcnaHo6Pdkl3-WApMc2jp443sQAq5">To the Point</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>“Why is rape wrong? Because God said so? Is there another reason?”</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know if it’s because God said so. Rape is wrong because you’re violating another image bearer. They’re made in the image of God, and you’re causing violence to that image, and we ought not do that. Right? We don’t do that because people are of infinite value and worth. That’s why we don’t rape people. It’s not because God gave a specific commandment: thou shalt not rape. That principle of goodness comes from the very character of God, the very nature of God. So, that’s why rape is wrong—because you’re doing violence to the image of God.</p>

<p>I’d ask that of you as a naturalist. What do you mean? I’d want to know what do you mean, “rape is wrong”? What do you mean by that? Is it wrong in some sense that it’s absolutely wrong, or is it a personal preference to you? Because I’d like to know where you derive your morals from as an atheist.</p>

<p>But that’s a great question, right? Why is rape wrong? Things aren’t right and wrong just because God says so. I mean, certainly God gives commands and we follow them. We ought always follow God’s commands, but that’s not where our sense of morality comes from—just from his commands. It’s expressed in his commands, but we get a sense of ultimate right and wrong—goodness is derived from the very nature and character of God. That’s the firm foundation on which morals are based.</p>

<p>John says, “I think the atheist’s biggest challenge is to explain the moral law from a purely naturalistic world.”</p>

<p>I had that trouble as an atheist. Listen, man, I’m just trying to be honest with you guys. If you guys get to know me at all, if you guys have me out to your churches to speak or your conferences to speak, if nothing, I’m authentic. I’m real. And that’s what I’m trying to do. I’m just trying to wrestle through life with everybody else, and this is my experience. As an atheist, this was my experience. When I met my wife, I was an atheist, and I had just moved to Southern California. I met her, actually, on my first night in California. My bags were still in the back of my sister’s car, and she brought me to a party. My wife walked in and completely blew me away. But we started becoming friends, and then, eventually, after we started dating, she told me she was a Christian.</p>

<p>I spent so much time debating her on stuff, and she oftentimes couldn’t answer my objections. So, I understand the frustration on the atheist’s part. Sometimes, oftentimes, I think we don’t have adequate answers to answer the atheist’s objection, either. That was my experience, at least. I would take people out for coffee and argue their worldview with them, and they just couldn’t hang, or they’d just start quoting Scripture at me, and I just didn’t care. So, I’d be, like, “Get that out of my face. I want to know where this stuff comes from. You’re the one who believes in an all-powerful, all-good, all-just God. Well, why does my five-year-old cousin have leukemia? Where do you get that?”</p>

<p>Nobody could answer me. But then once I started actually really pursuing the answers pretty in depth—like, I started reading and I started really interacting with some Christian apologists, I listened to Greg Koukl’s program. I started listening to Stand to Reason, reading their blog. I actually used to listen to J. Warner Wallace before he was Cold Case Christianity—he was Please Convince Me—and I was listening to his podcasts even before I was a Christian. Hearing these guys actually give these arguments for the existence of God, they were starting to get me to think. And this was the major contention—one of the major contentions—for me was this moral law, the existence of a moral law. As I lived in the world, as I started to get to know my future wife and treat her in a certain fashion, and then the people around me, it was very clear to me that there’s an objective moral reality that we all live in. We all have to participate in it.</p>


title: Is It Wrong to Use Cells from an Aborted Baby for Medical Research?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/13/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-wrong-to-use-cells-from-an-aborted-baby-for-medical-research-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/U7WxSuiiN-w?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is it wrong to use cells from an aborted baby for medical research? While Christians disagree on this issue, Greg gives his own response, explaining&nbsp;the distinctions and dangers we need to keep in mind.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller:</strong> I’m pro-life, and I want to get more involved in the movement here in Australia, but I’m in a place and time in my life where I’m trying to do more research and get in touch with those people who have their boots on the ground, who are actually dealing with this stuff. I was just having a chat with my best mate about the abortion issue, and we’re both pro-lifers. I think he kind of thinks there’s certain occasions when abortion can be seen as ethical or moral because of the greater good. Well, I sort of disagreed with him, but he did raise a question that even I thought, “That’s a good one.”</p>

<p>With stem cell research and all the medical advances that they’re claiming they’re getting from the aborted babies, my friend said, “If people are going to have an abortion, you might as well use the”—and I hate to say it—”use the dead babies for research.” For me, I was conflicted by this, and I thought, I get what you’re saying. And I just want your point of view on this. I pushed back with him, saying, I can understand if the child is dead—or anyone—it’s always a sad thing. It’s always morally bad when someone dies. And we have donors who donate the organs, and if a child has died, even through an abortion, and someone decides to go, “Okay, well let’s use cells, and that’s going to benefit so many people outside.”</p>

<p>The only problem I pushed back with him was, well, you’re condoning abortion because you’re creating more of a need, and although I can understand that someone would want to go, well, “Hey, if people are going to have abortions, you’ve got these dead bodies, basically, and we might as well use them.” That was his kind of view, but, for me, I think it’s a conflict of interest for a Christian, or just as a human being in general, because, although I get it, you want to use the stem cells and all that sort of stuff, you’re creating more of a need, and therefore, you’re supporting abortion.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> This is a little bit morally complex, and what I’ll do is lay out a couple of things for you. It’s a great question, and I know more and more people are thinking about it, especially when vaccines come into play, because vaccines oftentimes are part of this process, benefiting at least at some stage of the development of the vaccines from the cells of an aborted fetus, aborted child.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> I just found that out recently from my friend because he works in the medical field. He enlightened me on that.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Some distinctions need to be made. Oh, and I’ll also say that well-meaning, thoughtful Christians are going to come down on different sides of this issue, so let me try to share some of the features that I think are relevant.</p>

<p>One, you already mentioned. My high school sweetheart, when we went to college at Michigan State University, was in a medical profession, and so I would go visit her down in the basement, where she was doing work on corpses. And these were corpses that they got from the morgue, and sometimes these are John Does. They don’t know who they are. They just find them dead. Sometimes, they’re murdered. So, even though they have been killed illicitly in an immoral fashion—their life was taken—there seemed to be no problem with using these bodies for medical research and bringing some good out of it, because, in that circumstance, people weren’t being murdered for the purpose of selling their corpses to the university to have people do examinations in the human necropsy lab. Notice that, in that circumstance, the use of the dead human beings and their tissue does not create a market that increases the killing. To me, this is really a critical distinction.</p>

<p>Now, there are some people who are going to say, “No, it’s worse than that. If children are being killed, and there is a medical use of these children—the bodies that are left over—then that casts aspersions on the legitimacy of the medical use itself.” And this is an argument that people had in the ‘40s because of what the Nazis did. You had Nazi doctors that were using human beings as scientific experiments. One of the things that they used them for was to test the effects of hypothermia. So, they would submerge these victims into cold to see what happened, even to the point of them dying, and they’re keeping the record, all right? Now, this is grotesque, obviously. However, there was benefit from what they learned, and some people would argue, well, even though they died at the hands of this merciless people on this medical project, there’s a redemptive element for taking what was learned and using it to save other lives. Now, that’s the view I hold. That is, just because the information—or the material, even—were gained from a corpse whose life was taken illicitly, that doesn’t mean that good use can’t be made out of the body if—this is the big <em>if</em>—if it does not increase the market for that material.</p>

<p>So, if there’s a market, then, for baby body parts that the use of that increases the demand for more baby body parts so that more babies are killed, that’s when you cross the line. If it increases the demand, that’s not a problem as long as it doesn’t increase the deaths. If it does increase the deaths, well then, I think the purchasing of this material or the use of it for science is creating a market pressure that increases the abuse and the death. So, that’s where you cross the line. Now, there are people who are good Christians who disagree with that, and I honor them, and they have to make their own decisions about this.</p>

<p>In the issue of stem cell research, there are two different types of stem cell research. There’s what they call adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research isn’t necessarily stem cells that come from adults, but they’re stem cells that come from humans who are not blastula, who are not stem cells—they’re not embryos, is what I mean. In the very earliest stages, just think of an orange. You’ve got an orange. If you take the peel off an orange, it’s got sections. If you take the sections away, then what you have is the sections and no more orange. So, you destroy the orange in sectioning out the parts. In embryonic stem cell research, you have the orange, which is the embryo, which is a full human being, and then they take the pieces of that human being, just like the pieces of an orange, and they destroy the human being to get the parts and use. That is radically immoral because you are taking a human being, which you made just for the purpose of dismembering it, and destroying it, and using its parts.</p>

<p>Now, that’s different from a child that is conceived the regular way and then is aborted, and that’s wrong, but what do you do with what’s left? Well, you could take umbilical cord material or material from the child itself and maybe use that to start stem cell lines, and these would be adult stem cell lines that can be used for something good, and I don’t see a problem with that, personally. It’s a little icky if you think about it—not the umbilical cord part, but the body part. If you’re taking parts from the baby who has been aborted, that’s icky, but it may not be immoral. If people think it’s icky enough they don’t want to be involved with it, that’s up to them. If they think it’s too close to the killing of the baby, then they don’t have to do it either. That’s up to them, too. But as a strictly ethical issue, in my view at least, if benefit can be gained from a terrible thing that happened, then we should take the benefit from that <em>if</em> taking the benefit does not increase the incidence of the terrible thing, like abortion.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> It’s kind of like that saying, “If the cure is worse than the disease, then maybe the cure is not the right thing.”</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Something like that—very, very broadly. But what we don’t want to do is participate in a way that encourages the commission of another heinous crime. If all we’re doing is benefiting from the results of a crime that has already been committed, and the benefits are something that are genuinely good for humanity, then I think that the benefits become a redemptive element of a terrible circumstance.</p>

<p>So, knock that around with your friend. I mean, there’s a mouthful there. And like I said, different Christians who survey the details, here, and think about them carefully are going to come up with different conclusions. In my view, I guess, it’s a matter of individual conscience what you do, but I think there is an argument that’s legitimate for the use of those things, but I think we have to be careful to reflect on the long-term consequence of doing that.</p>


title: Three Pieces of Evidence that Corroborate the Gospels
topic: History
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 09/27/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-pieces-of-evidence-that-corroborate-the-gospels
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/hHTF5N1RX8k?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is there evidence outside of the Bible for the history presented in the Gospels? Jon Noyes explains why the answer is yes in this excerpt from our <a href="https://training.str.org/">Stand to Reason University</a> course “Are the Gospels Reliable History?”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The first case I ever worked as a paralegal was Wiggins v. Smith. Our client was Kevin Wiggins, and in 1988, he’d been convicted and sentenced to death. Fifteen years after Wiggins’ conviction, I was pulling together all the evidence of the case, trying to piece it all together to tell one unified story to discover what really happened. It’s called corroboration. Does one piece of evidence support or confirm another piece of evidence? Do the pieces connect together to form one single, unified account of what really took place? When we did that, we were able to actually prove that Mr. Wiggins hadn’t received proper representation. We made our case before the Supreme Court, and that court overturned his death sentence. We’re going to do the same thing in our class on “Are the Gospels Reliable?” We’re going to compile all the evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. Then, we’re going to see if the different pieces support one unified historical account.<br>
<br>
Here’s how we’re going to proceed. First, we gather the evidence. This is our exhibit list. We have the primary source historical documents of Jesus’ life: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We also have the writings of people outside the New Testament writers. Finally, we have evidence from archaeology. Let’s look to see if they corroborate one another.<br>
<br>
One of the amazing things about the Gospels is how they verify each other. The authors are telling one unified narrative. Sometimes, though, they support each other in very surprising ways, and these are called undesigned coincidences: different authors that are describing the same event, but they give different details that clarify what happened.<br>
<br>
Here’s one example from Jesus’ arrest. Matthew records this incident in chapter 26, starting in verse 67: “They spit in his face and beat him with their fists; and others slapped him, and said, ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ; Who is the one who hit you?’“ Why would these men who hit Jesus ask, “Who is the one who hit you?” They’re standing right in front of him, so close that they can spit on him and hit him. Well, let’s look at Luke’s Gospel. He gives us the answer. In Luke 22, he says, “The men who were holding Jesus in custody began mocking him and beating him, and they blindfolded him and repeatedly asked him, saying ‘Prophesy, who is the one who hit you?’” Do you see what happened? One account gives the detail that doesn’t seem to make sense: “Who hit you?” Another separate account fills in the gap: Jesus was blindfolded. This is an undesigned coincidence, and we find them throughout the Gospels. One Gospel unwittingly corroborates the other. These unplanned details connect the accounts together. This gives credibility to the historical accuracy of the accounts.<br>
<br>
There’s another way the historical record of Jesus’ life was corroborated. First, we had biblical corroboration. This one’s called extra-biblical corroboration. The Gospel authors weren’t the only ones reporting information about Jesus. There’s a lot of quotes here, so bear with me because this part is really, really cool.<br>
<br>
First, here’s one from an ancient Jewish historian. You’ve probably heard his name before. Josephus was the court historian of Emperor Vespasian. He recorded these references to Jesus at the end of the first century in his famous history, “Antiquities of the Jews.” First, he recounts the execution of James, the brother of Jesus: “Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and condemned them to be stoned to death.”<br>
<br>
Second, Josephus makes a remarkably detailed reference to Jesus: “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good. He was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. But those who would become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.”<br>
<br>
There’s also another reference, and this time from a book called the Talmud. Watch as this subtly acknowledges Jesus’ supernatural acts: “On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged...because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”<br>
<br>
We have a third example, and here our example comes from a historical reference from a Greek writer, Lucian. Now, Lucian was a second century writer who berated Christians. He writes this: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time...and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage.”<br>
<br>
Our fourth extra-biblical source comes from a Roman historian. His name was Cornelius Tacitus, and he was considered by some the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Here’s what he wrote in his “Annals of Imperial Rome” in 115 AD regarding the burning of Rome in the mid ‘60s: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.”<br>
<br>
So here’s what we learn about Jesus of Nazareth from extra-biblical corroboration. This is amazing. From a Jewish historian, from the Jewish Talmud, from a Greek writer, and from a Roman historian, we have multiple sources testifying to the existence of a wise, virtuous sage from Judea named Jesus, with supernatural powers, who had a brother named James, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, whose disciples reported him alive three days after his crucifixion, who had a substantial following named “Christians” who believed in immortality and who worshipped Jesus Christ as God. All of this from secular sources.<br>
<br>
All in all, there are 17 ancient non-biblical sources corroborating the Gospel record. As if that’s not enough, there’s yet a third way the historical record of Jesus’ life is corroborated, and it’s called archaeological corroboration. Archaeology continues to corroborate the New Testament. Almost every month, a new discovery supports the biblical account. Here’s just three notable examples.</p>

<p>First, a crucifixion. Thousands of criminals were executed by crucifixion, but it wasn’t until 1968 where the first remains of a victim of crucifixion were found, probably buried in a grave, too. Until then, skeptics doubted the Gospel accounts, since they thought crucified criminals were thrown into just massive graves. But this discovery corroborates the fact that the criminals were actually given, sometimes, proper burials, just as was Jesus in the Gospels.<br>
<br>
But it’s not just crucifixion. Let’s look at Pontius Pilate. There was only one mention of Pilate outside the New Testament until fairly recently, and this caused some people to question the Gospel accounts. But in 1961, archaeologists discovered a stone in Caesarea, Israel, and on it, it said in Latin, “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea.” Once again, archaeology corroborating the Gospels.<br>
<br>
For our final example, let’s look at something out of the Gospel of John: the Pool of Bethesda. John mentions the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem surrounded by five porticos near the sheep gate. Skeptics doubted the pool’s existence until 1888, when archaeologists discovered the remains of a pool with five shallow porticos in the exact area John recorded.<br>
<br>
Is there corroborating evidence for the events recorded in the Gospels? Do the pieces of historical evidence confirm each other? Do they support a single, unified account of what took place? Yes. Multiple pieces of evidence corroborate each other. We have abundant corroboration between the Gospels, corroboration from extra-biblical sources, and corroboration from archaeology. The corroboration test is yet another reason to believe the New Testament is historically reliable.</p>


title: Can I Do All Things through Christ?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/04/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-i-do-all-things-through-christ
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ZDER7LLrsc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Philippians 4:13 says, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” This is just one of several often-misquoted verses. Find out if you can spot their true meaning in our <a href="https://pursuant8.com/str/2021/quiz/">“Point Taken or Mistaken” quiz</a>!</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Philippians 4:13 says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Whenever you see the word “all,” you always want to consider the frame of reference. What category of things are “all” included? Everything in the world? Or something more limited? In this passage, it’s something more limited. In other words, Paul has learned in every and any circumstance the secret of being satisfied, whether he is filled and in prosperity, or whether he’s in hunger or want, he still knows he can maintain because he has Christ who strengthens him in that situation. He is not talking about doing anything you could imagine but being strong, and filled, and satisfied, and taken care of by Christ in even the most difficult of circumstances.</p>


title: The Nature of Morality Is Obligation to Appropriate Authority
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/11/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-nature-of-morality-is-obligation-to-appropriate-authority
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/RD9howrnKGM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Since principles exist outside of ourselves, can&nbsp;we then ground objective&nbsp;morality in mere ideas? Greg Koukl responds.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller (Dan): </strong> I had a question about the basis of morality and the struggles that a purely secular worldview would have in coming up with any sort of basis or objective nature for what it is. And just to put my cards on the table, I’m somebody who would consider himself a skeptic or an agnostic, and I was curious if you thought that one way to establish a basis for objective morality would be that our moral obligations would come from, instead of a person or an entity, a principle or perhaps an ideal. Would you think that would be a valid way to address that concern?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> This is a very interesting question. Before I get into my response, though, is the reason you’re asking the question because you, even as an agnostic or a skeptic, you still are aware of the reality of moral obligations and you’re thinking about alternate ways of grounding it?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Yeah. I would say that my personal opinion is that morality is still a largely objective endeavor. I don’t think it’s perfectly objective in all cases. I think there are some subjective elements to it, but I would still adhere to a primarily objective absolutism.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Okay, that’s good. I think that’s what I call common sense realism. I mean, this is, to me, the problem of evil—which is something everybody is aware of no matter where they lived or when they lived—it can only be a bona fide problem if evil is not subjectively characterized, but is objectively characterized and therefore objectively violated. And that’s what we call the problem of evil in the world, so to speak.</p>

<p>So I’m with you entirely. I think it’s a great step. So, you’re not an agnostic or a skeptic about moral objectivism, then, by and large.</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> That’s a fair statement.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> So then, the question is, how do we get morality outside of us? How do we characterize the moral project, so to speak, that doesn’t fall prey to a mere subjectivism or relativism? Since our intuitions are that morality is objective, now we’re looking for a place for morality to stand. What is the grounding? That’s the whole point. I’m just kind of repeating what you said for the sake of our listeners because I think we’re both on the same page here so far, so you know exactly where I’m going here.</p>

<p>I have another question for you, though, if you don’t mind, and that is, if somebody were to say, could you characterize the nature of morality—this is not a trick question or anything; I am trying to get something on the table that I think is common sense, but I want to see what you have to say about it—if you were to characterize the nature of morality, how would you characterize it?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> I would say you have to look at the roots of why morality exists, and for me, as a non-believer, we would look to something like evolutionary psychology as far as why morality exists. And one of the primary reasons, at least from what I’ve heard from moral philosophers and other folks who are academics in this field, is that they would see it as a tool that humans use in order to promote cooperation within an in-group of people, that it takes a certain amount of self-sacrifice in order to cooperate with a group of people, but the benefits gained from that cooperation are something that exceeds the liberty you lose.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> I’m not faulting you at all, because I think my question has a certain vagueness to it, but you didn’t answer the question that I had in mind. In the first case, you answered why morality exists. I was asking about the nature of morality, and you cited others who talk about morality as a tool for cooperation, but that smuggles in a notion of morality that cooperation with other people is a good thing. Let me just come back, and again, it’s not a trick, but I think it’s going to help answer your question. So, maybe I’ll answer it myself.</p>

<p>If somebody asked me what is the nature of morality, I would say the nature of morality is obligation. When there is a moral principle, that moral principle means that I have an obligation regarding that. It requires something of me. Now, <em>why</em> that moral principle might exist, which is your first response, that’s another issue. Or how we can use it as a tool for cooperating is another issue. But at a more foundational level, the nature of it is obligation. So, anytime there’s a moral principle that’s a genuine moral principle, we have an obligation to obey it. Would you say that’s fair?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Yeah. I hadn’t framed it like that before, but I’ve heard you say it before, and I think I agree with that. That’s a fair way to phrase it.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Okay, good, because if there’s no obligation to obey, I don’t know what sense it makes to call something a moral thing. It’s like “thou shalt not murder.” Okay, there it is, but I have no obligation. The fact that there is a “thou shalt not murder,” wherever it comes from, doesn’t mean that I’m obliged to it. Well, of course you’re obliged if it’s a sound principle—that’s the “thou shalt not.”</p>

<p>With that in mind, if the basic, core nature of morality is obligation, now we’re back to your original question: Can something outside of us that is a principle or an idea be an adequate source of obligation? That’s, I think, our question.</p>

<p>So now I want to kind of pose a scenario. I would be someone that is outside of your subjective experience. So, if I said to you, Dan, I’m declaring that you must drive 25 miles an hour on the freeway. I’m declaring that. Would I be an objective source of that moral demand?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> No, I think you’d be kind of an arbitrary source of that demand.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Wait, wait, wait—that’s the next step. But would I be objective? Am I outside of you?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Yeah.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Okay, I would be an objective source. Exactly.</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Well, if you were a law enforcement officer or something like that. I think I misunderstood your question. I apologize.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> No, that’s all right. You’re doing fine. You’re just a step ahead of me. I would be an <em>objective</em> source because I would be outside of you, but I would not be an <em>adequate</em> source to make an obligation of you. So the idea of a proper grounding is not simply that it’s objective. That’s necessary, but it’s not sufficient. If that’s not there, then you collapse into subjectivism, relativism, and we know that morality is objective. So then, if we’re grounding something outside of us, it’s got to be more than just outside of us. <em>It’s got to be adequate to make a proper demand on us.</em> It has to be the kind of authority, if you will, that it is appropriate to make the demand that it’s making with a moral claim.</p>

<p>Now we’re back, really, to the heart of your question. Is a mere principle or a mere idea—even if it’s a moral principle out there somewhere, like a platonic form or something, a platonic ideal of kindness, or justice, or something—can just the inert, abstract concept make a demand on me as a human being?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> I think the answer to that would be no.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> I agree with you, and that’s the answer to your question, in my view. It’s a fair question. “Well, that’s outside,” yeah, but there’s more that is required of genuine morality when we look more closely at it than just that it be outside of us. It can’t be—to use your word—arbitrary, for example, and it’s got to be the kind of thing that can make a demand in a legitimate way.</p>

<p>Now, you can keep thinking about this as the agnostic skeptic here, Dan, but I think this brings you to a crossroads, because if you’re going to hold on to objective morality, which I think you ought to because I think that’s sound, it seems to me that the only kind of grounding that is going to be adequate is going to be a person who has the legitimate position to make the demand on you, and I don’t think there’s any other person in the universe that can do that but a God whose character is moral perfection. Make sense?</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> It does make sense. I think there is an assumption in there, in where moral obligations come from, that I might disagree with—but I don’t know—that maybe I’d be curious to get your thoughts on. I think that with a moral obligation like that, the assumption is that it’s a top-down force, that it has to be something that’s imposed on us at a higher level, either created or produced in some way and then imposed on us top-down, like your example of somebody imposing a 25 miles-per-hour speed limit on somebody.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> I get your point about top-down. I don’t know that it has to be viewed that way. It’s just a matter of someone in a position of authority to make that kind of demand on us. I’m open to hearing other options, but I think we run out really quickly when we realize there is objective morality —that means it’s outside of us—but it can’t be from an arbitrary source. It has to be from the kind of source that can appropriately make a demand, and the only way you can appropriately make a demand is if you’re in that—regarding that issue—morally superior position to demand such a thing. Now, I think God fits that bill, but I don’t know who else would. So, I think we run out of options very quickly.</p>

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Well, I have an example, if it’s all right if I try. It would be from another field. I was an economic major in college, so I always kind of think economically. An example in economics would be something like a price—maybe like the price of grain, or price of gasoline, or something like that. We could ask, where does that price come from? One answer would be a top-down thing like socialism or communism, where there’s some bureaucrat or committee that decides what’s the fair price, and they top-down impose that price on grain, or gasoline, or whatever.</p>

<p>Another solution would be a bottom-up sourcing of pricing. This would be capitalism, where nobody really decides what the price is. It’s all these complicated transactions that all come together, and out from those complicated transactions emerges a price. So, nobody sets the price. It’s a bottom-up emergence. My argument would be that morality and moral obligations would be of a similar nature, a bottom-up emergence.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Let me speak to that very quickly, and then you can chew on it and we’ll talk another time, but I think what happened just then is, basically you have price fixing on the top-down or you have an emerging price that’s based on market principles—supply and demand. But notice that in the supply and demand model—which is what you’re suggesting for morality—in the market, it is what people subjectively understand the value of that thing to be for them at the moment. You could just take any widget. Well, that widget is three dollars. That three dollars is not a price that I am willing to pay for the value it gives me, personally. However, somebody else might be really happy to pay for that. So, it becomes an individual matter.</p>

<p>What the bottom-up model, economically, does to morality is it reduces it once again to relativism, because in objectivism moral goods are fixed. That means there are certain things that are right, there are certain things that are wrong, and they don’t shift with the culture’s idea of what’s right or wrong like a market economy might. That’s the distinction between objectivism and relativism. So if you want to go with the market model for morality, you’re welcome to it, but all you’re doing there is just adopting another relativistic-based morality, which is not what you want.</p>


title: If God and Heaven Are so Great, How Is It Possible so Many Angels Fell?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/18/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-god-and-heaven-are-so-great-how-is-it-possible-so-many-angels-fell
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uN_EEbyJ1HE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>If God is so loving and Heaven so great, how is it possible that so many angels fell from Heaven to follow Satan? Could they fall now? Greg answers these questions as he considers what we can know about angelic free will and redemption.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Question:</strong> “We read in Revelation that a third&nbsp;of the angels fell from Heaven to follow Satan. An unbeliever might be justified to ask, ‘If God so loving and heaven so great, how is this possible?’&nbsp;This is not an insignificant number. Also, could a fallen angel repent? Can they still fall today or has their free will been voided? Are more angels being created by God?”</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> I have no reason to believe more angels are being created by God. I guess more could be, but I have no reason to believe that. We’re just going to have to let that lie&nbsp;because there’s no information about it.</p>

<p>The question was, can angels now fall? Has their free will been voided? I’m not entirely clear on that, myself. This is always part of the problem when the idea of “free will” comes up. A lot depends on what you mean by “free will.” What is characteristically presumed is that they have the ability to sin and fall, and that their natures are such that makes it possible. Certainly, from the beginning that was the case, because a third of the heavenly host did choose to rebel against God, and, as far as we can tell, there is no salvation plan for angels.</p>

<p>Everything that is ever said about fallen angels are things that presume their eternal damnation. Some of them are even locked up for final judgment. There’s no sense that maybe in prison, their spiritual prison, they will repent. There’s nothing like that. Of course, for them to be rescued, they would have to be rescued in virtue of a sacrifice to pay for their crimes against God. Jesus, the Word, became a man to rescue humans as a kinsman redeemer. There is no intimation that the Holy Spirit—that’s the only person left—is going to take on some kind of demonic nature or angelic nature to sacrifice himself to redeem the demons that are fallen. That’s not part of the plan. I think it’s pretty safe to say that there is no grace offered to fallen angels, and this makes clear that grace is not required.</p>

<p>This is where I’m going to disagree with the way I understand Bill Craig’s view. Bill Craig says that justice doesn’t require grace, but love does. In other words, it’s God’s loving nature that requires that he give everyone an equal chance at salvation so that the most can be saved, and this is why [Craig’s] an Arminian—one of the reasons—not a Calvinist, because on the Reformed view, God selects who he’s going to save and lets the rest of them do their own thing to perdition and to judgment. To me, God’s love does not require grace. It is an expression of his love when he offers grace, but grace is freely given as he wills, not as he is required. That’s why it’s called grace. It’s not only not based on the merit of the individual that receives it, it is also not required of God. Rather, it is the result, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, of “the kind intention of his will.” In other words, it was a decision he made. It wasn’t something that flows naturally because he’s a loving God.</p>

<p>Grace is, as philosophers would put it, a supererogatory act. That means an act which is not obligatory. It is not morally obligatory, but it is praiseworthy when done. Think of heroism. Some bystander runs into a burning building to save a child. If that bystander didn’t run into the burning building, no one would have held that against them. They are not morally obliged to do that, but if they did that—they went above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak—then the act becomes praiseworthy. In the same sense, God has no obligation, even from the fact that he’s loving, to rescue fallen humanity. He did not—though he was loving—rescue the fallen angels, as far as we can tell. There’s no evidence of that. But he does so [for man] out of an overflowing of his love, as a supererogatory act, as an act of heroism above and beyond what’s required.</p>

<p>So, if it turns out, then, that God decides to additionally act to rescue those angels or to do something on behalf of those angels that did not rebel, he fixes their characters in immutable goodness, like I think we will experience when we go to Heaven—immutable goodness, our natures will be so changed that we will not be capable of sinning. In that sense, is their free will voided? No. They are not free to sin, in the same way that God is not free to sin, because there is no sin in their nature. It’s not anything they would freely choose. What they end up freely choosing are those things totally consistent with their morally perfect nature, just like God. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. That’s a good kind of freedom...the freedom to do the right thing all the time and not be oppressed by doing the wrong things.</p>

<p>If God is so loving and Heaven&nbsp;so great, how is it possible that the angels fell in the first place? I would like someone to explain to me how God’s perfect love and perfection in the greatness of Heaven makes it impossible for some creatures who have the capability of exercising their will against God to do so.&nbsp;That certainly was the case with Adam. This question suggests that there is a predetermined element in a perfect environment. If you are in a perfectly loving environment where everything is just so and just right and just wonderful, then that will predetermine your behavior so that you’ll never rebel against it. That’s a kind of predetermination that’s, arguably, a lack of freedom. Why would anybody think that being in a perfect environment would make it impossible for them to do wrong? This is the nature of freedom...of the kind of freedom of the will that the angels had and Adam had.</p>

<p>The way the ancients would say it is <em>posse non peccare posse peccare</em>. In other words, for Adam it was possible not to sin and possible to sin. Human beings are <em>non-posse non peccare</em>. That means it’s not possible for humans not to sin. But in the resurrection, it’ll be <em>non-posse peccare</em>, not possible to sin. So, that’s kind of the way it’s laid out here. Yes, it could have gone this way, or could have gone that way, prior to the angelic fall, for angels, and prior to the human fall. After the fall, in the case of humans, the fall changed everything, and the promise of the resurrection is that there’s going to be a better state of affairs. In Heaven, it won’t be <em>posse peccare posse non peccare</em>.</p>


title: Do I Need to “Educate Myself” to Better Understand My LGBT Relatives?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/25/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-i-need-to-educate-myself-to-better-understand-my-lgbt-relatives
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/cDVCFCvkiKM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg Koukl answers a listener’s question, “Is it my responsibility to educate myself on gay rights history as a family member has told me?”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller: </strong> I have a brother-in-law who recently came out as homosexual. I had an interaction with him where he was referring to a gay rights event that was going on that he wanted to attend, and I didn’t recognize the name of it. I kind of looked at him with confusion, and then other people in the group were saying, “You need to educate yourself, and you need to learn more about this, and you need to know what’s going on, and you’re being a little ignorant.” Do we have the responsibility to educate ourselves on gay rights to be more understanding and to be able to interact with people that we love who are living the homosexual lifestyle?</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> This is a challenging question, because I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it is always appropriate to be sensitive to people who have experienced some measure of suffering for some aspect of their life—especially if it’s a controversial aspect of their life, and especially if they have a different point of view than we have—to be cordial and sympathetic and to try to understand their view, even though we don’t agree with it. In fact, it’s hard to disagree with a view we don’t understand, so it’s important to understand that. But I think that sometimes that can be overdone, and it’s an observation about the culture right now.</p>

<p>You hear this word, “conversation,” a lot. In other words, we have to have a conversation. We need to have a cultural conversation. Now, the concept of having conversation with people who disagree with us is fine, but I actually think that the way it’s being used now is manipulative,&nbsp;because when—let me just call it the secular environment or the left on these issues—when they talk about conversation, they do not mean conversation. They mean, “Let’s talk about this thing the way I talk about it.” In other words, their view. Let’s affirm it. “Oh, you disagree? Okay. Well, then the conversation’s not over yet. We have to keep having the conversation until you get it—until you see it the way we see it, and we’re going to keep pressuring you and browbeating you with it until you agree with us.”</p>

<p>I mean, I can think of conversations I’ve been in with people, and they’ve said, “You’re not listening to me.” And my response is, “Of course I’m listening to you. I just don’t agree with you.” They’re saying, “You’re not listening,” because I haven’t changed my mind yet. No, I’m listening. That’s not hard. This issue is not difficult. We have a different point of view on this, and so, I think there is a limit, then, to what can be expected of us in terms of bending over backwards to have conversation and to understand the plight of people.</p>

<p>Plus, you know, there is a huge wave of victimhood that has been encouraged and abetted by propaganda and rhetorical tricks. I’m not saying there aren’t victims out there, but this has been so overdone that it distorts what the truth is about the circumstances. There is absolutely no sense that any conservative person is a victim, even though I just listened to Kevin Sorbo last night doing a thing for Prager. His <em>Hercules</em>&nbsp;show was the most popular show in the world, and his agent and his manager came to him, and they said, “We cannot represent you anymore.” There’s a cash crop here for managers and agents. They said, “We cannot represent you anymore.” He said, “Why not?” “Because you’re a conservative, and you’re a Christian. We’re firing ourselves.” I mean, it’s boggled. This is what’s happening. So, is he a victim? Does that count when Hollywood cancels somebody out? What about our stories? They are not interested in our stories because they do not care about how we feel or what befalls us for our views. It’s our own fault. That’s their perspective.</p>

<p>In summary, I think that there is a legitimate place for what you described, but I think that the demand that is being made is excessive, and it’s a one-way street, as it always is with these people. It is a completely one-way street. There are rare exceptions to that, but as a generalization, this is the way it is. Whether it’s the press, whether it’s Hollywood, whether it’s the academy, whatever. No matter how you cut it, that’s the way it is. It’s a one-way street. And this happens also in families&nbsp;because they’re taking their cues from the rest of the world, and it’s working. The rhetorical propaganda game plan is working just fine. Why should they change for you? I think that’s what you’re up against.</p>

<p><strong>Caller: </strong> Yeah, it’s a really difficult—I guess to use your word—conversation to have. The other difficult part about this is that he grew up in a Christian home. My in-laws are Christians, and he decided that wasn’t for him and that he didn’t want to submit himself to God’s law anymore, and&nbsp;so, he said, “I believe that I’m gay, and I understand that’s not okay with Christians, so I’m walking away from Christianity.” So, in this specific instance, there just seemed to be a little bit of understanding that, because of the choices that we have made to be Christians and to follow God’s law, we don’t agree with his lifestyle. It’s kind of an understanding that we have with each other, that we have our beliefs, he has his beliefs. Often, it just doesn’t come up&nbsp;because we’re trying to avoid it.</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> Well, that’s better than usual. I mean, a lot of times, what’s going to happen is you’ll be ostracized in the relationship because you’re not celebrating the direction he’s going. In any event, you can still be gracious, still have relationship, because we don’t expect non-Christians to live like Christians. Yet, at the same time, they should not expect Christians to believe like non-Christians. So that’s a kind of a two-way street, but it rarely works that way. Usually it’s one way. We need more conversation. I want to know what that conversation looks like, and maybe that’s the question. What does that mean? What does “conversation” mean? I know what it means in practical terms with these folks. It’s a one-way. It’s my way or the highway. That’s their view, or else. It’s not an adequate conversation unless they can persuade you. Just something to think about. Ask them, “What does that look like? What do we need to converse about? You know my view. I know your view. Where is the place for conversation on this issue?”</p>


title: Does Jesus Say Not to Judge?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/02/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-jesus-say-not-to-judge
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/GrzAXDM0vPM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Matthew 7:1 says, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” This is just one of several often-misquoted verses. Find out if you can spot their true meaning in our <a href="https://www.str.org/quiz">“Point Taken or&nbsp;Mistaken” quiz</a>!</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Matthew 7:1 is probably the most abused passage in the Bible by non-Christians because they love it when Jesus says, “Don’t judge.” But he doesn’t stop there. He’s defining a certain type of judgment that’s not appropriate. Judge not lest ye be judged. Why try to find the speck in somebody else’s eye before you’ve removed the log in your own? First, he says, remove the log from your own eye. Then, you’ll be able to take the speck out of somebody else’s eye. In other words, Jesus is condemning a condescending, self-righteous judgment. You’re finding fault in other people for the sake of finding fault when you are even more guilty yourself. First, deal with yourself, and then it will be appropriate to find the speck in somebody else’s eye and help them remove it. It is not a blanket prohibition of all judgment. Read the context. Jesus clarifies.</p>


title: What Does the Bible Say about Premonitions?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/22/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-the-bible-say-about-premonitions-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/AFNVQ9eAm-g?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains why the source of a supernatural experience matters and gives advice for how to respond to a “Christian” friend who dabbles in the occult and claims to have premonitions.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller:</strong> I have this friend who claims to have premonitions of bad things that are going to happen to her. I’m not sure if it’s a spiritual thing or if it’s just weird coincidences. She’s not very close to God, though she claims to be a Christian. She’s very much involved in witchcraft. She’s into the LGBT community. So, I take her claim to be Christian with a very big grain of salt.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> I don’t want to be overly critical, but if you have a person who says they’re Christian, and they’re involved in witchcraft, which is explicitly forbidden in the Scripture, along with same-sex behavior, and she’s kind of probed both of those, and both of those in the Old Testament Law resulted in a death sentence—not that we should do that today, but what it does is communicate the gravity from God’s perspective of those crimes—then to say at the same time, “But I’m a Christian,” this does not compute. It’s an odd mix, and I believe “Christian” is more just a title. She shows up to church and youth group, but beyond that I don’t see much.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> I don’t want to specifically call [the premonitions] satanic, because, as far as I can tell, there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. It’s just, she gets a bad feeling. Something bad happens, but it’s not like that’s causing the bad thing. Maybe this is a sign from God. Maybe it’s something worse. Neither of us can figure out what it is. I’m wondering if you know of anything like that? What do you think it might be?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> What you just said was she gets a bad feeling and something bad happens. So, that’s very general. I’m not sure what “a bad feeling” means and what “something bad happens” is, because something bad happens every day, and people have all kinds of different feelings, and to try to connect the dots as if there’s some connection, as if her feelings cause it, but rather a genuine connection, that she is having a premonition about something that will actually happen, it’s hard to know. It’s hard to say with any confidence that that’s the case.</p>

<p>Now, one thing I can say with confidence is Deuteronomy does condemn divination. Divination is foretelling the future. So, if a person is saying, “This bad thing is going to happen,” and it happens, that is foretelling the future. A divination usually entails a technique in which people read tea leaves, or they read cards, or something like that. Now, of course, you have people in the Bible that are godly people that have something like that too, and they’re called prophets. So, the same kind of thing that can happen, a very similar kind of thing on either side of the equation. So, then, the question becomes, is there a genuine foretelling, a more precise premonition of a precise event that comes to pass? Then what is the source of that?</p>

<p>To me, there’s no question in this case. I don’t doubt that people who are not Christians and have no connection with God can manifest some kind of supernatural behavior, and even a foretelling, or a premonition, or something like that. I think it’s possible because there are forces and powers in the world other than God, and Scripture warns us of that, but it also warns us not to be pursuing certain types of those things. I’m looking at Deuteronomy 18. There are a couple of things here. “There shall not be any found among you who makes his son or his daughter pass through fire”—that would be child sacrifice—”who uses divination, who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” So, there it is. Deuteronomy 18:10–11. “Or one who casts a spell, or a medium or a spiritist, or one who calls upon the dead.” There’s a lot of things in there, and many of them sound akin to your friend’s experiences, her dabblings, and what she is experiencing by way of premonitions.</p>

<p>Now, this doesn’t look good. I don’t doubt that there may be something supernatural going on. That could very well be. I’m not affirming it. I’m just not doubting it. But this isn’t something that’s good, because she’s involved in activities—or affirming them or practicing them—that are directly prohibited by God. Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, I could go on to one more verse, verse 12: “For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable things, the Lord God will drive them out before you, but you should be blameless before the Lord.” So, here, spiritism, broadly construed, is prohibited. God is making clear this is one of the things he drove the people out of the land for and he doesn’t want the Jews to participate in at all. Are they spiritual powers? Sure. I have no doubt about that. But are they God’s spirit? The answer is no. That’s why they’re forbidden.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> She claimed that she prayed that these [premonitions] would go away, and she wasn’t taking part in them. So, she was like, “Well, let’s see how I can use them,” since they weren’t going away.</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong>Amy and I had a discussion about somebody who is dabbling in the occult, and when they started dabbling in witchcraft, all of a sudden, really ugly things began happening to them—terrifying dreams. Then, they’d wake up from the terrifying dreams in which there was a powerful evil presence before them in the dream, and the sense of the powerful evil presence was right there before them. Now, they didn’t want that. They didn’t ask for that. They didn’t bargain for that. They didn’t sign up for that, but what they did do is dabble in the occult, and when you dabble in the occult, there’s a door that gets opened, and these things come marching in on their own accord. So, the fact that [your friend] says, “I didn’t want them, and I tried to pray them away,” to me, is not evidence that she’s exonerated from having the experiences, if her own occult involvement in the past has opened that door. That makes sense.</p>

<p>What I think she should be told is, “What you’re experiencing does not seem good, and even though you may, in some sense, identify as a Christian, you have another identification. You are dabbling in witchcraft.” She has some involvement in witchcraft, and all you need is a little bit to make yourself vulnerable to some uglies. This might be what’s going on. This is the time for her to turn completely to Christ and to renounce all those things that are not biblical and sound, to renounce those things that are offensive to God. Now, I don’t know if she’s going to be interested in doing that, but I think that it’s fully legitimate to speak clearly to her, not in an unkind way, but certainly in an honest and direct way, “What you’re messing with is dangerous. This is dangerous, and sooner or later it’s going to get the best of you. You’re already having experiences that you don’t like, and you’re trying to pray them away. That’s a good impulse, but the best thing to do is get rid of these things. Renounce them, and put your confidence and trust fully in Christ. He’s your only rescue.</p>

<p>There’s an account in the book of Acts—there’s a man who’s demon-possessed, and there are some Jews that are exorcists, and there’s seven of them, and they go in there kind of with their religious mumbo jumbo to try to cast the demon out of the man. They were using the name of Jesus as a magic talisman to control the demon. They weren’t Christians. They weren’t there in the name of Jesus—that is, by his authority representing him. They were just using the name of Jesus as if the name itself had power, and what they said to the demon-possessed man was, “I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches.” So, they had the right Jesus, the one that Paul preached, but they were not representing Christ. They were just trying to invoke him magically, and the demons said, “We recognize Jesus, and we know about Paul, but who are you?” And then [the demon-possessed man] beat him up and threw him out, and the seven of them left bleeding and naked, the text says. So, this guy had some really strong spirit, but notice that just using these words didn’t make a difference. The thing that made a difference was the organic spiritual connection to Christ, so that “you go in his name” means not just saying the name, the words, the J-E-S-U-S, but going in the power of the one who is with you and according to his authority. That’s what that means.</p>

<p>[Your friend] is not in that place, obviously. She is being, it sounds like to me, taken advantage of by demonic powers, and so far it’s not been too bad. It just troubles her, and she gets these premonitions, but now’s the time to cut it off, to break the tie, to cut the umbilical cord or whatever and embrace Christ. There’s this thing Jesus talked about, these demons that get cast out of the house, and the house gets swept and cleaned, but then there’s nobody else there, and so they come back, and they say, “Hey, the house is still empty. It’s all cleaned up. Let seven more come in.” Now, I think that was a depiction of, get rid of the demons, but if you don’t fill the house with the Holy Spirit, one is vulnerable to have the demons come back, and that’s why Jesus is the only one that can rescue her from this, and it might be a good idea to talk with her about that.</p>


title: Why Doesn’t God Always Answer Prayer?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/15/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-doesn-t-god-always-answer-prayer-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bQYf8BeGvbc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg and Amy answer a listener’s question, “How would you respond to someone who says one of the reasons he’s not Christian is that, even when he believed in God, his prayers were never answered?&nbsp;He grew up nominally Catholic and is now turning to tarot readings because they seem to give him more immediate help.”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Greg:</strong> I’m going to offer a challenge here, but I’m sympathetic to the concern. “I prayed and I didn’t get the answer. I went to tarot cards, and I got help.” Notice that he is acknowledging implicitly the realm of the supernatural, but he is assessing God largely on whether God is giving him what he wants, and he is making a request of God when he wasn’t even a Christian by biblical standards. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” And, so, the promises for Christians and believers broadly is not just that you believe in God—the demons also believe and tremble, James points out—but rather that you are in relationship with him. So, one should not be surprised, if they are not in relationship with him, but are just asking for things they want, that God is not going to answer those prayers. It’s a misunderstanding of God.</p>

<p>Now, I’m not saying that God never hears the prayers of non-believers, because you’ve got Cornelius in chapter 10 of the book of Acts, who prayed to God, and God listened to his prayer and brought more information through Peter so that he could actually put his trust in Jesus, the savior, and be regenerated. He was not, in our terminology, saved. However, he was a God fearer. He was pursuing God the best he knew how in a humble fashion. A lot of non-believers who are kind of doing a little Christian thing are interested in God when they have a personal need they want fulfilled. They are not interested in God for God’s sake. So, I would tell my friend that there’s a reason, or at least a rationale, that can be offered why he didn’t have his prayers answered. It’s the same reason that, if he went up to some stranger and asked for $50 because he needed it for something for himself, the stranger would not give him that money. God was a stranger to this guy. He had no relationship with him, and he’s only knocking on God’s door when he wants something from God. That’s not the way God works.</p>

<p>If your friend is getting useful things from tarot cards, it’s only because the supernatural realm is real. If he said he doesn’t believe in God because God didn’t answer his prayers, there’s a whole lot of other reasons to put a confidence in the existence of God apart from that factor. Even if God doesn’t answer your prayers, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. There are many other reasons why there might be silence from God.</p>

<p>By getting involved with tarot cards, he’s getting involved with the supernatural. He’s getting what he wants, but it comes at a price. He is not getting what he needs. He might be getting what he wants, but he’s not getting what he needs, and what he needs is forgiveness, and that’s the first step to enter into a relationship so that then he could go to God as a son from inside the family rather than a rebel from outside the family.</p>

<p><strong>Amy: </strong>I would ask more questions about what he means. Does he really mean that he concluded that God doesn’t exist? Or does he mean that he wanted someone who would do more things for him? Because depending on what he says to that question, you’ll know which direction to take this. If his problem is just that he didn’t get what he wanted, well, now there’s a bigger problem, because now we’re talking about somebody who’s just trying to use whatever he can with no care about what’s right or good or true. So, maybe if he answers that way—“Well, I just wanted something that would work for me”—maybe you could try and say, “Well what about truth? What about beauty and goodness? Do you care about those things?”&nbsp;You could even ask, “What prayers were you asking for?” It could be he asked for something legitimate and good, but there could be all sorts of reasons why God wouldn’t answer somebody’s prayer the way he wanted, especially if you’re younger and you’re asking for things you have no idea what is involved with the answer and what would happen if you got that thing you’re asking for. We just don’t have the information.</p>

<p>So, number one, we don’t have the information to know if the thing we’re asking for is really good for us. We don’t know what God’s trying to do. But, secondly, we don’t have the right goals. God’s goal for us is not our comfort and collecting things. God’s goal for us is to know him and to be shaped into the image of Christ. If we’re asking for those things, those are the things God wants to give us. It’s not just, “It’s not working for me because God didn’t give me a new car.”</p>

<p>Be aware that sometimes people might have had frivolous requests, but sometimes the request could be something like, “My mom was dying of cancer, and I prayed, and she died.” That brings in a whole emotional element, and it’s a lot harder for a non-believer to understand that we submit to God’s will for us, even when that involves suffering, because God is worth it and he’s good. It’s easier for us to see that as believers, and for somebody who’s a non-believer, that adds an element of difficulty in answering this question, but at least you can throw some ideas out there, and you never know what the Holy Spirit will do in opening his eyes.</p>


title: How to Approach an Atheist
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 11/07/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-approach-an-atheist
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WiblroxXhFM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Jon Noyes answers the question&nbsp;“How should I approach my atheist friends?” in this excerpt from <a href="https://youtu.be/FXpKGg6r0XM">To the Point LIVE: Intelligent Design</a>.&nbsp;</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’m a relational person. So, I just like talking to people and figuring out where they’re at. The best thing about questions is, there’s very little responsibility on you. There’s very little pressure. You’re just on a fact-finding mission. Don’t be annoying with the questions. Try to work them in an authentic and real way. That’s how I do it with my atheist friends. When somebody’s an atheist—like my brother and my sister or my friends, who are atheists who don’t believe in Jesus—when they say something that’s curious to me that I don’t think lines up or is consistent with their worldview, I’ll bring it up, and usually it’s in the form of a question. I really like questions. I don’t bear the burden.</p>

<p>Oftentimes, one of the things that we as Christians do is, we take too much of the burden on ourselves. We are zealous for God, which is really great. I really want to see my family saved. I really want to see them know Jesus. I want them to see Jesus of Nazareth, this man from Nazareth, as I see him, as God. I really want them to know what I know. So, I’m excited to talk to them about it, but oftentimes what happens is, that excitement turns into, all right, now I feel like I have to answer every single question, or I have to back up every single claim that I’m not even making, necessarily.</p>

<p>Oftentimes, people will say stuff to me like, “Jesus never existed.” Sometimes we run into that claim, and we’re just like, “Oh yeah, well here’s Josephus and Tacitus, and here’s the New Testament, and here’s the Old Testament prophecies,” and so on, when instead you can say, “That’s really interesting. Jesus never existed. Do you mean he never existed at all as a human being, or he didn’t exist in the way that I think he existed?” You see how I’m seeking clarity here?</p>

<p>“No, I don’t mean he never existed as a human being. He’s just not who you think he is.”</p>

<p>Oh, okay. “Well, that’s cool. How did you come to that kind of conclusion? What are you basing your opinions on for this matter?”</p>

<p>Instead of me charging in and trying to offer 15 reasons why Jesus is God, I’m now having a conversation with somebody. What I love is that sometimes light bulbs go off. Not that people come around necessarily to our position, but sometimes light bulbs go off and people realize, “Maybe I don’t really know what I’m saying.”</p>


title: How to Respond to the Pro-Choice Compassion Argument
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/29/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-respond-to-the-pro-choice-compassion-argument
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/L_s-5PHjhQk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg and Amy answer the question&nbsp;“What is a winsome approach to someone who defends abortion by arguing an unwanted pregnancy may cause great suffering and/or lead to suicide?”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Greg:</strong> While killing is always immoral, compassion for the pregnant mother often stops our arguments from convincing many people that abortion is wrong. I understand the appeal to compassion. The problem is, in order to be allegedly compassionate to one person, we do something terribly evil to another person, but it seems like it isn’t so bad because we have good motives—that is, to be compassionate to the mother. So, I’m just wondering, if I were to face this, and I wanted to use a tactical approach, and I wanted to kind of strip this away layer by layer, what questions would I use?</p>

<p>Maybe I’d say, “I think being compassionate is really important, but how far does our commitment to compassion go? Can we do anything in virtue of compassion to one person?” Let’s just say I’m talking to somebody, and I say, there is a person who’s homeless who doesn’t have any place to stay and doesn’t even have a car to sleep in. So, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to take your car and give it to him, because I’m being compassionate to that person so he can have some place to sleep. Is that okay because I’m being compassionate?</p>

<p>I think sometimes, when I raise counter examples like this, people can see what I’m going to try to do, and so they rattle on and run right by it. In other words, they don’t address it. “Well, that’s not the same thing. I’m talking about something different.” That’s where you need to gently pull them back. All I want to do is just answer this simple question:&nbsp;Do you think it’s okay for me to take your car and give it to somebody else because I feel compassion for them? That’s a simple question. Yes or No. Well, I’m sure they’re going to say no. Well then, why is it okay for me to take somebody’s life to be compassionate to another person? It’s a fair question because I think that’s what’s going on here.</p>

<p>This compassion approach is difficult, because if you disagree with the person who is making the compassion appeal, then you are considered the non-compassionate person, and that’s awful. Wait a minute. I’m the one who is trying to protect the life of the innocent human being that you are suggesting ought to be sacrificed to make somebody else’s life more livable. Even if the characterization there was completely accurate, that their life will be more livable and they’d be much happier, is that a justifiable reason to kill somebody? By the way, this is what criminals do. Criminals take what isn’t their own to make their lives easier and more satisfying, but we draw the line there. They’re called criminals because what they take is not theirs to take, even though it improves their lives.</p>

<p>Those who are listening just heard me walk through there, and you go, oh, well, that makes sense, but you usually can’t get through that, because the minute you start making the moral case the way I’ve done, people charge you, maybe even silently in their heart, with being the non-compassionate person. “I’m just going to shrug you off. You pro-lifers, you don’t really care. Look at this woman. Look at what she’s going to have to endure.” So, they are not willing to face the moral arithmetic, which is the thing that actually determines what is the proper, compassionate thing to do.</p>

<p>I can think of a really extreme case. You’re in a Nazi concentration camp, and here’s a Jewish woman that’s serving food for the commandant. She’s from the camp, but she’s pressed into service in the household of the commandant. You want to free that woman who is going to serve the food for the commandant. You’re not being compassionate to the commandant. Now, this is a grotesquely extreme example, but sometimes you have to use a grotesquely extreme example in order to get people’s attention. No one would say you shouldn’t liberate this woman because it’s not compassionate to the commandant, who loses a servant or slave labor, essentially. But there is a benefit that the commandant gets that he would have to sacrifice. Obviously the weight, morally, is so much more on one side. So, now, here’s what we’re looking at. We’re not talking about a prison camp intern being freed. We are talking about a child’s life being saved. Isn’t that even more extreme?</p>

<p>We’re going to kill the child so mom isn’t inconvenienced, or maybe really depressed and suicidal. If you just want to do simple math on this, if she carries to term and then gets suicidal and kills herself, then you still have in the total equation one dead person. Terrible. Don’t want it. But don’t you see that there’s a difference between a woman killing herself and the woman killing the baby? And the killing of the baby is guaranteed in abortion. The woman killing herself is not guaranteed. To be honest, most women respond really well to having a child, because it’s their child. My niece was raped when she was 14 and had a baby carried to term, and my brother and his wife gave that baby up for adoption because she’s a minor. Her entire life, she resented her parents because they took her baby away from her, even though the baby was conceived under those circumstances.</p>

<p>The point I’m making here is you can’t just assert that everything is going to be miserable for a woman who goes through an unwanted pregnancy. That’s what’s commonly asserted, but you can’t just assume that in most cases. I don’t think it’s like that. Both of our daughters are adopted from surprise pregnancies, and both of them had birth mothers who went through a lot of pain to give the baby up because of their emotional attachment to their own child. Now, they could have avoided the pain by having an abortion early on, and that wouldn’t have been without consequence, by the way, emotionally, but, even so, it would have been, in some senses, easier, because they are not taking children that they’ve given birth to and giving them away. That’s harder, probably, or at least that’s the way people will put it, but that’s a pain they endure rather than killing their own children.</p>

<p>My wife worked for many years in a crisis pregnancy center. She encountered woman after woman that was pregnant that wanted to get an abortion, and she said, “Why don’t you carry to term and give the baby away to someone who wants the baby?” And what they said is, “I couldn’t possibly give my baby away.” So, you’re going to kill the baby? That’s the equation. I couldn’t give my baby away—I mean emotionally—so, I’m going to kill the baby now. Do you see how twisted people’s thinking has gotten? And that’s the so-called compassion defense for abortion.</p>

<p>I think what I’ve done is cash this out in a very clear way. Of course, I’m presuming that the unborn is a full human being, which is scientifically true. I cashed it out a very clear way, but do not count on cashing it out in this clear way and having the person you’re talking with not dismiss you as an insensitive, unloving, non-compassionate person because you don’t want to let a mother kill her own baby to make her life easier. People’s thinking is very twisted on this issue.</p>

<p><strong>Amy:</strong> I think the reason why people become so confused as soon as we start talking about this topic comes back to what we always say when you’re discussing the pro-life view, and that is, what is the unborn? Because nobody would say I should have a right to kill this woman’s child, or this woman should have a right to kill her three-year-old because the three-year-old’s making her feel suicidal. Nobody would say that, and the reason why is because they’re clear on the fact that this is a human being, but as soon as we’re talking about the unborn and that becomes unclear, you start getting all of these strange ideas, like, “I would rather my child be dead than be with someone else.” As if that’s indicating their love for the child. It doesn’t make sense, but part of it is, they aren’t seeing the unborn as a human being who’s already in existence, who’s already alive, who’s already their child.</p>

<p>Of course, if you’re answering this question, the way you answer is going to depend on who’s asking you. Is the person actually pregnant and feeling suicidal? Well, probably a reasoned response like this isn’t going to be where you’re going to start, because there’s a lot of emotion involved. It’s going to be hard to get to the reasoning, and, in that case, you do have to begin with just assuring them, “Yes, I think the woman is important. I don’t want anyone to feel suicidal. I’m here for you. I can help you. But let’s think about what exactly it is that you want to do. What does it mean to have an abortion? What are you doing? What is that inside of you?”</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> You said that it’s beholden upon us that we are sensitive to the emotional concerns and the needs of the mother. We get it. We understand that. Okay, here’s what came to me, then. This is, by the way, characteristic of pro-lifers, although we’ve been characterized as only caring about the baby and not caring about the mother. This is libel because it’s just not true. There are more crisis pregnancy centers in the country than there are abortion clinics. We are lining up. I’ve given to dozens of fundraisers for CPCs, and people are coming, deep in their pockets, in order to take care of women. Where is the other side? Where are the pro-choice organizations stepping up in compassion next to the woman who decides to carry to term, and they’re going to help her with the burdens that she’s facing? Where is it? They have nothing to say but, “Kill that baby.” That’s our compassionate response. “I know you have emotional needs. I know you have financial needs. We’re not going to do anything for that. We’re going to charge you a thousand dollars to kill the baby. That’s our answer.” Pardon me for getting emotional about this, but this is the way it lines out, and we’re the ones who are being called non-compassionate. Really, we don’t get a dime, not a dime, from saving a baby. We come out of pocket, pro-lifers do, to save the baby and to save the mom.</p>

<p>It’s unbelievable. Every time I speak at a CPC banquet, I always get there the day before, and the earlier part of the day from the banquet I go to the to the facility. I tour the facility. I look at every single thing they’re doing to help the mothers, all the packets of diapers and bottles and blankets, and all the things that the women get, the way they teach them crafts and ways to manage their finances. They help them with life support. So, for somebody to say, “Well, you’re just not sensitive; you’re just not compassionate,” open your eyes. You tell me how compassionate it is to say, “You either kill this baby, or we’re not going to do a thing for you.” Really? That’s the compassionate response? Please.</p>


title: Will You Accept the Challenge?
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/01/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/will-you-accept-the-challenge-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/QUA32Fin1cU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Stand to Reason has helped Christians stand tall in a hostile culture for 28 years. Today, we challenge you to <a href="https://str.org/donate">partner with STR</a> so that&nbsp;together&nbsp;we can continue&nbsp;make an impact.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I have been a christian following Christ for over 48 years, and I have never seen anything in the culture like I see right now, and I’m not alone. You see it, too. We are getting challenges from every direction, and it’s not just the classic stuff. It’s all kinds of new stuff that I have never imagined we would be facing right now. But for 28 years, Stand to Reason has been stepping up, and we’ve been stepping up dealing with the issues and translating what’s going on and passing answers on to you so that you can stand tall in a culture that is increasingly hostile to the Christian worldview and to the Christians that hold it, and this is why this part of the year is so important for us. We’re finishing up our year. We’re looking to you to respond to help us to finish strong at Stand to Reason so we can start strong next year.</p>

<p>Now, we have a great group of people—they’re called our challenge donor team—that have pledged nearly $260,000 as a challenge amount that they can offer to you to either match as a group or exceed as a group in your giving this year, and my encouragement to you is to step up to that challenge. When you <a href="https://str.org/donate">send your gift</a>, I’ll send you a gift. It’s J. Warner Wallace’s brand new book, <em>Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible</em>. This is all-new material. You’ve never seen anything like this before. You’re going to love it, and you’re going to get an autographed copy.</p>

<p>Please take advantage of the challenge, responding to it with your <a href="https://str.org/donate">generous gift</a>. Please take advantage to get the new book by J. Warner Wallace. And please take advantage of helping us to continue the work that we’ve been doing for 28 years to stand up to the culture, to give answers for our convictions, and to build confidence and courage in our young people and in our Christian communities to stand against the world. Thank you for everything that you’ve done, and thank you for your gift to Stand to Reason.</p>


title: How Progressive Revelation Makes a Case for an Afterlife
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/06/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-progressive-revelation-makes-a-case-for-an-afterlife
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/acJxwPfzmwc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg and Amy give suggestions on how to answer a non-practicing Jew who claims there is no afterlife because Heaven and Hell are not mentioned in the Torah.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Greg:</strong> What if I said there is no Heaven or Hell mentioned in John 6? How can you argue for Heaven or Hell if it’s not mentioned in John 6? Well, that may not be the purpose of John 6. Argue for something even though it’s not mentioned in this? Well that’s an artificial restraint. The Pentateuch was meant to accomplish a particular thing, by the way.</p>

<p>The word “love” doesn’t even occur until Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is the last book of the Pentateuch. What if I said, “God’s love is not even mentioned in the first four books of the Pentateuch, so how can you say God’s loving when in the first four books it’s not there? How do you argue for God’s love?” Well, you can’t from those first four books where it’s not mentioned, but that’s because those books had a different purpose.</p>

<p>[The Torah is] not meant to describe eschatology. Now, there is eschatology—that is, end things—in other parts of the Scripture. How does this all work out? Heaven and Hell? Final resurrection? You see it in Job, where Job says, “Without my flesh I shall see God,” and you see it in Daniel, making reference to things that are going to happen in the future and an ultimate resurrection. Daniel talks about a resurrection, but you don’t see these more graphic descriptions of Heaven or Hell. You see descriptions of God’s punishment, but most of God’s punishment depicted in the Old Testament is characterized by physical descriptions of what happens to the physical body. Tim Barnett and I talked about this when we wrote the series called “Hell Interrupted,” a Solid Ground series to answer the challenges that many Christians have raised against the idea of eternal torment.</p>

<p>My point with regards to the Old Testament passages was that the focus was on what could visibly be seen, but the final word is the last word, and we get the final word in the New Testament—the Gospels with Jesus and the book of Revelation—and that adds information that we didn’t have early on. There is clearly this idea of progressive revelation in Scripture, even in the Pentateuch. You start out with some basic stuff in Genesis, and then more is added. So, you get more details in Exodus and Leviticus regarding how God works out the promise he made to Abraham in Genesis 12 to build a nation, because a nation requires not only a group of people, but also a government that provides cohesiveness to that group. That comes in in Exodus and Leviticus. So, that’s later. It’s progressive revelation. As time goes on, God reveals more of what is necessary.</p>

<p>Therefore, certain things that are part of the whole story are not mentioned in the beginning of the story. It’s just a wrong way to approach it. Wait a minute. I don’t see the Ten Commandments anywhere in the book of Genesis. Show me the Ten Commandments in Genesis. If you can’t show me the Ten Commandments in Genesis, then that’s not significant or important. Genesis is the book of beginnings, and so, the beginning of the world—you have beginning of mankind, you have beginning of the problem, and you have the beginning of the solution, which is God’s call of Abraham and the promise made there, and how that works out. So, I think the question is misplaced, and to demand that one section deliver all of these goods, I think, is inappropriate.</p>

<p>Does God have to mention Heaven and Hell in the Pentateuch? No. The Pentateuch was for a different purpose. God was laying the foundation for the theocracy and God’s plan for rescuing the world. By the way, if God has got a plan to rescue the world, that means there is a cost if it’s not rescued, or if some are not rescued. There’s a price to pay. So, the rescue means something. It is unfortunate that Jewish people who acknowledge the Pentateuch as essential—which it is—don’t look at the other books that bear witness to some of these other things.</p>

<p>In the Pentateuch, you have the whole sacrificial system, right? The sacrificial system is to secure forgiveness for the people. If the people weren’t forgiven, what would be the consequence? Well, it would have to be something, or else there’s no point in forgiving them, and certainly the consequence isn’t in this life.</p>

<p><strong>Amy:</strong> In that instance, I think he could argue that it was the curses. So, the Mosaic Law had the blessings and the curses. If they weren’t forgiven, then they would receive the curses for their nation. So, maybe he could answer that way, but one thing I wanted to expand on is the idea that God was doing something at the beginning, even in just the revelation as he’s revealing things. He was changing a whole worldview. He was shaping and creating a whole worldview, and he did that through history. He did that through physical things to later on illustrate spiritual things. So, for example, the Exodus rescue from slavery, rescue from sin;</p>

<p>Later on, they used that to illustrate rescuing from sin. There was the temple, which had all these physical things that you do, that later on you find out in Hebrews how all these things represented Christ, and it was preparing people to see the spiritual aspects of what was going on. And the same thing happened with judgment. I think 2 Peter and maybe even Jude talks about how the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is an illustration for us of what will happen in the afterlife. God’s judgment. God hadn’t explained all that yet. That wasn’t the way he was operating. He was creating these ideas in their culture to shape their worldview so that the spiritual ideas would make sense, and he used the physical things in history to make sure we understood the spiritual things.</p>

<p>One other thing that occurred to me is that this is exactly the argument that was going on between the Sadducees and the Pharisees: whether or not there was a resurrection. This is why they had the big fight when Paul said, “I’m here defending the resurrection.” But it occurred to me that somebody asked Jesus this very question. In Luke 20, they come to him, and they say, well, if a man has a wife, and then the man dies, and she takes the next husband, which one will be her husband in the afterlife? They’re trying to make the afterlife look silly. The Pharisees believed that the resurrection is the event that leads to the afterlife, so the Sadducees are asking Jesus this question to show him that there is no afterlife. They say that there is no resurrection, and that’s why they were trying to make it look foolish. And here was Jesus’s response. He says, “But that the dead are raised even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now, he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” So that was Jesus’s response.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> In other words, those who had died relative to Moses—they were in the past, they were dead and gone—are still alive in themselves, not in God’s memory, but in themselves at that temporal moment. The point is that those individuals who were dead to Moses are actually alive to God in the moment. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Another point, too, is, Jesus makes a theological argument based on the Old Testament Scriptures and the tense of a word. In other words, he took these verses seriously as being God breathed, even down to the tense of the verb because that’s what his argument hinges on.</p>


title: Can I Tell Someone That They Believe a Lie?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/13/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-i-tell-someone-that-they-believe-a-lie-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/YKNvvfYAFXo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is it ever appropriate for Christians to tell nonbelievers they have been deceived? Greg provides biblical examples of when Jesus did exactly that.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller: </strong> I’ve been having conversations for a long time with my Mormon family, and I’ve given them—in love—every single piece of truth I can think of&nbsp;and used all my resources. At one point, the words were said to me, “Stop trying to force puzzle pieces that either don’t exist or don’t fit.” I don’t know what it was, but something snapped inside that said, <em> I’m not. There’s nothing else I can say. I just need to say the truth here. </em> And I finally said, “You know, I love you, and I want you to know the truth, and the reason that I would tell this to you is because I love you, but the person who’s trying to force puzzle pieces that don’t belong is not me. I believe that you’ve been deceived, and I believe that the beliefs you have are based on lies, and I think that if you really compared what you’ve been taught to what truly is in the text of Scripture, you’d see it.” Some people have said, “You shouldn’t have done that. You should never tell people what they believe is based on a lie. Always be Jesus to them and give them the truth, but don’t tell them what they believe is a lie.”</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> I’m glad they cited Jesus—be like Jesus—because I just turned to John 8. Jesus is engaging the Jews who are pushing back on him pretty hard. John 8 is filled with, “The Son shall set you free. You shall be free indeed. The truth shall set you free.” And the truth Jesus is talking about is not just any old truth. “If you abide in me and my words abide in you, then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” And then he makes it clear that truth brings freedom from slavery to sin.</p>

<p>But then, as they’re fighting back on this, he talks about another kind of—in a certain sense—slavery. He says, “I know you’re Abraham’s descendants. Yet you seek to kill me because my word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen from my Father. Therefore, you also do the things which you have heard from your father.” Hmm. What’s he talking about there? Drop down to verse 44. “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning. He does not stand to the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies, but because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.” Do you think that Jesus, in a manner here, was saying that they were being deceived? I think he put it a little more strongly. He said, “I am speaking the words of my Father. You speak the words of your father. Your father is the devil.” If we’re going to use Jesus as an example, then maybe we should look at how Jesus comported himself in certain circumstances.</p>

<p>I do not think that, in a sense, categorically, it is wrong for you to say somebody’s deceived. I don’t think it’s categorically wrong to say that somebody is on their way to Hell. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to come up to you and say, “You’re deceived in the devil; you’re going to Hell,” just out of the blue. But you didn’t do that. You’ve turned over every single stone with them. You’re at a point where you’re saying, “Look. You have been deceived. The devil has deceived you, and unless you see that, you are not going to be rescued.” I have done this before, myself. I have been straightforward. Sometimes I say, after I’ve had a conversation with a person, maneuvering tactically and trying to help them to see some things, “Okay. Here’s what I have to say to you.” And I say it friendly. Let’s just say it’s Fred. “Okay, Fred. Here’s what I’ve got to say. I think you’re deceiving yourself. I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest. You said this, and then I asked this. You said this, and then you said this. Do you see how those don’t add up? You are fooling yourself.” So, in that case, I didn’t say you’re being deceived by the devil, but I did point out they were being deceived. They’re self-deceived, and that’s culpable blindness. That’s willful blindness, right there.</p>

<p>In 2 Thessalonians 2, those who are deceived by the antichrist are deceived because they did not love the truth. That’s right there in the text. “They did not love the truth so as to be saved,” I think is the way Paul puts it. So, in principle, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m just going to say regarding your friend who says you should never say that, I think they’re flat out wrong.</p>

<p>Here’s Matthew 25. Jesus is about to get crucified. This is the end of his ministry. This is Passion Week. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites. You shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. You don’t enter, yourselves, nor do you allow anyone else to enter in. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Woe to you, blind guides. You fools. You blind men.” I actually took my pen and scribed over every one of these woes, so it stands out. Eight woes, right there, but there’s a whole bunch of other stuff between the woes.</p>

<p>But, you know, we should be meek and mild like Jesus was, right? No. “You are like whitewashed tombs with dead men’s bones inside. You’re filled with hypocrisy and rot.” This is what he says here. John the Baptist, I think of the Gospel of John, says, “You brood of vipers. Who warned you to flee from the wrath that is to come? Therefore, bring forth deeds that are consistent with repentance.” He’s not trusting why they’re coming down to see him. They’re just doing a religious thing, is what he thinks. He says, “You’re a bunch of vipers.” Now, if you’re really repentant, then you bring forth truth consistent with your professed repentance. That’s John the Baptist. That’s really strong.</p>

<p>Back to Matthew 23 and your pastor’s counsel, “Oh, well, you know, you don’t say things like that&nbsp;because people can get really mad.” Maybe it won’t convince them. Did it convince these people in Matthew? No. They murdered him. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have said what he said. In principle, it’s appropriate to say these things. We want to be careful when we do it and how we do it. This is at the end of Jesus’ ministry. These people are hardened, and he is speaking publicly about what they’re doing wrong. He didn’t expect them to fall on their knees and believe he was the Messiah, though probably some listening did. He was claiming that the most religious people that anybody was seeing there were a bunch of hypocrites. They were fakers, and they didn’t bring life. They brought death. He speaks the truth. Look at how rotten these guys are. So, he was willing to speak the truth very aggressively in that circumstance. This is a famous passage. He doesn’t speak like that all the time, but remember, he cleansed the temple there twice, right at the beginning of his ministry and the end of his ministry, and he made a lot of enemies there.</p>

<p>When my brother, Mark, was talking to me about Christ, he said to me, “Greg, the things that I am telling you are true. Sooner or later you’re going to find this out. I just hope that when you do, it’s not too late.” Well, that’s pretty direct. That had an impact on me.</p>

<p>“One day you’re going to stand before God. You’re going to stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, and you’re going to give an account for your life, and, when you do, this will not be a pretty picture, because he’ll be standing there as your judge and not your savior. The time for him being the savior is now. That’s perfect mercy. You reject perfect mercy, you get perfect justice.” I’m not screaming. This isn’t like a flame going from my mouth. I’m not being nasty. I’m just telling the truth in a clear and confident fashion, and they can do what they want. And this story’s not over yet. You don’t know the impact what you said might have had. You’re only one member of the team. There’s a big team out there, and sometimes it’s not me; It’s going to be somebody else that God uses, and you never know.</p>


title: What Does the Bible Mean by “One God”?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/20/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-the-bible-mean-by-one-god-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGhgP_9Y2gE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>How can Christians respond to the Mormon claim that “Heavenly Father” is the only god “for us”? Greg offers one question that will help focus the conversation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller: </strong> I have concerns for my Mormon family. I will say things like, “So you believe there’s only one God?” And they say, “Well, yes. There’s only one God.” And I say, “Okay. Then is Jesus a god?” And then they’ll say yes. And I say, “Then you have two gods that you believe in.” And they say, “No. We believe in one God.” And I say, “But you just said Jesus was a god and that Heavenly Father is a god. That’s two.” And they go, “Well, Heavenly Father is the only god for us.”</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> The question is this: What is it that the Bible means when it says there is only one God? The question isn’t the subjective question of whether the Father is God for us, but there may be other gods for other people, or any other iteration—you can make up everything you want. The people say, “Well, Jesus is the savior for me, but he doesn’t have to be the savior for other people. Other people could have Buddha as their savior or Krishna or whatever, which is kind of a mischaracterization of those religions, but you know how they do it. That is making the issue totally subjective. Here’s our question. Our question is, what does God say? What does the Bible teach? They believe the Bible, right? Okay. Does the Bible say that there is only one God for us, but all the other Canaanites can have their god? That’s fine. And the Philistines, they can have their god, and Baal ,and Ashtoreth? No. All of those gods were condemned.</p>

<p><strong>Caller: </strong> They say [other gods are] not okay, because all the people of this earth are to worship Yahweh. We are not to worship any other god. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any other god. It’s just the only god the people on earth are to worship.</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> Then where is that qualification made in any text in any passage where God talks about his supremacy? “I am God. There is none other.” Isaiah 45 comes to mind. There’s a whole bunch of stuff in Isaiah 45. “And there is none other, but on other planets there can be other gods.” No. It doesn’t say that. Where did the Bible say “for us”?</p>

<p>The problem here is, you have people who are locked into their idea, and they’re going to say all kinds of—pardon me for putting it this way—nonsense, so they don’t have to address the [issue]. The deal is, you can’t just say, “For us in this world; we’re just assuming,” because there’s no reason to do that, and in fact, there are other passages that are unequivocal. God created the heavens and the earth. That’s Genesis 1. That’s, like, everything. He is the God over everything. That is the whole point. It’s the whole universe. It’s the whole thing, you know? And then in Isaiah 45: “There is no God but one in this world.”</p>

<p>What’s frustrating is, because they won’t listen to what reason—regarding a scripture—amounts to, they’re going to keep adding words. So, maybe here’s a question. Ask them, what would God have to say if he meant in Scripture that he was the only God in existence? How would he put it? Because, I guarantee you, you’re going to be able to find passages like that. “I am the only God.” What would God have to say to convince you that there are no other gods? Period. How would he put it? Because that’s how he put it. The Bible is not polytheistic. There is nothing more central to biblical Judaism than monotheism. What could be more central? Are they saying that the Jews got it wrong? So, you’re up against some culpable ignorance. And maybe that’s the best you can do.</p>

<p><strong>Caller: </strong> And that’s where I think they get all their other scripture that they fall back on. “Well, the Bible is missing plain and precious truth, and we would know for a fact that God wasn’t the only god in existence if we had these plain and precious truths that the Mormon church has and no one else does.”</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> The problem is, those so-called plain and precious truths contradict clearly what the Scripture says, and then they play word games with you. Maybe this is the time to say, “Look. I understand your point, but what you’re doing is, you’re playing a word game here. God is crystal clear about this, and someday you are going to stand before the real God.” You’ve got to be gentle and kind when you say this. ”You are going to stand before the real God, and I promise you that what you just told me will not wash with him because it does not wash with the texts.”</p>


title: Do Christians Pick and Choose Which Commands to Follow?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/27/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-christians-pick-and-choose-which-commands-to-follow-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TrHZRM9Vt4M?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Christians focus on homosexuality as a sin&nbsp;but ignore other Old Testament laws. Is this hypocritical?&nbsp;STR’s Tim Barnett uses his Red Pen Logic to respond to this common challenge.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>The Claim: </strong> Christians say that being LGBT+ is a sin but ignore other sins found in the Bible, such as eating bacon or lobster, cutting your hair a certain way, or wearing clothes made out of mixed fabrics.</p>

<p><strong>Tim: </strong> If you’re going to criticize what Christians believe, you should, at the very least, understand what Christians believe. Unfortunately, this claim demonstrates a lack in basic biblical understanding. It makes it seem like Christians arbitrarily pick and choose the commandments they like, while ignoring the commandments they don’t. The problem is, this all hinges on a fundamental confusion between the Old Testament rules and the New Testament rules.</p>

<p>The Old Testament contains the Mosaic Law. These were laws given by God through Moses to the chosen people of Israel. That part is really important. This was part of what we call the Old Covenant. It was like a contract between two parties: God and the Jews. New Testament Christians don’t live under the Old Covenant. They’re under a different covenant. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the requirements of the law and established a new covenant through his death and resurrection. Under this covenant, bacon and shellfish, for example, are back on the menu, and it’s not because we’re arbitrarily picking and choosing which commands to follow. No. It’s because we’re following the commands that apply to us.</p>

<p>Now, there are some universal moral laws in the Old Testament that are repeated in the New Testament, and that’s because these things are wrong for all times and all places. For example, murder, stealing, and adultery were all prohibited in the Old Testament, and they’re also prohibited in the New Testament. Therefore, Christians are obligated to obey these commands. Likewise, homosexual behavior is prohibited in both testaments. So, pointing out how Christians failed to follow a bunch of temporal Mosaic laws only reveals a lack in understanding of how the covenants work. The Mosaic Law was limited to a time and nation, but morality is not. In other words, Christians follow the moral law, not the Mosaic Law.</p>


title: Reality Is on Christianity’s Side
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/10/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/reality-is-on-christianity-s-side
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TNR9zs6QlUY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>When making a case against atheism, Christians have a powerful ally: reality. Greg Koukl shares an important reminder and strategy from Francis Schaeffer in an introductory video from his new <a href="https://training.str.org">Stand to Reason&nbsp;University</a> course, “Atheism: Bumping into Reality.”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Of all the questions that every human being asks about what’s true, about what’s important, or about what’s meaningful, there is no more significant question to answer than this: Does God exist? God’s existence is the most decisive issue of life, because the answer you give to that one question sets an irrevocable course for everything that follows.</p>

<p>We don’t have to guess when it comes to answering the question about God’s existence. Instead, God’s fingerprints, so to speak, are all around us. In other words, the world around us—the real world—is thick with evidence for God. In fact, we bump into it all the time. In the “<a href="https://training.str.org/index/">Atheism: Bumping Into Reality</a>“ course, I’ll walk you through a thoughtful analysis of three of the key bumps that evidence God’s existence, details of reality that Christianity can make sense out of, but atheism cannot.</p>

<p>Someone once said that reality is what you bump into and what sometimes injures you when you don’t take it seriously. Now, in my shop, I’ve got lots of tools, and some of them are really dangerous, but the most dangerous tool in my shop is my table saw. It’s driven by a three-horsepower motor. I’ve got a 10-inch blade, and that’ll take your fingers off just like that if you’re not careful. So, how do I stay safe in my shop? I’m careful. I look closely. I pay attention. I think things through, and that’s exactly how we’re going to approach the question of God’s existence.</p>

<p>First, we need to define our terms. We know what theism is. It’s a belief that there is a personal God, a conviction that God exists. So, atheism is just the opposite: the belief that there is no God. King David wrote, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands.” The atheist, by contrast, says the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.</p>

<p>Before we go any further, I want you to notice something else about atheism. It is a standard move by atheists nowadays to say they are not asserting that God doesn’t exist, but they simply have no belief in God, and since they lack a belief, they don’t need to defend their lack of belief. Now, I don’t think that’s exactly intellectually honest, because no one writes best-selling books about their lack of beliefs. Atheists are making a case, and the case that they’re trying to make is that there is no God. That’s their belief. Certainly, they have no belief in God. Agreed. But they do have a belief about God, and their belief about God is that God doesn’t exist. So, it’s not like they don’t have to make a defense for their view since they’re not really asserting anything. They are. They’re asserting that God does not exist, and that is their belief about God that they are holding and advancing. Don’t be caught by that trick.</p>

<p>So, how do we make the case that there actually is a God? When my daughter was about eight years old, she asked me a question. She said, “Papa, how do we know that God is true?” How do we know that the God we’re talking about here is actually real? As I’m pondering how to answer it, all of a sudden, something came into my mind that, as I look back on it now, I think captures my whole approach to this enterprise. Here’s what I said to her. I said, “Honey, the reason that we believe that God is true is because he’s the best explanation for the way things are.” Let me just say that again&nbsp;because it’s so important. The reason that we believe in God is because he’s the best explanation for the way things are, and what I was doing with her, even though I didn’t explain it at the time, is, I was introducing the notion of explanatory power. What I mean by that is, you see things in the world and you’re simply asking the question what best explains these significant features of the real world. If you have an idea that explains them well and a contrary idea that doesn’t, then the first idea has better explanatory power and therefore is more likely to be true.</p>

<p>I want to let you in on a strategic insight for us as Christian theists. We have a powerful ally. What is that? We have reality on our side, and I want to explain what I mean by that. I got this insight from Francis Schaeffer. First, he noted that if Christianity is true, then it is an accurate view of reality, and that would mean that all human beings are really made in the image of God, and all human beings must live in the world that God made, even if they don’t believe it. Therefore, if Christianity is true, and it’s the better explanation of reality, atheists who deny God must be living in denial of reality at some point. Therefore, sooner or later, atheists who deny God’s reality are going to bump into the world as it really is. They’re going to affirm some feature of reality, sometimes without even realizing it, that makes no sense given their worldview&nbsp;but makes perfect sense given our worldview.</p>

<p>Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He’s probably the world’s most famous atheist right now. Dawkins says that, on the one hand, if you look at nature, according to him, there is no design and no purpose and no evil and no good; Nothing, he says, but blind, pitiless indifference. Now that’s totally consistent with this atheistic worldview. No evil. No good. Belief in morality, on his view, is just a trick evolution plays on us to get our selfish genes into the next generation. So, at that point, when he says that, he is making statements that are completely consistent with his worldview of atheism. However, on the other hand, in his book <em>The God Delusion</em>,&nbsp;he attacks the God of the Bible, and here’s what he says. He says the God of the Old Testament is a vindictive, bloodthirsty, homophobic, racist, genocidal, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully. Do you see the problem there? Clearly, Dawkins is not coming to that conclusion based on his atheism, which he says dictates no evil, no good. Notice, all of those challenges to the God of the Old Testament are that he’s evil. That complaint against God makes no sense in Dawkins’s worldview. But I’ll tell you something. Moral assessments like that—I don’t think they’re accurate, in his case–make perfect sense in our worldview.</p>

<p>So&nbsp;Dawkins, notice, is living in a contradiction on this issue. He talks on the one hand kind of like an atheist, and then, all of a sudden, when his guard is down, his natural understanding of morality that God built into him is coming out, but it’s a contradiction with his atheism, and that is a point of tension. Francis Schaeffer said, when we see that—when we see Dawkins, in this case, bumping into reality, when he raises those kinds of moral complaints against God, and he’s trading on our worldview, not his, that’s where we can draw attention to it and use that on our behalf.</p>

<p>What I’m saying is this: Christianity has better explanatory power. In other words, it fits the world and some very important issues in a way that atheism does not. And these are issues that resonate with our deepest intuitions about reality, our deepest understandings about the way the world actually is. What are some of those bumps I was talking about—those features of reality that the atheist bumps into that make no sense at all in his worldview&nbsp;but make perfect sense in our worldview? There are lots of different examples of that, but in this class, I want to talk to you about three bumps with reality that create serious worldview problems for the atheist&nbsp;but turn out supporting our worldview perfectly. I’m just going to call them “the bump of stuff,” “the bump of bad,” and “the bump of me.”</p>

<p>Let’s take a moment to see what we’ve covered so far. First, we defined our terms. We said that theism is a belief that there is a God&nbsp;and atheism is the belief that there is no God. It’s not simply a lack of belief about God. It’s a lack of belief in God, but there certainly is a belief about God that they need to defend. Here’s the second thing we talked about: I said the Christian has a powerful ally that helps him answer that question—whether God exists—and that ally is reality. I also pointed out that even atheists have to live in God’s world, which means that they must affirm certain things about the real world that are in conflict with an atheistic view. I mentioned that theism is true because it’s the best explanation for the way things are, and then the third thing I did here is, I suggested a strategy for dealing with atheism. First, we take a look at reality. Second, we show that atheists can’t explain important details of the real world, but we can as theists. These are the ways that atheists bump into reality.</p>


title: Is God Always Willing to Heal Believers?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/03/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-always-willing-to-heal-believers-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/z6CA8iyQ-Io?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Do Christians have the authority to command a person be healed? Greg and Amy offer biblical examples to show that while the atonement may make healing possible, it doesn’t guarantee&nbsp;it.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Listener: </strong> When praying for healing, what is the basis for commanding in Jesus’ name versus asking in Jesus’ name for healing?</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> I don’t think you command healing. You can only command healing if you have the authority to effectively direct it—to speak to it. I don’t think we have that. If you command healing, then healing is done. Jesus had that authority, and he delegated that authority in a limited way to his disciples when they went out on special mission trips. We see that clearly. But when Jesus had that authority in himself, he healed everyone immediately. So that suggests that Jesus’ pattern of healing on the earth is not the pattern we’re following now. Otherwise, everyone, at the command of the authority of the believer to declare the healing&nbsp;just as Jesus did, would be healed. Period.</p>

<p>Now, sometimes the Word of Faith crowd will say, well, you’re not healed because it’s your problem. When you look at the occasions when Jesus healed, there were lots of times where it was a person’s faith—their reaching out to him in trust—that was the operative factor for him responding. It was significant. Sometimes they only reach in halfway. “I believe. Help my unbelief.” The leper of Matthew 8 says, “If you are willing, you can heal me.” And Jesus says, “I’m willing. Be healed.” So, he wasn’t presuming on Jesus. That’s my prayer, by the way, when I pray for healing. “If you’re willing.” I don’t know if God’s going to be willing. Sometimes he’s not. How do I know that? Because he doesn’t heal, at least not at that moment—sometimes not ever. So, he’s not always willing.</p>

<p>Sometimes, it was not the person’s faith. It was Jesus simply acting. Later on, there’s Peter’s mother. She’s sick. He heals her, and off she goes. There’s no reference to her faith, and it’s clear that sometimes Jesus is acting in a way to bring healing as a response to great human need. Everything is not dependent on the strength of the faith of the receiver in order to get healed, such that, if you command the disease to go away and it doesn’t happen, then it’s the diseased person who is at fault. And this is sometimes the maneuver that the Word of Faith crowd makes.</p>

<p>The power is not in us. We do not have the authority to heal every single disease, obviously, because there are massive numbers of godly people who are praying for God to work, and God doesn’t respond every time. He does sometimes. Why? That depends on whether he’s willing. I don’t know why. That’s up to him. And this is where we trust. We appeal to him in trust to move and then let Jesus decide on his authority to heal based on what he has done for us, not on our authority. It is by his stripes we are healed. Our infirmities, he bore. I think there’s a reference there to Isaiah 53, which makes a clear point that Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus, at least in the mind of Matthew, who cites it.</p>

<p>So, there is healing through the atonement, but there is not healing in the atonement. People who believe in healing in the atonement want to say healing is available to everyone just simply in virtue of the atonement. Boom. Boom. It’s a done deal unless you screw up. But when, on my view, healing is available as a result of the atonement, but not a guarantee in virtue of the atonement, God extends his mercy to heal when he chooses. It’s based on his authority, not our authority. In the circumstance where the disciples were sent out, they were sent out to do very specific things, and they did those things, and they were given authority to do that.&nbsp;And the church in general, in the Great Commission at the end of the Gospels, is given an authority to accomplish these things, too, but not like a machine. Every time you say these words, boom, the person gets healed. It doesn’t work that way.</p>

<p>Paul was physically sick. There are two occasions that stand out. One, he’s appealing, I think, to the Galatians, and he says, “When I first came to you, I came to you in weakness, and I was sick.” And then another time, I think he says, towards the end of one of his letters, “And I left Trophimus, who was sick.” Notice, this is the great Paul, filled with faith and power. He didn’t have automatic power just to heal whoever, because he couldn’t help this guy, and so he left him there, and he went on with his journeys. That ought to be instructive to us about how this works.</p>

<p><strong>Amy: </strong> There are also many passages talking about how we are to view suffering, how we’re to deal with suffering. When we’re asking, we are submitting to God’s will because we do not know what he intends to do in us through our suffering. By commanding, there’s a sense of “You owe me perfect health, and I’m not submitting to your will for me in this.”</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> I think what they would say is, “Well, we think the will of God is that we be healed, and so, we are submitting to his will by making this demand.” But what you have done in the counterexamples is to show that they’re mistaken in their understanding of what God’s will is. It is clear, if we are to endure suffering, which is all through the Scriptures, then this is not a blank check for us to get out of jail free, so to speak, and get free of all this if we just say the right words.</p>


title: The Word Atheists Don’t Want to Say
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 01/17/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-word-atheists-don-t-want-to-say
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/0K5novvP4cQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>As we observe the law of causality at work in the world around us, the explanation for our existence begins to look a lot like God.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I was sitting with my sister in in her apartment in Boston with her boyfriend, now fiancé, and their best friends, and one of them asked me the question I love getting. It’s the best question anybody can ask me: “What evidence led you to believe God exists?” My response to them was three questions.</p>

<p>I asked, “Do things exist?” Their response was, “Of course things exist.”</p>

<p>“Do you think things that exist have always existed?”</p>

<p>“Well, I don’t think so,”&nbsp;they said.</p>

<p>Looking around the room, you could point to the table or the cat. You could point to the car outside. You could point to the paintings or the television.</p>

<p>“Have these things always existed?”</p>

<p>“No. I don’t think so.”</p>

<p>Well, then, then the third question is, “What caused them to come into existence?”</p>

<p>When I was sitting with my sister and her friends, I was met with silence. “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a philosopher. I don’t know these things. I don’t know.”</p>

<p>But rationally, we have only two choices. Everything either has to come from <em>some thing</em> or <em>no thing</em>. And who in his rational rights would say nothing caused the world? Even if it’s possible, what’s most reasonable? This puts atheists in a very interesting place. They don’t want to say something caused the universe, because the minute they do, their naturalism is dead. This is where I started as a naturalist, because I tried to explain the existence of the stuff, and I didn’t have anything available to me to adequately explain it. If I appealed to “something caused the universe,” that something had to have certain qualities in order to create everything. That something had to be powerful. It had to be creative. It had to exist outside of time and space. It had to be immaterial. And before I knew it, and before the atheist knows it, that something that they want to posit as the creator of the universe starts to look an awful lot like the G word, and they don’t want to say that word. That’s the bad word: God.</p>

<p>Instead, to avoid the G word, at least for me, I’d want to posit the nothing option, but as I pressed into it and tried to learn from the world around me, it seemed like this was really unreasonable. I’m not going to argue that it’s impossible to get something from nothing—I think it is impossible to get something from nothing—but I don’t have to do that with the naturalist.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, it’s the atheist or the natural materialist who wants to claim Christians are unreasonable. That’s what I used to say: “You are the unreasonable one. I’m a purveyor of reason.” So, I’m just going to ask the atheist, what are the chances? What are the chances of nothing producing everything?</p>

<p>Think of your dream car. Mine right now currently happens to be the Tesla X. I would love to be able to buy my wife a Tesla X. Imagine if I came home, and parked in my driveway, after a long day of work, is a brand new black mirror Tesla X. It’s wrapped in a bow, and it has my name on a huge name tag. I walk inside, and my wife is prepping a meal, and I say, “Babe, did you see the car in the driveway? It’s so cool. It’s amazing. Thank you so much! Where’d you get it? Can we afford it?” And she says, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” So, there’s a car in the driveway. Where’d it come from? “Oh, it just appeared out of nowhere. It was crazy. It was the craziest thing. Stuff like that, it happens all the time.” Stuff like that never happens. Things like that don’t happen all the time. Nothing like that comes from nothing. If things came from nothing, then science itself would be impossible.</p>

<p>I know that you’re starting to recognize that this is the <em>kalam</em> cosmological argument for the existence of God. When I was wrestling with it as an atheist, I didn’t know it had a formal meaning or a formal name.</p>

<p>I want to talk about “nothing” for a minute, because sometimes this word has been called into question. When I say “nothing,” I don’t mean the so-called “nothing” of Lawrence Krauss. I’m not talking about a quantum vacuum. Even that had to come into existence from somewhere.</p>

<p>Major scientists have all written on this. When I say “nothing,” what I mean is the universal negation. No thing. It’s that which rocks dream about. That’s the nothing I’m talking about.</p>

<p>The nothing option is actually worse than magic. Oftentimes, as an atheist, I used to say, “Oh, you’re going to appeal to your magic now.” It’s a short, pithy thing to say to the Christian. It has rhetorical force behind it. But when I started thinking about it, I realized, “Wait a second. I’m the one appealing to something worse than magic.” When a magician pulls the rabbit out of a hat, he’s got a magician, himself. He’s got the hat. He’s got the rabbit. Well, on the “nothing” view, he’s got no hat, and he’s got no magician, either—just the rabbit brought into existence out of nowhere. Is that reasonable?</p>

<p>Here’s the main point: Christianity has superior explanatory power when it comes to the existence of the world around us. When I was honest with myself in pursuit of the answers to those big questions, my atheism just simply fell short. Naturalism can’t explain where stuff comes from, but Christian theism can. And not only that, but it does so in a way that’s consistent with our basic intuitions about reality and the world around us. The explanations Christianity provides line up perfectly with the way things really are, and once my presuppositions of naturalism were dropped to the floor, and I availed myself to a supernatural explanation, I realized there was nowhere else to run. There’s nowhere else to turn for answers. All effects have causes adequate to explain them. Therefore, Christianity has better explanatory power when it comes to the existence of the universe.</p>


title: How God Is Solving the Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 01/31/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-god-is-solving-the-problem-of-evil
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EbB3RToKLFs?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Jon Noyes explains why Christianity offers the best solution to the problem of evil in this excerpt from his latest <a href="https://training.str.org/">Stand to Reason University</a> course.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Atheist Bertrand Russell asked, “How can you talk about God when you’re kneeling at the bed of a dying child?” Part of my response to the atheist is to ask, “What are you going to say when you’re kneeling at the side of that same child? Tough luck? Too bad? That’s the way it goes?” Here’s what atheist Richard Dawkins has to say about suffering and evil in the world: “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”</p>

<p>Atheists are struck dumb while kneeling at the bed of a dying child. They can’t speak to the patience and mercy of God. They can’t mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. They can’t offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose. They have no good news of hope for a broken world. Their worldview denies them anything but tormented silence and pitiless indifference. Christians, by contrast, have a lot to say.</p>

<p>What’s God doing about the problem of evil? First, God has given three institutions to restrain the impact of evil in the world: the family, the church, and the government.</p>

<p>Let’s look at families first. When families disintegrate, children, parents, and society at large are more vulnerable to evil. Divorce leads to family instability. When children aren’t protected, when wives aren’t covered, when husbands aren’t submitting to God, evil increases. When the institution of marriage is undermined by premarital sex and same-sex marriage, greater evil results. Who gets hurt when the family fails? Everyone, but especially our children.</p>

<p>Now, let’s talk about the church. Christians shoulder a large part of the responsibility to rescue and repair a broken world. Some people think that religion has been responsible for the greatest evils in the world. That’s just not true. Secular evil far outstrips religious evil. Three men were responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people—Lenin, Stalin, and Mao—all in the name of atheistic secularism. By contrast, when the church works consistently with a Christian worldview, hospitals are built, slavery is abolished, the poor and the homeless are clothed, fed, and cared for, and education flourishes. Virtually all our early universities were started with theological intent—Yale, Harvard, and Princeton among them. The world is literate principally because of Christian missionaries who taught people to read so they could read the Scriptures. In fact, the kind of evil people object to comes about when people reject God. Without God, there’s no accountability.</p>

<p>Lastly, let’s look at government. The chief responsibility of government is justice. Romans 13 says that the authorities that exist have been established by God. “He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers.” 1 Peter 2 says that we should “submit ourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by God for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” When governments falter in this obligation through neglect or corruption or political correctness, then evil increases.</p>

<p>The second thing God’s doing about evil is giving us his Holy spirit to help us overcome the evil in our own individual lives. We’re each individually part of the problem, and we know this. We need help, and God offers it. Galatians 5 says, “So I say, live by the spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature...sexual immorality, debauchery, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, drunkenness, and the like.” Galatians 5:22–23 says that “the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”</p>

<p>Third, there will come a time when God will remove every remnant of evil from his creation. He will restore his perfect goodness to this world. Remember, our story is not over yet. God will establish a whole new order with evil defeated forever. Matthew 5:6 says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” In Revelation 21 we read, “God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain for the old order of things has passed away.” You see, some people want that happiness today. They want it right now. But remember, when God deals decisively with evil, he’s going to do a complete job. Here’s what C.S. Lewis had to say about this: “I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when he does. When the author walks onto the stage, the play is over.”</p>

<p>If God wiped out all the evil in the world tonight at midnight, where would you be at 12:01? Evil deeds can never be isolated from the evildoer. When Jesus came the first time, people wanted a conquering Messiah, and they got a suffering one instead. Now, they want a Jesus meek and mild, and they’re going to get the lion of the tribe of Judah.</p>

<p>This leads me to the fourth thing God is doing about the problem of evil. You see, God sent his son to die for evil men, offering mercy instead of justice so there could be forgiveness rather than condemnation. God is patiently waiting, giving men a chance to turn to him for forgiveness. Peter, in 2 Peter 3, writes, “The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.” God is patient towards those who are perishing. The door is still open, but it won’t always be. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus says, “Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”</p>

<p>I think a couple things are clear. First, if there’s no God, we have to give up the idea that evil even exists at all. Nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Nothing is ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It’s all lost in the twilight zone of moral nothingness. Second, most people wouldn’t fare well if God dealt completely with evil today.</p>

<p>What is it that we really want? We want a God who takes evil seriously. We want a God who provides a way to protect us from evil without taking away all of our moral choices. We want a God who gives us an opportunity for mercy instead of simply judging us for our own evil. We want a God who has a plan for completely transforming this world so that all will ultimately be good. Do you realize this is exactly what God has done? Atheism is not the answer to the problem of evil. God is the answer to the problem of evil. Our question shouldn’t be why God allows evil. What should amaze us is why he would pay such an incredible price to rescue us at all when we have rebelled so completely against him. He’s not responsible for evil, but because he loves us, he’s taken responsibility to do something about it. God in Jesus on a cross at Calvary has solved the problem of evil.</p>


title: Tactics for Conversations with Agnostics
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/24/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/tactics-for-conversations-with-agnostics
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-iL7-bO4pHU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains how to use the Columbo tactic with agnostics and gives an example of directing the conversation toward a specific topic.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller:</strong> My question comes from some conversations I’ve had with a family member, and this family member comes off a lot as agnostic. When talking to someone about the Bible or Christianity in general, how do you argue the credibility or accuracy of the topic? And how do you argue against an agnostic?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> There are two things here. One has to do with the integrity of the text, and the other one has to do with agnosticism. Let me address agnosticism first because it’s the least complicated.</p>

<p>There are two types of agnosticism. One type of agnostic is somebody who says, “I don’t know one way or another.” Another type of agnostic says, “I don’t know the answer regarding this issue [say, God] and no one can know.” The latter is a much stronger claim. When you say, “I don’t know; I’m not convinced one way or another,” that’s one thing, but it’s another thing to say, “But no one can know. This is not possible to know.” If they tell me, “This is not possible to know,” I want to know why they think it’s not possible to know some detail of spiritual truth. “It’s not possible to know whether God exists or not? Why is that?” And I’d want them to answer that. I think that’s a very strong claim.</p>

<p>If the person says, “I’m agnostic—that means I don’t know,” then the question is, “What is it that’s keeping you on the fence?” The person is on the fence. They might go one way. It’s possible that, let’s say, Christianity is true or God exists, and it’s possible God doesn’t exist. “I’m not sure.” “Well, what’s keeping you on the fence?” So, at least that kind of agnostic is open to the possibility that knowledge in this area is possible.</p>

<p>If you have a hard agnostic, then the question is going to be, “Why is it that no one can know? Maybe there’s some form of empiricism they’re going to offer, because God is not anything you could see with your eyes, and therefore you can only believe things that you could see with your eyes or with your five senses, and there are different ways to deal with that, but that might be one way they answer. But if they answer, “It certainly is possible; I just don’t know,” ask, “What kind of evidence would make a difference for you? What’s keeping you on the fence as opposed to saying, no, there is no God at all?” Something gives them pause. I wonder what that is.</p>

<p>So, that’s the issue of agnosticism. The other issue, though, is a little more complex, and it depends on what the actual concern is. It has to do with the integrity of the biblical text.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> Part of it is dealing with essential text versus important text, and I’ve made the claim that essential text is anything that has to do with salvation, and he seems to chalk that up to just interpretation.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> This is this distinction you’re making: essential or important. Though it may be completely valid when you’re discussing theological issues, for example, with other Christians, people might say, “Well this one detail has some value, but it isn’t an essential.” Those are distinctions that shouldn’t matter to a non-Christian. When your friend says whether a thing is essential or merely important, now he’s entering into a theological discussion that’s kind of an in-house discussion. I don’t know if making that distinction is going to be helpful, but I think there are certain details that seem to be critical, and that is the person and work of Christ, and if he’s dismissive about those really critical things because it’s a matter of interpretation, this is where a question is in order: “When you say it’s a matter of interpretation or that’s just your interpretation, what do you mean? What is it you’re getting at there?”</p>

<p>Now, I know the point that is being made, but I think there’s a mistake that people make when they make a statement like this, and I think that drawing them out a little bit will help them to see this mistake. So, maybe we can role-play this a moment. You be your friend, and I’ll say something like, “There are parts in Scripture that are really more vital than others. Jesus was God. The fact that Jesus was God is really vital.” Being the naysayer in this case like your friend, what would you say to that? Something about interpretation, right?</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> I’d say, “You claim that this is truth, but how do you really know that? Can you really know that? How do you know that is true?”</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> When you say, “How do I know it’s true?” I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Do you mean, “How do I know that the Bible, the text itself, claims that Jesus is God?” Or, “How do I know that he actually is God?</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> If the text says that Jesus is God, how do we really know that to be true?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> How do we know what to be true? That he is God?</p>

<p>Let’s just take an example. There’s a passage where Jesus is being opposed by the leadership, and they want to kill him, and he says, “For what good work are you killing me?” And they say, “We’re not killing you for any good work, but you, being a man, claim to be God.” See there where it says that here in the text? So, would you say that it is fair to conclude, based on what these men said, that Jesus’ claims were claims to divinity?</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> I would concede that they’re claims to divinity, but how do we know that his claims are evidentially backed up?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> That’s good. Now, we’ve made the first step. Now, there’s no confusion about what the claim actually is. Now, the question is whether he’s right. So, there’s a number of ways I could pursue this, and one of them is asking, “What if this person who claimed to be God was actually executed and then raised himself from the dead three days later? Would that, if it happened, give credibility to the claim?”</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> Yes, it would.</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Okay. Good. This is more progress. Now, the issue, then, is, do we have good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? This is the next step. If I could show you good reason to be convinced that Jesus actually rose from the dead, then that would be one way—it sounds like you’re agreeing with me—of demonstrating that Jesus’ claim to be God was actually true.</p>

<p>Now we’re down to the question of the resurrection.</p>

<p>I’m done with the role-play, but notice how I stepped through that in a couple of careful steps to lay a foundation that is completely reasonable. One could say, “Oh, that’s just your interpretation.” Well, wait a minute. This is what it says. It says, “You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” How else are you going to interpret that? “I guess they did think he was God, and I guess they did think that he was claiming to be God.” Okay. Good. Now we both agree on that. Now, what if he rose from the dead? Would that confirm the claim? “Well, if he did, then it would.” Okay. Great. Let’s see if he rose from the dead. Do we have any good evidence that he rose from the dead? So, this would be the next step, making the case for the resurrection.</p>

<p>Notice how what I’ve done here—this is really important in terms of the process—is, I had to get really crystal clear on the nature of the claim and keep refining to get to the very specific thing that gives me one specific thing to deal with, not a big kind of ambiguous thing to deal with. “How do you know what’s true?” “How can you trust the Bible?” It’s all very general. Well, let’s start with something specific. What is it? Oh, the deity of Christ, because maybe I brought that up. The deity of Christ is really important. “Yeah, well, how could I believe that?” “Believe that he claimed it? Or believed that he proved it?”Let’s show that he claimed it. Here’s the text. “What do you think?” “Oh, well, it looks pretty clear that he claimed it.” Okay. Great. “How did he prove it? What about this?” And we just take it piece by piece by piece instead of letting these general challenges fog the matter.</p>

<p>These things take time. You take little bitty steps at a time with people, and the goal in those little bitty steps is to help them to see that your convictions about these things are reasonable—they have foundation in facts or evidence.</p>

<p>Some people toss out objections or challenges, and what they’re thinking in their mind is, “There’s no possible way that this could ever be resolved. I got all these objections. Who knows? Nobody can know.” And this is where the agnosticism comes in. Nobody can know. But the fact is, of course, you can know. There are all kinds of things we know about ancient history, and we have every reason to believe we know them. They’re well justified. There are all kinds of evidences that verify things, and these same approaches can be applied to Scripture and to the claims of Jesus, but a lot of folks have never been exposed to that. It never even occurred to them that there could be an answer to this, or a reason, or a rationale, or something like that, and if you can step them through a little bit to help them to see how these things might be verified so it’s not just a big giant question mark, then maybe they might be willing to surrender some of their agnosticism.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> One thing that comes to mind is a question you ask a lot: How did you come to that conclusion that you can’t know?</p>

<p><strong>Greg:</strong> That’s a very important question to ask of a hardcore agnostic. Why would they say that? Even going back to the cosmological argument. The universe had a beginning. Either something started it or nothing started it. It’s either one or the other. Nothing caused the big bang or something caused the big bang. There’s no other alternative. What makes the most sense? It certainly isn’t nothing that caused the big bang. That isn’t the odds-on favorite. The odds-on favorite is that something caused the big bang. Something outside the material universe caused the universe. That becomes a very simple, straightforward argument for having confidence that God exists. No need for agnosticism. It’s not justified. And we could be mistaken, but there’s no reason for us to say there’s no possible way anybody can know. Of course you could know. My daughter once slammed her hand on the table and said, “If I bang my hand to the table, then I’m the one who banged it. So, who banged the big bang? That’s a great question. Who banged the big bang? And I’m only offering this example of an argument for God’s existence—a cosmological argument in this case—as a way of demonstrating that radical agnosticism is not justified to say no one could possibly know. That is a radical claim that is not justified. Why would somebody say no one could possibly know? I’d want an accounting of that.</p>


title: Why We’re Still Waiting for God to Deal with Evil
topic: Theology
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 02/07/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-we-re-still-waiting-for-god-to-deal-with-evil
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TjgZgA5ZkRg?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>In this clip from To the Point LIVE, Jon Noyes explains how the problem of evil points to our need for a savior. Catch more of To the Point the second and fourth Wednesday of every month, streaming live at noon Pacific time on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/STRtweets">Twitter</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos">YouTube</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>God uses evil to point us to our need for a savior. In Luke 13:4–5, Jesus asked, of those 18 on whom the Tower of Siloam fell and killed, do you think that they were worse offenders than all those who lived in Jerusalem? Jesus says, “No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.��� Notice, when asked about the problem of evil in the world, Jesus used the opportunity to warn the world of coming judgment.</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis put it this way: “Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to arouse a deaf world.” The reality of evil points to the reality of God. On the Christian view, there’s no contradiction between the goodness and power of God and the presence of evil. God’s doing something about the problem of evil. There’s a solution. There will come a time when God will remove every remnant of evil from his creation. He will restore perfect goodness to the world. You’ve got to remember that our story isn’t over yet. Remember, don’t confuse the moment with the story. We find ourselves in a story, and we haven’t gotten to the conclusion. We know the conclusion, but we haven’t gotten there yet.</p>

<p>Matthew 5:6 reports Jesus as saying, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.” We thirst and hunger and yearn for these things, and one day we will be satisfied. Some people want to have that happen today, and I understand that. I want it to happen today. But remember, though, when God deals decisively with evil, he’s going to do a complete job. He’s not leaving anything undone. I turn again to Lewis’s words. He says, “I wonder whether the people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when he does. When the author walks on the stage, the play is over.”</p>

<p>Evil deeds can never be isolated from the evildoer. If God wiped out all the evil in the world tonight at midnight, where would you be? When Jesus came the first time, people clamored for a conquering Messiah, and they got a suffering one. Now, people want Jesus meek and mild, and they’re going to get the Lion of Judah when he comes.</p>

<p>Friends, God sent his son to die for evil men, offering mercy instead of justice so that we could be forgiven rather than condemned. God has dealt with the problem of evil, and now he’s patiently waiting, giving humankind a chance to turn to him for forgiveness.</p>

<p>In 2 Peter 3, we read, “The Lord’s not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.” You see, God is slow in his wrath and anger. He’s giving us all a chance to turn to him. He’s patient towards the sinners of the world, and he doesn’t want any to perish. The door is still open. It’s not quite yet 12:01, but it won’t always be that way. God is going to close that door. Jesus says, “Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Do you know why God hasn’t dealt decisively with evil yet? Maybe it’s because of you. Maybe it’s because God is waiting for you. Maybe it’s your neighbor or your mom or your dad or your best friend or the person in the cubicle next to you. Maybe it’s for that person that lives across the street or that person you pass by in traffic every day. God’s waiting. He’s patient.</p>


title: What We Can Learn about the Problem of Evil from Paul
topic: Christian Living
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 02/14/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-we-can-learn-about-the-problem-of-evil-from-paul
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/XT3hWlJmv-E?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Sometimes it may feel like God is laughing at our suffering and pain, but Paul gives us a different perspective. Jon Noyes explains how God can use our experiences for a greater good in this clip from To the Point LIVE. Catch more of To the Point the second and fourth Wednesday of every month, streaming live at noon Pacific time on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/STRtweets">Twitter</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos">YouTube</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>God uses the suffering that evil causes in our lives—in your life and in my life—to produce something good. The apostle Paul demonstrated this with his entire life. He knew what suffering was. In 2 Corinthians 11, we read that he was beaten, he was in danger all the time of death, whether he was in the city or out in the wilderness, or whether starving or facing 39 lashes. We read what Paul went through as he gives us his testimony, and in the midst of all of that, in Romans, he says, “For I consider the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that’s to be revealed to us.” Paul, as he looks forward to Heaven—into future glory— understands that these sufferings pale in comparison to what awaits.</p>

<p>I think that there’s good reason for God to allow pain and suffering in our lives. As Joseph confronts his brothers in Genesis 50, he says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring about that many people should be kept alive as they are today.” Not only does he say that good things can come from evil—that a good thing has come from this evil, that you meant this for evil, but God meant it for good—he also gives the reason why. God used the evil in Joseph’s life to prepare him for the moment that he found himself basically saving the nation of Israel as he opened up the gates of Egypt—the food stores—to the Israelites, saving them. A whole people group saved, and it started with evil, but God meant it for good.</p>

<p>God also uses evil and suffering for sanctification. Second Corinthians 4 says that these are but “momentary light afflictions producing in us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.” Now, if you, right now, are finding yourself in the midst of tremendous pain and suffering, it may feel like that doesn’t help. I’m so sorry that you’re going through whatever it is, but it doesn’t mean what Paul tells us is not true. Brett Kunkle says, “Don’t confuse the moment with the story.” Don’t confuse the moment that you find yourself in with the entire story of your life. These are trials and tribulations that we sometimes feel last for a very long time, but when you look ahead, you know that things are going to pass, especially when you apply to these things to a heavenly timeline—a divine timeline—an eternal timeline. The glory that awaits us far outshines the amount of time that we’re going to spend in pain and suffering here.</p>

<p>But there’s something else. Paul is saying here that these momentary light afflictions are producing something in us that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Paul is saying that these pains—these trials, these tribulations—that we go through in day-to-day life are producing something in us that otherwise wouldn’t be there—that we go through them, and they’re preparing us to shoulder the weight of glory. To shoulder heavenly rule, we have to go through these trials. Do I necessarily know why? No, I don’t. But God says, “My ways are not your ways. My ways are higher than your ways.”</p>

<p>I don’t understand everything that God does, but I know what the Word says, and Scripture tells us that these things are true. We’re told in James that God uses pain and suffering to bring about perfection. James 1:2–4 says, “My brethren, consider it all joy when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” That’s crazy. It’s doing something. It’s not for naught. There isn’t an angry God “up there” just watching and waiting for you to get yourself in trouble or causing these sufferings and trials to come to your door so he can laugh at you. No. They’re not for naught. They’re doing something. They’re producing endurance in our lives. James goes on to say, “And let that endurance have its perfect results so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” You see, God’s using life’s circumstances to shape us and to mold us into what he wants us to be.</p>

<p>My prayer life changed a few years ago when I found myself in a trial. I had a newborn baby in the NICU. It was very scary. She contracted RSV when she was one day old—respiratory infection. Her oxygen saturation levels were falling, and she had to be hooked up to all these tubes. My wife was staying with her in the NICU, and I was home with our firstborn—who I think was not even two—and working full-time. It was just so hard. Then, struggling with this, my prayer life changed. I kept asking God for healing, but I started focusing on what God would have for me in the moment. What is it that I can learn? And I learned endurance—how to stand in the face of trials and walk through them.</p>

<p>The trials of life lead to something good. They build character in us. Romans 5:3–4 says, “And not only this, but we also exalt in our tribulations.” Paul’s saying that we celebrate, and then we exalt in our tribulations, knowing that tribulations bring about perseverance, and perseverance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and a hope that does not disappoint. They build in us a proven character. It makes us a veteran of the world. We’re no longer a green recruit. We’re that colonel or that commander in God’s army as we go through the trials of life and we face them. God builds us up in character, and not just that, but the perseverance that leads to proven character also leads to instilling in us a hope that does not disappoint—ultimately, a hope to future glory. Everything leads to glory through the cross of Jesus.</p>


title: Toddlers or Embryos: Which Would You Save?
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/21/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/toddlers-or-embryos-who-do-you-save-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fx_9kTrCMKE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Many pro-choice advocates think this hypothetical scenario is a good argument against human life beginning at conception. The problem is, it doesn’t work. Tim Barnett explains why.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Original TikTok Video: </strong> As a pro-choice woman, one of my favorite arguments against the idea of life at conception, or life at fertilization, or life before first breath&nbsp;is, let’s pretend there are two buildings that are on fire. One is a daycare that has five children in it. Another is a fertility clinic that has hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs in it. The fire truck arrives, and there’s only one available. Where should they point the water? Where are we sending the water from the hose? To the daycare with five kids? Or to the fertility clinic with hundreds of thousands of potential lives? What are we putting out first? You know we’re putting out the daycare. If you were actually pro-life, that would be an impossible decision. Six lives versus a hundred thousand.</p>

<p><strong>Tim: </strong> I want you to notice something. According to Mrs. K, this hypothetical situation—this moral dilemma—is supposed to be an argument against human life beginning at conception. The problem is, it doesn’t work, and it’s actually pretty easy to see why. Just ask, how does choosing to save one human being over others prove that the ones left behind are not human?</p>

<p>Let’s just change the illustration. Imagine again that there are two fires, and I have to choose between saving my five-year-old daughter, Allison, and Mrs. K and her family. Guess who I’m saving every time? My daughter. Sorry, Mrs. K. But notice how choosing to save my daughter in this situation doesn’t prove that Mrs. K is not a valuable human being. That’s because my decision doesn’t determine Mrs. K’s status as a human being. Likewise, my decision to choose to save the kids in the daycare over the embryos in the lab doesn’t determine the status of the embryos. Simply put, our behavior doesn’t tell us when life begins. Science does.</p>

<p>Second, notice how choosing to save my daughter over Mrs. K and her family doesn’t mean I made the right decision. After all, saving more lives is arguably morally better than saving fewer, but emotions have a way of overriding reason. Clearly, my inconsistency in this decision doesn’t change the fact that Mrs. K is a valuable human being. In the same way, a pro-lifer choosing to save the screaming kids in a burning building over the thousands of embryos in test tubes may be super inconsistent, but their inconsistency doesn’t change the scientific fact that they’re all humans.</p>

<p>This hypothetical proves nothing.</p>


title: Is “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner” Biblical?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/28/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner-biblical-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ulrUlFKHlJg?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains why believers may apply “hate the sin, love the sinner” to their own lives but should be cautious about trying to apply this saying to God.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>“Love the sinner, but hate the sin” is an aphorism. It’s a catchy little saying. There is some merit to this saying, but it can easily be misunderstood or applied in an unbalanced way. The statement is what I refer to as a “pastorism.” Pastorisms are things that pastors pick up and toss around, and, if they’re not careful with them, can wound.</p>

<p>The statement “Love the sinner, but hate the sin” has a limited application, but it can’t be taken as an absolute. Let me tell you the way I think it can properly be applied. I think that it is the responsibility of Christians to love the sinner. That doesn’t mean they approve of the sin or behavior, and this is what a lot of people in our culture want nowadays. They think that tolerance and inclusion mean providing a safe, comfortable place for people to continue sinning, and if we suggest that the sin is not right—that the behavior is sin—that makes them feel bad. That’s not inclusive because now it’s an environment in which they don’t feel comfortable, and they scream and flout.</p>

<p>So, we are to distinguish between the human being that is worthy of love and the wrong behavior that they may be involved in. This is why, by the way, in 1 Corinthians 13—which is the Bible’s most extensive and clear description of what love is—we see Paul listing all these elements that are a part of the virtue of love, but he also says love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth. We are people that are to abhor the sin that people do. “Do not participate in the evil deeds of darkness, but even expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).</p>

<p>So, there’s a place for abhorring the deed, and there’s a place for exposing the deed for the evil that it is. Of course, the deeds can’t be separated from the deed doer or the evil from the evildoer, and so there is a connection there, but this is where we’re to discipline ourselves in some measure, and say that person is worthy of love, even if the thing that they do is immoral or unrighteous. So, that’s “love the sinner, hate the sin.” That is a good guideline for human beings. It is not the guideline that God follows, and that’s the dividing line. That’s the distinction.</p>

<p>This is where I think pastors misapply the aphorism. They say, “Well, God loves the sinner, but he hates the sin,” as if God dichotomizes the same way that we’re expected to dichotomize. The problem is, when God judges, he doesn’t judge sin;&nbsp;he judges people who sin. We read in the Scripture that there are five things that God hates: Feet that run quickly to evil, hands that shed innocent blood, lips that spread deceit, etc, etc. We see something similar in Psalm 5 and in Psalm 11. We see God hates those who do iniquity. “Thou dost abhor the man of bloodshed and deceit,” or something to that effect.</p>

<p>So, now we’ve got an odd situation. Wait. I thought God loves the world. John 3:16. He loves human beings. Now you say he hates some human beings? This is where both are true. The text bears testimony to both, and so it’s not accurate to say that God merely loves the sinner but hates the sin. The best thing to say is, “He loves the sinner, but he also hates the sinner, too.” How does that make any sense? Well, God is not having emotional experiences in the sense that we usually think of them. He isn’t saying, “Oh, my Greggy. Boy, I love him. But that poor that guy across the street, that non-Christian, man, I hate him. But Greggy, oh, I feel so good towards him.” Notice the shifting of emotions there when he shifts objects. That isn’t the way God operates. This is the way Alistair Begg has put it: God has a settled disposition of wrath against sinners, not just against sin. When we say “against sin,” we mean against the person who does the sin, because it is the person who gets punished, not the sin. And he has a settled disposition of love towards human beings that he has created. So, there is a sense in which he loves and a sense in which he hates with a hatred that is attached to the justice of God, and this is why there is wrath for those who do not fall under the umbrella of protection of the cross of Christ.</p>

<p>I know it’s a little bit odd, but this is the best we can do. We have to struggle with the oddness. We don’t want to fall into the error of making inaccurate statements about God, like he loves the sinner, but he hates the sin, as if that dichotomy captures the whole thing. It doesn’t. He loves the sinner after a certain fashion, and it’s genuine, but he hates the sinner, too. He’s mad, and for good reason, and depending on other things—the role Jesus plays in our life—each person will experience either the unmitigated love of God or the unmitigated wrath and anger of God and the hatred of God, and that’s kind of the way it works out.</p>


title: How to Confront a Works-Based Salvation Theology
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/07/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-confront-a-works-based-salvation-theology
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/RW7xBcWRHuE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Many believe in a mixed gospel of grace plus works. Greg explains why this does not line up with the good news of the Bible and offers&nbsp;two ways to approach friends who hold a mistaken view of salvation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><strong>Caller: </strong> I am an ex-Catholic and still have a lot of cousins who are Catholic. How can I start a conversation about true salvation?</p>

<p><strong>Greg: </strong> A person may be Catholic, but that doesn’t mean they’re Christian. We’re not saying they aren’t a nice person. We aren’t saying that they aren’t part of a Christian denomination. There are Baptists that aren’t Christians. There are Lutherans that aren’t Christians. There’s a whole bunch of people in all kinds of denominations. It all depends on what you understand about the person and the work of Christ. Now, all the Christian denominations agree, pretty much, on the person of Christ. He’s the God-man. He’s the God who came down to earth. He’s Emmanuel, God with us. But there is confusion, I think, on what he came to do, and this is where, across the board, you have denominations that preach a kind of mixed gospel.</p>

<p>When I say that it’s “mixed,” I mean that this is a gospel that has the grace of God in it, but it’s an amalgam of other things, and it’s usually an amalgam of grace and works. God’s grace is there, but you’ve got to be good, and if you’re good enough, you get into Heaven. And this is why, for a Christian in the tradition that you and I represent, if we say we know we’re going to Heaven, they consider that an arrogant claim, because, on their view, going to Heaven means being good enough and having the grace of God—or having the grace of God to be good enough—but in any event, it’s a reflection on personal virtue, and if we think we’re going to Heaven, that means we’re personally virtuous enough to go there, and that sounds arrogant. Notice that this depends on a certain understanding of what salvation is all about.</p>

<p>Many years ago, I was on a radio program called <em>Religion on the Line</em>, and this is a program that had a Roman Catholic priest, a rabbi, and a protestant—myself, in the cases when I was on that program. Dennis Prager was the host of that radio show in the Los Angeles market. I remember having a conversation in which I was promoting the concept of salvation by grace, and that I was confident that I was going to go to Heaven because of what Jesus did. The others were work based—the Jew and the Roman Catholic—and when I made my own comment, they said, “Well, you’re being self-righteous.” And I said, “The irony of that comment is that I am the only person on this show that is not claiming that my righteousness gets me into Heaven. The rest of you are saying your righteousness gets you into Heaven, but I’m not. I’m saying the opposite. It’s the righteousness of Christ.” But I was accused of being self-righteous in that environment.</p>

<p>Now, being raised a Roman Catholic, myself, I am aware of something that is true of all Catholics, almost without exception—because of the way the doctrine of salvation is characterized in Roman Catholic environments—and that is, there is no confidence that a person is going to Heaven. There might be brief moments, like on Saturday evening, when you go to church, and you go in the confessional, and you confess your sins to the priest, and he gives you absolution along with a penance you have to do with some prayers or whatever. You go out, and you kneel there, and you pray those prayers. Once you’ve covered those bases, for that split second, you are clean before God, according to that theology, and if you died right then, you’d be on your way to Heaven. You have to make a stopover in purgatory and get cleaned up a bit. That’s not much fun. But you’re on your way. I don’t mean to be making fun of this. I’m just simply saying, that’s the way it works.</p>

<p>I’m going to move now into characterizing ways you might approach this with your Roman Catholic friends.</p>

<p>I’d ask them, “Do you know what the word ‘gospel’ means?” The word “gospel” means good news. “Tell me, with regards to salvation, what the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation—attaining salvation—amounts to.” Now, I want them to talk. I want them to tell me. I suspect most of them will say something like, “Well, you know, we have to believe in Jesus, of course.” They might just talk about being a good person, and following the rules of the church, and going to mass, and taking the eucharist, and going to the holy days—all the things that are required of the Roman church for righteousness—not committing mortal sins and going to confession. Those are all the things that will help ensure that when you die you go to Heaven.</p>

<p>Here’s the next question: “Can you know that when you die you’re going to Heaven?” And what do you think they’re going to say? I think most of them are going to say, “No. You can’t know that.” I say, “Let me understand something. Basically, what you’re describing is, you’re standing before two doors. Both are shut. You are going to go through one or the other door when you die. We’ll just set aside the side trip to purgatory. One door is everlasting bliss, and the other door is eternal torment, but you don’t know which one you’re going to go through. Right?” That’s right, on that view.</p>

<p>Here’s my last question: “How is that good news? How is it good news that you can’t know, when you walk through one of those doors at death, whether it’s going to be eternal bliss or everlasting torment? How is that good news?” Now, I think that’s an entirely fair question, and the answer is, their gospel is not good news. No gospel that leaves open the question of your eternal destiny is good news.</p>

<p>Paul said [that] for me to live is Christ, and to die is...what? To die is gain. Better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord. There was no question in Paul’s mind, and he wasn’t just talking for himself. He was talking as a Christian saved by grace. There was no question in his mind which door he was going to go through, but not because of his own merit. Christians were willing to be martyred for their faith, not because they were promised paradise for martyrdom, but because of what Jesus did dying on the cross and rising from the dead. That secured their eternal destiny. This is why Jesus could say eternal life essentially doesn’t start when you die. “For this is eternal life, that they might know you, Father, and your son, whom you’ve sent” (John 17:3).</p>

<p>So, the general perspective of our first approach is trading on the idea that the gospel is good news. Now, let’s just go to the other side. This is a scriptural thing, and I wrote about this in a mentoring letter titled <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses">“The Gospel for Believers.”</a> There are a lot of people that are within the broader company of Christians, but they don’t understand the grace of God so as to take advantage of it or benefit from it. What we want to do is give them the gospel in a way that is appropriate to their need. They agree that the Bible is the Word of God in some significant sense. They agree that Jesus is savior, and he died for sins, but the change hasn’t all fallen into the meter. So, here’s what I do. I just use a couple of Bible passages.</p>

<p>Ephesians 2:8–9. For somebody who is a former Roman Catholic, this was a big deal to me because here’s what Paul writes. He says, “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, not works, that no one should boast.” That’s trust in Jesus. Not by works. That is a verse that flies directly in the face of what I understood, and I think most people understand, as Roman Catholic theology of salvation. There are Roman Catholics, I think, that may nuance the gospel, Rome’s gospel, in such a way as to characterize it as a grace, not works, enterprise, but that is not the way most people understand it, and that’s because it’s not the way it’s characterized by those who are communicating Roman Catholicism to the ordinary person. This verse says, first of all, it’s by grace you are saved through faith, not of yourselves, not of works, that anyone should boast, and so, the point is, our salvation is not based on our capability.</p>

<p>So, that’s the first verse I go to. The second one is in John 1. There, it says, “As many as have received Christ, to them he gave the right to become the children of God.” The idea here is that salvation is not by ourselves. It’s a gift of God’s grace, and our faith is what receives that. Now, if we receive Christ, we have Christ. If we receive him, we have him, and that concept is going to be really important for the last verse. This is in 1 John 5, starting in verse 11. Here’s what John says: “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life.” Notice, “God has given us.” He’s not going to give us. He already has given it. “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Verse 12: “He who has the Son has the life. He who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” Now, that’s very straightforward.</p>

<p>If you receive Christ by faith, then you have the Son. What else do you have according to these verses I just read? You have life. You have what kind of life? You have eternal life. According to what John says, here, if you have the Son, by receiving him, then you also have, at this time, eternal life. But it gets better. Keep reading verse 13: “These things I’ve written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”</p>

<p>So, on the one hand, I’m saying the gospel is good news, but is your gospel good news? Doesn’t sound like it. The real gospel is good news. Let me explain it to you. Would you be interested in knowing if you could be confident and certain that, no matter what happened, you were going to Heaven? Would that be important to you? Yes? Okay. Let me show you Ephesians 2:8–9, John 1:12, then 1 John 5. There it is. There’s the promise. So then, it’s just a matter of saying, “Have you received Christ? Have you put your life completely in his hands, taken him as your own by putting your faith and confidence in him?” If they simply respond by putting their trust in Christ and receiving him, asking him into their heart and trusting in him, from that moment on, they can know that they have eternal life.</p>

<p>Then you may go, just to cap it off, to Romans 8. Romans 8 is such a great passage because it captures a wonderful promise. Paul says, “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any”—have you left anything out here, Paul?—“nor any other created thing”—that’s a very strong statement—“will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It’s all inclusive. You are not being separated from God in Christ Jesus, because you’re secure in him. You have him. He has you. That’s it. Then you know you have eternal life.</p>

<p>Notice how I trade on the notion of confidence of salvation, which is called good news. You trade on the notion of the gospel being good news, and then you let the Scripture do its work. You don’t have to say anything about Roman Catholicism. Just ask them about the confidence of their salvation and what the good news is.</p>


