# videos

title: Is It Reasonable to Vote Based on “Personal Religious Views”?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-reasonable-to-vote-based-on-personal-religious-views-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tfM2Ebse7es?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Should a Christian not vote against abortion because their view that abortion is murder is a theological claim, not a scientific claim? Alan responds to this question and shows how the premise is wrong to begin with.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Should a Christian not vote against abortion because their view that abortion is murder is a theological claim, not a scientific claim?</p>

<p>Even if the premise of this question were true that abortion being wrong is merely a theological claim, it shouldn’t prohibit Christians from voting their conscience. After all, why should a person be disqualified or discouraged from voting what they believe to be true simply because their view is derived from their religious convictions? It’s certainly not against the law.</p>

<p>I mean, for example, what if you held the view that stealing is morally wrong because the Bible says it’s wrong? Well, does that mean that you can’t vote against a bill that permits some type of theft? I mean, can critics say, “Well, that might be your personal religious views, but you can’t force them on everyone else”? Well, sure you can. Every law is an expression of a moral rule. Every law expresses some person’s personal convictions. The only question is whose morals are going to be expressed in law, and what viewpoint is going to be advanced?</p>

<p>Consider that many of our founding fathers of our country were practicing Christians. It makes no sense to think that they would have established a nation that would disenfranchise people just like themselves who hold religious beliefs.</p>

<p>Now, it turns out that the premise of the challenge isn’t even true. This question creates a false dichotomy. The claim about abortion is not either theological or scientific, it’s both. Not only the Scriptures claim that the unborn is a viable human being, but the reality is that even biology acknowledges what Christians believe.</p>

<p>The science of embryology is decisive on the question of when human life begins, and it’s at conception. From the moment that sperm and egg meet, you have a being with three characteristics: it’s living, it’s distinct, and it’s a human type of being. And in fact, those three qualities are true of the unborn from conception, and we know that from science.</p>

<p>We know, for example, it’s alive because it grows and it metabolizes nutrients and converts it to energy. We know it’s distinct from its mother because it has its own unique DNA and its own unique fingerprints. And we know it’s a human being and not some potential human or some other type of species because it has human DNA and its parents are human.</p>

<p>None of those evidences come from theology. So not only are our convictions about abortion supported scientifically, but we’re free to vote our conscience even on matters that might have theological origins. And that’s especially true if what we’re voting on is for the common good of society. And when it comes to whether innocent human beings should be killed, I think the answer is obvious.</p>


title: What Establishes a Marriage According to the Bible?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-establishes-a-marriage-according-to-the-bible-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/NBesEXEwG-o?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Even though marriage ceremonies today look a lot different from those in biblical times, the nature of what makes a marriage hasn’t changed.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is marriage defined by the state or by God? Well, let me tell you. Marriage today looks a lot different than marriage in biblical times. Isaac and Rebecca, for example, simply entered into a tent and then they were married with no certificate or paperwork. So how should Christians define marriage today?</p>

<p>Well, Christians should define marriage the same way it’s been defined by the Bible for thousands of years. It’s when a man leaves his father and his mother and becomes joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh. Marriage then is the covenant relationship between a man and a woman before God. And Jesus, in fact, also fully endorses this definition. In Matthew 19, He quotes the Genesis account of marriage because He believes it’s still valid, and then He adds His own commentary by saying, “what therefore God has joined together, let no one separate.”</p>

<p>In other words, Jesus believes marriage is a God-ordained institution. And so when Isaac and Rebecca got married, they made a commitment to each other that’s recorded in Genesis 24. And when the Bible says “Isaac brought Rebecca into the tent”&nbsp;well, this is just a reference to them consummating their marriage. Now, it’s true, there is no mention of a certificate or paperwork. They never even went to a courthouse. Why? Well, because marriage is an institution of God, not the invention of the state. And that’s why no legal documents are needed.</p>

<p>In fact, when I got married (to the most glorious woman, by the way), we exchanged our vows in front of our pastor and before our friends and family. Most importantly, we made our commitment to each other before God. Now sometime later that day, my wife and I filled out the necessary paperwork to register our marriage with the state. But that subsequent certificate we got from the government did not make us any more married than when we exchanged our vows before God. Our marriage began at the church, not later when the courthouse stamped our certificate.</p>

<p>Marriage, as you can see, is a pre-political institution. It existed long before the state existed. And all that recent governments have done is created legal protections and privileges that provide the married couple with some benefits. Now, but the state though, did not create marriages. And that, by the way, is why the state should not redefine marriage. Marriage is a God-ordained institution, not a government-ordained institution.</p>


title: What Does It Mean for Jesus to Be Affirming?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-affirming-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/8hF-u0Ng4ww?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>What was Jesus loving and accepting regarding during His ministry? Greg clarifies a common misconception.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Should we be gay affirming because Jesus was so affirming?</p>

<p>Depends on the answer to one question.</p>

<p>Jesus is well known for being very loving and, after fashion, really accepting. He loved the outcast. He loved the downtrodden. He loved those that were down and out, and He was willing to reach out to them.</p>

<p>Now, that of course is a virtue for Jesus, but it sometimes creates a problem for us because that virtue is, in a sense, isolated and I think a little distorted when people use it to demand that Christians following Jesus’&nbsp;example be gay affirming. And this is the only thing that they focus in on Jesus is His love and acceptance, and we should be that way too towards gays.</p>

<p>Okay, I want you to think about that for a moment. What is it that Jesus was loving and affirming regarding? And the answer is that Jesus was loving and affirming of people regardless of their sin, regardless of their circumstances, but He was not loving and affirming of their sin. So nowhere do you find Jesus being adultery affirming, or bigotry affirming, or idolatry affirming. Jesus was willing to reach out to people who are willing to respond to Him regardless of their position in society, high or low, regardless of their wealth, rich or poor, regardless of their sinful condition because everybody has a sinful condition, but He never ever affirmed the sin.</p>

<p>So there is no place for us, following Jesus, to be gay affirming because Jesus would never affirm homosexuality. He would affirm the person by offering mercy and forgiveness to the repentant regardless of the sin, but He never affirmed the sin.</p>


title: How Can Christians Be Perfected in Unity Despite Disagreements?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/06/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-christians-be-perfected-in-unity-despite-disagreements-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/DtZUCFagSqw?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains what Jesus meant by being unified with other believers and how we can remain unified despite our differences.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How can we be perfected in unity when there’s so much disunity in our beliefs?</p>

<p>Here’s what Jesus meant.</p>

<p>One of the hallmarks of the body of Christ, when it’s functioning well in a healthy way, is the sense of unity and community that that they express in their love for one another. But of course, this raises a question: How can we be unified when we differ so much on theological issues or on moral issues?</p>

<p>People are right when they point that out. There is a wide variety of theological distinctions or differences within the pale. That is, there are boundaries that define what basic Christianity is, but within that boundary inside the household, so to speak, you’re gonna have differences, and we know that. In fact, I can only think of one person that I know that agrees with me theologically on everything, and that’s me, all right? And sometimes I don’t even agree with me, all right. So, how do we maintain our unity even though we disagree on theological particulars?</p>

<p>And the answer is is that our unity is not based on the theological particulars. We can have loving relationships in our own families with our brothers and sisters, and mother, and father, and that kind of thing even though we have differences of opinion. We are all familiar with that concept, okay?</p>

<p>I think the same thing is in play here when Jesus is praying for our unity that we be one, okay and John 17, for example, in Jesus’&nbsp;high priestly prayer, I don’t think He’s praying that everybody agree on every point. I think He’s praying that regardless of our own varying convictions that we are willing to embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, in love, engaged the differences in a respectful and a loving fashion, and be willing to agree to disagree even though we show love to each other. I think that’s what the key to Christian unity involves.</p>


title: What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfd67ICIIT4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>It’s become popular to claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was something other than homosexuality. What does the Bible say?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>One piece on our website gets more attention than anything else. What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Here’s the answer.</p>

<p>So here’s a big question and a tough issue: What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?</p>

<p>Before I answer, I just want to make a couple of comments. First of all, my goal here is not to bash anybody, to make anybody feel bad. My goal is simply to figure out what the text intends to teach us.</p>

<p>What does the biblical material tell us about the reason God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Not just those two, but all the cities around them according to Jude. So what’s the setting here?</p>

<p>In Genesis 19 you have two men that come into town, they’re gonna stay in the square. Lot sees them, he talks with them, he says don’t stay in the square. Urge them strongly. So they come under the protection of Lot’s home, and all of the men of the city, both young and old, the text says, gathered around Lot’s house and are banging on the door, and they want Lot to release the two men so that they can have sexual relationships with them.</p>

<p>Pretty straightforward, okay. In fact, they are so intent that they disregard the available women that are offered to them that Lot offers. They want the men, and the angels pull Lot in. They blind the men who are banging on the door. The angels then take them up out of the hills, drop the bomb on Sodom and Gomorrah, and that’s the end of that.</p>

<p>So why did God bring that judgment?</p>

<p>Now there are a couple of possible explanations that people have offered.</p>

<p>Okay, for one, and this was a standard for a long time, God was mad at the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were inhospitable. Well they were. But it kind of misses the point, doesn’t it? Because it’s kind of like saying that a man who murdered his wife was an insensitive husband. I mean yeah, sexual assault on visitors, that’s not good manners. But having bad manners is not a crime according to God.</p>

<p>Well maybe it’s the sexual assault itself. So, the rape. People say that, but there was no rape as it turned out, there was just an attempted rape. So we just understand that God delivered the most powerful and devastating judgment in the entire Old Testament, save for the flood, on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because they had bad manners and because they tried to do something that they weren’t able to do?</p>

<p>It doesn’t make sense to me, okay?</p>

<p>One other option. Jude says that they went after strange flesh, that is, they left their proper abode and went after strange flesh. And so maybe the crime was trying to have sex with angels. The problem with that explanation is there is no indication whatsoever that the men of the city, or even Lot, knew that the men that were visiting were angels, okay? So that’s not going to work either.</p>

<p>We get a little bit more information, though, from another part of Scripture that I think really zeroes it down. First of all, notice that we’re running out of options. And Peter says in 2 Peter 2:7-8, he tells us that Lot – what’s the words – oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men that tormented him day after day by what he saw and what he heard.</p>

<p>Doesn’t sound like inhospitality to me. Doesn’t sound like attempted rape. Doesn’t sound like having sex with angels. In fact, there is not a single thing that happened on that day that is the reason that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because in chapter 18, when God was talking with Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre and sent the Angels down into the valley, that’s when God decided to destroy those cities. There was something else that was going on on a regular basis in those cities that was characterized by Peter as sensual conduct done by unprincipled men that Lot saw and heard, and it tormented him as he watched day, after day, after day.</p>

<p>Let’s be honest. Let’s be fair with the text. That is homosexuality.</p>


title: One Reason the Bible Is More Trustworthy Than the Qur’an
topic: History
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/one-reason-the-bible-is-more-trustworthy-than-the-qur-an
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q8qfkZe6NW4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan explains why the Bible is more historically reliable than the Qur’an.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is the Qur’an as trustworthy as the Bible? I’ll give you one reason why it’s not.</p>

<p>Well one of the main reasons I find the Qur’an untrustworthy has to do with the source criticism, which entails studying the sources upon which a text relies.</p>

<p>For example, the Qur’an tells stories about Jesus that are from sources known to be fraudulent. For example, in Surah 19, you can read the story of Jesus’&nbsp;birth, and we’re told that the pains of childbirth drove Mary under a palm tree. And she hears this voice that tells her that God will provide for her, at which point the tree provides her with some dates and a stream that appears below it. So she could, of course, now eat, and drink, and be comforted.</p>

<p>Now, we don’t see that story in the gospels which, of course, were eyewitnesses or written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’&nbsp;life. But we do see this story in almost exact same detail in the lost books of the Bible, which are second-century apocryphal fables written over a hundred years after Jesus was born. In fact, there are other stories about Jesus where He speaks in full sentences while still a baby and makes birds come alive after shaping them out of clay.</p>

<p>Now, although these stories are not found in the gospel accounts, they are found in the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ and the infancy gospel of Thomas which, again, are apocryphal gospels written, in some cases, hundreds of years after Jesus’&nbsp;life and are known to be fakes.</p>

<p>Now, one of the most dramatic examples of the Qur’an borrowing from other sources is in Surah 5:32 where the context is about Cain killing Abel. Now, this verse contains a warning that if you kill one innocent person like Cain did with Abel, it’s as bad as killing all of humanity. But if you save one life, it’s as good as saving all of humanity.</p>

<p>Now, it turns out those words are almost identical to a Jewish rabbi’s commentary on Genesis 4:10 found in the Jewish literature of the Talmud written about four hundred years before the Qur’an. Now, the rabbi argues that the Hebrew word for “blood”&nbsp;is written in plural form, and because of that grammatical point, key reasons that even though Abel was a single person killing him is as bad as killing all of humanity.</p>

<p>Now to me, this is incorrect commentary right? But the Qur’an inadvertently quotes that mistaken commentary written by a Jewish rabbi and then passes it off as divine writ. Now remember, Muslims claim that the Qur’an is a book that was written exclusively by Allah and has eternally existed in Heaven. So they don’t believe in the doctrine of inspiration. They don’t claim Allah inspired human authors to write down the words of the Qur’an. Every word is supposed to be from the mouth of Allah. And that’s why it’s significant that the Qur’an copies words from a Jewish rabbi who wrote down mistaken commentary about Genesis 4. And that’s one of the reasons I don’t think the Qur’an is trustworthy.</p>


title: How Do I Develop a Passion for the Bible?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-do-i-develop-a-passion-for-the-bible-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/4YOWZuKwD6A?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares how to make Bible reading more than a chore.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>There’s no guarantee to develop a passion for reading the Bible, but here’s a trick that will help.</p>

<p>There’s no question that one of the most important things to stabilize our life as a Christian and ambassador for Christ is regular, thoughtful, productive times in Scripture, in God’s Word, because the Word continues to remind us of what reality is like. Now, I understand that sometimes that can be a chore, and people don’t have a passion for that kind of thing.</p>

<p>Now, I cannot guarantee that you’ll ever have a passion for this. Some people do, some people don’t. But I have an idea how it could become more enjoyable, or maybe easier, and it’s something that I do myself for this reason. And that is, I have a plan. If you’re going to be a follower of Christ, it is critical that you take the whole counsel of God in on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Wow, you mean the whole Bible? Yes, I mean the whole Bible. On a regular basis? Yes, I mean on a regular basis. And specifically, I mean that we need to be in the practice of reading through the entire scriptures and then starting all over.</p>

<p>Now many people have a Bible through the year kind of deal, or Bible in a year, you can google that idea, and you can get forms that will allow you to check off what you’ve read. That’s what I do. And, I don’t do it in a year though. It might take me two years, it might take me three years, but I’ll just tell you, it becomes much more satisfying for me to be able to work through the entire thing in a progressive way and check off the days and the reading assignments as I go along, okay.</p>

<p>Does that mean I have a passion for the Word? Not necessarily. Sometimes I’m passionate, sometimes I’m not. I still need to have regular meals from the Word of Life. And that’s one way that you might practice to help you do that more effectively.</p>


title: Why Can’t More Christians Perform Miracles?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/03/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-can-t-more-christians-perform-miracles-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/F6Xg-i15mxw?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim explains what Jesus means by believers doing “greater things” in John 14:12.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Jesus said that believers would do greater works than the works of Jesus. Does that mean that every believer will do signs and wonders? Let’s talk.</p>

<p>In John 14:12, Jesus is in the upper room giving His final instructions to His disciples, and He tells them, “Truly truly I say to you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works I do, and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”&nbsp;Some take this passage to mean that all believers will do greater miracles – signs and wonders – than Jesus. I see a number of problems with this interpretation.</p>

<p>First, this interpretation goes against our experience. If Jesus meant that all believers would do greater miracles than Him, why don’t we see that happening today? In fact, our experience is that most people cannot work miracles.</p>

<p>Second, this interpretation goes against what was happening in the early church. The book of Acts records some miracles performed by some individuals, but it was not the case that everyone who believed did miracles.</p>

<p>Third, Paul tells us that not all will do miracles. Writing to the church at Corinth, Paul says, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”&nbsp;The clear answer to all these rhetorical questions is “no.”&nbsp;Do all do miracles? No. Do all possess gifts of healing? No. Therefore, if we want to be consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, then Jesus cannot be saying that whoever believes will do miracles like Him. That would be to put Jesus’&nbsp;words in opposition to Paul’s words.</p>

<p>Fourth, if Jesus is talking about believers doing greater miracles, then what do these greater miracles look like? Think about the kinds of miracles that Jesus did. John tells us that He turned water into wine. He read someone’s mind. He heals an official’s son. He healed the lame man, fed 5,000, He walked on water, healed the blind, and even raised people from the dead.</p>

<p>That’s a pretty impressive list. In fact, I don’t think there’s an individual who has a miracle list as impressive as that, let alone more miraculous. This seems to be another strike against this interpretation. So if Jesus isn’t talking about greater miracles, then what’s He talking about?</p>

<p>Well, here’s a thought. Jesus says, “and greater miracles than these will he do because I go to the Father.”&nbsp;I think that last phrase is significant. Jesus goes to the Father after He finished His work on the cross. When He goes to the Father, the Holy Spirit will come and empower believers for life and evangelism. After His resurrection, Jesus tells His disciples, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”</p>

<p>The works of believers aren’t greater in miraculous quality, they’re greater in worldwide scope. After three years of ministry, Jesus had a small group of disciples contained in a tiny geographic location. However, once the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost, More believers are added in one day then during Jesus’&nbsp;entire earthly ministry. And the Gospel continues to spread around the world to hundreds of millions of people coming to believe. Jesus’&nbsp;works were always a witness intended to lead people to faith in Christ. Because of the Holy Spirit, believers are able to do even greater works in leading people to the faith in Christ.</p>


title: If the Gospels Are Inerrant, Why Do They Contain Discrepancies?
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/24/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-the-gospels-are-inerrant-why-do-they-contain-discrepancies-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/MSCFISGB7yE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Do the discrepancies contained in the gospel accounts point to collaboration or corroboration?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Christians claim that the gospels are inerrant or without error, yet the gospels don’t agree with each other. Is this a problem?</p>

<p>Let’s take a look.</p>

<p>Anyone who has read through the gospels knows that there are variations, or discrepancies, in the four accounts. The gospel writers don’t all record the exact same thing. There are differences. For example, how many women went to the empty tomb? It seems to depend on which gospel you read. John names Mary Magdalene, Matthew tells us it was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, Mark says it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, whereas Luke says it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them.</p>

<p>So no one disputes that there are differences in the four gospel accounts. The question is, do these kinds of differences call into question the doctrine of inerrancy? Well, I actually don’t think so. There’s nothing about the differences, as far as I can tell, that point to a genuine error or contradiction in the text. In fact, most of these discrepancies, or alleged contradictions, can be easily reconciled. There are some tough ones, sure, but none of them are a slam-dunk contradiction.</p>

<p>Now, I want to say something that might surprise you. The differences in the gospel accounts actually strengthen my confidence in their authenticity and reliability. What we find in the four Gospels is exactly what you would expect if they are eyewitness testimony or reporting eyewitness testimony. Eye witnesses never give the exact same account. In fact, no two eyewitnesses will report the same event in the same way. Well, why not?</p>

<p>Well, they bring their own interests, and experiences, and perspective to the account. This speaks to their authenticity. If all four gospels lined up perfectly in every detail, then we would know that these aren’t&nbsp;four independent eyewitness testimonies. The similarity would point to collaboration. It’s the differences in the gospel that point away from collaboration and towards corroboration. These different accounts support each other. The differences actually fill in missing details.</p>

<p>So in our example, John says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, but he alludes to other women in John 20 verse 2. Apart from John’s gospel, we wouldn’t know who these women are, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke actually fill in the detail. This speaks to their reliability. So it’s the differences in the four gospels that actually point to their authenticity and reliability.</p>


title: Was Jesus Really Tempted If He Could Not Sin?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/13/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-really-tempted-if-he-could-not-sin-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Xu3FGpw3EY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan helps clarify how it was possible for Jesus to truly experience temptation even though he never would have given into it.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Was Jesus really tempted if He could not sin?</p>

<p>Well, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was tempted. So in one sense, the answer is clear, right? I mean, Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but we have One who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet He did not sin.”&nbsp;So even if we don’t understand how Jesus was tempted, we are confident from Scripture that Jesus was tempted and did not sin. But I think there’s a way to understand how it’s possible for Jesus to be tempted and not sin, and we just need to understand the dual nature of Jesus.</p>

<p>You see, there was both a human and a divine nature in the single person of Jesus. And having a human nature in human body made Him susceptible to temptation just like any ordinary human. But because He also had a divine nature, His will was perfect, unlike ours, and therefore, He always chose not to succumb to that temptation.</p>

<p>Now in our case, we don’t have a perfect will. We are fallen creatures. Our nature is corrupted, and when we’re tempted, sometimes we resist the temptation, and sometimes we succumb to it. But because Christ’s human nature is free from corruption, (remember, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit) His will is perfect, and He always makes the right decision.</p>

<p>Now, another case in point is when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, right? Jesus was confronted with a choice. In fact, during His prayer, He noted His two options: to follow what was clearly a more tempting option, which was to avoid torture and crucifixion, or to choose the cross. One was to follow what any human would want, and the other was to follow the will of the Father. And here again, He experiences genuine temptation as any human would. But because Jesus is also a divine person, His will is perfect, and so He makes the right choice to follow the will of the Father and embrace the cross.</p>

<p>So Jesus was really tempted because He had a human nature, but He couldn’t sin because He had a divine nature that always resisted that temptation.</p>


title: Was Paul a Universalist?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/17/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-paul-a-universalist-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/7hLd1lKudko?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Could Romans 5:18-19 be used to argue for universalism?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Does Romans 5 teach that because of what Jesus did, justification came to all men? Sounds like everyone’s saved. Not so.</p>

<p>In Romans 5, Paul teaches that through one act of disobedience, Adam’s, condemnation came to all men, but through one act of obedience, Jesus’, justification came to all men. That sounds a little like all people are going to be saved.</p>

<p>Hmm. Well, not so. Let me tell you why.</p>

<p>First of all, that’s one little verse in the entire book of Romans. We have to take the book of Romans as a whole. What is Paul doing in the book of Romans? He’s explaining the plan of salvation, and he starts at the beginning with everybody being fallen, and then the problems that that caused and how we all need to have faith in Jesus and receive the free gift of grace that comes through Jesus, etc., etc., etc. That would make no sense for Paul to give all of this explanation of the Gospel to rescue us when in fact, we’re all rescued already, okay?</p>

<p>So that’s the first thought.</p>

<p>Secondly, who is the one man again that he is talking about that brought justification to all the rest of us apparently? Well, that’s Jesus.</p>

<p>Well, what did Jesus have to say about this issue?</p>

<p>Go to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 6 or 7 or so, and there you’ll read Jesus weighing in on the issue, and He says that the way is narrow that leads to life and few are those who find it, and the way is broad that leads to destruction and many are those who find it. And in fact, when you read just a little further in the text, Paul says this about the situation, “...as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many were made righteous.”</p>

<p>I don’t know, it doesn’t seem to me that the text in the context itself requires that everybody be saved. It wouldn’t fit in the context of the entire book of Romans, and it doesn’t fit with Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on the issue. So I am convinced this is not what Paul had in mind in Romans 5.</p>


title: Are There Moral Implications to Cremation vs. Burial?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/29/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-there-moral-implications-to-cremation-vs-burial-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/r1TT4485I2Y?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>As Christians, should we be concerned with what happens to our bodies after we die?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>When somebody dies, can they be cremated, or do they have to be buried?</p>

<p>I’ll give you my thoughts.</p>

<p>When a person dies, what’s the right thing to do with the body? Classically, Christians have buried the body and given the body a so-called “Christian burial.”&nbsp;A lot of people are looking towards cremation nowadays as kind of an easier way out, more economical, whatever.</p>

<p>And let me give you my point of view on this since the Bible does not weigh in one way or another directly, okay? When a body is consumed after it dies, it’s a process called oxidation. I’m chuckling because in either case you have oxidation. You can bury the body, and it’s slow oxidation, you can burn the body, and it’s fast oxidation. But it amounts to the same thing. Over time, pretty much everything disappears, okay?</p>

<p>So, the question is, morally, does it matter? And I don’t think it really does. But I want to toss in another thought. There’s a reason why traditionally, Christians have given a particular kind of burial. And the reason they’ve been given that kind of burial is because they understand that a human being is made of two different things: an immaterial self and a material self.</p>

<p>A soul and a body.</p>

<p>And this soul bears the image of God, not the body, and that soul was united with a body for the lifetime, the natural lifetime, of that individual. And when that person dies, they go away, but the body is still, in a certain sense, ennobled by that which inhabited it.</p>

<p>And so by way of showing respect for the body, which will eventually be reunited in its more natural state with the soul at the resurrection, Christians have had a ceremony and a burial that they thought brought dignity to the notion that the soul and the body, the tent so-to-speak, and the spiritual man would be united for a significant period of time. And I think there’s something to be said for that.</p>

<p>Maybe it’s just aesthetic and not strictly-speaking moral. But I used to think it doesn’t matter what you do with the body. Burn it or bury it. Now, I’m thinking a little differently, and I haven’t totally settled my mind up. But I think it’s clear to say that both options are morally acceptable, but with a so-called Christian burial, we make a different kind of statement, and the statement itself maybe valuable.</p>

<p>Anyway, that’s my point of view on this one for what it’s worth.</p>


title: Don’t the Sincere Beliefs of Non-Christians Matter to God?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-the-sincere-beliefs-of-non-christians-matter-to-god-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bEgxZlk34KY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains why it matters what you believe, not just how sincerely you believe it.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I want to talk for just a moment about sincerity because this is something that comes into discussions about Christianity, and I think it’s given more weight in the discussion than it deserves. In other words, people think, “Well as long as you’re sincere in whatever it is you believe, if there is a God, that’s all that really matters to Him,”&nbsp;okay, “and and why wouldn’t sincerity matter to God?”&nbsp;And my answer is because sincerity matters almost a nothing in life. When you think about it. Anything important, anything critical, anything that has significant consequence in life, sincerity doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>People are sincerely deluded all the time, make massive mistakes in life, and they’re very sincere, but they’re wrong, and there are devastating consequences, and the fact that they were sincere saved them not one whit. I was just reading this morning in John chapter 4, “The ones who want to worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. I mean the issue of God is the most important issue anyone can discuss. There are all kinds of sincere beliefs that take people in all kinds of different directions. That doesn’t mean that that disqualifies their conduct, their sin, their rebellion, whatever. It doesn’t do that.</p>

<p>When it comes to the critical issues of life, I mean just think of medicine, for example. You can have all kinds of sincere beliefs about bad medicine, and you’re not gonna get better. This is why Paul in Romans chapter 10 says this of the Jews: He says, “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it’s not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”&nbsp;So Paul says there in the beginning of that chapter that boy here’s a group of people that really are zealous for God, but they’re getting it all wrong. Why? Well, there’s complex reasons why, but the important point here is he makes it clear that sincerity doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>Now, if you’re willing to go along with the idea that, “No, no, no, no, no, God is gonna be fine with the sincere person.”&nbsp;What you’re going to have to come up with is a good justification for that, and it cannot be just wishful thinking, okay? Find a text, find a document, find a place where God Himself in some authoritative way says, “All you need to do is be sincere, and it doesn’t matter where you go, what you believe, how you live, sincerity is the real deal.”&nbsp;But you’re not gonna find that – not in the Bible. And I don’t think you’re gonna find that anywhere else that is authoritative for God.</p>

<p>If you’re gonna make a claim about what God is really after, sincerity in this case, you better be able to authenticate it in some reliable way because everything rides on this. Sincerity is not the right factor for the God of truth. Only truth is the factor. You must worship God in spirit and in truth. That’s what Jesus said.</p>


title: I Could Be Wrong...
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/i-could-be-wrong-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bXGyRmffz_w?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is it a good idea for Christians to use the phrase “I could be wrong...”&nbsp;when discussing their convictions?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>You know in the Ambassador material that we provide at Stand to Reason, of course, my goal for you is that you become a better ambassador for Christ, and that’s three areas of development: Knowledge - an accurately informed mind, wisdom - an artful method (that’s Tactics, essentially), and character is an attractive manner. And so when I talk about character being an attractive manner, I mentioned that sometimes Christians err on one side or the other, and that is they’re either too naughty or too nice, I mean, to put it simply.</p>

<p>In the area of being too naughty there is a way that we can protect against being too dogmatic, or harsh, or grumpy, or whatever, and that is to be willing to say to somebody who has a different point of view, we’re willing to say, “You know, I could be mistaken about this,”&nbsp;okay? Now that’s a little bit controversial. I use the phrase a lot. My mentor JP Moreland uses the phrase. I’ve heard other Christians use the phrase. I like the phrase because when I say to someone that I disagree with who’s advancing their own view and then I give my counter view, when I say, “Well you know I could be wrong about this, but here’s my view and my reasons,”&nbsp;when I say, “could be wrong about this,”&nbsp;it’s a powerful statement that is an acknowledgement of my own fallibility so that I don’t sound to the other person like I’m being inappropriately dogmatic.</p>

<p>Now I have had people say, “Well, you shouldn’t say that. You’re a Christian. You couldn’t be wrong,”&nbsp;and to that I respond, “Sure I could be wrong,”&nbsp;and guess what, I have been wrong, even on spiritual things. My theology has changed over the years, which means I changed to what I came to think was wrong to what I came to think was right, and maybe somewhere down the line I might change it again. Now my theology is not always constantly in flux, but I know that just like anybody else my own biases can influence me.</p>

<p>There’s a thing called confirmational bias, and you always wanna kind of stick with what you already believe. It’s hard to shake you out of that. So I want to be able to say to people, “Well, I could be mistaken,”&nbsp;which signals that I am open to hear a contrary view. I’m not gonna be narrow-minded. I don’t have blinders on. I��m open to hear a contrary view, and if they have one that is well justified, they have good reasons for it, well I’m open to changing my mind, okay? So I think the willingness to say, “I could be mistaken,”&nbsp;is actually a virtue, okay? It shows that you are not being inappropriately dogmatic with other people.</p>

<p>Now, listen, do not say that if you don’t believe it. It’s not a ploy. It’s not a rhetorical trick to sound more persuasive to people. If I don’t think I could be mistaken on a particular issue in question, I don’t say, “I could be mistaken.”&nbsp;I say, “I think I’m right,”&nbsp;or I just move forward in a confident manner. But if it’s a largely an open issue or at least theoretically open, doesn’t mean that I’m open to change if I have no good reason to do it, but I could be mistaken about what the New Testament says about Jesus of Nazareth, but I don’t think I am because it’s good history, and there’s a lot of reasons why we can trust in it, for example. But if somebody else thinks it’s not good history, tell me why. I’ll consider that. No problem.</p>

<p>You see, what we want to do is we want to engage people in a thoughtful, gracious, and appropriately humble manner. Being humble is one of the characteristics of a good ambassador. That is, that we don’t hang on to our own views any more tightly than our justification allows. We could be mistaken, and if I’m willing to say, “I could be mistaken,”&nbsp;that allows me to have an open attitude to hear where I’ve gone wrong or at least the reasons why people think I have, and that helps everything. It helps them, and it helps me too.</p>


title: Translations and Reliability of the Bible
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/translations-and-reliability-of-the-bible
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HS3lw68Qcik?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim sets straight the assertion that the Bible has been translated many times over and therefore can’t be reliable.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The Bible has been translated many times over, so how can it be reliable? The Bible can now be read in nearly 700 different languages. For the New Testament, the number jumps to over 1500 languages. It’s not surprising that the Bible is the most translated book in history. Christians see the number of translations as a good thing. More people are able to read God’s Word in their own language. Others, however, see the number of translations as a bad thing. They believe that the Bible cannot be reliable since it has been translated so many times over its history.</p>

<p>In a Newsweek cover story titled, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,”&nbsp;journalist and author Kurt Eichenwald asserts this: “No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the Pope. Neither have I. Neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation - a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.”</p>

<p>If there are multiple steps in the translation process, then it’s possible that something gets lost in translation. if our modern Bible translations are translation of a translation of a translation of — well, you get the point — then they probably wouldn’t resemble anything of what the author intended. This would be akin to playing the telephone game with people who translate the message into different languages as it gets passed from one person to the next.</p>

<p>For this challenge, we need to employ the “Just the Facts, Ma’am”&nbsp;tactic. Many challenges to Christianity are based upon bad information. They don’t get the facts right. We can overcome these objections by a simple appeal to the facts. So what are the facts in this instance? Eichenwald and those who continue to espouse this nonsense are wrong about modern Bible translations and how it works. In reality, the modern English translations that we have go back to the original languages. Those who can actually read Greek and Hebrew, the original languages, are in the best position to know what the authors actually wrote in their original language. As a result, there’s only really one step in the translation process - the original language to the modern language. Every modern translation has only been translated once. It isn’t a translation of a translation of a translation. It’s just a translation.</p>


title: Real Faith Isn’t Blind
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/04/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/real-faith-isn-t-blind
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ic1oHzXlfKM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim clarifies a common misconception about the biblical definition of faith.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What is faith? Well over time, words have a tendency of changing their meanings. In fact, some words have come to mean the exact opposite of what they used to mean. Consider the word “awful.”&nbsp;A century ago, it literally meant to be full of awe. Testifying to an awful sunset would have been communicating reverence for the event. But I’m sure none of the husbands listening to me right now woke up this morning, turned to their wives, and said, “Honey, you look awful today.”&nbsp;No, that’s a bad idea. Well, why?</p>

<p>Today, the word almost exclusively is used to describe something that’s extremely unpleasant or distasteful. So ironically, the term “awful”&nbsp;has come to mean the opposite of what it used to mean. I think the same is true of the word “faith.”&nbsp;Today, some people use the word “faith”&nbsp;to mean “believing something without evidence.”&nbsp;So Mark Twain, he famously wrote, “Faith is believin’&nbsp;in what you know ain’t true.”&nbsp;This is what most people call blind faith, but this isn’t how the biblical authors use the word.</p>

<p>To illustrate my point, just look at the reason why John wrote his gospel account. He says, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”&nbsp;The reason John wrote about Jesus’&nbsp;signs and wonders, the miracles that He performed, was to provide trustworthy eye witness evidence so that readers — you and I — would put our faith in Christ.</p>

<p>Does that sound like John didn’t care about evidence? Does John believe in blind faith? Absolutely not. The mere existence of John’s gospel demonstrates that John thought faith and evidence work together. More specifically, the gospel according to John was written so that people would read it and put their faith in Christ.</p>

<p>Here’s an illustration I use to explain biblical faith: Imagine you’re standing at the edge of Niagara Falls, and while you’re watching this magnificent waterfall, you notice there’s a tightrope walker named Charles Blondin. He’s walking from one side to the other, pushing a wheelbarrow full of rocks. You’re mesmerized by his amazing ability. You keep watching him do it over and over again, and he sees you, walks over, and asks, “Do you have faith that I could do it again?”&nbsp;You reply, “Of course I have faith you could do it again. I’ve seen you do it all day,”&nbsp;and then he dumps the rocks out. He says, “Okay, climb in the wheelbarrow.”</p>

<p>Do you get it? It’s not mere intellectual assent. You believe based on evidence, and stepping into the wheelbarrow is active trust. So biblical faith is putting your trust in something based on evidence. We all understand how trust works. I trust my wife more today than when I married her nearly ten years ago. Why? Because she’s given me more reason, or evidence, over the last decade to put my trust in her. The same can be said of our faith in Christ. After assessing what Christ has done and is doing, we respond by putting our trust in Him. So what is faith? Biblical faith is active trust based on evidence.</p>


title: How Do We Know the Gospels Are Inspired?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-inspired-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bujdwgeuG_s?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg offers reasons we can know the gospels are the inspired Word of God both from objective and personal standpoints.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So here’s a question that has stumped me a little bit because I wasn’t exactly sure the best way to answer it. The question is: Is there a good way to show that the gospels are inspired? Now I believe they are inspired. I believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, and I actually have an approach to show that the Bible is inspired, and I give six different reasons that the Bible has the mark of the supernatural on it.</p>

<p>It claims to be a book by God to men and taken as a whole it gives reasons we can see – issues, or elements, or evidences that it is what it claims to be. God is involved in bringing this to men. It’s not merely a human document. But the question really is about the gospels proper. And the reason I pause there is because I do not try to demonstrate that the gospels are inspired. That is, that God is the one responsible for having written the gospels, essentially, and therefore they’re reliable.</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s the best way to go about making the case for Christianity. I don’t want to try to persuade someone in a sense, independently – these books are spoken by God and therefore then we ought to believe what they have to say, okay? I take a different approach and frankly, most of my my colleagues in the business, so to speak, take the same approach that I take, okay? We don’t invite people to consider the inspiration of the gospels. Rather, we try to demonstrate that the gospels are historically reliable documents about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>The reason we do that is because there is a separate, in a certain sense, secular canon of tests that can be used of any documents from the past to see if those documents reflect or report accurate history. And so this then becomes a secular kind of enterprise, not a religious enterprise which actually turns out to be more persuasive for a lot of people. If they’re asked to believe some religious truth, well that’s what they’re resisting already, but if we say here’s how secular historians go about the task of determining what documents from the past are actually historically sound, and it turns out that the gospels are that, okay now we’ve got a whole different situation.</p>

<p>And in fact, in The Story of Reality I have a couple of chapters that deal with this very issue, okay, and it makes it very plain and easily accessible. I don’t want to go into those details right now, but I just want to point out that the key here is to show that the gospels are historically reliable because when we look at the history that they reliably record, what do we have?</p>

<p>We have this incredible history of Jesus of Nazareth who teaches profound things does profound things, dies on a cross, three days later the tomb is empty, He’s risen from the dead. Wow, if that’s historically reliable, you see how that can make our case? And in fact, the early Christians who were, I should say the early skeptics who became Christians, were not convinced about Jesus because somebody had an argument why the New Testament or the gospels were divinely inspired. They weren’t even written yet. What they had was a testimony of the disciples who were eyewitnesses of the events that Jesus had died and risen again, and they saw Him, and they ate with Him, and they talked with Him, and they were willing to stake their life upon that, and therefore their testimony was persuasive, okay.</p>

<p>We can do the same thing, alright? So I think the key here is not to argue that the gospel accounts are inspired by God because then that invites all kinds of objections about apparent contradictions. If instead what we say is they were historically reliable, well historically reliable accounts, parallel accounts, do have apparent contradictions. That’s ordinary. So that wouldn’t be a problem for us at this point, okay? And in that way they come to trust the content of the gospels. What they say actually happened with Jesus, and now we have a grounds to make the case that Jesus was who He claimed to be.</p>

<p>Okay, one post script: As I was thinking about this, I realized there is a way that I use to help people to discover that the gospels are inspired by God. I have them read them. Just think of not only all the Christians you know but yourself. If you believe that the gospels are God’s inspired word, did you come to believe that because some Christian gave you a great argument for that particular fact? No, most people who are Christians and believe the gospels are inspired believe it because they encountered the gospels and the Jesus in the gospels, and as they read, and as they engage, and as they thought about it, something happened, and they were persuaded that this was not just the words of man but the words of God Himself. That’s the most powerful way to persuade someone that the gospels are in fact God’s word.</p>


title: Is Faith A Feeling?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/19/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-a-feeling-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZO4pEe7Rh4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim explains that although faith and feelings might be related, they’re actually two different things.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is faith a feeling? Well faith properly understood is not a feeling. Faith on my view is active trust based on evidence. Now faith can affect how we’re feeling. For example, my trust in my wife can affect feelings of happiness and thankfulness and hypothetically if my wife did something to cause mistrust, it might generate feelings of sadness and betrayal. So faith and feelings are related, but they’re two different things. Faith informs our feelings.</p>

<p>I think I know where this question is coming from, though. You see, some people base their faith on feelings. At least, that’s the way it appears. It makes them feel good so to them, it must be true and worthy of trust. I think this is really dangerous. Feelings are fickle. They change from day to day or hour to hour. If feeling good makes something true, then what happens when you feel bad? Does then it become false?</p>

<p>I like the way Ben Shapiro puts it. He says, “facts don’t care about you’re feelings,”&nbsp;and he’s right. Think about a young boy who’s mad at his father, so he climbs into bed, pulls the covers over his head, and says, “I don’t like you, so you don’t exist anymore.”&nbsp;His feelings don’t change reality. If feelings don’t inform faith, then what does? Well biblical faith is informed by evidence. Jesus said, “Even though you don’t believe me, believe the works.”&nbsp;What works was He talking about? The blind were seeing. The lame were walking. The deaf were hearing. The dead were rising. He’s saying believe based on the objective evidence.</p>

<p>Emotions can be unreliable guides to truth, but evidence doesn’t lie. So feelings follow faith, and faith follows facts. For instance, my wife tells me daily that she loves me and does all kinds of things to show me. Those are the facts. These facts and others form the basis of my faith in her. it’s out of that faith that flows feelings of joy and love and safety. There are facts about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ that inform the basis of my faith in Christ. And out of that faith comes feelings of gratitude, humility, joy, and hope.</p>


title: How Can a “Closet Apologist” Bolster Their Courage?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/30/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-a-closet-apologist-bolster-their-courage-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/84JFENAsLVE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses a few steps we can take to “get in the game” and share our convictions with others.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’ve actually been asked by people who would call themselves “closet apologists”&nbsp;how they can build their courage to engage people on issues that really matter. And my first thought is there is no such thing as a “closet apologist”&nbsp;because apologist is someone who defends, and you’ve got to kind of get out of the closet to defend, but I get their meaning. They want to defend their own convictions. They may have done some study, and they know a few things, but they’re just a little bit nervous, and I understand that, okay, so I’m sympathetic, no problem.</p>

<p>But what I suggest is that the tactical game plan that I talk about in the book, Tactics, is really perfect for this kind of thing, especially the first two steps of the game plan. You’re using questions to gather information, and you’re using questions to reverse the burden of proof. So we would use questions like, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;to gather information and get clear on what their view happens to be, and we will ask a question like, “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;or “What are your reasons for that?”&nbsp;etc. to get their reasons for their point of view.</p>

<p>Now, I want you to think about those two questions. Neither question puts you as a believer, as an ambassador for Christ, in any risk at all. You’re being a student, essentially, trying to discover what other people believe. You are not in a situation where you’re putting your view forward where it could be attacked. Instead, you’re inviting other people to put their view forward. Now, you might be thinking, “Well that doesn’t get me very far,”&nbsp;and my response is, you’ll be surprised how much progress you can make by you asking them questions about their own view. But the point here is, how do you get a closet apologist out of the closet and into play in a way that builds their courage? And this is the way to do it.</p>

<p>You use one of those two questions, and usually there’s a sequence. First, you get their ideas. Then, you get the reasons for their ideas, and you don’t have to go any further. You’re just taking a small step of courage to step out and ask that first question. Be a student. If you ask the second question, then you’re gonna get an education on how they actually think. Okay? Now I tell people, just go out and practice the first question, but I suspect if you ask people what they believe, sometimes you’re going to have a hard time not asking the second question, which would be kind of, “Why would you believe that?”&nbsp;because what people believe sometimes a little bit odd. Now, you want to be careful that you don’t sound condescending when you ask the second question, but these two questions are a great one-two punch that allows you to get involved in conversation with people in a relational way in which they do most of the talking, but you are gathering valuable information.</p>

<p>And so it takes a small amount of courage to get out of your closet and start engaging other people, and here’s what you’re gonna find: You’re gonna find it’s not that hard. People aren’t as scary and also, people are not as smart as you thought they were. And I’m not saying people are dumb, I’m just saying a lot of the objections that people raise against Christianity, even by smart people, educated people, PhDs, professors, lawyers, professional types of all kinds, turn out to be kind of foolish objections when it deals with spiritual things. And you don’t have to put them down or roll your eyes or anything like that, but I think you’re gonna find if you just step out of that closet, a small step of courage, you begin to ask people what they believe and why they believe it, and don’t take it any further, that that will really get you rolling as a defender of the faith.</p>


title: Could God Be Merely a Function of the Brain?
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/could-god-be-merely-a-function-of-the-brain-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/e58CGqUGRXU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan responds to an argument against God’s existence.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’ve been asked if God could merely be a function of the brain. And I’m presuming from the question that this person believes that if you can show God belief comes from the brain, then therefore there’s no God, or it’s not rational to believe in Him. And it seems there are at least two missteps in thinking here, and the first is this: This type of reasoning confuses the biology of belief with the reasons for belief.</p>

<p>Yes, there might be certain neurobiological things going on in your brain when you think about God, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to believe God exists that are completely independent of your brain function. In fact, disqualifying a person’s belief in God by showing the genesis of their belief arising in their brain is actually a mistake in thinking called the genetic fallacy. This fallacious reasoning occurs when you fail to assess a claim on its merit but instead assess it on the origin of the claim.</p>

<p>For example, if a German student learned 2 + 2 = 4 from a Nazi math teacher, you can’t mark his math wrong just because the origin of his addition problem came from a Nazi. You would have to evaluate his addition on its own merits. And in the same way, whether God exists or not has nothing to do with whether belief in God originates from the brain. It has everything to do with whether there are good reasons to believe He exists or not. And of course, I believe there are many good reasons to believe He exists, although they go beyond the point of this question.</p>

<p>But here’s the second problem: Even if there is some kind of hard wiring in our brain that leads us to believe in God, how is this an argument against God’s existence? If anything, this could be evidence for God. Right, I mean if there’s a God and He made us, He could have made us with the biological predisposition to believe in Him. That could certainly explain the overwhelming amount of people on this planet that believe in God. So brain function that leads people to believe in God would make perfect sense if there’s a God who made us.</p>


title: How Can You Spot a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/25/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-you-spot-a-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/OxJPh3vyx7A?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg helps Christians understand what characterizes a false teacher.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So, how do you spot a wolf in sheep’s clothing when the wolf looks like a sheep? Here’s how.</p>

<p>Jesus warned us that there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing, all right? In other words, there were imposters, theologically, that looked like us, that looked like Christians — sheep’s clothing — but really they’re wolves. They’re there to ravage the flock. Now how do you know the difference? And Jesus said, actually multiple times, “you shall know them by their fruits.”&nbsp;What kind of fruits should we be looking for?</p>

<p>And I think there’s a number of different things to keep in mind. Some of them are doctrinal. If you are disagreeing, of course, with solid, foundational, doctrinal teachings, even if people are nice, the core is being corrupted, and that is a fruit that we need to be aware of. But I think more to the point is that at the end of the passage there, in Matthew, chapter 7, where Jesus is talking about this, He talks about kind of the time of judgment when Jesus addresses them and He says to them, you know, “I never knew you, you workers of lawlessness.”</p>

<p>That’s the key. When there are people that are promoting as good the kinds of things that God says are wrong, they are promoting lawlessness. That’s an indication of a fruit that is evidence of a wolf in your midst.</p>


title: What If Someone Uses the Columbo Tactic on Me?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/14/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-if-someone-uses-the-columbo-tactic-on-me-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Id34_58oSBQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares what he’d do if someone used questions to maneuver him out of the driver’s seat in conversation about differing convictions.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>For years I have been advocating using a technique of asking questions in order to maneuver more effectively, carefully, and persuasively in conversations with people who disagree with you, okay. Now, I call it the Columbo Tactic, and there’s a lot of folk nowadays who don’t know what that means, but it’s a TV character from four decades ago who was a detective who will use questions in a fairly unassuming manner, under the radar, unthreatening to get the information he needed to trap the bad guy who did the crime, okay.</p>

<p>So I found that it’s been a really effective way of maneuvering and stopping a challenger in their tracks, turning the tables, getting them to think and to put the Christian in the driver’s seat of the conversation. Even though the Christian’s not doing most of the talking, they are the ones who are managing and directing the conversation, okay.</p>

<p>Now, there’s a liability, at least some think it’s a liability, and the question comes up, “What if somebody else is trying to use the Columbo Tactic on me?”&nbsp;That is, what if they’re using the questions to maneuver me, to manage me, for them to be in the driver’s seat, okay. Now, there’s a very simple answer to that, and it depends on what question you have in mind. In the Columbo method, the game plan that I talk about in the book Tactics, I talk about three different uses of the questions or the Columbo Tactic.</p>

<p>One is to gather information, and we use a question like, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;or some variation. Another one is to reverse the burden of proof so that if somebody else makes a point, they make a claim, we can ask them, “Well, how’d you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;or “What are your reasons for that?”&nbsp;The third use of Columbo is to make a point. So you’re asking a series of questions that’s building to a conclusion where you can make your point, okay. That’s it. That’s the basic structure of the Columbo Tactic. That’s the basic game plan.</p>

<p>So what happens if somebody uses those three methods towards us? Well, do I mind, do you think, if somebody asks me what I mean by that? No, I don’t mind. I’ll tell you why. Because normally I have a pretty good idea of what I mean by something I’ve said because I’ve thought about it. Now, we use the question with them because often times they say things they’ve been socialized to say. They pick them up in their environment. They haven’t thought about it, but they throw them out and stonewall the Christian, okay. And so when I asked, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;they sometimes don’t know how to answer. But if somebody asks me or somebody asks you, I hope you can answer with some substance because you know what you mean by that, okay.</p>

<p>What about the second question? You make a point, you advance your view in some fashion, and they say, “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;Do you think I mind answering that question? No, because in most cases, I have come to a conclusion. That is, I can give at least some reasons why I think the point I offered was reasonable because I’ve thought some of this stuff through. Now, if you don’t know what you mean when you make a point, or you don’t know the reasons that you hold the view, well, that could be a problem. And all that means is then you’ve got to bone up, you got to do some homework, but there’s no reason you should fear those questions if you’re a thoughtful Christian.</p>

<p>It’s the third use of Columbo that could be a problem because in that case, a person is using questions to kind of lead you down the primrose path, and you’re making these commitments, but you don’t know what trouble is gonna get you into. Now, the way I use Columbo number three is not to trick people, but to get pieces of the argument on the table to lead to a conclusion that’s legitimate, but it might be other people are trying to trick you.</p>

<p>And so when I feel that I’m being asked a series of questions that is leading me down the primrose path, I’ll stop the person. If I’m feeling uncomfortable, I’ll stop the person and say something like this. I’ll say, “You know, it sounds to me like you’re using your questions to make a point,”&nbsp;which is the third use of Colombo, use your questions to make a point. “It sounds like you’re using questions to make a point. How about this, why don’t you just simply make your point instead of asking me these questions?”&nbsp;because maybe I feel a little uncomfortable, I’d rather cut to the chase, whatever, “Why don’t you just make the point rather than asking these questions to get there?”</p>

<p>Now what you end up doing there is you cut off the tactical move that they’re using against you, then they can just simply make their point and you can invite them to give the reasons for it or ask for clarification, and you’ve kind of gotten out of the bind. Of course, they could also do that with me. If I’m using questions to build to a point, and if they say, “Why don’t you just make your point?”&nbsp;And remember, say that in a friendly, genial way, okay? Not defensively.</p>

<p>But if they ask me, “You know, it sounds like you’re just trying to make a point with your questions, why don’t you cut to the chase and just make your point?”&nbsp;You know what I would do? I’d make my point. The point I think, would still be a good one, but I lose a little bit of a tactical advantage. Nevertheless, I can still make my point. So those are the ways that you can deal with somebody using the Columbo Tactic against you.</p>

<p>And incidentally, everything that I’ve said is actually in the book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.</p>


title: What Is the Role of Faith Given That We Are Saved by Grace?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/07/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-the-role-of-faith-given-that-we-are-saved-by-grace-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/gV_x0qS01HQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan explains what faith is and the role it plays in our salvation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What is the role of faith given that we’re saved by grace?</p>

<p>Now before answering that question, we need to define faith and grace. And I also know there are some significant theological disputes over the nature of salvation. So, I’m not going to try to wade into that, but I’m sure I’ll still probably fail.</p>

<p>Now, first of all, what is faith?</p>

<p>Well, it’s not hope, it’s not wishful thinking, and it’s not belief in spite of the evidence. Rather, the biblical definition of faith is best characterized by the word “trust.”&nbsp;You put your faith, your trust, in what you have good reason to believe is true. And this is exactly what Hebrews 11 talks about.</p>

<p>Now, some people like to draw a distinction between knowledge, ascent, and trust. So, knowledge is simply the information about the Gospel, what Jesus has done, and the offer that God makes to us. But having mere knowledge doesn’t save you. You also need to have ascent - intellectual acceptance that the knowledge that you have is true.</p>

<p>But mere ascent can’t save you either. After all, even the demons give their ascent to biblical truths and to biblical knowledge as James 2:19 says. But notice, this doesn’t save them. Instead, you also need trust. You need to put your trust in this knowledge which you know to be true.</p>

<p>And to give you an analogy, it would be talking about an airplane, right? Knowledge is the understanding of what an airplane is and how it works. Ascent is believing that it can safely carry you across the country, but trust occurs when you step inside that airplane, and you trust it to carry you across the country. It’s only then that you’ve put your faith in that airplane.</p>

<p>Okay, so now what’s grace?</p>

<p>Well, in short, grace is unmerited favor. It’s getting something you don’t deserve. And in the context of the Gospel, it’s about God willing to give you a pardon for the crimes you’ve committed against Him. You see, you deserve to be punished, okay? But instead, God gives you grace. He gives you the chance to go free. Now, you don’t deserve that, and you didn’t do anything to earn it either. In fact, quite the contrary.</p>

<p>What you earned is the punishment of death. Now that we understand our terms - Grace is unmerited favor, getting something you don’t deserve, and faith is putting your trust in God. The question then seems to be, if we’re saved by grace, which is an act of God, what role does putting our trust in God play?</p>

<p>Paul says in Ephesians 2 that it is by grace that you have been saved through faith. See notice, both of our terms are there. We are saved by God’s unmerited favor, but it’s through our act of faith, it���s through our trust in God that we receive His free gift. So grace is entirely God’s work. It’s His part. Faith is our part. It’s what we do.</p>

<p>Now when I say faith is our part, I don’t mean it’s our work. It’s not considered meritorious for our salvation. In fact, in Ephesians 2:8 it clarifies that even faith is a gift from God that allows us to receive His grace. I’d say we’ve incurred a financial debt we can not pay back. Now, God has the means to pay it, and He’s willing to give it as a free gift to us. That’s God’s grace. Our faith is when we consent to use someone else’s money to pay our debt.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s called amazing grace. It’s a gift, it’s free, and it saves us from a debt we could never repay.</p>


title: Is God Wrathful?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/05/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-wrathful-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/N7V1lcr8bzU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim explains that in order to have a biblical view of God, we must acknowledge His wrath.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is God wrathful? Well, there are aspects of God’s nature that make people uncomfortable. God’s wrath is one of them. In fact, fewer and fewer churches nowadays will openly preach about the wrath of God. The topic is taboo to our modern sensibilities. While some ignore the biblical teaching of God’s wrath, others will just flat-out deny it. The problem is, there are more than 600 references of divine wrath in Scripture.</p>

<p>The doctrine of God’s wrath against the wicked is clearly taught throughout the Bible. Listen to how the prophet Nahum describes God’s wrath against Nineveh. It says this: “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. Who can stand before his indignation? Who could endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him. The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. But with an overflowing flood he will make a complete end to his adversaries, and will pursue his enemies into darkness.”</p>

<p>I cited this lengthy passage for a reason. Most people are happy to quote verses like, “the Lord is slow to anger,”&nbsp;verse 3, and, “the Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble,”&nbsp;verse 7, yet they ignore verses like, “the Lord is an avenging and wrathful God,”&nbsp;verse 2, and, “his wrath is poured out like fire,”&nbsp;verse 6. They want to take the former but leave 01:55 the latter. However, the minor prophet won’t allow it. God’s goodness and wrath are inseparably interwoven within the same text.</p>

<p>Many people have the mistaken impression that the character of God is split in the Bible. The God of the Old Testament is angry and wrathful. The God of the New Testament is gracious and merciful. This simply isn’t true, and I can prove it to you. Not only does Nahum’s own words allude to God’s goodness and mercy in verse 7, but Nahum’s audience was well aware of God’s goodness. Nahum is writing to the Ninevites. These are the same Ninevites whom God sent Jonah. These are the same wicked people who had repented and received mercy from God.</p>

<p>In response to God sparing Nineveh, Jonah says this: “For I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.”&nbsp;So over a century has passed since Jonah’s oracle, and the Ninevites have turned back to their wicked ways. Now these people who have received God’s mercy are going to receive God’s wrath. The tragic history of the Ninevites displays two aspects of God’s nature, and both are equally true. God is gracious and merciful, but He is also avenging and wrathful. Sound theology never pits one against the other.</p>


title: Can Christians Have Doubts about God?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/21/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-christians-have-doubts-about-god-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/21og-TS6ZDc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>What should we do when doubts come? Tim encourages Christians not to feel shame about having doubts then shares examples of how doubt can ultimately point us back to God.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Can Christians have doubts about God? Every Christian has had some doubts at some point in their Christian life. We’re all finite creatures. We don’t know everything, and sometimes you get things wrong, and this possibility can cause us to doubt our beliefs. But this isn’t unique to Christians. Everyone has doubts.</p>

<p>So the question isn’t really can Christians have doubts, but rather, what should we do when doubts come? Doubts can be a good thing. They can cause us to look more closely at what we believe and why we believe it.</p>

<p>For example, a Christian who is going through a period of suffering may not feel God’s presence in his or her life and have some doubts about God’s existence. This forces the Christian to look on how they know God is real. Is their belief in God based on only emotions, or is it based upon evidence? Our feelings about God’s immediate presence in our lives may come and go, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter. Those who have good reasons for God — who He is and what He’s done — can stand upon those convictions in times of doubt. Why?</p>

<p>Because those convictions are based on firm evidence, not fickle emotions. We actually see this play out in Scripture. As John the Baptist sat in prison for his faithfulness to God, he was afflicted with doubts about Jesus. John sends word to Jesus by his disciples and asks, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”</p>

<p>Remember, this is the same John who at one time lept 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 sins of the world.”&nbsp;This is the same John who baptized Jesus and heard the voice from heaven say, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.”</p>

<p>But now, John is sitting in a prison awaiting a probable execution, and He’s wondering if He got the whole thing wrong. He’s doubting the identity of Jesus. But notice Jesus’&nbsp;response. He says, “Go and tell John what you hear and see. The blind received their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.”</p>

<p>Jesus doesn’t say look inside your heart for some subjective feeling. He doesn’t tell John to ignore his doubts and just believe blindly. Rather, Jesus points to objective evidence to substantiate who He is. The blind are seeing. The lame are walking. The deaf are hearing. In essence, Jesus tells him to believe based on the works that He’s doing. Also, notice Jesus’&nbsp;response to John the Baptist. He doesn’t scold him for doubting. He doesn’t question his spirituality or call him a bad Christian. On the contrary, Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist.”</p>

<p>Let me leave you with a challenge. Take your doubts head-on. Don’t ignore them. Unanswered doubts can drive people to despair. Instead, follow the example of John the Baptist. Raise your doubts, ask good questions, and search for answers. The Christian worldview can handle it.</p>


title: How Can the Bible Be Reliable If It Has Human Authors?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/19/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-the-bible-be-reliable-if-it-has-human-authors-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HLOcN0Xiz6o?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>If it’s possible for human authors to make mistakes, how can we trust the Bible doesn’t contain mistakes? Tim explains why having human authors does not negate the reliability of the Bible.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How can the Bible be reliable if people who make mistakes wrote it? There are some who think that because men wrote the Bible, it must contain mistakes. After all, to err is human. Of course, this assumes that men always make mistakes. It’s true that people make mistakes all the time. However, it doesn’t follow that because men can make mistakes that they always make mistakes.</p>

<p>Certainly there are books that are both written by men and contain no mistakes. Therefore, pointing out the fact the Bible was written by men does nothing to undermine the Bible’s reliability. The challenges doesn’t work. It’s not enough for the Challenger to assert that the biblical authors can make mistakes. Rather, they would need to point to specific instances where men have actually made mistakes in the text. Once we have those on the table, then we can talk to see if they go through, if they challenge the reliability.</p>

<p>Let me make one further comment. Implicit in the challenge is the assumption the Bible was merely written by men. However, the Christian claim is not that men wrote the Bible alone. Rather, the claim is that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the product of men and God. Paul tells the church at Thessalonica, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”</p>

<p>The apostles and the prophets who wrote the scriptures were not perfect. They had their faults. But God can use imperfect people to accomplish His perfect purpose. Fallible human beings can write an infallible book because the infallible God inspired them. Some have quipped, “God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.”&nbsp;If God is involved with the Bible, it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys wrote it. He can still guarantee the result that He wants.</p>


title: Tactics for Online Discussions
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/18/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/tactics-for-online-discussions
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/dyek1a2kuE4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan shares important tips for having productive interactions about your convictions on the internet.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Which tactics, if any, work while discussing Christianity on the internet? Well in some sense, I would say many tactics I would use in a conversation with someone in person would also apply to a discussion on the internet. However, there are also some tactics that I believe are unique to online discussion.</p>

<p>But let me first mention two tactics I use in person that I think also apply to online discussions.</p>

<p>And the first is to use the Columbo tactic a lot. Okay? Now that’s just the tactic of asking questions to better understand what a person believes and why they believe it. In fact, I always try to take time to find out a person’s view or their point before trying to respond or make my case, and I believe the same would apply to an online discussion.</p>

<p>Now, a second tactic would be to make conversational character a priority. And by that I mean, make sure that the manner in which we’re communicating with a person is warm, and friendly, and kind, and gracious, and inviting. And in fact, if you can’t do that, then please stop engaging others. I feel like people underestimate the importance of conversational character when they engage with people who don’t share their religious convictions. You represent Jesus in how you come across to other people. So this is key in both offline and online discussion.</p>

<p>So now, let me mention then three tactics I believe that are specific to online discussions. The first is to lower your expectations. And I think it’s a lot harder to have a civil and productive conversation online so it’s often times better to expect less and then be pleasantly surprised than vice-versa.</p>

<p>The second tactic is to have someone proofread your responses before posting it, okay? And the reason is that it’s much easier to miss communicate when you’re writing since we often abbreviate what we’re writing in order to save time. And that means it’s easier to unintentionally imply something that you don’t mean or have someone infer something that you didn’t intend to communicate.</p>

<p>I often have my wife actually read my post and my responses before I send them off because she’s a very different person, okay? She’s very different than me and she has very different sensibilities. And she’ll often read something and notice it sounds odd and well, she’ll tell me, you know what Alan, this comes across a little bit condescending or a little bit arrogant, you know. And so it helps me to have a different perspective to sort of give me insight on how something that I’ve written might be understood.</p>

<p>And finally, the third tactic I’d say is to be willing to abandon an online conversation or discussion when it devolves. Because after all, even your best attempts might result in an unhealthy dialogue, and a wise person knows when that moment arrives, and I’d say it’s best to cut your losses and then move on. So you just simply say, “Hey, you know what? I don’t think this conversation is is really healthy and productive. You know, why don’t you go ahead, make your final point, and I’ll allow you to have the last word on this.”&nbsp;So then you let them make their last point, and then you just let it go. Finally, remember this:</p>

<p>As an ambassador for Christ, it’s only your job to present the truth or your case in a persuasive yet gracious way, and then leave the results up to God. So don’t be committed to the end result of changing their mind or making them become a Christian. That’s God’s job. Your job is simply to be committed to your part of the equation which is being a faithful ambassador, and then let the Holy Spirit do His thing.</p>


title: Is Abortion the Same as Taking Someone off Life Support?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-abortion-the-same-as-taking-someone-off-life-support-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBQrhRhyjjw?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Some abortion-choice advocates claim that abortion is no different than taking someone off life support. Alan explains why that is not the case.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is abortion no different than taking someone off life support? Well, the short answer is abortion is very different than taking someone off life support. And the main difference, in my opinion, is the cause of death. So let me try to explain this.</p>

<p>The definition of abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being. And the critical point is that in an abortion, the cause of death is brought about by the doctor performing the abortion, and it is he who actively kills the unborn.</p>

<p>Now, taking someone off life support can be done for many reasons. Let’s just take one type of scenario when the person has suffered a serious medical condition like heart attack, or a stroke, or had a serious brain injury or something like that. They are now terminal or even perhaps brain-dead, but they’re on life support, meaning their body is being kept alive by machines, and no further medical treatment will provide a reasonable hope of benefit. Now, if a doctor takes a person off life support in that case, their body will die. The cause of death in that case, however, is not brought about by the doctor, but rather the disease or the injury that put the person in the grave medical condition they were in.</p>

<p>So in both abortion and in taking someone off life support, the end result is the same. You have a dead body. But the critical difference is that in abortion you intend to kill the person and are the cause of death. When taking someone off life support you don’t intend the death of the person, but rather you allow the death process–which did not begin by you–to complete its course. That’s a huge ethical difference.</p>


title: Is the Fruit of the Spirit Necessary for Salvation?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/11/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-fruit-of-the-spirit-necessary-for-salvation-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HCPyqtpXGZM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains what role the fruit of the Spirit plays in the life of the Christian and whether it’s an indicator of regeneration.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>It’s a basic teaching of Christianity that when a person receives the free gift of forgiveness— In other words, it’s not something you earn. You can’t buy it. You can only receive it, okay? —that something changes inside. It’s called regeneration, or the new birth, and this new birth has consequences.</p>

<p>So there are lots of people who say they believe in Jesus, but you look at their lives, and it seems there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that they’re actually trying to follow Jesus at all, and that’s not a good sign. James gives us reason to question the legitimacy of the genuine faith of that person. “Show me a faith without works,” he says, ”and I will show you my faith by my works.”</p>

<p>Now of course, works don’t save you, faith does, but a faith that saves is a faith that makes a difference in the way we behave. Okay, so this is all standard Christianity. Now, the question: The fruits of the spirit — are those necessary things or necessary evidences of the fact that we’re Christians such that if we don’t see those fruits of the Spirit in our lives, this indicates that we’re not really Christian?</p>

<p>Now, the fruits of the spirit come to us from Galatians, and they are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. They’re not instantaneous. They’re something that grow over time. The best evidence that we are Christians is not the fruit of the Spirit but obedience to God in the moral conduct of our lives, okay?</p>

<p>So let me clarify this so it’s not misunderstood. As we become Christians, we participate in good works. This is a phrase that’s used many times. Titus chapter 3, for example, Ephesians chapter 2 — These are two passages that talk about by grace we are saved or God saves us, but the result of it is that we engage in good works. Now, can you engage your good works without demonstrating significant amounts of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control?</p>

<p>The answer to that is yes, I think. And that’s the issue. If you say you’re a follower of Christ, but you’re living in consistent, persistent, willful sin, bad sign. If, rather, the trajectory of your life is after the spirit, and you are seeking to live in a way that brings pleasure to God then, you know, that’s an evidence that you really are born again.</p>

<p>Well then, where do the fruits of the Spirit fit in? I think the fruits of the Spirit are evidence of maturing in Christ, not evidence of being a Christian. And I think about some of those fruits myself. You know, I’ve been a Christian for 45 years and, you know, I’m still praying about some of those fruits being produced in my life. Think about them: Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Goodness. Gentleness. Faithfulness. Self-control. Did I get them all? I’m not sure.</p>

<p>But you get the point. Wow. You know, sometimes we are pretty good in one, but then the other ones we’re not doing so good. Get through a hard time, maybe we don’t feel so joyful. You have kids, you’re raising kids, I’m not very patient, you know. So we go back and forth in those kinds of things, and generally speaking, I think what ought to be happening is there’s a general progression of upward improvement in a trajectory regarding those spiritual fruits.</p>

<p>But I would never put that on somebody else’s shoulder to say, “Well, you don’t have enough joy, so maybe you don’t know the Lord,”&nbsp;or something like that, because I’d be guilty of that too, myself, at certain times in my life. Or any of the other fruits of the Spirit. These are things the Holy Spirit builds over time, they are not something that start to happen immediately after we become Christians. Remember, the fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of your efforts. Good works — the things that identify you as a follower of Christ before the world — that, I think, is more fruit of our own efforts. Of course, we have to trust God for it, but it’s in a totally different category than the fruit of the Spirit.</p>


title: What Follows If You Don’t Believe Any Religion Is True?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-follows-if-you-don-t-believe-any-religion-is-true-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HWgUbP1a2IM?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan discusses the implications of not subscribing to a particular religion and the most probable beliefs that follow.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What follows if you don’t think that any religion is true? Well the answer is simple. Nothing. Nothing follows if you don’t think any religion is true. It definitely doesn’t follow that no religion is true. In fact, nothing follows from any thought or belief that you have. And that’s because reality doesn’t change to accommodate your thoughts or your beliefs. You can think whatever you want, it doesn’t make it true.</p>

<p>Now having put aside the question of what one merely thinks is true, the question that becomes important is this: What’s the true state of affairs about reality and about religion? Is there any religion that’s actually true and not just true according to one’s own sort of personal beliefs? Now, you might be tempted to think, well, no religion is true, and that somehow would absolve you from committing to any particular worldview or having to defend any particular beliefs.</p>

<p>But here’s the thing—even if you don’t think any religion is true, that doesn’t mean that your view of reality necessarily makes sense. If you think no religion is true, then you’re most likely worldview is Naturalism, which is the belief that nature is all there is. In other words, you’ll think there’s no God, there’s no angels, there’s no souls, there’s no afterlife, but even this view doesn’t get you out of the woods because that worldview entails three, what I would call, incredible assertions.</p>

<p>First, if you believe in Naturalism, if you don’t believe any religion is true, then this means that the universe came into existence by itself. In other words, your view would say that all of space, time, and matter, all the billions of planets and stars have just popped into existence from nothing and by nothing. Now, you may not believe in religious claims, but you’re gonna have to consider whether there’s any evidence that such an incredible feat can actually occur.</p>

<p>Now here’s the second thing that your view entails if Naturalism is your worldview. And that is, you would have to believe that you are just a physical object, yet you still have free will. Now, the reason that’s an incredible claim is that according to Naturalism, you are entirely made up of matter, and therefore you have no soul, there’s no immaterial part of you that can be free from the forces of physics and chemistry. And so being a physical object then means that your thoughts and your actions are determined, and you have no free will. But I suspect you probably believe that you do have free will. You probably think that you have freely reasoned and used logic to conclude that no religion is true. But that would be a contradiction. You can’t have free will and free reasoning abilities that are not determined by physical laws in chemistry if you’re just a physical object.</p>

<p>And so finally, the third thing that your worldview entails is that morals are completely relative, and therefore there is nothing that is ultimately wrong. You can complain all you want that the madman that murders your mother didn’t do what you would have liked him to do, but you can’t say that what you did was wrong, objectively wrong. As any careful thinking atheist would admit, if there is no God, then an ultimate standard of right and wrong is just an illusion. So if you don’t think any religion is true, keep in mind that it doesn’t follow that your view is correct. But it does follow that your worldview still makes incredible assertions that require a lot of explaining.</p>


title: Why Do Christians Fight Against Euthanasia Laws?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-do-christians-fight-against-euthanasia-laws-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/w0796LH4g8Q?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan responds to the question: If going to Heaven is so great, why do Christians want to prolong unhappy life on Earth?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The challenge question I was asked recently is this: If going to Heaven is so great, why do Christians fight against euthanasia laws? And I would say that’s because it’s wrong to use an evil means to secure a good end. You see, although going to Heaven is certainly a good thing, killing an innocent human being in order to get them there is morally wrong.</p>

<p>So for example, it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being in order to harvest their heart and to put it into someone who needs a new heart to live. In that case, an evil means is used to achieve a good end, and that’s not right to do. Now of course, my answer to this question presumes a certain definition of euthanasia. In this case, I’m defining it as the intentional killing of an innocent human being without their consent because it is believed to end their suffering from a disease or injury.</p>

<p>Now the key point is that the cause of their death is not from the disease or the injury but by the hand of the doctor or whoever takes their life. In other words, I’m making a distinction from terminating life support where we take a person who is brain dead off the machines that keep their body alive. Based on this definition, euthanasia would be a sin because it entails killing an innocent human being. And that’s one main reason why Christians fight against euthanasia laws.</p>


title: Can Atheists Ground the Claim That Abortion Is Wrong?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/28/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-atheists-ground-the-claim-that-abortion-is-wrong-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/9nhPzwF0HjE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>If a pro-life atheist doesn’t believe in a Moral Law Giver, can their view be consistent?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>If atheists can’t ground morality, can they be consistently pro-life? Well, if the question is whether atheists can oppose abortion, then of course the answer is yes. They can, in fact, fight against abortion laws, for example. But if the question is whether an atheist can ground the claim that abortion is objectively wrong, well, then the answer is gonna be no, and the reason is simple.</p>

<p>If you don’t believe in God, then there’s no law giver in the universe to provide an objective standard of morality that exists out there that we can judge our own actions by. And so if an atheist said abortion was wrong, they could only say it was wrong for them. The wrongness of abortion would only be wrong because they thought it was wrong not because it was actually wrong.</p>

<p>Now this is called moral relativism, and it’s the idea that morals — what’s right and wrong — are relative to each individual. Now, it turns out, though, that the problem is actually a lot worse than I’ve stated because if there’s no God, not only would abortion not be objectively wrong, but nothing would be objectively wrong — not theft, not lying, not even murder or rape. Every action is ultimately moral because, from the atheist’s perspective, there’s no divine law giver to set the standard.</p>

<p>Now notice, I’m not saying that an atheist can’t be moral or can’t think that those actions are wrong. In fact, many atheists do think they’re wrong. What I’m claiming here is that an atheist couldn’t explain why those actions are wrong in an objective sense. They could say, according to their own inner standard, they believe abortion and rape are wrong, but if they move, for example, to a country where there are people there who considered rape and abortion to be perfectly moral, then to what standard would the atheist then appeal to explain why those behaviors are wrong for those people in that country. All the atheist could say is this, “Well I think these things are wrong,”&nbsp;and the people in the country would reply, “Well, we disagree. Those actions are right in our eyes,”&nbsp;and so since they’re the majority, then of course their ways win.</p>

<p>In other words, might would then make right. In fact, I remember one time I was on a university campus, and I was involved in a protest against abortion, and I got into a conversation with this guy who was an atheist, and he told me, of course, that he thought abortion was morally permissible. He didn’t think abortion was wrong because he said, “Well, after all, there’s no God. And so if there’s no God, there’s no one to say that it’s wrong.”&nbsp;And I said, “I agree with you. You’re right. If there’s no God, then you’re right. Abortion is not wrong.”&nbsp;But I said, “Nothing then is wrong. Every behavior would then be permissible.”&nbsp;And his response was, “You’re right, I totally agree.”</p>

<p>So I was thinking, this is great. He’s totally agreeing with me. I’m gonna go further with this point. Then I said, “You know what, not only is nothing right or wrong if there’s no God, but there’s nothing of value in the universe either. We’re all stardust, and we have no value and meaning.”&nbsp;And then one of the most unsettling experiences happened to me at that point. He turned to me and he said, “You know what, you’re right. I’m not worth anything. I don’t believe I’m valuable at all, and that’s why I’ve often considered killing myself.</p>

<p>And I was like, oh man! I’m like, “Okay, I take back everything I said!”&nbsp;Now I didn’t, of course. I actually took some time to talk to him. I took down his phone number, actually I’ve been in contact with him for several years now just to make sure he’s okay and to try to, you know, share with him, of course, the truth.</p>

<p>But again, notice in this case this atheist was being consistent. He couldn’t deny God exists and believe abortion was objectively wrong. But as we agreed, if there’s no God, then nothing is right or wrong. All you have is individual preferences about what you like and don’t like. And so while I’m happy to partner with atheists who want to help fight abortion, I don’t think they’re being consistent with their worldview.</p>


title: Standing Stronger Because You Give
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/standing-stronger-because-you-give
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TPtuxvarUZ0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Because of your support, you and so many others were trained to be confident, clear-thinking, and courageous Christian ambassadors in 2017.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Because of your support, you and so many others were trained to be confident, clear-thinking, and courageous Christian ambassadors in 2017.</p>

<p>Thank you again for your friendship. Your commitment and loyal partnership impacts lives all over the world.</p>

<p>Happy Thanksgiving!</p>

<p>With gratitude,</p>

<p>Greg Koukl</p>


title: The Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-problem-of-evil
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/hyIQqaepR_o?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses a road block that often stands in the way of belief in Christianity.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Probably the most perennial challenge to any form of theism, especially Christian theism, is the problem of evil. This is huge, and it’s the kind of thing that people bring up all the time. I actually like the problem of evil. I mean, I don’t like evil, but I like it as an issue because of where it leads me. It turns out that the problem of evil is not the problem for Christianity that a lot of people think it is. Our entire story is all about the problem of evil, okay? It starts in the third chapter, and it ends 66 books later. Our whole story is about how God deals with the problem of evil. Let me make an observation at this point. In our story, God deals with it. In other stories, good luck.</p>

<p>God isn’t big enough, He’s in it with the rest of us, victimized by evil, that’s one approach. Evil is an illusion, a lot of Eastern religions have that view. Wow, that works? That’s not a solution. Atheism, they can’t even make sense of the problem of evil because in their story it’s in the beginning were the particles moving by natural forces. and that’s the beginning and the end of it. That’s it. You’re not gonna get any morality in that system. And Darwinism isn’t gonna help you, okay? Because you can’t get an objective moral principle to ground the problem of evil from reorganizing material stuff. It doesn’t happen, okay?</p>

<p>So in our story, we take the problem of evil seriously, and God deals with it. He deals with it in two ways. First, He becomes a man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth to rescue human beings for their own guilt for contributing to the problem of evil. Let’s face it, in our story, man started this problem. So man’s responsible for this problem to the Sovereign who made all things right to begin with, and then we messed it up. Big problem. So can we fix it? We can’t fix it, so God decides to help us by taking the responsibility, or I should say the guilt, for our crimes against God on Himself so that we can be forgiven, taking up residence inside of us so that the evil in our lives can get less and less and less as we grow in our friendship with Him and in our personal holiness, sanctification, we become better people.</p>

<p>This happens all the time. It’s standard fare, okay. And there’s also a plan down the line. Our story’s not over yet. Down the line there’s a plan to restore goodness completely to the creation, but God’s gonna do it in a way that He is able to rescue a whole bunch of guilty people through forgiveness, and that’s what’s going on in this section of the story, and boy am I glad that’s the case. Because if you think about for many people if God we’re gonna deal with the problem of evil tonight at 12:00 midnight, where would they be at 12:01?</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis says when the Author walks on the stage, the play is over. No, God is delaying because there are more people yet to experience God’s mercy and forgiveness instead of His judgement and that’s why the delay. God didn’t cause the problem of evil, but He has taken it upon Himself to solve it.</p>


title: Why Is Jesus The Only Way?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-jesus-the-only-way-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/z_kyqdu5ODk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg unpacks the powerful truth of God’s love, God’s anger, and His only provision for forgiveness of sins; His Son, Jesus Christ.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Probably the most offensive element of our message right now, in the culture that we’re in today, is that Jesus is the only way of salvation. How arrogant. How narrow-minded. How intolerant. How can Christians make this claim? Well, let me say a couple of things about it.</p>

<p>First of all, Christians make this claim because Christ made the claim. It’s not our idea, it’s His. He’s the one who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.”&nbsp;And that is just one instance in John 14, there are a whole bunch of other places that Jesus makes the same claim, in many different kinds of ways. Not only did He make the claim but He taught this to those who followed after Him. So that right in the beginning of the book of Acts, chapter 4, John can say, make that Peter, when he’s speaking to the Sanhedrin who executed Jesus, “There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.”&nbsp;And here he’s speaking to very religious people. So, get it straight right from the beginning. This is something that is foundational to the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore, foundational to the message of any follower of Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>Here’s the second thing I want you to get. Jesus said this for a reason. He didn’t just say this because He wanted to trick people into going to hell. Human beings have a terrible problem. They are lost in rebellion against God and God is angry. And that anger will be appeased because He’s a holy God. He is a just God. Some people don’t like the anger part. God’s a God of love. Why is He a God of love? Because He’s a good God. Well, if He’s, okay I like that, but then why is He angry? Because He’s a good God. The same reasoning He’s loving is the same reason He’s angry. He cannot let evil go unpunished, but because He’s good, He’s made a provision for forgiveness. And that comes through one person, because only one person did what needs to be done to purchase that forgiveness. Jesus made a trade, He died in our place. No one else did that for us, either Jesus takes the payment for our crimes against God or we take the payment.</p>

<p>The math is that simple. No other religious leader accomplished such a thing. They all need the kind of thing that Jesus alone provides. And so, if we put our trust in God’s Rescuer, then we are rescued. And if we don’t put our trust in Him, then there is no hope because there is no other rescue. Sometimes singular problems have singular solutions and that’s what we’re facing here.</p>

<p>Put most simply, the reason Jesus is the only way of salvation is because He’s the only one who solved the problem. He satisfied God’s anger. He purchased our salvation. He is the only way for us to be rescued.</p>


title: Can Genuine Love Only Be a Product of Free Will?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/23/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-genuine-love-only-be-a-product-of-free-will-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/GzFjKU6IkW8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is true love only possible if one has the ability to do otherwise? Greg explores this question in relation to God’s love for us.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Sometimes I get a question that I don’t completely understand the meaning of, in a certain sense. So here’s an example of that. How do you reconcile free will with a loving God? And when I heard the question I thought to myself, what exactly is the problem? If somebody were asking that to me in true Columbo fashion and genuinely I’d say, what do you mean by that that? That is, what is the conflict between God being a genuinely loving God and me acting with legitimate moral freedom, that is, the kind of freedom where I could do one thing or I might do another thing? I don’t see the conflict there.</p>

<p>You know, my wife loves me and I’m free. What’s the conflict? I don’t get it, you know. I’m free to do things she doesn’t like, but she still loves me. So I don’t see the inherent contradiction between loving someone and them being free. Now maybe the issue in some peoples’&nbsp;minds is that this is God loving us and so God obviously occupies a different role in the big scheme of things, and maybe the question has to do with God’s redemptive love. That is, God loves in a redemptive way in addition to a general way. And this is very clear in Scripture though it’s controversial with some people, that makes them uncomfortable.</p>

<p>Okay, there is a love God has for everyone, for God so loved the world, the cosmos, His whole world system that He made and everybody in it, okay. But He also has a special love for those who are redeemed. That’s a redemptive love. In fact, He talks about it, Jesus does, in the upper room discourse at John 15 or so, you know, that if we follow Him then the Father will love them and make His abode with them So there seems to be a separate category of love, and I guess some people have wondered if God is loving me in a redemptive way and that means that the love of God is drawing me inexorably into His kingdom, does that violate my free will?</p>

<p>Well my simple answer is I don’t think it is a violation of freedom and because – and I’ve never heard anybody talk about this point before – because they always talk about love requiring freedom to be genuine love. But I don’t think that the love we have for anyone – and I’m not talking about acting in a loving way when we don’t feel loving and that happens with everybody we love at certain times - our kids, our spouses, our friends, whatever. And we have an obligation to act loving when we don’t feel loving – but when it comes to the experience of love for people that we have deep in our hearts - that is never chosen.</p>

<p>When did you start loving your kids if you love your kids? Right when they were delivered to you, maybe some of you before they were delivered. They’re inside and you experienced love for them. Did you make a choice? No, it just happened. When people get married, at least in the West, they get married because something happens to them. There is something about the other person that produces a desire, and an attraction, and a connection that we then make choices to act on. Like for example, will you marry me? Or, I do. You know, that kind of thing.</p>

<p>But the thing that motivates the question or the commitment is not something you’re choosing. It’s something that happens to you. And I’m just just suggesting to you to think about maybe this is the way God works in the hearts of people to draw them inexorably, in an elected sense if you will, into the kingdom in a way that can’t be resisted. He woos them with such power that they are changed inside and they want Him and so they choose Him. It’s their choice. It’s a free choice. They could have done otherwise, it seems to me, but no, they choose Him because they want Him. I don’t know, something to think about. But certainly the idea that God loves us doesn’t in my thinking in any way, any meaningful way, violate our freedom.</p>


title: Does the Promise of a Reward Eliminate True Morality?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/11/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-promise-of-a-reward-eliminate-true-morality-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/jbaQ8u4EW6w?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg responds to the atheist claim that true morality can only exist without the enticement of reward or the threat of punishment.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>There’s a meme in play right now that basically says, “True morality is a morality that is not motivated by the enticement of a reward or the threat of a punishment.”&nbsp;If you’re doing something because there’s a reward involved, or you’re not doing something because you fear punishment, well that’s really not morality. Now you know where this is going or you know the purpose of this, and that is to demonstrate in some way that Christianity is really shallow when it comes to morality because after all, people who do good go to Heaven, people do bad go to Hell. That’s a mischaracterization, but let’s just deal with that for the moment. We’ll just accept that for the moment. And so it’s meant to show, “How shallow is that? That’s not real morality.”</p>

<p>Okay, so let me make a couple of observations. Pretty much as far as I know, every religious system that has God in the picture has that kind of system. That is, reward for good, punishment for bad. That’s the first thing. So if that is shallow morality, the only way to get rid of that shallowness is to get rid of God. But the minute you get rid of God you have gotten rid of morality. You cannot be a good moral law keeper for the right reasons, for the right motivations, if there are no transcendent moral laws to keep.</p>

<p>And by the way, don’t go to evolution here. This is just not going to work. If evolution explains our moral impulses, then this whole objection doesn’t even apply because all it does is explain why we believe in a morality that does not exist. We are tricked by evolution to do certain things we call moral that aren’t moral to get our genes into the next generation. So this whole discussion about exalted motivations for being moral wouldn’t even apply. That’s not even in the picture. If God doesn’t exist, there is no transcendent morality, and if there’s no transcendent morality, there is no moral virtue of any kind regardless of how you think your actions are motivated, all right?</p>

<p>So you’re kind of stuck with a system where God makes the moral rules and He also oversees them, but there’s a fundamental flaw I think in the whole enterprise, okay. Is it the case that all moral behavior – just think about it – that all moral behavior is somehow disqualified from being really good if there is a reward involved or if there is a threat of punishment? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>If both Jesus and Aristotle before Him talked about morality in the sense that morality is a thing that you ought to do for its own sense, for its own good, for its own value, okay, not for some other kind of external reward. So there’s some truth to this. But notice, even in this case, there’s a reward. You live the moral life so you can have the satisfaction of being virtuous. There’s a good feeling to being virtuous. There’s a bad feeling to being viceful if you’re morally in touch. So you can’t really avoid, in a certain sense, the the equation of reward or punishment. That’s kind of built-in.</p>

<p>But what about additional stuff? If I am nice to Grandma just to get the inheritance, obviously that is an illicit motivation for being nice to Grandma. However, if I’m seeking to be a noble virtuous person in order to honor God, and bring pleasure to God, and to be closer to God, well there the reward, so to speak, is the appropriate satisfaction for the behavior. Now C.S. Lewis talks about this – I wish I could remember exactly where it is – but he points out, sometimes there are illicit motivations for doing good, and that does undermine the goodness of the action, just like being nice to Grandma for the sake of getting the inheritance.</p>

<p>But there are other things that are the appropriate either rewards or punishments for certain behaviors. And so when you get those rewards, you are not somehow undermining the moral substance or value of the behavior itself, and if you get the punishment then you are not kind of undermining the legitimacy of that punishment or the behaviors. Look, if a person becomes a Christian to avoid the punishment that is due them, okay, that’s smart. Not particularly noble, all right? However, once one is a Christian and their temperament is tuned in to satisfying God, then there’s a reward that comes from that. As I mentioned before, that is the appropriate satisfaction of the thing that they’re doing without taking away any of the moral quality at all. See the difference there?</p>

<p>Okay, so what we’re faced with is a meme that is meant to undermine the shallowness of Christianity. First of all, if we get God out of the picture, rewards and punishments, then there’s no morality at all. So you forget about your so-called good, noble motivations for doing good because good does not exist in any ultimate sense, okay? With God in the picture of course, you could have bad motivations for doing good, but their getting rewarded is not necessarily a bad motivation. Careful thinking about the moral project helps us to show that this meme is just a shallow attempt to discredit the moral substance of Christianity. It does not work.</p>


title: Can Struggling and Doubt Ever Be Beneficial?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-struggling-and-doubt-ever-be-beneficial-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/kN4zCb_2n4I?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares how struggling and doubt can lead to growth in the life of a Christian.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So here’s a question: Can struggling and doubt ever be beneficial? Okay, two separate things actually, struggling and doubt, and the answer is “yes”&nbsp;to both. First, the reason this comes up is because people struggle, and they doubt. That is, people who are Christians engage in things in life that are hard and sometimes the hardness that they have to face causes them to doubt. Okay, totally understandable. Sometimes it’s harder than it ought to be because there’s a false expectation about the way life is supposed to be as a Christian, and we have to remember that Jesus said, “In this world you have tribulation,”&nbsp;and the tribulation is a good thing. It’s the kind of thing that God uses, for one, to train us, to develop us.</p>

<p>Says in 1 Peter chapter 2 that, “As Jesus suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves for the same purpose.”&nbsp;In chapter 4 Peter says, “Why are you surprised at this fiery ordeal amongst you as if something strange were happening to you?”&nbsp;This isn’t odd, this is ordinary. Hebrews I think maybe chapter 1 or 2 says that Jesus learned obedience through the things which He suffered.</p>

<p>So the idea of struggling as a Christian, as somebody who is behind the enemy lines, who was a stranger in a strange world, is standard for Christianity, and it is that struggle that God uses to conform us to the image of His son. That’s just the way God raises children, okay. Hebrews 12, “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful but sorrowful, but afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness,”&nbsp;okay? So, set your mind on this: If you’re gonna be a follower of Christ in this world, it’s gonna be hard. You’re gonna get challenges from the world, and God is going to allow you to go through those challenges so that He can conform you, as He’s promised, to the image of His son. That’s Romans 8. “We know that God causes all things to work for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He predestined to become conformed to the image of His son.”</p>

<p>By the way, that’s the way that God is gonna work all things for good, okay, in your life. So this is standard Christian living. Don’t be caught by surprise by it, okay? And if you understand that, you’re gonna have less reason to doubt. Now what about the doubt part? Is that bad? No, everybody doubts. Everybody – I doubt. I have questions that come up in my own mind and there are times when I wonder, “Gee, am I going down the right path here, or am I just wishing on a star?”&nbsp;Now I’ll tell you as time has gone on I have less, fewer and fewer doubts, but it’s still a standard part of Christianity.</p>

<p>Can that be beneficial? Of course, if you’re not overwhelmed by doubt, because you’ve sought out answers regarding the things that you doubt then that doubt can lead to stronger conviction. If you’re left alone in the midst of your suffering and you don’t understand that God has ordained difficulty for your good, you might think that God has abandoned you, and maybe there is no God at all, and if you have nobody else around you that can help encourage you, and love you, and pray for you, and give you reasons why the confidence that we have in Christ is well grounded, then it could be a tough situation, which is all the more reason why everybody - every church, every community, every Christian, ought to be familiar on some level with apologetics. That’s what we do at Stand to Reason.</p>

<p>So struggle and doubt, can they be useful? Sure. Struggle’s ordinary that makes you like Jesus as you respond to God. Doubt comes for everybody. The answers are there. You get the answers, you get the evidence, doubt can turn into stronger conviction.</p>


title: Why Do Other Religions Emphasize Works for Salvation?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-do-other-religions-emphasize-works-for-salvation-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/C76RMkeUcnQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>In Christianity, salvation is a gift rather than a reward for works. Alan shares why Christianity is different from many other religions in this way.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’ve been asked, why do you think there’s an emphasis on human works as a key to salvation in other religions? And the answer seems to me straight forward, and that is, there’s an emphasis on human works because all other religions are human made.</p>

<p>You see, I think human beings by nature think that good work qualifies you for rewards. That’s how many systems in society operate today. For example, you do good work at school, and you’re rewarded with good grades, which of course helps you get a good job. You work hard at your job, and you get a good payoff. You work hard in your marriage or in your friendships, and of course your relationships will improve.</p>

<p>So if all other religions are man made, then I’m not surprised that this works-reward system would find itself in religions and specifically in the requirements for salvation. And I think this is actually an indication for how we know that Christianity isn’t man made. Because if someone was going to invent their own religion, they wouldn’t think of making God do the work to save people. It wouldn’t make sense for them to invent a God who pursues the very people who are his enemy. They wouldn��t think of making God sacrifice himself to save sinful humans.</p>

<p>But that’s what Christianity says, and that to me is at least an indication that we’re not talking about a man made system.</p>


title: How Do We Know That God Can Sympathize with Our Weaknesses?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/30/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-do-we-know-that-god-can-sympathize-with-our-weaknesses-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/M2VJelWl_Fs?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Since God is perfect and never does anything wrong, can He really understand our struggles in life?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So how do we know that God Himself can sympathize with our weaknesses? One of the most frustrating things for me in being in a friendship with God is that whenever anything goes wrong, it’s always my fault. God’s perfect. Nothing goes wrong for Him. He never makes any mistakes. He knows everything. He’s got all power. Everything is just right with Him. Anything goes south, it’s always on my shoulders. And that will give us sometimes the the tendency to think, well God doesn’t understand. I mean, He might know academically because He’s omniscient, but empathizing, sympathizing, being in it with us, knowing how we feel, experiencing that with us, well, that’s something that He is simply not capable of doing. He’s way out there.</p>

<p>Okay, now the answer to that is actually quite unique, in a way. Sympathy, like empathy I think, they’re similar, is the ability to feel for another person because you’ve been there yourself. Now, has God been there before the incarnation? No. After the incarnation? Absolutely.</p>

<p>In fact, you can read in Hebrews chapter 2, I think it’s 14 through 18 right in there, that the Son took on flesh and blood to be like us, to endure what we endure, to feel what we feel, to experience what we experience, so that as the text says – and by the way, the experiences of temptation as well. Temptation beyond what any of us would ever experience because remember, Jesus had the power to do a whole lot of things we couldn’t do. Turning stones into bread - that’s not a temptation for me. I don’t know about you, but I can’t do that. Jesus could but said no. So He’s got more temptation. He’s been tempted in all ways like as we are but without sin, so now He’s able to run to the cry, the writer of Hebrews says, of those who are tempted.</p>

<p>Now we’ve got a great High Priest in Jesus, the God Man who knows, who’s experienced it, who has been there in spades, so to speak, so that He can understand, and this is why Jesus says come unto me all who are weary and heavy-laden and I will give you rest. Do you think Jesus understood what it was like to be weary, to be heavy laden, to in a certain sense, I don’t know if overwhelmed is quite the right word, but severely put upon? Every kind of distress that you could possibly imagine in terms of the category. Whether it was physical suffering, emotional suffering, friends leaving, friends dying, people turning against you, living perfectly without ever doing anything wrong and people leveling charges that were undeserved at you. Charges that were so severe they called for the death penalty which He suffered.</p>

<p>No, Jesus gets it. Jesus can sympathize. Can God sympathize? Yes, the God Man, Jesus of Nazareth, knows, understands, and can sympathize with us. Good thing. Good thing.</p>


title: Why Is Jesus Different?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-jesus-different-video-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/OXjAcpgikUE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains how and why Jesus stands apart from other religious leaders.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So my question here is, “Why is Jesus different from other religious leaders?”&nbsp;And frankly, I thought the question was going to be, “How is Jesus different from other religious leaders?”&nbsp;So let me deal with the first question first, and it’s very easy to answer. Why is He different? Because no other religious leader did what was adequate to do to rescue men from their problem.</p>

<p>All other religious leaders, in one way or another, describe for you a rescue plan that you can implement and rescue yourself before God. Do this, this, this, this, this, whatever it happens to be. Do good, do these spiritual asanas, if you��re an eastern religion, do these behaviors, rescue yourself. In the Christian story of reality, which is the true story of reality, God rescues man. Man does not rescue himself. Why doesn’t he rescue himself? Because he cannot rescue himself.</p>

<p>The problem – and you’ve got to get the problem right to know what the right rescue is, right? Okay, and the problem is is that man has rebelled against God, he is guilty of sedition against his Sovereign, and he owes God. He must pay a debt just like anybody who commits a crime has to pay their debt to society. We use the same language. So there’s a debt that is owed.</p>

<p>How do we pay? Well, we pay by God casting us out from His presence for ever. Ruined for relationship with Him forever. And when we were made to be with God in friendship with Him, and we are cast away from His presence forever, we will be ruined for our original purpose, and that will be Hell. Okay, so that’s the problem. How do we get rescued from that? We can’t pay the debt. Someone else pays it. Who pays it? The only one who can pay it. God pays the debt. He becomes a man Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, lives the life that we should have lived but didn’t, and then dies the death that we deserve, but He rescues us from.</p>

<p>So why is Jesus different? Because the other people could not do what needs to be done. How is He different? He’s the god-man. He’s the only one who did what needs to be done. The way I like to put it is the reason Jesus is the only way of salvation is that He’s the only one who solved the problem. That is why He is different, and that is also how He is different.</p>


title: Does Christianity Brainwash the Vulnerable?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/15/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-christianity-brainwash-the-vulnerable-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/QKMm1kxcRys?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg refutes the challenge that those who turn to Christ during a difficult time in life have somehow been taken advantage of.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>You know, it’s not unusual for someone to become a Christian right after some very difficult time in their life. They’re vulnerable, okay. But of course, this leaves them open to the charge that a person who’s vulnerable is more open to being brainwashed, okay. So let me respond to that for a moment.</p>

<p>What is vulnerability?</p>

<p>Vulnerability is a time in your life when, generally, the kind of circumstance we’re talking about, you feel a lot of pain, a lot of anguish, and it causes you to ask questions about the world and look for answers to them in response to your anguish, okay. Now, is it unusual for someone to look to God in a moment of anguish? The answer is, “no.”&nbsp;Of course, this happens all the time, alright? But, do you have any idea how many people become atheists in the same set of circumstances?</p>

<p>They lose a loved one, they encounter a terrible circumstance that assaults their life. They are anguished, they are vulnerable, they are looking for answers, and the answer they come up with is, “There is no God.”&nbsp;So some people during a time of anxiety and vulnerability see God as the answer to that, and others, in the same set of circumstances, see no God as the answer. Do you get the point I’m making here?</p>

<p>The fact that one is anguished and vulnerable is not itself is not the deciding factor of whether what you believe is true or not, whether you’ve been brainwashed or not. That is always determined by something else. It’s determined by the reasons. Are there good reasons when you’re vulnerable and anxious and experience a tragedy to be driven to God as the only source of meaning and security.</p>

<p>The answer from where I sit is, “yes.”&nbsp;We give those reasons all the time. And I could elucidate them time and time again. Is there good reason if we go through anxiety, and discomfort, and hardship, and loss to doubt the existence of God? Well there I think you’ve got a problem. Because if there is no God, then there are no tragedies. No moral tragedies. There are things that we don’t like. But how do we say that this is evil, or this is bad, or this is wrong, or it shouldn’t be that way if there is no God to determine the way the world actually should be?</p>

<p>So it turns out that this challenge that when you’re anxious and go through a time of vulnerability that’s when you’re really open to being brainwashed about God is an empty challenge because frankly, it can go in either direction. Ultimately, what matters for the issue of the soundness of our convictions are the reasons that back them up, not the emotions that might drive them.</p>


title: Why Don’t More People Accept Jesus?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-don-t-more-people-accept-jesus-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/zfApL3jdup8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses why many people reject Jesus.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I have a talk I give that’s titled, “Bad arguments against God,”&nbsp;and there are lots of legitimate ways, I think, to go after Christianity. Like Paul says, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then we are of most people to be pitied, okay. And so if there is no resurrection, we’re wrong. If there is no God, we’re wrong. If there was no Jesus, we’re wrong. I mean so there are legitimate ways to go after Christianity, but in this talk I I deal with what I think are bad ways, ill-informed ways of challenging God’s existence or challenging Christianity.</p>

<p>And in that talk I make a an observation, and the observation is, there are lots of people who make very foolish mistakes in thinking who are otherwise intelligent. They’re bright. They’re doctors, they’re lawyers, they’re PhDs, they’re academics of all sorts. They’re really smart people, but when it comes to spiritual things, they make really foolish mistakes. And this brings us to the question of why is it that Jesus is not accepted by the rank-and-file? Why aren’t more people Christians? And I think some people are tempted to think that it’s because Christianity is not intellectually credible in some fashion, you know.</p>

<p>There’s not good reasons for it. There’s not good evidence for it. But see, this is just not the case. Because we can marshal all kinds of great evidence in favor of the existence of God, or the reality of the Resurrection, or the historical Jesus who did miracles, and said the things that Jesus said, and a whole host of other things. Virtually every area that is vital to the Christian worldview we can give solid reasons why believing in that is better than believing some other alternative. So the reasons are there. Why is it that people don’t get it if it seems so simple, it seems so straightforward?</p>

<p>And the reason is – which is the same reason that very intelligent people make very foolish mistakes in thinking when it comes to God – is because it’s not based simply on thinking. There are lots of reasons that people reject the claims of the Gospel and Jesus of Nazareth. Sometimes it’s for rational reasons. Maybe they’ve never been exposed to some of the things that we know about through Stand to Reason and other organizations like us, apologetics. Sometimes it’s just through prejudice. They have a narrow focus. They don’t want to think about the alternatives. They have prejudged them without looking at them, and they’re prejudiced against them.</p>

<p>Sometimes there are emotional reasons. People say, “I can’t believe in Christianity because if I believed in that then I would have to admit that my parents, who now died, are not with God, and I can’t countenance that. So that’s an emotional reason right? Understandable. Sometimes it’s just bull-headedness. People do not want to to bend the knee. And you know, there are a whole bunch of atheists that have said just that. “I don’t want to believe in God. He messes with my social life, He messes with my sex life. I do not want to bend the knee.”</p>

<p>And that really, I think, is the ultimate issue. Why is it that most intelligent people don’t believe in Jesus? Well, it’s the same reason most unintelligent people don’t believe in Jesus. Has nothing to do with intelligence, it’s because that Jesus makes too big of a moral and ethical demand on peoples’&nbsp;lives. They have to bend the knee. People don’t want to do that. That’s the reason most people don’t become Christians, and not any other.</p>


title: Does Faith Require God to Be Hidden?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-faith-require-god-to-be-hidden-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uqFmZTlgLo4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>There’s a notion going around that in order for us to have real faith, God must remain hidden. Greg uses biblical support to respond to this claim.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>There’s a fairly popular notion going around that in order to have real faith, God must be hidden. This is not just a notion that Christians have. They’ll say, for example, “If you have all this evidence for God, then where is room for faith?”&nbsp;But it also is kind of the way the standard atheists nowadays is defining faith. Faith is what you use when you have no reasons, okay? Now look, people can define faith however they want for their own purposes, but if you’re talking about Christian faith, you gotta let Christianity define it, and that is not the way the biblical record characterizes faith, that faith only works when God is completely hidden.</p>

<p>Let me ask you a question. Was God hidden when the Red Sea was parted by His power? Was God hidden when when there was a pillar of fire that guided the Hebrews by night and a pillar of cloud by day? Was God hidden when Jesus was standing there appealing for people’s trust in Him as Messiah while He worked miracles? Feeding 5,000, raising the dead, healing the sick. You know, raising Himself from the dead. I mean, these are powerful manifestations of the presence and the reality of God that were all the foundations for people’s faith.</p>

<p>In fact, John said that the reason he wrote the entire gospel of John, and you can read this in John chapter 20. He said, “Many other signs and wonders,”&nbsp;these are miracles, “Jesus performed that are not written in this book,”&nbsp;and He says later, “If all of those had been written they would have filled the books of the world, but many other things He performed I haven’t included in this book but the things that I have included,”&nbsp;that is, the evidence of the miracles of Jesus, he says, “I’ve included in order that you would believe,”&nbsp;that’s faith, right? “...that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah and in believing have life in His name.”&nbsp;There you go. What could be more obvious?</p>

<p>So when Christians say, “Faith only works when God is hidden,”&nbsp;they’re not understanding the text. When atheists say, “Faith only is legitimate when you have no evidence,”&nbsp;this is self-serving because this is just a way of pigeonholing Christianity and Christian faith as having no evidence because that’s the way they define faith. It isn’t what the book teaches. Look it, reason believes, faith trusts. Let me say it again, reason gives us substance to believe that something is true. Our faith is an act of trust in that which we have good reason to believe is so. That’s biblical faith.</p>


title: Does the Biblical Teaching on Homosexuality Inflame Violence?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/05/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-biblical-teaching-on-homosexuality-inflame-violence-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uBLRpIe2JyY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan responds to the question of whether or not the classical biblical teaching on sexuality causes violence.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Doesn’t the Christian position that homosexuality is sin inflame violence against the LGBT community? Now, there are at least three reasons why I don’t think this is the case.</p>

<p>Here’s the first: The view that homosexual behavior is sin has been around for like 2,000 years and in fact, much longer if you consider Jewish teaching. Has there been 2,000 years of violence against people who engage in homosexuality? Now, of course there’s obviously been violence against these people at times, but the burden of proof would have to be on the people who claim it’s because of the Christian view that people have attacked homosexuals. You’d have to show, for example, that because of Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on sex and marriage in Matthew 15 and 19, for example, that people are committing violence. You can’t just assert that and think that makes it true.;</p>

<p>Second, if the Christian position that homosexuality is sin inflames violence, why doesn’t the Christian position on other sexual sins also inflame violence against those sinners? Of all the religions out there, Christianity holds that there are many people engaged in sin: fornicators, idolators, adulterers, liars, thieves, swindlers, you name it. Yet there isn’t an epidemic of people out there beating other people up because they think the Bible says those people are in sin.</p>

<p>And third, normal healthy people don’t just commit violence against others. Look, I mean I hold the Christian position that homosexual behaviors is sin, yet I’ve never committed violence against anyone in the LGBT community nor have I ever been tempted to do so. Now, why is that? Well you might say, “Well Alan, you know, you’re not crazy. You’re normal. You’re a well-adjusted person.”&nbsp;Okay, and that’s right. Normal healthy people just don’t commit violence against other people because simply they just think they’re wrong. Only people who are not mentally healthy do that, which goes to show that the Christian view – in itself – does not inflame violence.</p>


title: Do You Need Religion to Have Morals?
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/04/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-you-need-religion-to-have-morals-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/MMi5oMC-jxo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan responds to an atheist’s challenge: “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Here’s a challenge I’ve been asked to respond to. People say, “You don’t need religions to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.”&nbsp;Now to be fair, there is some truth to what this person is saying, right? I mean, someone without any religious convictions can certainly have morals, right? They can have a set of rights and wrongs that they live by, they can abstain from lying, they can feed the poor, they can do good or evil, right? I’ll give them that. But there is at least two problems with this claim.</p>

<p>The first is this: It’s simply the fact that this challenge is a straw man, meaning it misrepresents at least the Christian claim. Christians, for example, are not claiming that non-religious people don’t or can’t have morals. The real question is, how does a person who doesn’t believe in God provide a foundation for objective morality? This, of course, leads me to the second problem with this claim. That is, if morals are just a human invention created by each individual or even by each society, then it’s impossible that morals are objective, and by objective morals I mean something is right or wrong independent of whether anyone believes that or not.</p>

<p>For example, slavery is objectively wrong. That means owning slaves is wrong even when society believed it was right and passed laws to protect the right to own slaves. Now, for believers in God, the wrongness of slavery is grounded in God’s unchanging standard, but if there’s no God, how is it possible that slavery is objectively wrong? All you can say is, “I think slavery is wrong, or society says slavery is wrong.”&nbsp;But if you change your mind or society changes their mind, then slavery can become a moral good. That means morals ultimately are relative, or we call that moral relativism. Slavery then isn’t inherently wrong, it’s only wrong when society says it’s wrong.</p>

<p>So going back to the original challenge where they say, “You don’t need a religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.”&nbsp;Well, if by morals they mean moral relativism, then I agree with them. You don’t eat religion for moral relativism. But then their view says that nothing is inherently wrong, it’s just wrong because society says so at the time, and that hardly demonstrates empathy.</p>


title: Was Jesus Just a Great Teacher?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/02/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-just-a-great-teacher-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/6oZyhGiHa5s?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg unpacks why Jesus was more than just a morally good teacher.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So, was Jesus just a great teacher? The key word in that sentence is the word just because pretty much everybody acknowledges that Jesus was a great teacher. What’s curious about that is even people who challenge the legitimacy or authority or reliability of the Bible as an historical text, these people still have an opinion about Jesus and they’ll come forward with it quickly. Oh, he was just a great teacher, he was just a great moral prophet so to speak, you know. So that depends on the documents being reliable at least as far as they speak to that issue.</p>

<p>But then they want to leave it at that. They want to say, “Well, he wasn’t God, he wasn’t the Messiah, he wasn’t the only savior of the world.”&nbsp;Now, there’s a problem with this and the problem is, and this is famously developed by CS Lewis so I’m just hitchhiking on his thoughts here, that if Jesus made the claims that the primary source historical documents, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John say that he made, then that person cannot be called a great teacher if he’s not right about those traumatic and controversial claims. Principally, that he is the God who made everything now come to earth. And Jesus did make that claim in ways that was very evident to the people of his time, “You being a man make yourself out to be God. You being a man make yourself equal with God.”</p>

<p>I mean this got him in big trouble with the Jews of his time. They understood what he was saying. And then later, those who Jesus personally trained to follow after him, and wrote other letters and material for the New Testament, they made the same claim more explicitly. So, make no mistake about the fact that he did make this particular claim.</p>

<p>But what if he was mistaken? And as a lot of people think. No he wasn’t that, he was this. He wasn’t God, he was just a good moral teacher, or something like that. Well, if he’s mistaken then he either knew he was mistaken, which would make him a liar and therefore not a good man, or he didn’t know he was mistaken and he actually believed that he was God. He was the God who made the world. He was the God to whom everybody should bend the knee. Now anybody who thinks that about themselves, who isn’t God, is nuts. I mean, let’s just face it. That’s crazy. That’s lunacy. And this is why there’s this famous way of characterizing this that many have used, it goes way, way back to the ancients, “cur deus cur homo malus”&nbsp;in Latin it mean, “Either God or a bad man.”</p>

<p>But there’s no middle ground. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be, and therefore, he was God, and he was the Messiah, and he was the only way of salvation, and a great teacher. Or, he wasn’t who he claimed to be, which means he was either lying or he is nuts. And if he��s either of those, he’s not a<br>
great moral teacher. He’s not a great teacher at all. He’s a lunatic or a liar. As C.S. Lewis properly put it, “He did not leave the other option open to us. He did not intend to.”</p>


title: Are We Morally Free Creatures?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/16/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-we-morally-free-creatures-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/68TuIpn98eI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg defines freedom from a biblical worldview and highlights our level of freedom as fallen creatures.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>You may be wondering since we are fallen from birth, morally fallen, do we really have moral freedom, if that’s the case? And this depends entirely on what you mean by moral freedom. And in a lot of these challenges, definitions are critical. Okay?</p>

<p>So, there’s two concepts of moral freedom that we might work with here. And one of the concepts of freedom is just the idea that you can do one thing but you could have done something else if you wanted to. In other words, you have the ability to do something else. Philosophers call this the “C.D.O.”&nbsp;condition, “Could have done otherwise.”&nbsp;Okay? Now, when it comes to our moral behavior, gee, it seems like in most cases when we do something bad we could have done otherwise. We could have done the right thing. And this is why we punish criminals and why we spank our kids because they could have done otherwise and they should have done otherwise. And so, their punishment or discipline or direction is appropriate. Okay?</p>

<p>So, we do have freedom in that sense, although, it is not the case that in every circumstance we are able or going to, maybe that’s a better way of putting it, we are going to choose the good. And it’s not because of kind of native physical inability but it’s because our wills are tainted by the fall. We will not do good. We consistently choose the bad. So, we have here a doctrine of moral freedom that makes us responsible because we could have done otherwise, yet, at the same time we will not in many cases, which makes us responsible for our sins.</p>

<p>Now, there’s another sense of moral freedom that I think it’s important to keep in mind because when you think about the could had done otherwise moral requirement, it doesn’t seem like God satisfies that requirement because God is perfectly good, isn’t He? And He can’t sin. It is not in His nature to sin. He can do whatever He wants and everything He wants to do is good. Okay? So, God doesn’t satisfy that requirement, He does not have that kind of moral freedom. It seems to me He has a different kind of moral freedom. He has the freedom, that is the ability, to always do what’s right. The ability to always do what’s right, one might argue, is a superior kind of freedom. Okay? Because it is the freedom from sinning. That’s the kind of freedom that God seems to have. He can do good, He always does good, He can never sin, that’s a good thing.</p>

<p>And in my view at least, that’s the kind of moral freedom we’ll have when we get into heaven. When we see Him, we shall be like Him because we will see Him as He is. And frankly, that’s the kind of moral freedom I want. I don’t want this kind of moral freedom when I could have done otherwise, I could sin. I want to be done with that. I want to have the freedom that reflects a change in my nature that allows me to always do what’s right, and in that sense, because of God, we will be like God in the resurrection.</p>


title: Why Is There So Much Evil?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/18/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-there-so-much-evil-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VgBvh-dMg0Q?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan shares some thoughts regarding three realms of brokenness that produce evil in the world.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’ve been asked a simple question: Why is there so much evil? And to me, the answer is also simple. It’s because creation and everything in it is broken.</p>

<p>Right, we live in a fallen creation, and this brokenness is evident in three realms. The first is, there’s brokenness in the human realm. Right? I mean, the only morally culpable physical beings, humans, are born with a sin nature and capable of an enormous amount of evil. That’s why in Romans 5:12 it talks about how every person sins, which of course contributes to all the evil in the world.</p>

<p>The second is there’s brokenness in the physical realm, that is, in creation itself. And because of the fall of man, creation was effected, and that’s why in Romans 8 Paul talks about how creation was subjected to futility and will eventually be set free from its slavery to corruption. Creation’s fallenness can lead to hardship and suffering which of course, then many people interpret as contributing to evil.</p>

<p>And finally, there’s brokenness in the spiritual realm, right? I mean you have these powerful angelic beings, demons, and of course Satan, who operate in the spiritual realm, and of course they’re set on destroying God’s plan. Scripture even says in 1 John 5 that the world is under the control of the evil one who, of course, is Satan. And although God is ultimately sovereign, with Satan currently in control, there’s gonna be a lot of evil.</p>

<p>So again, why is there so much evil? Well, because all three realms have fallen elements to them. And of course, they collectively contribute to all the evil that we experience. Thankfully though, God has promised to destroy all evil one day and restore the heavens and the earth to their proper state.</p>


title: Do Our Souls Continue to Develop in Heaven?
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-our-souls-continue-to-develop-in-heaven-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/oyo9GhSx6Wk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan distinguishes between two types of soul development and shares his thoughts on which one we’ll experience in Heaven.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’ve been asked if our soul continues to develop in Heaven. Now, before we answer that we have to first answer the question, “What is a soul?”&nbsp;And I’d say human beings are, according to Scripture, a combination of a physical body and a non-physical self. And that non-physical part is your soul. And I would argue it’s kind of where your thoughts, your emotions, your will, your memories, and really all of your consciousness happens.</p>

<p>Now, people often talk about the brain, the physical part of humans, being responsible for thinking and learning, but I don’t believe that’s the case. Now, during our life on Earth, I think it’s pretty obvious that our soul develops in at least two ways: sanctification and knowledge. So sanctification is the process by which we are being conformed to Christ, and I would include moral character development in this category.</p>

<p>But our souls also develop in knowledge as we learn new things and we develop new skills. The question though is, “Do our souls continue to develop in Heaven or in the afterlife?”&nbsp;Now, I’m gonna do a little bit of speculating here, but I would say that our soul will continue to develop in knowledge but not in sanctification. In other words, for those people who God saves, their sanctification will be made complete in the afterlife. They will no longer be morally corrupt and won’t be capable of sin.</p>

<p>However, we will not become all of the sudden omniscient and know everything like God. We will still be finite beings, and that will mean we will continue to learn new things. We’ll be able to gain more knowledge and develop new skills. And in fact, to me, this is one of the most exciting aspects of the afterlife, that we will continue to explore creation and learn more about it with God forever.</p>


title: Does God Literally Desire All to Be Saved?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/29/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-literally-desire-all-to-be-saved-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/CXUHEvfSCj0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg unpacks the definition of “desire”&nbsp;in light of 1 Timothy 2:3-4.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Okay, so here’s a challenging question: Does God literally desire all to be saved? Now of course, the emphasis of that question, with the word “literally,”&nbsp;is on the “all,”&nbsp;but the operative word there is not “all.”&nbsp;The operative word is “desire,”&nbsp;okay? Because there are different ways that God could want something.</p>

<p>We read in 1 Timothy, for example, that God desires all men to be saved and so this is in Chapter 2, I believe. And so what are we to make of that when all are not saved, for one. And also, there are other questions about election that kind of enter into the discussion. So in some way, this is going to be, my answer is going to be influenced by my own theology on this, but it’s principally by way of removing a kind of challenge or objection to the concept of sovereign grace, whatever your own personal views happen to be on this. And I mentioned that the operative word is “desire,”&nbsp;so this is talking about the will of God.</p>

<p>It seems to me very clear in Scripture that God can have a will in two different senses. One sense, David says, and in other places in the Psalms, and other places in Scripture, that God does His will in Heaven and on Earth. Who can stand against His will? Who can oppose His will? So there’s a sense in which we all understand that when God desires to do something, and He puts His effort into doing it, it gets done. That’s God’s will. We might call that God’s sovereign will.</p>

<p>There are other times when God uses the word “will”&nbsp;in the text, or a writer does, and says, “it’s God’s will that,”&nbsp;and it’s clear that it’s not always done. 1 Thessalonians 4, for example, says, “And this is God’s will for your life,”&nbsp;okay, so for those who’ve been looking for God’s will, here it is, or at least part of it, “even your sanctification that you abstain from sexual immorality.”&nbsp;Okay? No duh. A lot of people don’t get this one nowadays, but it’s really clear - 1 Thess. 4. It’s God’s will that we don’t sin sexually. Do people sin sexually? Yes. So there is a sense in which God’s will cannot be thwarted, and there is another sense of God’s will in which it can be thwarted. The first time God says, “I want this done, and I’m going to do it.”&nbsp;The second time God says, “I want this done, and you’re supposed to do it.”&nbsp;Alright? First can’t be thwarted, the second can.</p>

<p>So the question now is: How do we apply that concept to the issue of salvation? Does God want all to be saved? And according to 1 Timothy, the answer is “yes,”&nbsp;in one sense. Now, He doesn’t want all to be saved sovereignly, or else everyone would be saved. Common sense. He desires all to bend the knee and turn to Him. That’s what He wants. Now, this is not going to happen. It’s obvious, okay? So there is a sense, in a certain degree, morally, that God wants all to be saved. I think that’s the 1 Timothy sense. But then there’s another sense where God, at least according to some, exercises a sovereign will to rescue some and not others. And those that He sovereignly decides to rescue, which are called the elect, He does so.</p>

<p>Now, you don’t have to buy the theology, the Reformed Theology. The point I’m making here is if you do buy the Reformed Theology, you are not vulnerable to some kind of contradiction with regards to the question of all people being saved, okay? Because God could want all people to be saved in one sense but not want all people to be saved in another. And unless we have a distinction like that – God’s sovereign will and God’s moral will – then we have a contradiction in Scripture, and this is not good. No, God’s will is used, the notion of God’s will is used in two different ways and one in the sovereign sense and one in the moral sense, and I think both ways are used with regards to the question of people’s salvation.</p>


title: Does God’s Law Demand Perfection?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-s-law-demand-perfection-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/usPlfGz70d8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses the standard of God’s law.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>There is a big problem that frustrates a lot of people when it comes to God and His demands on us, His law. And that is, it seems from what Christians say that God’s law demands perfection, and that’s just a little bit much. But I’m gunna let you in on a little secret: Every law demands perfection.</p>

<p>Okay, so we live in a community with laws, right? Tell me which law in our community that we can legally and properly violate with impunity without any expectation of legal recourse against us? Okay? Now sometimes the laws are not always enforced consistently, but that we figure, well we got away with that. But notice I said, “we got away with it.”&nbsp;Because we realize we should have gotten the penalty, probably, for what we did wrong, but we were able to slip through. The cop didn’t catch me, I was speeding, whatever happens to be, all right? There is no law that says, there is no system of law that says, okay, if you keep most of them or you keep more than you break, you’re okay.</p>

<p>So I got caught speeding once, right? And I couldn’t have said to the police officer when I was speeding on the freeway, “Well, you know what, you got me dead to rights, but before I got on the freeway, I stopped at four different stop signs like, not a California rolling stop but a solid, complete, no motion stop. So I kept those laws, so therefore you ought to be a little lenient on this one.”&nbsp;It doesn’t work that way, right? You’re not gonna keep the laws for five years and then get a letter from the district attorney and he says, “Man I noticed that you haven’t broken any laws. Why don’t you knock off a few gas stations on us. There’s credit in your account,”&nbsp;right? Doesn’t work that way, and it doesn’t work that way with God either.</p>

<p>So in James chapter 2 verse 10 it says any person who’s broken one law has broken the whole law. And the point is is that if you break one part of the law you’re a law breaker, whatever part it is. Let’s say you commit murder, you’re a law breaker. Oh, you don’t commit murder, good for you. You commit adultery, you’re still a law breaker. Or whatever it is. And it turns out if you go down the major ten we pretty much broken every single one of them on a regular basis. We are guilty before God. Even if the law is lenient, it still turns out we’re in tough shape, and this is why we need a rescuer. This is precisely why we need a rescuer.</p>

<p>You know, Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount, really quickly, gives all these different variations - they say, I say, they say, I say, they say, I say, and so you look at the law and say, I can keep that. He said no you can’t because look it, here’s another detail. And then He ends that section with you are to be perfect as my Father is perfect. Perfect? Yep, that’s what the law requires. Well nobody can do that. Right. Which means what? You need a rescuer. That’s the point. That’s the whole point. The law, like a teacher, drives us to Jesus, and we look at ourselves, and we realize how bad we really are. And we ask God for forgiveness. We beat our breast. We bend our knee. We say, “God have mercy on me, a sinner. Lord Jesus have mercy on me.”</p>


title: Is Christianity the Only Way?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/11/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-christianity-the-only-way-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/GfBjO8qvAMA?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim highlights the eternal significance and exclusivity of Christianity.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Is Christianity the only way? Well, Jesus and His disciples certainly thought so. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me.”&nbsp;Jesus explicitly says that he is the way, not a way. In fact, no one gets to God except through Him. When facing the same ruling body that crucified Christ, Peter’s own confession is equally exclusive. He says, “And there is salvation in no one else. For there is no other name under heaven, that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”</p>

<p>Now let me make an observation at this point. The claim that Christianity is the only way rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I think that stems from a misunderstanding of the kind of claim that it is. Many people treat religious claims like preference claims. In the same way some people prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream, some people prefer Christianity over some other religion. On this ice cream view of religion, it doesn’t make any sense to say that Christianity is the one, true religion. In the same way, it wouldn’t make sense to say that chocolate ice cream is the one, true flavor of ice cream.</p>

<p>But religion isn’t like ice cream, it’s more like insulin. When it comes to Type 1 juvenile diabetes, it doesn’t matter if you like it or not. The truth of the matter is that insulin controls diabetes. There is a correspondence to reality. There’s a reason why Jesus and His disciples claimed He was the only way. He’s the only person to deal with our sin. What do I mean? Well, we’re all sinners. That’s not a putdown, I’m just being descriptive. We’re all guilty of breaking God’s perfect, moral law. We can’t even live up to our own standards much less than the standards of a holy God. And guilty people deserved to be punished. That’s the bad news.</p>

<p>The good news is that those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, God’s only provision of salvation, will be saved. Through His death on the cross, Jesus purchased a pardon for anyone who believes in Him. With it, we’re rescued. Without it, we stand alone. Anyone trusting in their own merits will be judged by those merits and found wanting. Anyone trusting in the merits of Christ, the Sinless One, will be judged by the merits of Christ and will find favor.</p>

<p>So, Christianity is absolutely unique in what it claims. No other religion, or religious leader, has dealt with the reality of human sin. Only Jesus did that. Now, just because Christianity teaches that it’s an exclusive religion, doesn’t mean it’s not also inclusive. What do I mean by that? It’s exclusive in that it teaches that Jesus is the only way. But it’s also inclusive in that it’s a genuine offer of salvation to everyone who believes.</p>


title: How Is Christianity Different From Other Religions?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/18/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-is-christianity-different-from-other-religions-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VihvPnmhUDU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan unpacks the unique reality of Christianity, as compared to other world religions, as the only means of salvation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How is Christianity different from other religions? Well, Christianity is unique in that it puts all of the work of salvation, of getting into heaven, onto God instead of man. Every religion in the world is about what man can do to qualify to get into heaven.</p>

<p>To get into heaven, for example, in Judaism you have to be righteous and you have to engage in deeds of lovingkindness to others. To attain nirvana in Buddhism, for example, you have to walk the eightfold path. To get into heaven in Islam, you have to perform the five pillars, or other good works so that your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds in the final judgment. To achieve moksha in Hinduism, and to be able to be released from the cycle of death and rebirth, you have to follow one or more of the four paths that are described in Hinduism.</p>

<p>You see, in every other religion, the work and the responsibility is on you. But Christianity is the only religion where God is the One who does the work to qualify man to enter into heaven. Now of course, God’s standard is perfection and God realizes that no person can live a perfect life. No one can do everything right all of the time. We’re weak. We’re flawed. And even on our best day we falter. So earning the right to salvation is going to be impossible.</p>

<p>And that’s why God needs to do the work. And that’s what God did. He realized that no one can live according to His perfect standard of behavior, and therefore, no one qualifies to enter into heaven. So God decides to do it Himself. He takes on the form of humanity, in the Person of Jesus Christ, and He lived the perfect life, a life that none of us could live. That perfection, that righteousness, of Jesus is what is imputed to us. It’s placed on us. So, when God looks at us, He doesn’t see the filthy wretches that we are, but He sees the perfect righteousness of Jesus. And based on that, what God did, it grants us the right to enter into eternity.</p>

<p>So that to me is what makes Christianity unique from other religions. Every other religion is about man trying to do good works to get up to God, or to obtain salvation. But Christianity is about God coming down to save man.</p>


title: Presenting Christianity in a Thoughtful Way
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/presenting-christianity-in-a-thoughtful-way
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y8OS_Q0Prt4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg “puts a stone in the shoe” of 400 college students.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’d like to offer you a simple goal to consider whenever you’re having a conversation with someone that you hope might have spiritual consequences in their life. It’s the goal that I have in any conversation, pretty much, and that is when I engage a circumstance that I think might be leading in that direction, you know, I fire up a quick prayer in my heart, but then I’m thinking. I’m thinking, what is the one thing that I could say, one comment I&nbsp;could make, one line of thinking I might offer, that can get the person thinking. That can give them something to think about. That could, as I&nbsp;like to put it, put a stone in their shoe.</p>

<p>So my goal is fairly simple. In a conversation, I’m not trying to swing for the fences. I’m not trying to convert people in every conversation. I’m just trying, I’m not even trying to get on base frankly. I’m just trying to get into the batter’s box. And my tactical approach helps me to do that. My goal though, with the approach, is to just, to get them thinking about something. I’m gonna do a little gardening in their life and the gardening is the thing that’s necessary before you can ever have a harvest in an individual’s life. You gotta have that gardening first. And I consider myself a gardener.</p>

<p>Let me give you an illustration of how this worked out. It’s actually quite simple. I was speaking, I was scheduled to speak at the University of California San Diego campus, UCSD. A very, very liberal campus by the way. Big school. And it was during a week of lectures that the local christian community had arrange for and I was speaking right in the middle of campus at one of the facilities there, a big ballroom, or some kind of thing. About 400 students that were present. And before I spoke at the event, I got a chance to go out with some of the campus leadership that were Christians, to get a sense of...we had dinner ,and I wanted to get a sense for… What was the general point of view people had about Christians on campus.</p>

<p>And they all spoke, with basically one voice. They think that Christians are stupid. Christians are stupid. Christianity is stupid. Ok, I thought, well great! I’ll open with that! And so as I was introduced and I got before the audience, I said, “I understand that many of you think that Christianity is stupid and Christians are stupid.”&nbsp;I guess is the way I put it. I said, “well a lot of Christians are stupid, that’s a fact.”&nbsp;But then I&nbsp;said, “A lot of non-christians are stupid too, so I don’t know what that gets you.”&nbsp;What I’m here to show you tonight is that Christianity is not stupid. That was the stone I wanted to put in their shoe. And I told them, I said I’m not here to convert you. I’m just here to get you thinking.</p>

<p>So in that circumstance, then I went into my discussion. I think I was talking about the issue of relativism, but my whole goal of that was to get them thinking. It wasn’t to have an altar call at the end. Many of those people, maybe this was the very first time that they’d ever even heard a presentation that commended Christianity to them in a thoughtful way. Maybe this, for many of them, I was just beginning to till the soil. Fine, I’m happy with that. I’m glad to be able to do that job because I know God is sovereign over this process. And in the lives of those people who are turning to him and responding. He is going to bring other gardeners and eventually if necessary a harvester into their lives that can bring them the whole distance.</p>

<p>But that wasn’t my goal then. And you’re gonna find yourself in lots of circumstances we’re just going to have a few minutes maybe. Or a short bit of time. And my encouragement is, don’t be under the burden to try to accomplish too much, Sometimes we move too quickly. I’ll pass the formative stages here. We need to lay a foundation that is going to make a difference in the long run for them. Jesus did the same thing. He didn’t rush off to the Gospel in every conversation. He laid a foundation in his teaching. You can see this throughout the Gospels. The Apostle Paul did it as well and so did Peter.</p>

<p>And so that is my approach. Put a stone in their shoe. Get them thinking. Do a little gardening. Make a difference in that regard and let God take that and move it where he wants it to go.</p>


title: Taking Jesus at Face Value
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/taking-jesus-at-face-value
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ULc5xZMB8J0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Coming to believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God by letting Jesus speak for Himself.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I wanna talk about a flashpoint right now and a workaround for it about something we probably encounter when we’re talking to other people about our convictions and that is the use of the Bible. So if we cite something from the Bible or quote the Bible or make reference to the Bible, people push back immediately and they say, “Well the Bible is just written by men.”&nbsp;And the like. And a lot of times it’s difficult to know how to deal with that.</p>

<p>Well I have a workaround, I think that that might be helpful. Think of it this way. I suspect that you believe as I do that the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God. But how is it that you ever came to that conclusion? How is it that you came to the understanding that the Bible had this kind of divine authority to it? I suspect it wasn’t because somebody gave you an argument for the authority of the Bible. Now we do that, and at Stand to Reason we have a training tool, some teaching I’ve given called, Has God Spoken, and I go through six evidences that are supernatural evidences is for the authority of Scripture.</p>

<p>But most people haven’t heard that. Most people who believe the Bible’s authoritative haven’t heard that. I didn’t come to believe in the authority of the Bible that way. I came to believe in the authority of the Bible probably in the same way that you came to believe in it - by encountering it. That is, we are brought to the text, we read the Gospels, or some of the letters ,or different aspects of it, and in the reading of it, we become richly and deeply and profoundly persuaded of its truth. And of its divine authority. And this is far beyond the kind of burning in the bosom that Mormons have to justify the Book of Mormon. I’m not asking you to have a burning in the bosom. I’m talking about our own engagement of the text, and the profound changes it began making our lives. Including our perception of the divine origin of the Scriptures.</p>

<p>Ok now, if that’s the way most people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, come to believe it’s the inspired Word of God, including me, then maybe there’s a way that we can capitalize on that dynamic, and that is to encourage people not to be thinking necessarily of the Bible as the inspired Word of God but to go to Jesus and take Jesus at face value. To just engage it. To give Jesus the same kind of consideration that they would give any other teacher, or speaker, or intelligent reasonably wise human being, which most people think that Jesus actually is. Engage Jesus.</p>

<p>Ok, and so I carry some Gospel’s of John with me in my traveling bag, so if I’m having a conversation with somebody, a lot of times toward the end of the conversation, I could say, “Look it, why don’t you just read Jesus yourself?”&nbsp;That���s the way I put it. I don’t say read the Bible. I don’t ask people if they’ve ever read the Bible. Bible is really big 66 books and they might have read snatches of it and didn’t like it. No I don’t. I want them to read Jesus. I want them to take an accounting of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and read through it from beginning to end and let Jesus speak for himself. That’s what I tell them. And they usually appreciate it when I offer them as a gift. I don’t say this is a Gospel of John. What I say is, this is an account of the life of Jesus. Kind of a mini biography, written by somebody who spent three years with Jesus. More than three years and really knew him intimately, So I just suggest you take this. Don’t cherry-pick, I tell them, don’t just jump around and find little passages you like. Let Jesus speak for himself and then see what you think.</p>

<p>And see what I’m doing here is representing the truth to him and then letting them engage it themselves and let the Holy Spirit work through the word and the power of the word were to convince them of its authority. That’s a whole lot easier than trying to argue that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Because the minute you do that people are gonna go to contradictions or alleged contradictions. And you’re off on all kinds of wild goose chases. Forget about that.</p>

<p>People say you know it’s only written by men, I say well do you have any books in your library? Of course. I say, well who wrote those? Human beings right? Ok, so you still respect them, even though they don’t have a divine origin. All I’m asking you to do at this moment, I say, is to just to address the teachings of Jesus in the same way. Take them as a man with reasonable spiritual insight. A reasonable amount of intelligence, and a profound impact of the world, and see what he had to say and then make your own judgments. That I think, is a fabulous way to go. You leave them with the Word itself and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting for you.</p>


title: Is God Really Forgiving If He Required Payment for Sins Through Jesus?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/29/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-really-forgiving-if-he-required-payment-for-sins-through-jesus-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/nj9IXEBhSA4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>If forgiveness is letting a wrongdoing go instead of requiring payback, how can God genuinely forgive us if He first required payment through Jesus?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I thought forgiveness was letting a wrongdoing go instead of requiring payback. So how is it that God can genuinely forgive us if He first required payment through Jesus? Isn’t requiring payment for sins the opposite of forgiving sins? The danger here is taking a human action, forgiving my brother for sin he commits against me, and applying it in an identical fashion to God.</p>

<p>True, you and I extend forgiveness not expecting payment for the wrong others have done to us, and that should be easy for us to do because we know how often we wronged others in the same way. Whenever we forgive, we forgive sinners as sinners. And that means when we forgive, it is possible, even commanded to us, to just ignore the wrongness of the sin we are called to forgive.</p>

<p>God’s forgiveness is different because He isn’t a sinner and cannot, according to Scripture, even look upon sin. He is the one Person in the universe who can’t forgive sin as a participant in it. So His dilemma is absolutely unique. How does an absolutely holy and just God forgive sin? How does a sinless God forgive sinners? God forgives our sin by taking our sin upon Himself. He forgives sinners by paying for their sins. Notice that it’s the same God who demands the payment who also pays the payment.</p>

<p>In a similar situation would be the way the Scriptures forbid us from taking vengeance for sins committed against us. we are forbidden to do this, again, because we are always sinners taking vengeance. We also bring injustice into our vengeance, but just because God forbids us from taking vengeance doesn’t mean it’s wrong for Him to take vengeance. In fact, and this relates to forgiveness, the only reason we can forgive sin and not take vengeance is we can rest in the fact that the price of sin has already been paid and will finally be judged when Jesus comes again.</p>

<p>This is why it is simply impossible to always make parallel cases for what we are called to do as creatures and what God must do as Creator.</p>


title: What Are the First Steps to Take When Learning to Defend the Faith?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-are-the-first-steps-to-take-when-learning-to-defend-the-faith-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/nTgCzq0nCM0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim shares advise to those who want to become apologists of Christianity.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What are the first steps to take in learning to defend the faith? Well let me give you three simple steps. First, you need to pray. You need to pray that God would use you, that He would give you opportunities to defend the faith, okay? So don’t just make defending the faith just an intellectual personal thing. We want to pray for opportunities to engage this world. Also, pray that God would soften the hearts of people that you’re going to get in conversation with and that you would have a maximum impact, an effective impact in their lives. So the first thing is pray.</p>

<p>The second thing is to engage. We need to get out there. Oftentimes we want to study, and learn, and read and do all that beforehand, but we’re not getting out on the field so to speak. And so my advice would be to engage people. Get into conversations with people. One way to do that is to ask questions. Get to know what people think, and what people believe, and why they believe the things they do. And so we pray first, and then we just get out there and we engage our culture.</p>

<p>But the last thing we to do is we need to study. We need to devote time to researching answers to the tough questions that our friends, and family, and strangers have. That involves reading books, maybe involve watching videos like this, listen to podcasts. I would strongly recommend listening to the Stand to Reason weekly podcast with Greg Koukl where you get to kind of sit over his shoulder, so to speak, and listen to how he engages with skeptics and believers. It’s my belief that these kinds of things, being a good apologist, a defender of the faith, is caught rather than it’s just taught. And, so those three things are the first steps. We pray, we engage, and we study. If you do those things, you’re on your way to being a good defender of the faith.</p>


title: 3 Things to Remember While Sharing Your Beliefs
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/3-things-to-remember-while-sharing-your-beliefs
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ogqVyIrkto?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg offers three tips for tactical evangelism gleaned from overhearing a conversation on a flight.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>A couple years ago on a flight back from the Midwest, my wife and I were listening to a dear brother in Christ who was sharing his faith with people that were sitting on either side of him, and there were some things that I thought of after being aware of that encounter, and we were praying for him, that were really some tips that I think might help you as I reflected on that encounter. Actually, three things that you might want to think about.</p>

<p>The first thing is to be ready. Now, this Christian was clearly open to opportunities to talk to other people about his own convictions. He had people on either side of him, and he was taking every opportunity that he could to share what he wanted the other people to think about, and this is a great impulse, of course, and an important characteristic of a good ambassador’s always being ready for opportunities that God would bring your way. So that’s a great start, alright?</p>

<p>And the second thing, though, I want you to think about is to keep it simple. Now our dear brother was ranging from Young Earth Creationism to Armageddon, okay. Now that’s a lot to get through on your way to Christ. There may be controversial issues that come up in a conversation. You’re going to have to deal with those, but if they don’t come up, don’t bring them up. The Gospel is already plenty hard all by itself. Don’t bring up these controversial things if you don’t need to, okay? So keep the message simple and on track with the people that you’re talking with.</p>

<p>The last thing I want to encourage you to do is to, well, the way I put it is watch your language. And I don’t mean you shouldn’t be cussing. You shouldn’t be doing that, but that’s not what I’m referring to. This fella behind us, this dear brother was clearly a Christian because his vocabulary was littered with all kinds of Christian lingo, okay? And in my view, that just screams fundamentalist to people. We don’t want to sound that way. We want to sound like thoughtful people who love Jesus and who talk normal but can communicate well. And so these are things that I think will help you in your conversations with other people to be a better ambassador. Be ready, keep it simple, and watch your language.</p>


title: The Question That Stops Christians in Their Tracks
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-question-that-stops-christians-in-their-tracks
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/DOoUDpqtq-k?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains how to rephrase the question that stops Christians in their tracks.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>In your conversations with other people about Christ, and Christianity, and the real important things, you are going to encounter what I call THE question. That is, the the question that stops most Christians in their tracks, and they don’t really quite know how to deal with it. And the question was posed to me in an hour long TV debate that I had with Deepak Chopra, the New Age guru, as we talked about spiritual things. And what he said to me is, “So you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t believe just like you is going to hell.”</p>

<p>That’s the way he put the question. Now some people have said if you’re careful how you push the question, you could win any argument. And the problem here is that this was a question about the exclusivity of Christ. A critical issue in Christianity, but it was put in a way that made me look really really bad. So, if I&nbsp;would have answered the question, “Yes. Unless you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then you will die in your sins, you would go to hell.”&nbsp;I would have answered correctly, but I would have really given the wrong impression. I would have fulfilled a really negative stereotype that people have of Christians, and I would have played right into Deepak Chopra’s rhetorical hand, and I did not want to do that.</p>

<p>And so in that particular circumstance, I side-stepped the issue and went in a different direction. But we can’t always side-step that issue nor should we. We need to address it because it’s really really important, but how do we do that? And this is where the tactical approach, I think, is really golden. Especially using the Colombo Tactic in its third sense, and that is using questions to make a point. Using questions allows us to make the point a much more powerful way especially when we get stuck in a circumstance like this. People asking us about Jesus being the only way of salvation.</p>

<p>This happened to me once in a Barnes and Noble, where I was giving a presentation for a book I’d written, the Relativism book, and afterwards during the Q someone came up to me and asked the question, “Why do I need to believe in Jesus.” He said, “I’m Jewish, I believe in God, I tried to live the best life that I can, why do I need Jesus?”&nbsp;So there’s the question again. Not as belligerently put as with Deepak Chopra, but the question.</p>

<p>Now here’s a case where I want to lead up to the point. I want to make the point by making a couple of steps. I have a choice at this point. I could go ahead and state my steps as part of my argument. Put my pieces on the table so to speak and then come to a conclusion, which leaves me with a certain liability. Every time I make a claim that is a stepping stone to my conclusion, the other person, especially if they’re a little bit belligerent, can just deny the claim and now I get nowhere.</p>

<p>So instead, I am going to use questions to get those pieces placed on the table by the other person, because if they put those pieces on the table it’s a lot harder for them to take them off. To deny them. Ok, let me show you how that works with THE question. Alright, and this person who asked the question there at The Barnes and Noble. I said when he offered the question, “Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?”&nbsp;“No, go right ahead.”</p>

<p>Here’s the first question, I asked, “Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? In other words, the people who do bad things, should they pay for them?”&nbsp;And he said, “Well since I’m&nbsp;a prosecuting attorney...”&nbsp;Yeah, I got lucky on the attorney part. You know. But most people have this sense, this deep intuition that people who do wrong things should not get away with them. Ok. And so I agreed with him. I agree the people who do wrong things ought to be punished. So now we’ve got a piece on the table, he put it there. Because I&nbsp;asked the question.</p>

<p>Second question. “Have you ever done any wrong things?”&nbsp;That’s personal right? What do you think he said? He said, “Yeah I guess I have.”&nbsp;If he would have said he didn’t do any bad things, I want to talk to his wife! You know? Of course now we all know we’ve done wrong things. I agreed with him, so have I. And then I said now we’ve got another piece of the table. And so I&nbsp;said to him, “Look at where we’ve come just in two questions. We both agree that people who do bad things ought to be punished and we both agree that we’ve done those bad things. You know what I call that?”&nbsp;I said to him. “What?”&nbsp;he said. I said, “Bad news. This is not a good picture for us.”</p>

<p>Now, do I need to tell this man, he’s a sinner? No. He just told me. Do I need to tell him that he’s under judgment? No he just told me. He wasn’t thinking about that when he walked into the Barnes and Noble. But when I asked him a couple of simple questions that brought these moral intuitions, moral common sense, really to his awareness, he laid them right on the table. Now I’ve got something to work with. And then I&nbsp;went from there and I explained, “It’s as if the judge is about to lower the gavel on the two of us in the dock, and we both know we’re guilty, and we both know we deserve what we’re going to get, and then the judge pauses and says, ’by the way, are either of you guys interested in a pardon at this point?’”</p>

<p>Look, when you know you’re guilty you’re much more open to an offer of forgiveness and that’s exactly where I wanted to bring him and then I explained in very simple terms about substitutionary atonement. That the judge took off his robe and got in the dock and took the punishment for us so that we could be set free. I didn’t use the language of substitution, I just explained it, because that’s what God has done in Jesus and that’s why Jesus is the only way. He’s the only one who solved the problem. Nobody else could do this. Only Jesus could. And that’s why we have to put our confidence in him.</p>

<p>So what I’ve done now is I’ve taken a very tricky situation, THE question, and&nbsp;I’ve approached&nbsp;using a tactical approach. Getting help from the other person to get my pieces on the table, so that when I’m going to make my case, now it’s much easier to do so in light of what he’s helped me to establish. And, I don’t know if that attorney trusted the Lord or not, but at least I was communicating the Gospel to him, at least in a way that he could understand, because now it just wasn’t a matter of believing in God and living the best way you could live. We both realized, that’s not enough. If we’re really guilty then there’s got to be a solution to the guilt problem and that’s what Christians offer in Christ. God becoming a man to take the guilt upon himself so that we can be forgiven that’s the reason Jesus is the only way. He’s the only one who solved the problem and this is one way of getting to that vital point by using a tactical approach.</p>


topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/03/2017
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/SvzYDUmDFJY?rel=0
title:
Are the Prayers of Two or Three People More Powerful Than the Prayers of One According to Matthew 18?

source:
https://www.str.org/w/are-the-prayers-of-two-or-three-people-more-powerful-than-the-prayers-of-one-according-to-matthew-18-

transcript:
    <p>Matthew 18 talks about the Lord being “where two or three gather in my name.” Tim explains how we should understand this verse in light of the context.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Does Matthew 18 verses 19 and 20 imply that the prayers of two or three people are more powerful than the prayers of only one? If you’ve grown up in the church, you have probably heard Matthew 18 verses 19 and 20 quoted out of context at some point or another. Here’s what Jesus says, “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by the Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them.”</p>

<p>Whenever we approach a passage of Scripture, it’s crucial that we understand the context behind it, the context of the passage. When the context is ignored, it’s very easy to misuse and even abuse a passage. Matthew 18 verse 20 is often quoted before or during a prayer meeting. It’s taken as a promise that when believers gather in groups of two or three, Jesus will be present among them and God will answer their prayer. But what is the context of this passage? What is the nature of the gathering in verse 20? Is it a prayer meeting? Is it a worship meeting?</p>

<p>No, this passage is actually dealing with church discipline. Starting at verse 15, Jesus lays out the steps on how to reconcile and restore a brother who is sinned against you. Jesus says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his faults between you and him alone, and if he listens to you,”&nbsp;well, “you gain your brother back. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two others along with you that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”&nbsp;He says, “if he refuses to listen to them, tell the church and if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.”&nbsp;Essentially, remove him from the congregation. So including you, if you take one or two others along with you, you have two or three witnesses.</p>

<p>This idea actually comes from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 19 and other places, when legal cases needed to have at least two or three witnesses to establish a matter. In this text, Jesus is drawing a connection to this Old Testament practice. Jesus establishes that the church has authority even to remove a brother. Of course, this is a very difficult thing for any church to do, so He promises His presence in that judgment in a unique way. So when using this expression, when two or three are gathered, He’s saying in judicial matters, I am with you. You have the authority to do this, and it’s been given to you from above.</p>

<p>So this text isn’t really about prayer at all, it’s about trying to restore a brother and church discipline. But let me make one final point about prayer specifically. It’s absolutely true that God is with Christians when they gather in groups of two or three or two or 3,000. It’s also true that He’s with even the individual. Matthew 6:6 says, “But when you pray, go into a room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret.”</p>


title: Did God Create Evil?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/04/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-god-create-evil-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/iyu-oH_RMYo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan offers biblical insights and perspective as he unpacks the question, “Did God Create Evil?”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Did God create evil? Well, Judeo-Christian theology teaches that God made all things. Now many people conclude then that if God made everything, then God made evil. And if God made evil then that would make God evil. But that thinking is based on a mistaken premise, that is, it presumes that evil is a thing. So let me clarify. Evil is something but it’s not some thing.</p>

<p>Now you’re probably thinking well it doesn’t, how does that clarify anything, right? Well here’s what I mean by that. Evil is something but it’s not a thing. It’s not stuff. It’s not made up of atoms. It’s not made up of molecules. It’s not made up of matter, right? It’s not some cosmic goo that contaminates things. It’s not the lint that gets caught in your bellybutton. You can’t buy it at a store. You can’t put in your pocket. You can’t flick it at a friend, right? Now, as I said, although evil is not a thing, it is something and here’s what I mean by that. Evil is a privation of good. It is the absence of good.</p>

<p>So let me offer an illustration. What is a doughnut hole? You might be thinking those are those you know warm, sugary, soft things that we eat and they’re super good. But that’s not what I’m referring to. A doughnut hole is simply the place where there is no doughnut. It’s not a happy place, I don’t want to be there. Or how about this, what is a shadow? Well, it’s the place where there is no light. Or what is coldness? Well it’s the place where there is no heat. Notice each of these things is defined not by what they are but by what they are not. And so evil in the same way is not defined by what it is but by what it is not. It is the absence of good. Evil results when goodness is missing.</p>

<p>Philosopher William Dembski puts it this way. He says evil always parasitizes the good. Indeed all our words for evil presuppose a good that has been perverted. Impurity presupposes purity. Unrighteousness presupposes righteousness. Deviation presupposes a way from which we’ve departed. Sin, the Greek word “hamartia”, presupposes a target that was missed, and so on. So therefore evil is not a thing and therefore God can’t be responsible for creating it.</p>


title: Bible Differences Aren’t Contradictions
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/bible-differences-aren-t-contradictions
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Po56DYNMhJ4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim debunks the assertion that the Bible is filled with contradictions.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How many of you have seen this graphic before? Has anyone seen this? There’s one of you. If you google “Bible contradictions”&nbsp;you will stumble upon this graphic. What you are looking at is every single chapter of the Bible. The white is the Old Testament, and then we get over here, that’s the grey. That’s the New Testament. Every rainbow you see starts one place at one verse and ends at another verse, and the claim is every single bow you see on this graphic is a contradiction. Okay? Is a contradiction.</p>

<p>So there’s contradictions within the Old Testament, there’s contradictions within the New Testament, and then there are contradictions that go from the Old Testament into the New Testament. That’s a lot of contradictions. In fact, they list them. There are about 440 on this one graphic. Does anyone feel uncomfortable? I hope so.</p>

<p>Alright, so this is the kind of thing that’s out there. It’s the kind of thing that’s out there. We need to be careful to define what we mean by a contradiction. The word gets thrown around by unbelievers when talking about the Bible all the time, but we need to distinguish between a genuine contradiction which cannot be resolved, it’s impossible to reconcile, and a mere difference which is possible to reconcile. Okay, so the difference between a contradiction and a difference: One can be reconciled, and one can’t be.</p>

<p>Now, to illustrate this, let me tell you about the Titanic. In 1912, The Titanic sank. Big boat, 800 feet long, and eyewitnesses who saw the boat sink had conflicting testimonies. Some eyewitnesses said the boat sank in one piece. Other eyewitnesses said it broke in two and then the two pieces sank. How you can get this wrong, I don’t know, but these are contradictory accounts that cannot be reconciled, okay? So that’s an example of a contradiction.</p>

<p>Let me tell you another story. Consider my wife winning the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes. This is not a true story. When I get home from work, she explains what happened. She says, “Around noon the doorbell rang, and I went to the door, and there was a man holding a giant check for a million dollars.”&nbsp;That’s what she tells me. And then I hear her talking with her mom on the phone an hour later explaining what happened, okay? And this is what she says to her mother, “At 12:10 p.m. I was right in the middle of making lunch when the doorbell rang. I ran and got Allison because the doorbell woke her up from her nap. I wasn’t impressed. But when I answered the door, there was a man holding a giant check for a million dollars and another man recording the whole thing on live TV. At first I thought this was a big joke, but when I realized it was for real, I started crying with joy.”</p>

<p>Now, are those two accounts contradictory? I actually didn’t say anything contradictory in those accounts. One was just giving way more detail than the other. One gave more precise details than the other. And so this is the kind of thing we’re going to see in the gospels. Notice that many of the differences in these two stories are differences, but they’re not contradictory. Okay, it would have been an issue if my wife got off the phone with her mother and I said, “You stinkin’&nbsp;liar,”&nbsp;right? “You lied!”&nbsp;No, she didn’t lie. “You contradicted yourself!”&nbsp;No.</p>

<p>So, many of these alleged contradictions that arise, arise because we apply an unfair standard or expectation to the Bible, okay? What can happen is we just assume that the biblical authors wrote just as we do today in the 21st century. And then we end up applying our 21st century standard to a, in the case of the New Testament, a first century document, and that would be a gross mistake.</p>

<p>In fact, listen, most claims of Bible contradictions stem from the reader misunderstanding the author’s intent, okay? If you didn’t put anything else in this lesson, this is how most contradictions, alleged contradictions come out. It’s the reader who misunderstands the author’s intent. Sometimes they misunderstand it. Sometimes they just misrepresent it, okay? That can happen too. So the error stems in the reader, not the author.</p>


title: Are Suffering and God’s Love Compatible?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-suffering-and-god-s-love-compatible-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/5rB8QmMGNN4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg highlights important connections between God’s love and human suffering.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Boy, when we look at the world, and we see the massive amount of suffering in the world, and we also look in our own lives and see the suffering that we endure at different times; it is tempting to think that God doesn’t care about suffering. So let me give you a couple things to think about, first on the micro and then on the macro.</p>

<p>We know, as we look back on our lives, that sometimes the suffering that we experienced produced some of the greatest growth that we’ve ever experienced. And as parents we know that we have to put our children through what they consider a lot of unnecessary suffering, to raise them up in the right way and teach them how to live and help them to be able to deal with the world as it really is.</p>

<p>So in the micro we have enough experience to know that sometimes love and suffering go together, that it’s a reality of life, and not only that, it’s a way that we as parents and we can understand God as a parent in our life, is bringing about change that is desperately needed in our life. Listen, change happens in our life but I realize, and maybe you do too, that change usually doesn’t happen unless it’s more painful to stay the same than it is to change. And that usually only happens when suffering comes into our life and forces us to move forward. Ok?</p>

<p>So we can see how love and suffering can be compatible in the micro but what about the macro? Look at all the suffering that’s in the world. Well we understand a little bit about why that’s the case, because of a rebellion that took place a long time ago and created a mess in the world. That’s the problem of evil. Does God care about that? Let me tell you how much God cared about that.</p>

<p>God cared about the suffering in the world so much that He stepped down out of heaven, that He got low, that He got small that He became one of us. Can you imagine what that’s like? Leaving the glories of heaven to be with us. That’s a big step down. That’s a sacrifice. But He didn’t just step down to be with us, He stepped down to be a servant. And He didn’t just step down to be a servant but He was willing to die the death of a common criminal in order to rescue us from the mess that we caused. In other words, God stepped into our suffering, He experienced everything that we experience to the max. He had His friends leave Him. He did everything right and got despised and rejected by men. He suffered at the hands of men physically and then, in a sense, at the hand of God in a way that we couldn’t possibly imagine, in order that we might be rescued through His suffering.</p>

<p>Does God care about suffering in the macro? Yes. That’s why He came down. That’s why He became a man. He entered into the suffering Himself so one day, ultimately, the whole world could be rescued from suffering.</p>


title: Is God Unfair?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-unfair-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/obLtUINj2T4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg offers his perspective on the fairness of God.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>You know Americans have a very refined sense of fair treatment. In their view, everybody’s gotta get exactly the same or it just ain’t fair. And then, when they become Christians, or when they think about Christianity, they want to transfer that notion to God. And they think well God has got to treat everyone equally in order for Him to be fair. I don’t think fairness is a value that is part of the divine character. O.K.? Nor, need it be. In fact, I don’t think it’s even required of us.</p>

<p>Look it, if you do a buddy a favor, or even somebody you don’t know a favor, do you have some kind of moral obligation to do everybody who comes along the exact same favor? No. I think you have a sense that your favor can be given freely as you will which is why it’s called “your favor”&nbsp;and not “your obligation.”&nbsp;You’re not obliged to treat everyone exactly the same. And God is in the same circumstance and I actually know this for a fact because Jesus told a parable that made precisely this point. You might recall about the workers that came in at different times during the day and one person came in early in the day, another person came in right at the end of the day and did very little work but got paid the same as the person who worked all day long. And of course, the person who worked all day long complained that that’s not fair. And Jesus said this, essentially, “Can’t I do what I want with what is mine? Didn’t I pay you what we agreed to pay you? Are you bothered now because I am generous to someone else?”</p>

<p>The lesson here is that God can do what He wants with His generosity. His grace, His kindness, His love, His forgiveness, His mercy is all an element of His generosity and there is no obligation on God’s part at all. Rather, He gives as He wills according to the kind intention of His will as Paul put it in Ephesians chapter 1. That’s what grace is. Undeserved, unrequired, unmerited favor of God.</p>


title: Does God Care about Our Pain and Suffering?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-care-about-our-pain-and-suffering-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/c0yE7VGuTl4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim offers biblical insights highlighting the reality of God’s immeasurable care for us.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Does God care about our pain and suffering? I think He does. In fact, in the Christian story, the story of reality, God the Son takes on a human nature in the Incarnation. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”&nbsp;the Apostle John says. Jesus is truly God and truly man, one person with two natures. And as a man, He experiences pain and suffering like we do. Pre-incarnation it’s hard to see how God could sympathize with our pain and our suffering. But this all changes with the Incarnation.</p>

<p>By the way, this makes Christianity unique among the world religions. Because of the Incarnation, we know that we have a God who can sympathize with us. The author of Hebrews puts it this way, “For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses but one in every respect has been tempted as we are yet without sin.”&nbsp;He can sympathize with our weakness because he experienced weakness.</p>

<p>Through the life of Jesus we see the compassion of God for those who were helpless and hurting. In the ninth chapter of Matthew we read, “When he saw the crowds he had compassion on them because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”&nbsp;Only six chapters later we read that great crowds came to Him bringing with them the lame and the blind, the crippled and the mute, and many others and they put them at the feet of Jesus and He healed them. These texts make it clear that Jesus cares about our suffering. More than that, Jesus experienced suffering as an answer to suffering, especially eternal suffering.</p>

<p>The prophet Isaiah says, “He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace and with his wounds we are healed.”&nbsp;Jesus bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. The Godman cared enough about our suffering to take suffering upon Himself. And eventually, God will put a final end to sin and the effects of sin, the suffering, that comes with it. John says, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes and death shall be no more, neither shall there be any mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”</p>


title: Proverbs Are Not Promises
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/17/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/proverbs-are-not-promises
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tddt9XBv374?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan explains the meaning and purpose behind the genre of Proverbs.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Proverbs are not promises. Let me say that again, proverbs, in the Bible, are not promises that God is required to satisfy for you. And this is important to understand because there is this field of theology called hermeneutics, and hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. And when you study hermeneutics, you come to realize that the Bible is written in different genres, different literary styles. So there is narrative, there is poetry, there’s wisdom literature, there’s apocalyptic literature, there’s epistle, there’s gospel. So these are all different literary styles the Holy Spirit has inspired human authors to write the Bible in.</p>

<p>Well, each of these different genres, each of these different, literary styles have their own interpretive principles that you have to be mindful of when you read a text that is written in a particular literary style or genre. And if you ignore those interpretive principles, you can misunderstand what’s being communicated. And so when it comes to Proverbs, it’s important to realize that as a part of its genre, one of the most important interpretive principles is to remember that they are not promises by God, rather, proverbs are the way life generally goes.</p>

<p>Proverbs entail probable outcomes, not guaranteed outcomes. So take, for example, a modern proverb like, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”&nbsp;Notice, it’s a short, pithy way to capture an idea. And is it true that if you eat fruits, and apples, and vegetables, and things like that, that generally you’ll be a healthy person? Yeah, it is generally true. Is it a promise? Is it a guarantee that if you eat an apple every day you will never have to see a doctor? Well, of course not. We all know that’s not the case, right? So, is that a violation of that proverb? No, it just means that, no, generally speaking, if you eat a healthy diet, you’ll generally be healthy, but it’s not a guarantee or a promise.</p>

<p>Now, think of a biblical proverb like, I’m thinking Proverbs 16:7. Hope I’m getting it right, now. So here the proverb is this: “If a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, then he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”&nbsp;Okay, well let’s think about this. Was the Apostle Paul, were his ways pleasing to the Lord? Well, I think we can safely say yeah, they were. I mean, here’s a man who proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully. He wrote Bible. It’s pretty good. Were Paul’s enemies made to be at peace with him? No, not at all, right? I mean, they try to kill him. In fact, they succeeded. They they cut off his head. This is hardly peaceful. Well, does that mean that God didn’t satisfy or or fulfill His promise to Paul? No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Because remember, proverbs are not promises.</p>

<p>Now, where I think that a lot of people got into trouble with not paying attention to this particular interpretive principle with regards to Proverbs are Christian parents who will cite Proverbs 22:6 that says, “Train up a child in the way they should go, and when they get older they will not depart from it.”&nbsp;And the way they interpret this passage is they take it as a promise from God. If they, as Christian parents, train their child to be Christian, that even if one of those children now has grown up and is no longer following after the Lord, it doesn’t matter. That’s okay. That child will eventually come back to be a follower of Christ because, after all, the parents have done their job. They’ve raised their child in the way they should go, and now it’s up to God to fulfill His promise to bring that child back to faith in Him. And so these Christian parents are like, “Okay, now I’m going to be hands-off. I don’t have to worry about it because God’s gonna fulfill His promise.”</p>

<p>Remember, though, proverbs are not promises. Proverbs are the way life generally goes, they’re general principles for life, and there is no promise implied by Proverbs 22:6. And so these Christian parents shouldn’t think that way but actively pursue their children, pray for them, love them, and yeah, do pray that God will bring them back to faith. But they cannot consider it a promise that God needs to deliver on because proverbs are not promises.</p>


title: Assessing the Academics
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/05/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/assessing-the-academics
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/91qNdTyXVww?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg discusses how to employ the “Rhodes Scholar”&nbsp;tactic in conversation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I want to give you a tip that will help you from being victimized by an appeal to authority. Now, there’s nothing wrong with appealing to authority. Some people happen to be in a better position than other people to know what the facts of the matter are, and so we appeal to authorities a lot of times. This is done in trials too. You bring in the expert witness. But what always happens after the expert witness gives his testimony, that is, after he gives his opinion? There’s always a cross-examination. That means somebody from the other side gets to ask questions about the claims that even the expert is making, all right?</p>

<p>And this is a key to a tactic that you’ll find in the Tactics book that is called “Rhodes Scholar.”&nbsp;Rhodes Scholar’s a tactic you use when people give expert opinions, and the goal there is not just to believe the opinion but to ask the reasons why the person has the opinion. You see, if you just get the opinion then you’re informed of the opinion, but if you get the reasons then you’re educated about the issue. And then you’re in a position to determine whether the reasons are good ones or not.</p>

<p>Another problem that comes up is that sometimes people who are experts in something weigh in in areas that they’re not expert at. This happens all the time, and I’m thinking right now about when California passed a referendum that had to do with embryonic stem-cell research. Okay, they had what 20 Nobel laureates that weighed in with their opinions about this, but notice this. One professor of biology and physiology assured the voters that the measure was ethical. Ethics isn’t it his field. He’s a biology professor. It might be that he knows something about ethics but not in virtue of his biology credentials. That’s the point, all right?</p>

<p>Let’s see, we have another, a specialist in cancer research said, “The legislation would boost California’s economy and have a salutary impact on healthcare costs.”&nbsp;Well that’s not his field either, okay? An Alzheimer’s research director promised new jobs and increased revenues for state coffers. I mean, okay well maybe it would produce new jobs, but notice what’s happening. They’re trading on credentials that have nothing to do with the opinion the person is giving. This kind of thing happens all the time.</p>

<p>So what I want you to do is I want you to look more closely whenever anybody makes an appeal to expert testimony. You want to double-check to see that the person is giving testimony in an area that they’re actually an expert in, and they’re not just hitchhiking on their credentials as a Nobel laureate to talk about something that is unrelated to their field, okay? And secondly, even when they give their point of view from their field, you want to be sure that you ask the questions, why do they believe what they’ve just said? Give me some detail. Give me some rationale. Unwrap this for me a little bit. Don’t let me just take your word for it because even experts can be deeply biased in the things that they have to say. The reasons will allow you to get beyond the bias and assess the issue yourself. That is the Rhode’s Scholar tactic.</p>


title: Abortion and Homicide
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-and-homicide
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TsbxKBmFJh4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains how those with a pro-life view are more in line with the laws of California and other states than many may think.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>In the abortion debate, it is not unusual for pro-lifers sometimes to use the word “murder”&nbsp;to describe abortion, and this drives pro-abortion advocates nutty. They don’t like that. They think this is inflammatory rhetoric, and at Stand to Reason, we don’t encourage people to use the language, okay, because we want people to realize that abortion is wrong for scientific and philosophical reasons not because we’ve used what might be construed as inflammatory rhetoric.</p>

<p>But I want to point out something about this word “murder.”&nbsp;In the state of California, when you read their, statutes it says this. Under the category of crimes against the person, murder is defined this way: “The unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice of forethought,”&nbsp;but there’s an exception. “This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”&nbsp;In other words, you can’t kill an unborn child, that’s murder. Unless, mom says it’s okay. Huh. The only difference then between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother.</p>

<p>Now I don’t know about you, but I have a question about this. How can mere agreement between the mother and her doctor transform a valuable human being that is protected by the law into a useless piece of tissue that’s destined for the dumpster just by changing her mind about abortion of her child? However one answers that question, and I think it’s a fair one, the fact is that abortion is legal in California, and in California and about 30 other states in the Union, killing an unborn child is homicide. So, it looks like it’s not the pro-lifers that are extreme here. They’re not extreme at all. Their understanding of the act of abortion is consistent with the homicide statutes of two thirds of the states of this Union. Think about that.</p>


title: The Best Explanation for the Way Things Are
topic: Theology
author: Stand to Reason
date: 09/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-best-explanation-for-the-way-things-are
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxU0UNlnnOA?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Will you consider sharing this video with your friends and family? It’s the perfect share, answering why we are here and opening the door to share the Gospel.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Every religion, every worldview is telling a Story. They’re trying to take the things we know about the world and fit them together into a big picture. These religions can’t all be right, of course, because each story is different from the others. And most stories religions or philosophies tell simply don’t make sense of Reality. The pieces of their puzzles just don’t fit the real world. One story, however, stands out from all the rest. In the Christian Story, all the puzzle pieces fit together. Perfectly. And they fit the way the world actually is. Perfectly. This is just another way of saying the Story is true. Really true. True in the deep sense. True in the way gravity is true.</p>

<p>Five words describe the plot of the true Story of reality. They tell the most important things that happen in the order they take place. God is first in the Story since He’s the main character. He’s the one the Story’s all about, the King who rules His Kingdom… The Father who loves His children. The world He created was just right, filled with goodness and purpose. God made man to share a wonderful friendship with Him. We are not gods, of course, but we are like God in a very special way. Deep inside each of us is a mark – the very image of God Himself – giving every human absolute value, deep worth, and ultimate significance. That’s why every single human being is beautiful.</p>

<p>But there’s something else. God created us with freedom, which is a good thing. But freedom means there’s a choice. If choosing good is a possibility, then so is choosing evil. And that’s what happened. Though humans are still beautiful, we are now also broken because we have betrayed our friendship with God. We have rebelled against our King. This rebellion plunged man into darkness, despair, slavery, and death. And that would have been the tragic end to our Story, if it wasn’t for an amazing plot twist...God had a rescue plan!</p>

<p>He would come to our rescue. He entered human history as Jesus. Jesus was God Himself, but He was also a man just like us. Unlike us, though, He obeyed the Father in everything, yet He was sentenced to death and brutally executed on a cross. Then, three days later, He defeated death and decay and came to life again. Why did the innocent One die for a crime He didn’t commit? He died to pay the Father for crimes we committed. He died to make a trade, His innocence for our guilt, His perfect life for our broken lives.</p>

<p>The decision we make about this trade – whether we receive this gift or reject it – will determine what happens to each of us at the very end of the Story, at the final resurrection. Those who remain in rebellion will be banished from God’s presence forever, experiencing only loneliness, misery, and ruin. Those who receive the gift of God’s mercy will live in a wonderful new world with Him, knowing the kind of life our hearts have always yearned for. We will be His, and He will be ours – forever.</p>

<p>If you’re a Christian, then this is your story. If you’re not a Christian, this is still your story. Because this Story is not a myth created by ancient people to give a sense of meaning to life. No. The things the Story describes actually exist and the events in the story really happened. It’s not fiction, it’s history. It’s the true Story. It’s the story...of Reality.</p>


title: Do All Religions Offer a Piece of the Truth?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-all-religions-offer-a-piece-of-the-truth-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXSMr_CYAZk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim offers insightful perspective on the question of other religions offering pieces of the truth.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Do all religions offer a piece of the truth? Well, I think it’s certainly possible for different religions to offer a piece of the truth. For example, different religions may offer some version of the Golden Rule - “Do unto others”&nbsp;- or something akin to that. And when it does, we shouldn’t have any trouble affirming it as true. However, when we start to look closely at the particulars of the world religions, we can see that overall they contain only superficial similarities but serious fundamental differences. And it’s the differences that matter.</p>

<p>Imagine if I had two plates with prime rib dinners before you. Both were cooked the same way, medium-well, both came with a twice baked potato with all the trimmings, they both had the same sides. Now imagine I sprinkle a little bit of arsenic on one of them. If it’s dinner time, well you better pick the right plate. It won’t do you any good to cite similarities or point to all the good things on the plate. In this case, it’s the difference, the arsenic, that matters. So the important question is not, “Do all religions have a piece of the truth?”. We might be able to find something good or noble in many of the world’s religions.</p>

<p>The important question is, “Do all religions have a piece of the truth that really matters?”. When it comes to religion we need to look at what they say about the most critical issues - the nature of God, the nature of man, salvation. And as we look deeper into these issues we find that all religions cannot be true. Well, why not? Because they make contradictory truth claims. God can’t be a Trinity, as Christians believe, and not a Trinity as other religions teach. Salvation cannot be by faith alone and not by faith alone, you get the idea.</p>

<p>Notice that we’re not even weighing in on which religion is true at this point. We’re just using simple logic to say they can’t all be true. So, do all religions offer a piece of the truth? Well, it depends what piece were talking about. Superficial pieces? Sure. But not when it comes the most important issues that really matter.</p>


title: Understanding Biblical Law
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/understanding-biblical-law
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/LdbgRJ2Irs0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan uses a helpful analogy to explain the difference between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So I was recently asked a question about the nature of the Mosaic Law and new law. You know, the Old Testament and the New Testament. And I’ve had a lot of people ask me because they feel confused about how to understand these two, and so I answered using an analogy, an illustration, to try to help explain how these two laws work together and why we don’t necessarily follow all the things as a part of the old law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>So, when it comes to the Mosaic Law, the Mosaic Covenant, I like to think of this as sort of a contract or a covenant, okay. So we use the term “covenant,”&nbsp;that’s the biblical term, but it’s kind of like a contract, and so think of it this way. I say, look, when you buy a house, you make a contract with a bank, and that particular contract has certain terms and conditions, certain terms that you’re required to fulfill, and then of course the bank is also required to fulfill as well. And those terms might be, you know, like a 30-year mortgage. It might be at a 3% interest rate. It might be $2,000 a month, or something like this. And so, it could be the case that one day you have a really good friend that comes along and says, “You know what? You got this mortgage, but I’m willing to pay off your entire balance of that mortgage.”&nbsp;So they pay off the whatever, you know, three hundred, four hundred thousand dollars for that mortgage, and so now the terms of that contract are completely fulfilled and satisfied, and you are no longer obligated to the terms of that contract.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Well then just imagine you go and you purchase another house with a different bank you get a new loan, and that bank has different terms and conditions for that particular mortgage. Maybe it’s a 15-year mortgage, maybe it’s a 5% interest rate, maybe the monthly payment is $2,500 a month. And so notice, you have different terms and different conditions with that new contract with a new bank.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Well, it’s a similar thing that’s going on with the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. You know, with the Mosaic Covenant there were certain terms and conditions that we as God’s people had to fulfill, and of course, God also had some things He was going to do as well as apart of those terms, but Jesus came along and said, “I will satisfy the terms of that contract,”&nbsp;and so that’s what He does. Notice, when He says the New Testament, He didn’t come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill the law. In other words, He didn’t come in to say, “Well, I’m going to make that entire contract disappear.”&nbsp;No, He satisfied the terms of that contract, and then He created a new contract which is a new way of God relating to us, and that’s what the New Covenant in His blood is all about.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And so I found that helpful for me, and I find it’s helpful for other people as well to understand it this way. These covenants that we talk about in the Bible are like contracts–different ways that God is relating to us, and the old contract, the old law, has been satisfied through Christ, and now Christ has created, or God created, a new contract, a New &nbsp;Covenant in His blood.</p>


title: Are There Any Major New Testament Text Variants?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-there-any-major-new-testament-text-variants-1
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/OgftsxBO7_0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>N/A</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I have a question here about manuscript variants. A variant is a difference between one manuscript of the New Testament and another, in this case, and there are lots of variations since the New Testament was handed down for 1400 years or so by recopying the manuscripts one-by-one. There’s going to be differences in the text, and some people have made a big deal about those differences. It turns out there are three different things you need to think about with regards to variations. One is whether they’re meaningful, secondly whether they’re viable, and third whether they’re theologically significant.</p>

<p>When I say meaningful, the vast majority of variations are spelling errors. That is, they don’t get in the way of us reconstructing the original, so they’re not meaningful to reconstruct the original. Sometimes words are transposed like “Jesus Christ”&nbsp;or “Christ Jesus,”&nbsp;it means the same thing. Ninety percent or so of all the variations fall in that category.</p>

<p>Some are not viable. That is, they are meaningful, they show a difference in the meaning of the text, but there’s so few of them that it is unlikely this is the original reading. Looks like something drifted in from some over-ambitious scribe, and so consequently those are eliminated as well. There’s a famous verse in first John chapter 5 that seems to suggest of the Trinity. It’s called the Johannine Comma, but so few texts have that in it, it’s pretty clear it’s been added by somebody else.</p>

<p>Now there are two large sections that most people know about that study this at all that are variants and that is the long ending to the Gospel of Mark and also the woman caught in adultery in the book of John, beginning of chapter 6, I think, and going into chapter 7. It actually occurs in different manuscripts in different gospels, and it doesn’t occur in the earliest ones, and so it’s pretty clear that this is an addition. And I’ve been asked, are there any other significant ones than those three I just mentioned - the long ending of Mark, the section of John, and the Johannine Comma in first John 5.</p>

<p>What’s curious to me is that I don’t even consider those significant. They are large, but they are not significant in the sense that there’s any debate about whether they belong in or out of the original text. They don’t. And secondly, there’s nothing theological that really hangs from any of those passages. What about the Johannine Comma? That suggests the Trinity. Sure, but we can do without that passage and still make our case fully for the Trinity from other texts. So that particular thing is not an issue. Simply put, there are a number of other meaningful and viable variations and manuscripts but none that are theologically significant, and meaningful, and viable.</p>

<p>I heard Dan Wallace said once, who is an expert in this area, there probably hasn’t been a manuscript difference that’s come up in the last 50, or 60, or 70 years that’s made any difference to our understanding of the theology of the New Testament. And that’s the thing to keep in mind when you think about the claims about the massive number of manuscript variants. There is a massive number, and the reason there’s a massive number is because we have a massive number of manuscripts to compare. But the massive number of manuscripts which causes the massive number of variants also allows us to solve the problems.</p>

<p>And it turns out that the vast, vast, vast majority of these are are not meaningful to regaining the original. They are not viable because in some cases there’s so few in a particular kind. And as to their theological significance, it’s inconsequential. The text that we know for sure contains all the solid theology that has anything to do with with basic Christianity. And so not only are there not any other big variations that matter than those three that I mentioned, I don’t even think those three that I mentioned – the woman caught in adultery, the Johannine Comma, and the long ending of Mark – they themselves are not theologically significant because anything significant in any of those passages in question is repeated clearly in passages that are not in question.</p>

<p>Simply put, though there’s a challenge about the manuscript evidence, it is not something we have to worry about because the evidence falls completely in our favor.</p>


title: A Conversation between a Former Christian and a Christian Apologist
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-conversation-between-a-former-christian-and-a-christian-apologist
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/w2yv8HnbIFk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><a href="http://www.str.org/w/top-down-vs-bottom-up-arguments-september-2-2016-" target="_blank">On the podcast</a>&nbsp;a couple of weeks ago, Greg spoke about an event he attended—a conversation between&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_J._Bell" target="_blank">Ryan Bell</a>&nbsp;(a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.str.org/blog/a-former-pastor-tries-out-atheism#.V9TeK5MrKL8" target="_blank">former pastor</a>&nbsp;who is now an atheist) and&nbsp;<a href="http://seanmcdowell.org/" target="_blank">Sean McDowell</a>&nbsp;(a Christian apologist).&nbsp; You can watch the entire event below or download an MP3 from the&nbsp;<em>Unbelievable</em>&nbsp;podcast&nbsp;<a href="http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Live!-in-California-Ryan-Bell-Sean-McDowell-on-Why-I-am-an-atheist-Why-I-am-a-Christian" target="_blank">website</a>.</p>

<p>Here’s the description:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Justin presents a live audience edition of the show from Church Everyday in Northridge, California. He’s joined by atheist Ryan Bell, a former Christian pastor who took ‘A Year Without God’ after coming to doubt his faith, and Sean McDowell a Christian thinker who tells his own journey of doubt and coming to a conviction that Christianity is true.</p>
</blockquote>
  <br>


title: A Bedtime Story from a Materialist
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-bedtime-story-from-a-materialist
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EcY7sdmImMo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares an example of a time he used the Columbo tactic, “What do you mean by that?”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>A foundational principle of the tactical approach is that when other people make a claim, especially if it’s controversial. It is not our job to refute the claim but it’s rather their job first to defend it. Ok, I call this reversing the burden of proof. The basic rule of the burden of proof, that is who bears the responsibility to give evidence regarding a view, is that the person who makes the claim bears the burden. Ok, let me say that again. It’s really important. The person who makes the claim, especially if its controversial, bears the burden to give reasons why anybody should take the claim.</p>

<p>Seriously now, the problem is too often when someone else makes a controversial claim especially against Christianity or against a Christian ethical view or something like that, they’ve just throwing that out there, and the Christian has felt the responsibility to refute it. And whenever we do that we give the other person of free ride. That is, they just throw down the gauntlet so to speak. The the gauntlet is a glove from Medieval Times, you know. When you throw down the gauntlet that the Knights...this was a challenge right?</p>

<p>You throw down the challenge by giving an alternate point of view and then they back off like they don’t have to now defend it. They win just because they entered the fray, as it were, by offering their point of view. And we let them go at this, and we’ve taken the responsibility on ourselves. And if we can’t resolve the issue we can’t refute the point of view then we kind of walk away in a dejected fashion, without realizing that we’ve let them off the hook in an inappropriate way.</p>

<p>So when somebody else makes a particular claim it is their job to defend it first. It is not our job to refute. Let me give you an example how this worked out for me when I was on a very famous talk station here in Los Angeles the CBS affiliate called KFI. A big powerful shock jock station. And I got a chance to spend an hour on the air defending intelligent design over and against Darwinian evolution and so there are a lot of different issues that that came up as calls were calling in.</p>

<p>But somebody began to invoke Big Bang cosmology against my view. Look, I understand this is controversial for Christians but I’m not the least bit troubled by Big Bang cosmology because I understand how well it fits within our story. Think about it if there was a big bang then there had to be a big banger. You know? A big bang needs a big banger, and so this becomes evidence for our view not for theirs. You can’t get something from nothing basically is what we’re arguing.</p>

<p>Now this person didn’t agree with me. He thought the Big Bang was on his side because he thought you could get something from nothing. And then he went on to explain how you could get something from nothing how the Big Bang is on his side. I have it written down here. Exactly what he said. Here’s what he said. He said, “You could start with a base of nothing and then you could say that there was nothing but an infinite continuous moment until one tiny little insignificant thing happened. A point happened in the nothingness.”</p>

<p>Well that’s the problem isn’t it? How do you get a point in the nothingness? Maybe if it’s a really small point it’s easier? I don’t know, but he continued. He said, “this requires no intelligence. So no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex and soon you have galaxies and planets here.”</p>

<p>So apparently, he thinks, you start with nothing and nothing is like a calm pond and then a speck of something comes from somewhere. He didn’t say where. And that falls into the pond of nothing and this annoys the pond and it starts bucking and weaving and start spitting out galaxies and planets. Now I have to answer this. What would you say if you were in this situation? I think you’d be stuck but I wasn’t because I had a tactical advantage.</p>

<p>I noticed something that he said and I pointed it out. I said, “You know it’s interesting how you started. You started by saying you could say that...then you gave your story. You told your fantasy. You’re right.”&nbsp;I said, “You can say anything you want but giving us good reason to believe it? That’s something else entirely. And that’s your job to do. It’s not my job to refute it.” Now listen, here’s the point: people make up stories all the time. they offer explanations and the key phrase that introduces it lots of times is I can explain that. Then they tell a story.</p>

<p>Okay fine, it’s fine for people to attempt to explain something as an alternate explanation from our view, but an alternate explanation is not a refutation. it’s just an alternate explanation. Now they’ve got to do the hard work of giving reasons why they think their alternate view is better than our view. And that’s their job to do, not ours. These stories they tell can have rhetorical power and they’re meant to put our story to bed. That’s why I sometimes called this “bedtime stories.”&nbsp;But they’re stories nonetheless and only stories unless they can give good reasons. And this is why the next step of your tactical approach is so important.</p>

<p>You always ask, how did you come to that conclusion? What are your reasons for that point of view? And then you throw the ball back to them to attempt to give some reasons for their view. And if they don’t have any reasons for the view, just like this guy in the radio show, then we have no obligation at all to take that view seriously.</p>


title: Homosexuality and the Bible - Not That Kind of Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-and-the-bible-not-that-kind-of-homosexuality
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y8IwS4J_PxI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Video from the Stand to Reason Quick-Reference App. To view all the videos and read the accompanying short text, download the app HERE.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Now in the past, people who advanced pro-gay theology, used to make, well let’s just say, really bad arguments. Alright so, for example, they used to claim that David and Jonathan in the Old Testament were gay. Alright, Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers, and even Jesus and John were homosexual lovers. You know, it’s because the Bible says that John was a disciple whom Jesus loved. And in Isaiah 53, so they claim, it says that Jesus was cut off. Meaning that perhaps Jesus was a eunuch.</p>

<p>Now of course, if you look at the rest of what Isaiah 53 says about Jesus, it says, He was cut off from the land of the living. Which means, he was killed, not castrated. So nevertheless, these arguments were really really bad in the past. However, today people who advanced pro-gay theology are offering more sophisticated arguments. And here is the new case for pro-gay theology. Here’s their view in a nutshell. This is what they say.</p>

<p>The Bible does condemn homosexuality. The Bible does condemn homosexual sex acts. However, it condemns abusive, coercive or, exploitive types of homosexuality. For example, gang rape, or master-slave sodomy, or pederestry. Men who have sex with boys. But since modern-day homosexuals do not engage in those abusive or exploit of acts, therefore the biblical prohibitions, do not apply to them. Because after all, modern day homosexuals are engaged in loving consensual relationships not abusive exploitive ones. And that’s why what the Bible says, doesn’t apply to them today.</p>

<p>Now let me just offer two general responses to this approach that the Reformation Project takes. Before I give a specific detailed response to all their individual arguments. And the first thing to note is this the Reformation Project uses selective use of historical evidence. And here’s what I mean. They’ll take a biblical passage that seems to clearly teach that homosexual sex is sin. And they’ll find some ancient historical case of abusive forms of homosexual sex. And they’ll say the Bible is only referring to that abusive form of homosexual sex. Not homosexual conduct in and of itself. And that’s the way they try to get around the clear teaching of what Scripture is saying.</p>

<p>And the second point to recognize here, with regard to the Reformation Project’s approach, is that nowhere in Scripture, do we see the Bible making this distinction. That there are exploitive homosexual sex acts and not exploitive homosexual sex acts. And so for that reason then I’m going to argue that the Bible does not just limit itself to condemning just coercive or exploitive homosexual sex acts.</p>


title: Jesus, the Only Way – The Only Source of Salvation
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-the-only-way-the-only-source-of-salvation
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/R3ZuXxb6pzU?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Video excerpt from the STR Quick-Reference app series, “Jesus, the Only Way.”</p>

<p>Jesus Is the Only Source of Salvation for the World<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Man, guilty of rebellion, wanders as an outcast, but God does not abandon Him. The Messiah would be the true door, the bread of life, the only way to the Father, bringing eternal life to those who trust in Him.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Acts 4:11-12 “He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”</p>

<p>Mk. 14:61-62, Jn. 3:14-16, Jn. 6:51, Jn. 6:53-54, Jn. 6:68-69, Jn. 10:9a, Jn. 15:1a, Jn. 16:8-9, Jn. 17:3, Acts 16:30-31, Rom. 10:9, 1 Tim. 2:5, Titus 1:4, Titus 2:13, Titus 3:6, Heb. 12:2, 1 Jn. 5:20</p>

<p>Download the app and access the entire video and short text series&nbsp;<a href="http://subsplash.com/strquickreference/app" id="" rel="" target="" title="">HERE</a>.</p>
  <br>


title: The Witch in Wisconsin
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-witch-in-wisconsin
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/yaB-hMMRDs8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares how to use tactics to make a case for life.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I’d like to give you an illustration to show the power of the tactical approach and also the power of of aiming to just try to put a stone in someone’s shoe. It’s something that happened to me a number of years ago. I was in northern Wisconsin, I was up there at a place that my grandfather bought many years ago in a lake and when I was a kid I used to go up there fishing and now I bring my own daughters up there. I love to fish. I love to bass fish.</p>

<p>I only get a couple of weeks out of the year to do it anymore but&nbsp;when I’m up in Northern Wisconsin like I go small mouth fishing and I caught the largest small mouth bass in my life at the time with a local pastor. It was just a bit over four pounds. I’ve caught eight fish over 5 pounds since then so I’ve increased my bragging rights but I was so proud of that fish. I wanted to take a picture of it and he took a snap of it and I wanted to take it and get it digitally converted so I can put it up on the screen at the his church where I&nbsp;was going to be speaking the following weekend and kind of flex my fishing muscle.</p>

<p>So my wife and I took the film in and we dropped it off and the young lady that was helping us at the counter, she had a large pentagram hanging from her neck. Now a pentagram is a five-pointed star that is often an&nbsp;occultic symbol. It was an opportunity for me to ask about that. I said, “Does that jewelry have religious significance?”&nbsp;And she immediately said, “Yes it does. The&nbsp;five points of the star stand for earth, wind, fire, water, and spirit.”</p>

<p>Now this was familiar to me, with just my own training and background, but I&nbsp;wanted to get more detail. I asked her, “Does that have religious significance for you personally.”&nbsp;You know some people wear a cross and it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just jewelry. That’s what I wanted to know about her particular piece of jewelry. She said, “Yes it does have significance. I’m a pagan.”</p>

<p>Now when she said that look, I’m a trained professional. I was just taking it in stride, but it caught my wife by surprise and she started to laugh when the gal call herself a pagan. And then she caught herself and she said, “I’m sorry I didn’t mean to be rude but I never heard anybody admit it before.”&nbsp;She’d only heard the word pagan when her girlfriends would call their kids in. You know, get in here you bunch of pagans. That kind of thing.</p>

<p>And now the woman wasn’t offended. She explained that this was an earth religion and as she’s talking about it, I realize I’m talking to a witch. And in fact I asked her that. “Are you Wicken?”&nbsp;and she said, “Yes I am.”&nbsp;We respect all life. A major tenet of Wicca. And so I’m thinking about it and so I asked her, “Well that would probably make you pro-life then wouldn’t it, regarding the abortion issue?”&nbsp;and she said, “No actually I’m pro-choice.”&nbsp;I said, “Isn’t it&nbsp;odd for a witch to be pro-choice? My understanding is that they’re mostly pro-life, because of their views?”&nbsp;and she said, “Well yeah, it is a little bit odd.”&nbsp;And then she qualified her statement she said, “I know that I could never do that. I could never kill a baby.”&nbsp;Referring to abortion.</p>

<p>Look, at Stand to Reason we have training material on how to deal with the abortion issue. It’s called, Making Abortion Unthinkable - The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion. And we give arguments, philosophical and scientific, to show that abortion takes the life of an innocent human child, without proper justification. Baby-killing, if you like, but we don’t encourage people to use that language, because we don’t want anyone to think that we’re trying to make our points based on slick rhetoric.</p>

<p>But in this case, it’s not me the pro-lifer who’s calling abortion baby-killing. It’s the person who believes in abortion who is actually calling abortion baby-killing. And I hope you get one thing out of this illustration and that is the importance of listening to what the other person says when you’re in a conversation. Because people are going to give you things all the time that you can use to make your points more effectively and she has just given me, in a certain sense, the authority to identify abortion for what it is: taking the life of an innocent human being. Baby-killing, if you will. And so consequently I’m not going to use the word abortion anymore. In this conversation, I’m going to be using her term in the conversation.</p>

<p>She said, “I know I could never do that I&nbsp;could never kill a baby.” And then she gave the reason why. She said, “I wouldn’t want something bad to come back on me.” Alright. Well that strikes me&nbsp;as an odd reason not to kill babies, you know? It’s like, I’m not going to kill any babies, yet,&nbsp;you never know what’s going to happen to you if you do that. Kind of a karma thing, you know? What goes around comes around. Now, you know that strikes me, as I&nbsp;mentioned, a little bit unusual but I didn’t pursue that particular point. I went in a different direction.</p>

<p>I said, “Well, maybe you wouldn’t kill a baby but maybe we should stop other people from killing babies?”&nbsp;and she said, “Well I think people should have a choice.”&nbsp;Now what’s the choice we’re talking about here? The choice to by your own admission kill babies. Right, and that’s where I said to her, “You mean people should have a choice to kill babies?”&nbsp;and she said, “Well you know, I think all things should be taken into consideration.”&nbsp;I said, “Okay, what would be a legitimate consideration to make it okay to kill a baby?”&nbsp;and she immediately said, “Incest.”</p>

<p>Now, I want you to see what’s going on here. She’s trotting out all of the pro-choice slogans. Alright these turn out to be slogans not just for pro-choice but for baby-killing explicitly. And so the conversation is starting to sound a little bit weird. But she doesn’t see it because she’s not paying attention. She’s just satisfied with the slogans. This happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. People have their sloganeering way of dealing with particular issues and they drop these things out and they’re not listening to themselves. And they’re not thinking carefully about what’s going on.</p>

<p>So what I said to her, to kind of get her attention about this whole thing, I said, “Let me ask you a question. If I had a two-year-old standing next to me who had been conceived by incest then on your view I should be allowed to kill this child, is that right?”&nbsp;Ok now let me ask you, is that a fair application of her own view? I think it is. In fact, she thought it was too. She didn’t object. And by the way, if it wasn’t a fair application, I’m giving her an opportunity to correct me, because I don’t want to misrepresent her view. But it wasn’t a misrepresentation. It was a fair application of her view. And she thought about it for a moment.</p>

<p>She paused. I don’t know maybe that’s where I put the stone in her shoe. It’s hard to tell in these things. But in any event, she paused for a moment then finally she said, about killing the two-year-old, “I’d have mixed feelings about it.”&nbsp;And inside I think, I hope so! At least mixed. Now notice, she meant this as a concession. It’s like you got a point there. I noticed also that the line is growing behind me, so now I realize that I’m interfering with her work product and I also realized that my opportunity as an ambassador for Christ now come to an end.</p>

<p>Now had I been of a different persuasion, the idea that you always got to get to the Gospel in every conversation. Go for the gold. Swing for the fences. I couldn’t stop there. I’d have to keep going. I’d have to tell the people hold on folks I’m not done yet. I haven’t got to the Gospel yet. You know, sit down maybe learn something. But I wasn’t under that pressure. I know that God gives us little windows of opportunity and we make the best of those windows of opportunity and then we move on and trust that person to the Lord. For those moments, it was my task. But it’s God’s problem.</p>

<p>Let me say that again. It was my task but it’s God’s problem. He’s in control and I could finish up there. Let her get on with her work. Move ahead. Pray for this young lady and entrust her to the Lord. I want you to know something about this conversation and maybe you already noticed it. In this conversation, I used nine different questions. I use questions to initiate the conversation. I asked about her jewelry. I used questions to gather more information about her point of view. I used questions even to exploit a weakness or flaw that I thought I saw in her point of view. And that was the illustration about the two-year-old. And in the process, well, I used to say she was doing all the work because I&nbsp;wasn’t doing any work, I was just having a conversation. I was relaxed, I was cool, calm, and collected.</p>

<p>But, I realize now, that she&nbsp;wasn’t doing any work either. She was relaxed, cool, calm, and, collected. We were just having a friendly conversation. And that’s exactly the way I want it. There were no lines drawn in the sand. We weren’t guarding turf or anything like that. We weren’t fighting. We were just talking. And this is the power of using a tactical approach.</p>


title: The Importance of Studying Apologetics Regularly
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/23/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-importance-of-studying-apologetics-regularly
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/_d1vYlA_qVk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan shares how he uses apologetics in conversation.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I was recently asked, what is the role of apologetics? What is the value for the average Christian in studying apologetics? Is there any profit to doing so? This is a great question. I see apologetics not as an end in itself but rather a means to an end. In other words, when I'm talking to people who don't share my faith convictions, for example, non-believers, I don't bring up apologetic issues. It’s not like I start off by trying to talk about stem cell research, or abortion, or Islam, or homosexuality, or evolution. Rather, when I talk to someone who doesn't share my faith, I want to present to them the gospel, Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>I’m an ambassador for Jesus, and I'm called to proclaim the message of reconciliation to these people, and so that's what I do. That's how I start off. Chances are, they're not going to want to accept the message of reconciliation that God has. Chances are that they'll have a reason why they don’t want to do that. Maybe it’s a misunderstanding about the nature of the gospel. Maybe it’s some beliefs they have about Christians – that they're hypocrites or that to become a Christian means you have to hate your homosexual friends. Maybe they have some misunderstanding about some matter and so then they raise that as a concern as to why they won't accept the gospel. That's when I use my apologetics. That's when I draw upon that knowledge.</p>

<p>These tools that I have help either clarify a misunderstanding they have or respond to an intellectual objection they might have. So you see, apologetics really is not an end in itself. It's a means to an end. It’s for the purpose of helping to answer the reasons why somebody might not accept the gospel. So in other words, I see apologetics as removing obstacles that might be in the way of the gospel and allowing a person to come clearly to Jesus Christ. That's why, if you care about the Great Commission, you should care about apologetics. Apologetics simply is the task and the study of understanding people's reasons and concerns with the gospel and helping them to overcome those objections and those concerns so they can eventually accept Jesus Christ.</p>


title: Where Should a Young Person Seeking to Study the Faith Begin?
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 01/23/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/where-should-a-young-person-seeking-to-study-the-faith-begin-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/dqD813MmODE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Brett helps young people know where to begin if they want to study Christianity and apologetics effectively.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>If young people want to start studying apologetics what areas should they focus on? Let me give you four key areas. In fact, I look at them as for key steps that build upon one another to eventually make a cumulative case. That Christianity is true.</p>

<p>Number one, young people need a good grounding in truth. They live in such a relativistic culture that really affects them with subjectivism and relativism that they really need help building a strong foundation of truth. They need to be able to make the case that there is objective truth. That we can we can know these things and build that foundation.</p>

<p>And then the next question builds on that and asks well okay, what’s the truth then about God’s existence? Does God really exists? And I think this is a really key portion because it puts a foundation for the next two steps and the next two questions. So young people really need to be able to say that they have faith in a God who is reasonable. That there is evidence that builds their faith. It’s not a blind leap of faith. It’s not just because the Bible says so, but actually, there’s a cumulative case based on various arguments, based on experience, based on divine revelation. There’s a cumulative case that makes a very strong case for the existence of God.</p>

<p>Now once God is in place. Once you have truth and God in place, then a young person moves to the third question and that is, can we detect God’s action? Right. That’s what we call miracles. And so a young person should study the resurrection of Jesus. And now we have an example of God reaching in to time, space, history, and acting. And we’ve been able to detect it. We have historical evidence that verifies this.</p>

<p>And then the fourth question, is not only does God act, but does God speak? And this is where we get into divine revelation. This is where we get into Scripture. And why would we think that our claims on Scripture are any different than a Muslim’s claim on scripture or Mormons claim on scripture or whoever it might be? And so we make the case that number one, the Bible has been accurately transmitted.</p>

<p>Then number two, we make the case that the Bible is historically reliable. And then number three, we make the case that the Bible is actually divinely-inspired. And when we do that, then we build confidence, that God has not only acted in something like the resurrection of Jesus, but he’s also spoken in the Bible; His Word. And we have now a foundational authority. And I think those four key areas are a great place to start with your young people. If young people start with those four areas, they will build a solid apologetic foundation for their faith.</p>


title: How Are Tactics Used with Someone Who Is Very Aggressive?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/03/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-are-tactics-used-with-someone-who-is-very-aggressive-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/7anGFKiLMXc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares how you can graciously interact with an argumentative person in conversation about beliefs.</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/how-are-tactics-used-with-someone-who-is-very-aggressive.html" target="_blank">COMMENTS</a></p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>What is the best tactical approach with somebody who is prideful, angry aggressive, overflowing with objections, and scattering their challenges out one after another? This sounds like a steamroller. In the&nbsp;<em>Tactics</em>&nbsp;book I have a chapter on dealing with the steamroller.</p>

<p>A steamroller fulfills almost all of those descriptions. They are usually angry, certainly aggressive, much of the time filled with pride and offering – bang, bang, bang – one thing after another. The characteristic quality of a steamroller is interruption. That is, they’ll give you a challenge aggressively, maybe angrily, and you’ll do your best to begin to respond. Once they hear something they don’t like – bang – they interrupt, break you off, and challenge what you’re saying. Before you know it, you have four or five things stacked up.</p>

<p>The best way to deal with someone like that – you’re not going to deal with their pride, anger, aggression, or hostility – you can channel it. The multiple questions business applies if you have 4 or 5 people that are ganging up on you at the same time. First, you try to stop the flow. You can do it in a gracious way and a genial fashion at first and pause the conversation. I’m putting my hand up here because I use body English when I encounter somebody like that. I’ll say something like this, “Hold on just a minute. Give me a second to finish my thought. Would that be okay?” It’s just an easy gentle pause. It’s a request that you be allowed to talk until you finish, and then you let the other person come in. “Hold on just a minute. You want to hear my answer? Okay, I want to give it to you, but I can only take one at a time.” That’s another line that might be helpful, “one at a time.” Whether there’s one question at a time from the same person or one challenge at a time from different people who are ganging up on you, it’s the same thing.</p>

<p>I want you to understand, though, what I’m looking for in this negotiation. I am not willing to continue in a conversation with somebody or a group of people unless it can be done in a measured, thoughtful, and genial fashion. If a person is going to keep interrupting or if a whole bunch of people are going to gang up on me, I am going to require of the circumstances that it be done differently or else it’s not going to be done at all.</p>

<p>My first step is to make this soft maneuver, and that is to say, “Hold on just a second. I’m not quite done. Give me a second, and I’ll be glad to let you in. Is it ok if I answer the question? Is that alright with you?” Listen for their response. If they say, “Yeah, that’s alright,” then you make your response.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Be sure to try to keep it trimmed up a little bit because this person wants to get in, and they’re anxious. So their patience may be short, and in fact, they may break trust right away and start interrupting again. That’s when you say, “Hold on, you’re breaking in again. Listen, when I finish, I’ll let you talk, and I won’t break in on you. Is that alright?” That’s the first step, and a lot of times that’s all it takes. Then you have a gracious conversation.</p>

<p>You might have to remind the person a couple of times. That’s alright. However, what if they completely break trust with you, and they are steamrolling right over the top of you? At this point, you do the same thing that you did in the first step. Its efforts are more aggressive. I call it “stop ‘em” and second step is “shame ‘em.” That is, you directly address the inappropriate rude behavior. Again, you are not nasty. You are not harsh. You’re friendly. You don’t put your hands on your hips and say, “Will you please stop it?” or, “Can I get a word in edgewise?” That’s just not going to be helpful with a person like that.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It may be that you can’t even get in. Then, let them roll all over the place until they have to get a breath. They pause, and then you address the problem before you start answering any questions. You directly say, “You know what? I would love to answer your question. The problem is, you keep interrupting me, and if you keep interrupting me, I cannot continue like this. So, I just need to ask, would you like to have a back and forth conversation without interruptions or not? If you don’t, and you want to keep doing this, this conversation is over. So, you tell me.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Once again, you put it in their lap, and see what they say. A little more aggressive there. It would have been inappropriate at first if you did it that way from the beginning, but now they’ve broken trust, so you can be a little more aggressive. Not nasty, but firm.&nbsp;</p>

<p>First, you stop ‘em. If that doesn’t work, you shame em’. If that doesn’t work, you leave ‘em. Not everybody deserves an answer. Jesus said don’t cast what is holy to dogs or pearls before swine, and the idea there, Jesus said, is lest they turn on you and tear you to pieces.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Sometimes you’re in conversations with people who just want to tear you to pieces. I do not think you have to stay, and play, and go through this sequence. It’s all in the book,&nbsp;<em>Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>, and if they don’t want to play in a civil way, then leave them. That’s the best way to deal with somebody like that.</p>


title: How Were the Books of the Bible Compiled?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-compiled
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/JOIHRjXD95c?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>How did the early church decide which books to include in the New Testament?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The inspiration of Scripture is connected to the canon. We might make the case that the New Testament is inspired by God. We see God’s fingerprints on it, but exactly what books would fall into that category? How were the New Testament books chosen as part of the canon? This was a complicated process in some ways, but there are some general guidelines that drove the process.</p>

<p>A bunch of people who had authority in themselves did not get together and just pick the ones that they said were the right New Testament books. The books did not have authority in virtue of who chose them. That's not the way it worked.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The word "canon" means authority. That is, what are the authoritative works in themselves in the New Testament era that tell us about God and His plan for salvation? Before they were books for the New Testament, what was the canon?</p>

<p>Jesus trained 12 people (and more if you consider Paul after the cross) to take His message, and promised them in the upper room discourse in John 15 that He would bring to remembrance all the things that He had taught them so they would be able to communicate to others. Because of their close association with Jesus, this group of men became the standard, or the canon.</p>

<p>The early church looked to the apostles for the authoritative word about what was sound doctrinally. What happened when the apostles died? Was there a whole new generation of apostles that had the same authority? There’s no biblical evidence for that. Although the apostles were gone, their writings still remained in the early church. The things that they instructed us regarding are still here. Those things are the authority now that those men are no longer alive.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The central question with regards to the canon was: Does any particular book bear with it apostolic authority? Did a bona fide apostle who had authority write it, and therefore the authority would be in his word? Or was the book written by someone associated with a bona fide apostle close enough that it gives authority to his work? Luke would be an example of somebody associated with the apostle Paul. Mark would be associated with the apostle Peter, and therefore would have authority in that regard. You have others that were very tightly connected to the apostolic band like Jude, for example. James was clearly an apostle and the half-brother of Jesus, a leader of the early church. Consequently, these books had authority in themselves because of their authorship.</p>

<p>The early church didn’t just assemble a collection of books. Rather, there already was a collection of books that virtually everybody agreed had authority. There are a couple exceptions – 2 Peter, Revelation, and Hebrews – partly because they weren't exactly sure who wrote Hebrews, but this was something that they worked out.</p>

<p>The point that I want to leave with you is it's not a haphazard affair. It wasn't just a matter a voting by a bunch of people who saw themselves as the authority. Rather, it was an act of Christian leaders who recognized the authority inherent in those books principally because of the apostolic connection that those books had. That is the foundational way in which the New Testament documents were viewed as authoritative and part of the canon.</p>


title: Is God Speaking to Me? Is It My Conscience? How Can I Tell?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-speaking-to-me-is-it-my-conscience-how-can-i-tell-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/_O5sBLkjWDI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Can we trust that the inner voice in our head is God?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How can I know if it's God speaking to me regarding something, or if it’s just my inner conscience? There's a certain sense in which I think the question is misconstrued. On the one hand, with regards to God speaking, God doesn't try. God does. He doesn't try to speak to us, but the rock and rolls are getting in the way, and our lives are too busy, and He's not able to get through. That means God's attempting to do something, but something we are doing is thwarting His attempt. I think that's a libel on God.</p>

<p>If God has something to say directly, then He says it directly. I know of no place in Scripture where God tried to communicate something but didn't get across. Even Saul of Tarsus – an unregenerate rebel against God who is persecuting the church and putting to death men and women who trusted in Jesus as the Messiah – God was still able to get through to him. “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” I don't think God tries. I don't think we have to worry, “Is God speaking to me?”&nbsp;</p>

<p>The issue of conscience is something else because conscience is something that God has given us. I think our conscience needs to be properly informed by truth. Sometimes, we have conscience qualms about issues that are not really wrong, but we feel they're wrong. Paul deals with that in Corinthians and Romans. He talks about “weaker brother” and “stronger brother.” His point there is even if you think something's wrong that's not wrong, you should obey your conscience.</p>

<p>The point I’m making here, though, is the conscience is not a perfect guide to what's right or wrong, but it is a tool that God uses. So, if we feel in our conscience that what we may be doing is wrong, then we are to take heed of that. Our directive from God through Paul in Scripture is that we not injure our conscience, i.e. doing something that we think is wrong even if it turns out it’s not wrong.</p>

<p>On the one hand, you don't have to worry about, “Is God speaking to me?” If you wonder whether He is or not, then He's not. Paul didn’t say when he picked himself up off the ground blind, “Gee, I wonder if God was trying to tell me something there on the road to Damascus.” No. I don’t think that works that way.</p>

<p>However, God does work in other subtle ways in our lives, and sometimes He works through our conscience. It's given for the purpose of being subjectively sensitive to sin in our life, and the Holy Spirit works in that.&nbsp;</p>

<p>I don't think you have to make the dichotomy, “Is it God speaking, or is it just my conscience?” If it’s your conscience according to what God has already said, then it's something you should pay attention to. Maybe you need some counsel from others as to whether your conscience is being properly informed at that particular point.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The conscience is a tool that God uses to help guide our behavior, and we need to be careful not to sear our consciences, but rather be alert to things in our hearts we feel may be wrong or right at any given moment. That's an important tool that God has given to us. We should pay attention to it.</p>


title: Challenge Response: Is Pig’s Meat Allowed Today or Not?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/28/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/challenge-response-is-pig-s-meat-allowed-today-or-not-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EgHqdfZ3aXQ?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Are we allowed to eat pig’s meat today or not? That’s the challenge that I want to address, and it comes from a Muslim who is citing Isaiah 65 as evidence for his case.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Are we allowed to eat pig’s meat today or not? That’s the challenge that I want to address, and it comes from a Muslim who is citing Isaiah 65 as evidence for his case.</p>

<p>He says that in “Isaiah 65, this chapter speaks about future Prophecies and Promises that GOD Almighty is making for the future of the people of Israel. So, this is not a book that is just giving mere commands. It is rather speaking about the future and the End of Times. Interestingly, we read the following,</p>

<p>‘3They keep making me angry by sneering at me, while offering sacrifices to idols in gardens and burning incense to them on bricks. 4They spend their nights hiding in burial caves; they eat the meat of pigs, cooked in sauces made of stuff unfit to eat. 5And then they say to others, ‘Don’t come near us! We’re dedicated to God.’ Such people are like smoke, irritating my nose all day.’ (CEV Bible, Isaiah 65:3-5)</p>

<p>Here we see that the pork eaters are so detested by GOD Almighty that He likened them to smoke irritating His Nose all day. This is a very powerful statement regarding eating pork and how detestable it is to GOD Almighty in the Bible.…</p>

<p>So what is it? Is pig’s meat allowed today or not?”</p>

<p>My answer is simple. Bacon.</p>

<p>Okay, so maybe the bacon answer would be sufficient for those of you are bacon lovers like myself, but for those of you who are not, perhaps you want some more. I’m willing to indulge you on that. In order to really understand the context of Isaiah 65, we have to realize that although God is speaking about some prophetic elements that are going to happen in the future, the section this Muslim sites is when Isaiah is listing various offenses that the children of Israel have committed against God. These are all offenses that are listed in the Mosaic Law.</p>

<p>The Mosaic Law is a contract between God, Moses, and the children of Israel. There are about 613 commands in there, and some of the commands include things about rituals, sacrifice, clean and unclean foods, and so on. They also include a prohibition from eating pork. So, when Isaiah is listing all of these offences, he’s referring to the past disobedient behaviors of Israel and chastising them because at that point in time when Isaiah was writing, the Mosaic Law was still in effect.</p>

<p>However, today the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect. Why? Because Jeremiah 31 talks about a new covenant that God’s going to establish with His people, so the Mosaic Law – the old covenant – will no longer be binding. Hebrews 8 talks about how that new law God establishes with His people makes the old law obsolete. What is this new covenant, this new contract that God has with His people? It’s through Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ comes along, He fulfills the requirements of the Mosaic Law. He fulfills the requirements of that contract and then establishes a new covenant in His blood. When He does that, the old requirements of clean and unclean food, not eating pork, the ritual sacrifices, and all those things are no longer binding or relevant for the New Testament believer.</p>

<p>That alone makes the case that eating pork products today would be morally permissible. In fact, the entire book of Galatians is one long argument that Paul makes against New Testament believers feeling bound by the Mosaic Law and saying the old covenant is no longer binding on the New Testament believer. The context there is about circumcision (again, that was part of the Mosaic Law), but all of Galatians is one giant point about how we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law and therefore, we are free from it. We are now under a new covenant, and that is a covenant under Christ.</p>

<p>In fact, we even see in 1 Timothy 4 Paul talking about how some people were still requiring that people abstain from certain foods. Then, Paul goes on to say, “No. God has created all things, and all things are good.” All food is okay to eat, and nothing should be rejected. The reason is because there’s nothing intrinsically sinful about pork products. Yes, God had a commandment to Israel in the past not to eat that meat. When the Jews violated a command, what they were guilty was violating the commands against God, not necessarily because there is something intrinsically wrong with the meat of pigs. It’s like when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. There was nothing intrinsically evil about the fruit itself; it was the fact that they are disobeying God’s commands. That’s why pork products are morally okay for us to eat today.</p>

<p>So, go out tonight, and have yourself a bacon wrapped filet mignon. Just make sure it’s medium rare.</p>


title: Can Christians Get Married in God’s Eyes Without Government Registration?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-christians-get-married-in-god-s-eyes-without-government-registration-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TSd3Ic9MgKE?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>What makes a marriage official according to God?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>I was recently asked if Christians can get married in the eyes of God without government registration. If so, should they or shouldn’t they? I think the obvious and immediate answer is “yes.” Of course Christians can get married in the eyes of God without government registration. They’ve been doing that for thousands of years. In fact, Adam and Eve obviously did not have a government to sanction their marriage. Instead, in the eyes of God, they were married.</p>

<p>Even today - my wife and I live in the United States. When we got married, our pastor married us. I would argue that in the eyes of God, that’s when my wife and I were actually married. Then, at a later time, we filled out the appropriate government forms – the marriage license – and got that to be a part of the government sanctioned marriage. So yes, Christians can get married without government registration, and in the eyes of God they are actually married.</p>

<p>God does not need government registration to recognize a marriage. However, Christians cannot get married in the eyes of the government without getting a marriage license. The reason why they might want to get married in the eyes of the government is because when you get married by the government standards, you get all the protections, benefits, and privileges that come with state-sanctioned matrimony. Of course, those are intended to help take care of and to promote and nurture families that are formed when people get together and get married. That’s why I would recommend for Christians to not only get married in the eyes of God, but also to go the next step and get married in the eyes the government and to get the marriage license. That way, they can participate with the government and get those protections and privileges that come with state-sanctioned matrimony.</p>

<p>I hope you recognize that the government is a God-given institution. God has given humanity three institutions to help it to flourish and to protect it. God has given us the church, God has given us the family, and God given us the government. So, the government is a God-given institution that is intended to help human beings flourish, to protect innocent people, and to punish evildoers. That’s why when governments fail to do their job or they become corrupt, evil thrives, and human beings don’t flourish.</p>

<p>Notice, because the government is a God-given institution, it’s appropriate for us to participate in this government sanctioned matrimony and to get the privileges and benefits that come with that. There’s nothing wrong with doing that, so long as the government has not gone completely awry and is horrifically evil. Then, maybe you could argue that you don’t want to participate with everything government does. At least in our country at this point, there is no reason why we can’t, as Christians, participate in getting married in the eyes the government with a marriage license.</p>


title: Is Oral Tradition in Islam Reliable?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-oral-tradition-in-islam-reliable-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/5SU4QURSa84?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan explains how Islamic teachings were transmitted and compiled, especially regarding the words of Mohammed.</p>
  <br>


title: Why Is Jesus the Only Means of Salvation?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/11/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-jesus-the-only-means-of-salvation-video-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3WDBLzOglug?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg uses an analogy to explain the significance of Jesus saving us and why He’s the only one that can.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The idea of Jesus being the only way of salvation is one of the hardest things for people to swallow. Even Christians have a hard time with it. It’s a stumbling block, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense is the way the New Testament writers put it. Well, I’m going to give you an illustration that might help you understand why this is a reasonable claim.</p>

<p>The story is told of a king who having discovered money was stolen from his treasury, he money was stolen from his treasury, he and that when the criminal was found that that criminal would receive twenty that criminal would receive twenty lashes for the theft. They found the criminal. Turned out that the criminal was the king’s aged mother.</p>

<p>When he found out who was the wrong doer in this situation, he still brought her in, put her to the stake, had her tied up, had her back bared, and just before the whipping was to commence, he stood up from his throne, took off his royal robe, removed his crown, set aside his scepter, bared his own back, walked down to the stake, and wrapped his huge body around the frail body of his mother, and then commanded for the scourging to commence. And every single blow that was intended mother deserved fell on the back of the king king.</p>

<p>You see, this is the kind of thing that Jesus did for us because in the dark hours Calvary all the punishment that was to Calvary all the punishment that was due us fell upon Jesus. And this was predicted long before. “Surely our griefs He Himself bore. He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned but the lord has caused the iniquity of to his own way, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.”</p>

<p>You see, no other man has done this. No other man stood in our place and took justice can be fulfilled yet we can experience mercy you want to do well experience mercy. You want to know why Jesus is the only way of salvation? It’s because He’s the only one who solved the problem. He’s the only one who paid the debt. No other man did this, no other man could. Jesus was absolutely unique.</p>


title: Does Brain Mapping Prove That Transgender People’s Brains Match Their Perceived Gender?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/09/2017
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/BNT7WQlOH4U?rel=0
source:
https://www.str.org/w/does-brain-mapping-prove-that-transgender-people-s-brains-match-their-perceived-gender-

transcript:
    <p>Alan discusses the difference between correlation and causation regarding brain patterns and transgenderism.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>How can I respond to the claim that brain mapping proves that transgender people’s brains match their perceived gender? So therefore, it supposedly provides evidence that they are transgender. Right right well, I’m always a little skeptical when people cite examples or studies where people are connecting or making a correlation between certain brain states and certain ways of thinking or behaviors or perceptions or beliefs. And part of the reason why I’m skeptical about that is because we might be able to show correlation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean causation. In fact, it could be the case that what’s going on is actually working in the opposite direction. In other words, you know, you could have beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of thinking that ultimately affect brain states or our brain chemistry and brain perhaps even morphology.</p>

<p>So for example, if I’m recalling correctly, think there’s some studies done of people who are blind who use their fingers to read Braille more often and as a result of this kind of behavior and and processing eventually you could see changes in the way their brains work. In fact even myself when I was a physical therapist, many years ago, I’d work with stroke patients and when a stroke patient had a stroke, it was because a certain portion of the brain died. And it was that portion of the brain that was responsible for controlling a certain muscular behavior. Well through retraining, we were able to have them have other parts of the brain control the same parts of the body that were once controlled by these original parts.</p>

<p>And so in other words, you know, you can have a correlation existing between brain and behavior and thoughts. But it doesn’t mean it goes in one direction not the other. So the assumption here seems to be that there’s physical evidence in the brain mapping that this is a of an actual physical condition: transgender. But you’re saying that that’s not necessarily the case because it could be that the brain states are the way they are because the mental states have affected them.</p>

<p>Exactly. And there’s lots lots of other kinds of examples of where the mental states affect the brain states. Yeah, exactly. It could just be that is based upon the way they’re thinking and behaving in the psychological states this is affecting the brain and so they’re not looking and seeing the brain in a particular state and saying I’ll see look it’s different in the case of people who are transgender. But again there can be a lot of things that contribute to brain changes. Not just in other words, it doesn’t just necessarily go the other way.</p>

<p>Well so let’s say, it is in the mind. The mind is affecting the brain. Well isn’t that still evidence that the that this is a real condition? Well, there’s no doubt that it’s a real condition. I don’t doubt that people who are transgender truly believe they are. For example, if they have a physically male body and they believe themselves to be female, there’s no question that they are transgender. In the sense that there is a disconnect between their perceived gender identity and their biological sex.</p>

<p>But that there’s some sort of a biological brain cause for that, doesn’t seem to follow as a result of the fact that there is a reality of people who are transgender. And I guess people would assume if there are brain states that are mapped that are causing this that that’s probably not changeable. But as you’re pointing out that it could just as well be the mental states affecting the brain and we know very well we can change our mind. We can affect the patterns of our thinking and our perceptions because we do it all the time.</p>


title: Challenge Response: The Bible Says Men Are Superior to Women
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/27/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/challenge-response-the-bible-says-men-are-superior-to-women
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/raRUG7Z4gWo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>This week’s challenge: The Bible says that men are superior to women.</p>

<p>A little controversial in this day and age. What does the Bible say about men and women and husbands and wives and their value and their roles? This challenge sites Corinthians as an example of a passage where you have men superior to women. I want to say a couple of things.</p>

<p>Number one, the key passage in Scripture on the value of human beings is Genesis 1:26-27. That’s where we derive human value, not on gender, not on ethnicity, but on the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. It says, “male and female, he created them.” So, men and women are made in the image of God. In the Christian worldview, this is where we derive the value of human beings. Therefore, human value is intrinsic, and it’s inherent to being human. If you’re a human being, you are valuable. That’s where we get our value, and so that’s the foundation of biblical texts.</p>

<p>Now we come to the New Testament. We do see a distinction made between men and women. There’s a passage that talks about men, husbands, being the head of their wives, and so a lot of people today look at that and go, “What does that mean? Doesn’t that mean that men are superior to women?” Well, no, it doesn’t. It’s just referring to different roles that we have. There’s a difference between having a role and having higher or lower value. They’re not the same thing.</p>

<p>In fact, God models this for us. Look at the Trinitarian view of God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally God. None is inferior to the other. Amongst the Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – there are different roles they play. So, it wasn’t the Father who died on the cross, it was the Son who died on the cross for sins of humanity. It’s the son who says that he willingly submits his will to the will of the Father. Does that mean that the Son is somehow inferior to the Father? No, of course not. It’s just a difference in role. The Son willingly submits himself to the Father, and that is key for our view of husbands and wives.</p>

<p>In fact, I want to take you to a different passage, Ephesians 5. Chapter five is a key passage. It will help us understand a little bit more about this headship, about the relationship between husband and wife. If you look in Ephesians 5 starting in verse 21, it says, “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” or to “submit to one another in the fear of Christ.”</p>

<p>First off, there is mutual submission that should happen in a relationship between husband and wife. The next verse, 22, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ also is the head of the Church.” There is this idea of headship, or leadership, that a man has in a marriage relationship with a wife, but what does that look like? When we think headship, we think leadership, we think worldly view, right? “Well, I have authority over you. I tell you what to do. You listen to me. I give you orders.” That’s not the biblical view. That’s not the model of Christ.</p>

<p>In Ephesians 5:25 we see this command to husbands: “Husbands love your wives…” How? “…just also as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” That’s a tall order for husbands, right? Husbands are to love their wives, lead their wives, in the same way Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He sacrificially lived his life and gave his life up for the church.</p>

<p>That’s the role of the husband. That is a huge tall order. So, there’s nothing in Scripture about men being superior to women. There’s equal value with men and women. There are just simply different roles that men and women have in a marriage relationship. Different roles do not equal different value. Men and women are equally valued.</p>

<p>In fact, if you look at the origins of Christianity in the society that Christianity springs up within, you know that women are second-class citizens, third-class citizens. But Christianity dignifies women all throughout Scripture and gives them a whole different status. It’s actually Christianity that brings the value of women to the forefront. So, does the Bible teach that men are superior to women? Absolutely not.</p>
  <br>


title: Challenge Response: If Christianity Were True, Enlightened Countries Would Believe It
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/06/2017
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ciYY5xmFP4?rel=0
source:
https://www.str.org/w/challenge-response-if-christianity-were-true-enlightened-countries-would-believe-it

transcript:
    <p>Here’s my response to this week’s challenge:</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>If Christianity were true, enlightened countries would believe it. And today’s challenge says that basically if Christianity were really true, then it would be gaining believers in these enlightened cultured countries, not losing them. And so this challenge is citing a study that was reported in the BBC that suggests that religion might be becoming extinct in nine countries.</p>

<p>Here’s what they say: “The important thing to note is that in the nine nations cited all of them are First World affluent and highly educated countries.”&nbsp;By the way, the countries are Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Switzerland. They say this: “The fact that religion is dying in these enlightened countries and not, for instance, in countries of lower prominence is compelling evidence that religion is not a product of reality but rather a reflection of man’s pre-scientific superstitions.”</p>

<p>Now, this is kind of a peculiar challenge, but let me just offer three quick thoughts regarding it. My first thought is this: It seems like a bit of an overstatement to suggest that religion is going to become extinct in nine nations. Now keep in mind “extinct”&nbsp;means that no one believes in religion at all. Not one person. And so again, it seems like a bit of a stretch that that would be the case, but nevertheless, alright, fine, that’s what they’re claiming. But to me it seems like a bit of an overstatement. And by the way, I’m curious, why is not say England or the United States also not included in that list? I mean aren’t they also First World, affluent, highly educated countries? So again, I’m not saying that this disqualifies the whole study, but it still makes you wonder why that wasn’t included.</p>

<p>The second thing is this: What does this study really tell us? To me it tells us that people who are living in a very secular state, very secular country, who are being trained and educated by secular schools, probably by a lot of professors and teachers who have adopted scientific naturalism, people who are being raised in such a culture are growing up to become less religious. Is that a surprise? Doesn’t seem to me at all like it would be surprising. Of course. What else would we expect?</p>

<p>My third thought is this: This doesn’t surprise me at all what they claim that they have found. Think about this. Are people who are First World affluent and highly educated more likely to believe that they are wretched criminals deserving of punishment and desperately in need of a savior to save them from the crimes they’ve committed against the Holy God? No, I wouldn’t think that would be the case. Are people who are First World, highly educated, and affluent more likely to take up their cross, deny themselves, and follow Jesus on a regular basis? No, of course not.</p>

<p>So to me, this study doesn’t seem to prove that religion is going extinct. Rather, it seems to be more consistent with what the Scriptures already say about the nature of reality and especially about what Jesus said. Jesus said look, it’s not the healthy that need a doctor, rather, it’s the sick, and he has not come to call the righteous, but rather, to call sinners to repentance.</p>


title: Does Jeremiah 29:11 Apply to Us Today?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/05/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-jeremiah-29-11-apply-to-us-today-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/p4_lmpYh4I4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg explains how we should never read just one Bible verse to understand its true meaning and purpose. We need to read the context.&nbsp;</p>
  <br>


title: Love Needs an Education
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/11/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/love-needs-an-education-1
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/y5vaWgaZCv4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg offers thoughts on what true, biblical love is versus the kind of love that simply makes people feel good.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>In Philippians chapter 1 Paul says that our love should abound in real knowledge and discernment. Hmm. Boy, that’s something that has application for today that love needs a theological education. That is, just loving, just feeling compassionate towards someone, and then oftentimes giving them what they want, is not always a Christian virtue. This I think is most obvious in those circumstances where, with the issue of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, and the like, where children of parents who are Christians come out as gay, the parents begin to have a change of theological mind with regards to their son or daughter’s sexual activity.</p>

<p>And in a one sense it’s understanding because this is hitting really close to home, but this is why I think Paul says as followers of Christ that our love should abound in real knowledge and discernment. That is, there are times when we approve of things that are not right under the guise of love. We’re just being loving and we’re just being accepting. Love guided rather by knowledge and discernment is what God is asking for here. And sometimes we just have to say, “I love you and that will never change, but I cannot approve of the lifestyle behaviors that you’re involved with because those things are wrong.”</p>

<p>The most dramatic statement of love in the entire scriptures is found in first Corinthians 13 as it identifies all of the qualities of the virtue of love, and one of those is that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness. So even love needs to be theologically informed. It should abound in knowledge and discernment so that genuine love affirms the things that God affirms and condemns the things that God condemns. Even though we have a posture of grace and mercy we still must be faithful to the truth. That’s love abounding in real knowledge and discernment.</p>


title: My Body, My Choice?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/23/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/my-body-my-choice-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNqmcIKuJDc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan discusses whether or not the unborn is merely a part of the mother’s body.</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/12/my-body-my-choice.html" target="_blank">COMMENTS</a></p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>My body, my choice. That’s one of the most common defenses for abortion. The rationale goes like this: A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body. Since the unborn is allegedly part of the woman’s body, she’s therefore allowed to have an abortion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Here’s the key question: If the unborn is merely a part of the woman’s body, then what part is missing after an abortion? The answer is obvious: Nothing. All the parts of a woman are still present after an abortion. That’s because the unborn is not part of her body, but rather a separate body that lies within her.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This question of whether the unborn is merely a part of the woman’s body is a scientific question. If you look at the science of embryology, it is decisive in answering this question. There are a number of qualities and characteristics that are different about the unborn and the mother.&nbsp;</p>

<p>For example, gender. The unborn’s gender can be different than that of the mother. If the unborn is a boy, then the unborn has male genitals. Clearly, the mother does not have male genitals as part of her body, so that’s why we conclude that the unborn’s body is different than the mother’s body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Furthermore, there’s also DNA. The unborn’s DNA, or genetic signature, is completely different and unique from the mother and from the father, for that matter. In fact, if the unborn were merely part of the mother, then his or her DNA would be identical to the mother in the same way that the mother’s colon or appendix or tonsils or eyes or teeth have the same DNA as the mother. But the unborn’s DNA is completely and uniquely different. That’s why we conclude that the unborn is a different body than the mother.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Furthermore, we have evidence from the brain. The unborn has a different brain, central nervous system, and different brain wave patterns from the mother. The unborn also has a different heart, heartbeat, blood type, and circulatory system than the mother.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the placenta, the unborn’s blood and the mother’s blood come very close together, but they never connect, overlap, or mix. If there’s a problem in the placenta where the blood of the unborn and the mother mix, the mother’s body mounts an immune response against the unborn child’s body. Why? It’s because the mother’s body perceives the unborn as a different body, a separate being, not merely part of her body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The mother’s immune system does not attack her own heart, her own eyes, or her own bones because they are part of her body. The mother’s body does mount an immune response against the unborn if there is a problem in the placenta because it knows that that unborn entity is a separate being unique from the mother’s body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>We also know that you can conceive the unborn outside of the mother’s body through in vitro fertilization and later on at some point in development, place that unborn child into the mother’s body. This is further evidence in that we’re not talking about the same body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Finally, I’ll suggest that through surrogacy, you can have a child that is %100 African-American growing inside a mother who is %100 Swedish. You can have an unborn child that is a completely different race and ethnicity from the mother because again, we’re clearly talking about a different body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>So, the claim that the mother can have an abortion merely because the unborn is part of her body is simply not scientifically accurate. It flies in the face of everything we know about the science of embryology. It’s just not true.</p>


title: Greg Koukl—Old Testament Law and Christians
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/03/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/greg-koukl-old-testament-law-and-christians
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/JV44w7BUVEk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question "Can you give a couple of rules to use about Christian application of the Old Testament?"</p>
  <br>


title: Greg Koukl - Tactics and Taking the Roof Off
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/03/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/greg-koukl-tactics-and-taking-the-roof-off
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-eQ91rEWuJk?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason looks at the question, "How is 'taking the roof off' different from the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum?"</p>
  <br>


title: Is Friendship with Unbelievers Being Unequally Yoked?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/05/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-friendship-with-unbelievers-being-unequally-yoked-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/kaYsIZVl_qo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>What does it really mean to be unequally yoked?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>2 Corinthians has a verse that is often ignored and sometimes misused. It's a verse that talks about being unequally yoked. The question has been raised to me: Is being friends with non-Christians an example of being unequally yoked? I guess my response is: That depends. The point of the passage is that we are not to be bound together – connected strongly – with people who have different points of view on critical matters, spiritual things, and moral things than we do. The picture there is of two oxen being yoked together. If they're tied together and one starts to pull off the track, it can pull the other one of the track as well. Paul says we should not be unequally yoked to non-believers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Now, what would be an example of unequally yoked? I think certainly marriage would be an example of that. Certain types of business deals and partnerships would be examples of that. Wherever you're in a circumstance where you're tied together so much that their way of life, their values, and their worldview will function to pull you off the straight and narrow either in your beliefs, convictions, or in your behaviors.</p>

<p>Does this mean we should never have any contact with non-believers? No, of course not. In fact, Paul in 1 Corinthians addresses that directly. 1 Corinthians 5, I think he said, “I told you not to associate with immoral people.” He said, “I didn't mean immoral people of the world because then you'd have to go out of the world.” And of course, we’re sent into the world to take our message of love, reconciliation, and forgiveness to those people. We can't be isolated. He was talking about associating with immoral people in the church. If we have people that are living like hell in the church, then maybe that means they're going there. That should be addressed in the community of Christians, and that's what he's addressing there in 1 Corinthians 5.</p>

<p>We should be connected with unbelievers in a regular fashion just as Jesus was, but we are not to be yoked together with them in a way that's going to compromise our own convictions and our own behavior. Where is that line? That’s something you're going to have to reflect on, pray about, and get counsel from other Christians regarding. Definitely marriage, without question, is beyond that line. You want to be yoked together with someone who shares your convictions and who has a track record with the Lord so that you as a married couple can continue that track record. Again, business deals and some other things may qualify. Think of Psalm 1. The first couple verses give us some insight into inappropriate kinds of connectedness with non-believers, but going out of the world, isolating ourselves, pulling up the drawbridge, and circling the wagons? No, not at all. We need to be out there with those people who desperately need the Gospel.</p>


title: The Bible and Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Stand to Reason
date: 12/16/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-and-homosexuality
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/0YV2QTi3L0A?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>There are many different opinions on this divisive topic in the Church today. So what does the Bible say?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So, here’s the thing. We totally get that there are important and controversial issues in the church today. We also get that there’s a huge temptation to simply avoid these “hot button” issues. After all, topics like homosexuality emotions can run high, making things really uncomfortable for everybody, so the temptation is strong to lay low and say nothing. &nbsp;But is that the way Jesus wants us to live? &nbsp;We don’t think so.</p>

<p>The problem is, there’s a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to homosexuality. &nbsp;Mix that confusion with the understandably high levels of emotion and we have the perfect recipe for trouble.</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason, we’re convinced there’s a better way. &nbsp;We call it “speaking the truth, in love” (actually, it’s not really our concept—we got it from Paul). &nbsp;The idea is to take accurate biblical knowledge and temper it with wisdom.</p>

<p>Sure, we focus on the truth—that’s really important—but we do it in a way that shows respect for the people we differ with, giving the reasons, not just the rules. &nbsp;It may not completely defuse every situation, but it helps us speak confidently and accurately about what God says about hard issues.</p>

<p>So what is the biblical truth on homosexuality? &nbsp;Well, we can’t cover everything on the topic here, but we can give you the basics, then you can check out our other resources for more in-depth info.</p>

<p>First, let’s see what the Bible does not say. &nbsp;It does not say that homosexuality is the worst sin ever. Instead, it’s one of a bunch of sins that many of the rest of us are often guilty of, too. &nbsp;It also does not say we can’t have friends that are homosexual. &nbsp;Paul said that if we avoided all the non-Christians because of their behavior, we’d never be able to reach them with Christ’s message of love and forgiveness (that’s in 1 Corinthians 5). &nbsp;No, it’s not our job to look down in a judgmental way on nonbelievers. &nbsp;We should befriend them, instead. &nbsp;We know from Genesis 1:27 that everyone is made in the image of God. &nbsp;That makes them special to God, and they should be special to us, too.</p>

<p>Probably the most important thing the Bible does say about homosexuality comes from Jesus himself. &nbsp;I know you’ve heard that Jesus never said anything on the issue, but that’s not completely true. &nbsp;Listen to this.</p>

<p>In Matthew 19:4 &amp; 5, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh’?”</p>

<p>There it is. &nbsp;Jesus makes it clear that God had a perfect plan from the beginning. &nbsp;He made the woman to complement the man not just sexually (that’s what He means by “one flesh”), but for his whole life—to be the kind of partner that’s just right for him, for his whole life long.</p>

<p>Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 that we should be different from the rest of the crowd—holy, set apart, avoiding sexual immorality, that is, staying away from any kind of sex that distorts God’s good plan.</p>

<p>The thing that makes homosexuality bad is the same thing that makes any sex outside of marriage bad—it’s a way of saying “No” to the wonderful plan that God had from the start. &nbsp;Which is basically the same as saying “no” to God. &nbsp;Not good, in other words.</p>

<p>God’s original plan is the reason we see the passages about homosexuality worded the way they are. &nbsp;For example, think of Leviticus 18:22-23. It says “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” God says it’s wrong to use a man for the kind of sex God gave the woman for. Again, it’s the same as saying “No” to God. Notice that this verse is grouped with other verses about the misuse of God’s gift of sex, like adultery and bestiality.&nbsp;</p>

<p>We find the exact same reasoning in the New Testament, too. &nbsp;When Paul speaks against homosexuality in Romans 1, he calls it a “degrading passion.” &nbsp;Why? &nbsp;Because, as he put it, “women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another.”</p>

<p>Paul’s point is that God made man for woman and woman for man sexually. &nbsp;That’s why he talks about natural function, not desire. In one sense, we naturally desire lots of things God says we shouldn’t be involved in. Homosexuality (along with the other sexual sins) is just another way of denying the natural function—the purpose or plan—of the kind of the safe, satisfying sex God purposed for a man and a woman in lifelong marriage. Paul’s view, in other words, was the same as Jesus’ view.</p>

<p>That’s why in 1 Corinthians 6:9 &amp; 10 Paul says that among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God are the sexually immoral and adulterers, the thieves, the swindlers and drunkards, and…homosexuals, men who sleep with other men—all sinful ways of living that are characteristic of life without God.</p>

<p>Then Paul writes something amazing. &nbsp;In verse 11 he reminds us that this is the way we used to be, too. That’s the way we were, but all of that has changed. &nbsp;Now since we’ve come to know Jesus we’ve been cleansed and made right with God. &nbsp;We’ve been freed from slavery to our old, dark ways.</p>

<p>That’s the good news. &nbsp;Because of God’s mercy, we don’t have to be squeezed into the mold of this world. &nbsp;Instead, as Paul tells us in Romans 12:1 &amp; 2, we can offer ourselves as a living sacrifice to God. We can be transformed to an entirely new way of thinking, one that allows us to live according to the good, pleasing and perfect will of God.</p>

<p>Yes, it’s clear from these passages that the Bible does call homosexuality a sin, but there’s so much more in God’s plan—not just saying “No” to something bad, but saying “Yes” to something so much better.</p>

<p>There it is. &nbsp;Knowledge and wisdom. &nbsp;Truth mixed with a message of love and forgiveness and a new way of living. &nbsp;That’s the way we deal with controversial issues at Stand to Reason. &nbsp;And that’s the way we encourage you to deal with them. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Just like Jesus did.</p>


title: You Want the Biblical View of Marriage?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/22/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-want-the-biblical-view-of-marriage-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/JyjMMbB5KV4?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Alan responds to the challenge that the Bible contains and condones multiple definitions of marriage.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p><picture data-fileentryid="149222"><source media="(max-width:300px)" srcset="/o/adaptive-media/image/149222/Thumbnail-300x300/marriageinfographic.jpg?t=1589212569831"><source media="(max-width:396px) and (min-width:300px)" srcset="/o/adaptive-media/image/149222/Preview-1000x0/marriageinfographic.jpg?t=1589212569831"><source media="(max-width:396px) and (min-width:396px)" srcset="/o/adaptive-media/image/149222/thumbnail-600x600/marriageinfographic.jpg?t=1589212569831"><img src="/documents/20123/0/marriageinfographic.jpg/c58f8dd4-0fff-5bbe-fb24-314f3d40d8b0?t=1565049389810"></picture></p>

<p>This week’s challenge has to do with the context of same-sex marriage. People are trying to claim that with regards to marriage, we can redefine it however we like. In fact, we can include two men or two women in the definition of marriage. Naturally, Christians are opposed to this, saying, “We can’t define marriage, rather, marriage is something we can describe”. In response to Christians, a lot of people are saying, “Ok, so you guys want the biblical definition of marriage?” They have this handy info graphic that looks like this, and they say, “Look! Look at all the different ways that the Bible defines marriage. It doesn't define it in any one particular way, it has multiple ways that it defines it.”</p>

<p>Here are some of the different variations of marriage they believe are described in the Bible. One of them has a picture of a man and a women, they say, “Okay, here. There is the nuclear family. This is the example that we allegedly think is the true one. But in reality, the Bible goes on to give another example; it gives us a man plus a wife plus his concubines. Another example is a man and a women plus the women’s property. Or a man plus multiple women, polygamy. Or a man plus his brother’s widow. Or a man who’s perhaps raped a woman and now he's allowed to marry this woman. Or you have a male soldier who captures a woman through war and now that woman who is a prisoner of war is required to marry him. Or a male slave and a female slave.” You can see they're trying to argue that the Bible has different definitions of marriage. Therefore, if we are claiming as Christians that we should oppose same-sex marriage and adopt the Biblical view of marriage, then it looks ridiculous because there’s all these different variations.</p>

<p>Now to be honest with you, I actually didn't check the verses to make sure that the kinds of “marriages” being offered in the Bible are actually accurate. And there’s a reason I didn't check the verses. It’s because it really doesn't matter. In fact, the info graphic doesn't make the point that the creator of the graphic believes it makes.</p>

<p>I want to make two observations as to why you don't have to check the verses to know this is a factually incorrect assessment of the Biblical account. Before I get to those observations, I want to point out that my objection to same-sex marriage is not primarily based on the Bible. Same-sex marriage is a public policy question, and my concerns with same-sex marriage are public policy concerns. So this attempt to make the Bible look silly or belittle it is irrelevant to the case against same-sex marriage in my estimation. Having said that, I’m still going to go ahead and respond to the info graphic just to make some important observations that I hope will show you why this info graphic is mistaken.</p>

<p>There are some basic principles of hermeneutics, the art and science of Biblical interpretation, which non-Christians and many Christians seem to forget when they point to passages in the Bible and try to use them for their purposes. One of these interpretive points is that a lot of Old Testament stories are narratives, meaning that they are primarily descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they describe accurately how history happened, but they are not meant to be models for how we should behave. Just because the Bible describes how some of the Old Testament patriarchs behaved, it doesn't mean that those behaviors are prescriptive for our behavior today, as Christians.</p>

<p>Another important interpretive point to note is that a lot of commands in the Bible (the Mosaic Law, for example) were part of a contract between God and the Jewish people under a theocracy. They were never meant to be applied to New Testament Christians. For that matter, Jesus fulfilled the terms of that contract and instituted a new contract with new terms that govern how New Testament Christians are supposed to behave. You can’t take Old Testament commands from the Mosaic Law, like prohibitions against eating shellfish, or wearing certain kinds of clothes with different kinds of linens, and import them into the life of a New Testament believer. Those commands are no longer binding in virtue of the fact that Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Law. A new law of behavior has been instituted. This is just basic theology. It’s not some trick to avoid certain kinds of difficult commands in the Bible.</p>

<p>Let me offer a couple of observations to show that this info graphic is mistaken. In every one of the examples of this alleged “variations of different marriages” that are described here, marriage is defined as male and female. Nowhere in these examples do you have two men or two women being married. Marriage is always expressed as a complimentary team between the two sexes, male and female.</p>

<p>Let me make a second observation. Every example of marriage in this info graphic turns out to not really to be a variation of marriage at all. In fact, with exception to the polygamy example, the other 7 of are simply one man, one women marriage. Obviously the first one, the nuclear family. One man, one woman. The next is a man plus his wife plus his concubines. That’s still one man, one women marriage. He might have other concubines that he engages in sexual acts with, it’s still one man, one women marriage. The next example is a man and a women plus the woman’s property. That’s still one man, one women marriage plus her property. A man plus a brother’s widow. That’s still one man, one women marriage. Here’s another example, a man who rapes and he is to marry this victim that he rapes. I understand that it’s a bizarre way to get involved in marriage. I’m not condoning it, but it’s still one man, one women marriage. A male soldier who marries a prisoner of war. Again, that’s one man, one women marriage. The male slave and a female slave. Again, that’s one man, one women marriage. So, there aren’t really any variations at all, in at least those seven examples. 7 out of the 8 of those examples of marriage in the Bible are all standard expressions of one man, one women marriage.</p>

<p>Seth makes an important point in the comment section. He says, “All of these expressions of marriage are the standard expression of one man, one women marriage. What’s different about them is how these people got together.” In some instances you have some bizarre arrangements, right? A man is to marry his brother’s widow if she doesn't bear a son. Or, a man captures a woman as a prisoner of war. Yes, the way they eventually came to get married is odd, but the result is still one man, one women expression of marriage. How they got together though, is irrelevant. It doesn't in any way indicate that there is a variation of marriage. It would be like me saying, “I met my wife at church, and my friend met his wife on eHarmony, and another one of my friends met his wife while out hiking.” Oh wow! Look, we have 3 different variations of marriage because we got together different ways. Of course, that’s ridiculous.</p>

<p>It turns out that the only instance of marriage variation in the Bible is polygamy. Even in that case, polygamy is not a form of group marriage where one man marries multiple women at once. Rather, there’s one man marrying one woman, and then he marries another woman, and then maybe another woman. Even polygamy at its core is one man, one woman marriage that occurs in multiple instances. I’m not saying that it makes it right. I’m not saying the Bible says it’s right. I’m just pointing out that, even with polygamy, you have a one man, one women marriage going on, just happening several times.</p>

<p>Polygamy is never prescribed, it is only described. This goes back to the principle of biblical interpretation. Oftentimes narratives are simply retelling history as it happened. It is not an indication of what God approved or disapproved. To give an example, think of King David. God described him as a man after God’s own heart, yet David engaged in adultery and committed murder. Are we to make his behavior prescriptive for us as Christians today? No, of course not. The Bible is frank about the retelling of history, but it’s not always indicative of what we’re supposed to do.</p>

<p>Monogamy is the standard of the Bible. The Bible does not give it’s blessing to polygamy. It’s not prescriptive for Christians today. It’s critical to note what Jesus said about marriage in the New Testament. He appeals to the natural created order the way God instituted humanity from the beginning and how He intended marriage to be. The Pharisees are challenge Jesus regarding divorce. They say, “Is a man allowed to divorce his wife?” In Matthew 19:1-9 Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them male and female from the beginning made them male and female and said for this reason man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?”</p>

<p>Notice Jesus is appealing to the natural created order of male, female complementarity, the two sexes coming together in the one flesh bond of marriage. The Pharisees respond by saying, “The Mosaic Law explains how we can get divorced.” Jesus says, “It’s because of the hardness of your heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Notice that Jesus appeals to the natural created order, the way that God made man and women to function from the beginning as his way of explaining how marriage should be. Then he goes on to say that although the Mosaic Law permitted divorce, that’s not the way it was intended to be. That’s not the natural created order. The same is true with polygamy. Although it was permitted for a time, it’s not the way God created male and female. It’s not the way He intended it to be.</p>

<p>1 Timothy 3 talks about how leaders in the church “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife.” Again, notice the constant appeal of the New Testament to the natural created order of one man, one women complementarity of the two sexes.</p>

<p>Given the two observations that I’ve made, the first being that all the examples from the info graphic are male, female marriages. The second being that all of them are one man, one women marriage, with the exception of polygamy. The question then becomes, which of these examples fits the definition of same-sex marriage? Seven out of 8 of them fit the Biblical definition. None of them fit the definition offered for same-sex marriage. In fact, the definition of same-sex marriage has never been an example of marriage throughout all of history in any civilization, in any religion. In the last 20 to 30 years now, there’s been a push to make same-sex marriage something that’s permissible in our culture. Never before in all of history has it ever been advanced in any culture, in any religion, in any civilization. This info graphic against the Bible and for same-sex marriage doesn't work, mainly because it’s factually incorrect. There aren't many variations of marriage in the Bible that are condoned. There’s only one kind of marriage, and that’s one man, one women marriage that is prescribed by the Bible.</p>


title: Trotting Out the Toddler
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/29/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/trotting-out-the-toddler
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Y_4MdtMd00?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Many pro-choice arguments would be unthinkable if applied to a toddler. It's a good tactic to "trot out the toddler." &nbsp;Show the absurdity of the argument by showing what it would mean if applied to a toddler. &nbsp;It refocuses the argument on the one question that matters: &nbsp;What is the unborn?</p>

<p>A lot of people don’t realize that virtually every single argument offered in favor of abortion—given the rationale that they give—is just as adequate an argument for taking the life of a newborn child (infanticide). And because this is true, it is effective to point that out in a conversation. This is a version of the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic: you take the point-of-view of the person seriously and you give it a test drive and see where else it leads. So, if a woman has a ‘right to choose,’ then we can take that and apply it to the newborn child.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Does a woman have a ‘right to choose’ to take the life of her own newborn child? This is called, “Trotting out the Toddler,” where you put the toddler up for display and say, “let’s apply your rationale to this child.” This works because there is no relevant difference between the unborn and the born. Because the child is the same thing on either side of the birth canal, there is no magic when the baby travels down that seven-inch journey from inside the womb to outside the womb.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A lot of philosophers, nowadays, have understood that any rationale for abortion inside the womb becomes a rationale for infanticide outside the womb. This is why we use the tactic, “Trotting out the Toddler.” We take the rationale that is given to kill the child in the womb and we say, “What about this two-month-old child?” In almost every single case, the reasons why it’s justified to abort the child in the womb would apply to this child. They are both human beings at either stage of development. They are full and complete human beings. They are just in different locations. Now, since location is morally trivial—“Trotting out the Toddler” and applying the argument for abortion to infanticide—many times this is going to give a person pause. This is why we use, “Trotting out the Toddler.”</p>
  <br>


title: How Can We Show Love to Homosexuals?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/18/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-we-show-love-to-homosexuals-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/CKXor_ODjtc?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>What are some ways Christians can show love to homosexuals, both inside and outside the church?</p>
  <br>


title: Does Baptism Have Regenerative Significance?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/23/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-baptism-have-regenerative-significance-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HCXKaSBS5L0?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Is baptism purely symbolic, or is it necessary to be reborn?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Sometimes there are theological questions that divide whole denominations or distinguish between one understanding of salvation and another. The issue of water baptism is one of them. Is baptism purely symbolic, or is baptism necessary for regeneration? Must one get wet to be born again?&nbsp;</p>

<p>My first observation is that it’s a false dichotomy. It’s not one or the other. I think one can say that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but that doesn’t mean that baptism is purely symbolic and just a motion that we go through. There is a genuine grace that accrues to the person that is baptized, but it isn’t the grace of salvation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There’s no question that the habit of the early church was to baptize virtually right after a person made identification with Christ or a proclamation of faith. This was a way of saying, “I’m on a new track, a new trajectory, and I’m moving from the old ways and going to the new ways.” It served to mark a distinction between paths of life. There is a symbolic element, but there’s also more. In the early church, if there were alter calls, they would have included baptism. Baptism is more than symbolic. It’s a statement that is made that involves grace that God provides.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, is being baptized a prerequisite for regeneration, receiving the Holy Spirit, being born again, being saved? I think the correct biblical answer is “no.” Having said that, I understand that there are some verses that seem to point to that. For example, in Acts 2 it talks about being baptized for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. That’s there in Peter’s first sermon. I want you to note that even thought the wording sounds like it’s saying if you get baptized, you get the remission of sins, the way the words are stacked does not require that interpretation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Sometimes you are doing something (for) to get something, and sometimes you are doing something (for) because of something else. For example, I am receiving this award for an accomplishment I have completed. There, the accomplishment was in the past, and the reward is something to demonstrate what has happened in the past. One could read Acts 2 in the same way. We should be baptized in virtue of the forgiveness of our sins. Let’s just say passages like those are ambiguous at best.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Here’s where I go to get a definitive word regarding this issue. Cornelius in Acts 10. Both Peter and Cornelius had a vision that they were to visit with each other. Peter crossed the threshold of a Gentile home to share the Gospel. As Peter is giving the bones of the Gospel, the people who are listening believe and begin manifesting the visual signs of their belief through prophesying, speaking in tongues, etc. There is a manifestation of the Spirit. It didn’t always happen that way, but when it did, it was evidence that the Holy Spirit was in them. Peter realized they had been given the Holy Spirit just “as we have been.” These people that manifest, in this case tongues, are by Peter’s assessment, brothers and sisters in Christ. How can we withhold water baptism from these who have the Holy Spirit like we do? It seems to me that ends the debate.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If baptism were necessary for regeneration, these Gentiles would not have been regenerated before they were baptized. They received the Holy Spirit the same way that Peter did. Therefore, baptism was appropriate, in virtue of the remission of sin. In virtue of the regeneration that had already manifested itself before Peter the Jew amongst these believers that were Gentiles.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Clearly, baptism is important, commanded, and critical for a whole lot of reasons. But one of those reasons is not to get regenerated. Faith in Christ regenerates us. Then we receive the Holy Spirit. Ephesians makes this clear: “Having believed, we received the gift of the Spirit.” Water baptism comes afterwards as an appropriate picture of the new life that we’ve already experienced. &nbsp;</p>


title: The Tyrant Attacks, the Skeptic Mocks, but the Bible Still Stands
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-tyrant-attacks-the-skeptic-mocks-but-the-bible-still-stands
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/bjjLQbnfbF8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim discusses how the Bible has persisted through adversity over the centuries.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>The Bible is a supernatural survivor or fighter. You see, the Bible has demonstrated survival through time and persecution, and this shouldn’t surprise us. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word, my words, will not pass away.” Isaiah said, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” Paul, he says, “the Word of God cannot be imprisoned,” or bound, or chained.</p>

<p>Now, here’s the thing. There have been many powerful attempts to destroy this book. There have been attacks that have been external like through destruction and censorship. There have been internal attacks, that is, through criticism and ridicule. The Bible has been destroyed by fire, it has been banned by rulers, it has been ridiculed by skeptics, and yet the Bible still stands.</p>

<p>At the beginning of the fourth century, the church faced some of its greatest persecution. You have Diocletian. He was a Roman emperor, and he gave a series of edicts. And in the first edict, it was against Christians. And what he said was, he commanded all the churches to be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures to be burnt. Destroyed by fire. In fact, if you owned the Scriptures, you could be killed. And it’s alleged that he said this: “I have completely exterminated the Christian writings from the face of the earth!” Well, how’s that working out for them, right? These are famous last words.</p>

<p>In fact, Constantine, who took over as Roman emperor, actually used the Roman government resources to actually make copies of the Bible. Listen. “Despite the strongest forces that hell could unleash, and in the face of hostility from tyrants and dictators, there are more Bibles on the planet today than any other book in history.”</p>

<p>Let me leave you with this poem. Says this: “Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door and heard the anvil ring the vesper chime; when looking in, I saw upon the floor, old hammers worn with beating years of time. ‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I, ‘to wear and batter all these hammers so?’ ‘Just one,’ said he, with twinkling eye, ‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’ And so, I thought the anvil of God’s word for ages skeptics’ blows have beat upon; Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard, the anvil is unharmed—the hammer’s gone!”</p>

<p>This is not simply a book by men about God, rather, the evidence strongly supports it’s a supernatural book by God to men.</p>


title: Give Your Kids Reasons to Believe the Christian Worldview
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/09/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/give-your-kids-reasons-to-believe-the-christian-worldview
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/gsCTqHY986E?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares the importance of preparing children with reasons for their Christian convictions in order to stand up to challenges against the Christian worldview. Find the entire podcast <a href="/w/give-your-kids-answers">here</a>.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Now, let me just say something about beliefs. I ran into this, had a conversation last weekend during reTHINK about this. I put my glasses on a chair, and I asked the young man next to me. I said, “Do you believe that there are glasses on the chair?” He said, “Yes.” I picked my glasses off the chair. There were no glasses on the chair. I said, “Do you believe that there are glasses on the chair now?” He said, “No.” I said, “Can’t you make yourself believe that?” “Well, no.” In other words, you don’t choose your beliefs, do you? Your beliefs happen in virtue of the evidence that’s before you. You cannot force yourself to believe that there’s a pink elephant in the middle of the room unless you have good reason to believe there is, and if there’s no reason to believe, your beliefs aren’t under your control in that way.</p>

<p>So, when people say they left their childhood faith over lack of belief, something else was going on. I mean, I’m sure that’s what happened, lack of belief. But there was something going on that maybe you’re not aware of, and it’s what I’m getting to here with the glasses illustration.</p>

<p>When children are young, they have a reason to believe in Jesus and, humanly speaking, the reason they believe in Jesus and Christianity or whatever religion they’re raised in is because their parents told them to believe in it. This is what they believe. They’re following their example. They’re socialized by their community. They’re doing what their parents are doing. And when you’re young, that your parents believe something is true is a pretty good reason for you to believe &nbsp;it’s true. Pretty much the only reason that you have to go by at that stage of your development.</p>

<p>But as you grow older, it’s not enough, and so that reason is inadequate to maintain your belief. And with the lack of any additional reasons that go beyond “mom and dad say so,” that belief that was based on “mom and dad say so” is going to evaporate. So when half of nones left childhood faith over lack of belief, it shows me that in their churches, they are not doing the thing that’s necessary to replace the reason “mom and dad say so” with some better reason that appeals more to an adult thinker.</p>

<p>Their ability to trust in Jesus is tied to their ability to believe in him, and if they are not given reasons, this is never cultivated, then their trust in him is going to falter. They’re going to lose their belief. They’re going to be put into a new environment with new people that have a different social structure, a different set of beliefs they’re going to reinforce, a different worldview, and they’re going to have people like professors who are going to give them reasons to believe this new real worldview and to eschew their old one. No wonder they would fall away.</p>

<p>Now, they are human beings made the image of God, which is why they want to hang on to something spiritual, I think. Very few go to total atheism. It’s a small number in America, two percent or so. But they don’t want organized religion. That just didn’t give them anything. They&nbsp;no longer have any belief in it.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s so, so important because what we’re doing is we’re replacing “mom and dad say so” with substantive reasons that can survive the assault that their convictions will experience when they move out and leave home. And if we don’t give them reasons, they will not believe, and the reason is, is they cannot just manufacture belief in the absence of any reason to believe.</p>

<p>Now, I’m not counting out the conviction of the Holy Spirit. That is a reason. A properly basic reason some would argue. This is an appropriate reason the Spirit has enlightened us and given us insight. God exists, and God cares about us, and Jesus is the Savior, and that comes by the Spirit. But it usually is, it’s kind of hitchhiking along a set of reasons that someone is able to give. And so we need to cultivate that.</p>

<p>I just think it’s very telling when it says half of nones left childhood faith over lack of belief. There will always be lack of belief where there are no reasons to believe, all right? Let me just repeat that. It’s really important. There will always be lack of belief when there are no reasons to believe. It’s just the way human beings are made.</p>


title: You Are Why We Exist
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/30/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-are-why-we-exist
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/BxOQUvaSTVw?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg shares how you can participate in Giving Tuesday this year by supporting the work of STR.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>This is giving Tuesday, and I know that your inbox is going to be chock full with all kinds of appeals. But I want you to think for just a moment the kind of eternal impact that Stand to Reason has had—largely with your help and God’s faithfulness—this last year.</p>

<p>First, we launched a brand-new website. Very accessible, lots of new information. We also launched the wildly popular Red Pen Logic which is the brainchild of Tim Barnett, where he takes a tweet, and he analyzes it, and he shows what’s wrong with the challenge, and then he has a little fun in the process. We are all ready to kick off Stand to Reason University. These are short courses that we’ve developed over this last year, and we released The Story of Reality study guide and six DVDs that go with it, so we can help Christians be truly bolted to reality where they need to be.</p>

<p>We don’t know what’s going to happen in 2021, we just know it’s going to be a real challenge, and we also know we need your partnership to help us to face those challenges. And that’s why I’m asking you to send your best gift to Stand to Reason today.</p>

<p>And when you do, I will send you a signed copy of the brand new, fresh-off-the-presses, <em>The Story of Reality</em> study guide. And for a gift of $60 or more, I’ll also send you the DVDs that go with it, so you have the full set to keep you in touch with God’s reality.</p>

<p>Please send your best gift today. We really need to count on you, and I want to thank you personally for all your help.</p>


title: Encountering the Bible
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/23/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/encountering-the-bible
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ZkfJ_8OE5U?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Tim explains why believers trust the Bible, pointing to the authority Jesus displays in the text.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>So there’s lots of good reasons to believe the Bible is trustworthy and a supernatural book. But now, I want to talk about the most powerful persuader of them all, okay? Most of us who are listening to this, we were persuaded that the Bible is God’s Word before we ever heard about the reasons that I just gave. Before you had heard about embarrassing testimony, or excruciating testimony, or even fulfilled prophecy. Before any of that, you still thought this was God’s Word. Why is that? Why were you persuaded? That’s my question, and I’ll tell you why you were persuaded.</p>

<p>You encountered the book for yourself. That’s why you were persuaded. Let me say this, and write this down. The most powerful evidence for the Word of God is the Word of God. Let me say it again. The most powerful evidence for the Word of God is the Word of God itself. Listen to me. When Jesus went out to preach, he didn’t stop and say, “Okay guys, before we get started here, let me give you a list of powerful reasons that what I’m saying is from God. He didn’t say that. He didn’t give a talk like this before he got to his sermon on the mount, okay? That’s not how it worked. He just spoke words. He just started to talk, and people were astonished. They were mesmerized. They were amazed.</p>

<p>Mark tells us that people were astonished at his teachings. Listen, “for he taught them as one who had authority and not as one of the scribes.” That’s how he spoke when the officers came to arrest Jesus. They left empty-handed. Why? They came back and said, “No one ever spoke like this man.” In fact, the Jews, they were astonished. They knew that Jesus didn’t have some crazy education, and yet they asked the question, “How has this man become so learned?” You see, they all encountered the Word of God, and they were just taken in by it. They were overwhelmed by it. They were persuaded by it. And that’s how many of us have come to believe that this is God’s Word.</p>

<p>So, we have great reasons to believe it’s the Word of God, but the most powerful reason itself, the most powerful reason is the Word itself.</p>

<p>Now, when people ask me, you know, we’re talking about these issues, I have a question for them, okay? And here’s my question for you. Have you ever read Jesus for yourself? In other words, have you ever let Jesus speak for himself to you? Most of the time, people will say, “No.” They haven’t even picked up the book. They’re willing to criticize the book. They’re willing, but they haven’t read it for themselves.</p>

<p>This is a perfect opportunity to pull out a Gospel of John. This is this is the gospel according to John right here. We’re actually going to have these available at praise. Got a little note section here, but here’s the Gospel of John. You pull that out, and you just present it to someone and say, “Listen, here’s an account of Jesus’ life, and it is written by one of his closest friends. His name is John. All I want you to do is read it. Read it for yourself, and you’re not going to understand everything in here, okay? I personally don’t understand everything in here. But just read it. Let Jesus speak, and then see what happens.</p>

<p>This isn’t hard. You give someone God’s word, you let them read it, and you watch what happens. And if you do that, I think they will discover that God has spoken.</p>


title: Churches Do Want Your Money...and Here’s Why!
topic: Announcements
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/14/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/churches-do-want-your-money...and-here-s-why-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/cBbqzfzqRz8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_ChurchIsAfterYourMoney_Update.001.jpeg/29cee435-7ddf-033b-ff8f-5071716e0664?t=1607978125927" style="height: auto; width: 439.972px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>Some of you really value the work we’re doing through Red Pen Logic and want to see that work continue. Up to this point, we haven’t asked for a dime. That’s because we follow an important principle: We always give before we ask to receive.</p>

<p>We don’t make these videos for the money. We make them to make a difference in your life. If RPL has helped you, if you want to support this project, then I’m asking you personally—me, Mr. B, your RPL teacher—to help us create more videos by sending us a gift. No complicated Patreon commitments. Just a simple gift to Stand to Reason—the sponsor of RPL—here at the end of the year to help us continue to produce great, <em>free</em>, content for you and for lots of others.</p>

<p>Click <a href="https://www.str.org/redpen">here</a> to support the work of RPL.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>We often hear about how churches want your money. Well, they do, and here’s why.</p>

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

<p>In today’s tweet, Nathan makes an accusation that all churches care about is money. He says, “All churches are after one thing, your money, nothing else. It’s a business just like any other business.” Now, here are some thoughts you can take to the bank.</p>

<p>First, how does Nathan know what all churches are after? How many churches has he been in? I’ve been in hundreds of churches, and here’s what I’ve seen. In virtually every case, I’ve seen churches sacrificially serving the overwhelming needs of their communities. They’re serving through counseling services, and substance abuse programs, food banks, and summer camps, marriage seminars, and community service programs. They help women with crisis pregnancies, they help stop sex trafficking, they pay for overseas programs that are bringing food, water, and education to terribly impoverished people. Not to mention providing Christians with a place to worship, and fellowship, and receive spiritual mentorship. And they do it all for free. Did you get that? For free.</p>

<p>Now, how can they give away so many valuable resources for free? Easy. Other people pay. Other people give. So, do churches want your money? Sure, but it’s not because they’re trying to get rich. They’re not. It’s because they want to serve people.</p>

<p>Now, are there some bad apples out there? Yeah.</p>

<p>“You will receive your money tonight in Jesus’ name.”</p>

<p>&nbsp;“God said, ‘Tell her if she’ll plant a seed equal to her house note, I’ll give her a house debt-free.’”</p>

<p>And those churches characteristically have a twisted gospel message that’s easy to spot. You give me your money so God will give you money. But most churches like the ones in my neighborhood, in your neighborhood, aren’t like that. I mean, drop by a few of them and see for yourself.</p>

<p>Second, every organization requires money to survive, and that includes churches. This is just common sense. Churches have bills just like you do—rent, or mortgage, electricity bill, phone bills, internet fees, postage, and payroll, and on&nbsp;and on it goes. This is how life works for everyone, and you know it because that’s how it works for you, too.</p>

<p>Third, we all spend money without complaint on the things we value. Every time you buy something on Amazon or give something to charity, you get something for yourself&nbsp;or you do something for someone else. They both cost you money. You value the new iPhone, so you give money to Apple. You value feeding the hungry, so you give money to your local food bank. Helping others both physically and spiritually is especially important to Christians. That’s why Christians ask for help and why Christians give it. Nathan may not care about spiritual stuff. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with it, and it certainly doesn’t mean that churches are just in it for the money.</p>

<p>I haven’t said anything profound here. We all understand that every organization—Christian or not—needs money to function, and we all understand that everyone—Christian or not—is glad, and even honored, to give money to the things they value. Even atheist YouTubers have Patreon accounts.</p>

<p>“Welcome to the Patreon page for the atheist experience.”</p>

<p>Even atheists ask for money.</p>

<p>“What do you get for donating? Well, you get a warm fuzzy feeling for helping us continue to do what we’ve been doing and reach more people.”</p>

<p>And why shouldn’t they? I wouldn’t just assume that atheists are in it for the money and nothing else, and the same goes for churches and other organizations.</p>

<p>So here’s my practical application of this lesson for you. Some of you really value the work we’re doing through Red Pen Logic and want to see that work continue. Up to this point, we haven’t asked for a dime. That’s because we follow a very important principle. We always give before we ask to receive. We don’t make videos to make money. We make videos to make a difference in your life. If Red Pen Logic has helped you, if you want to support this project, then I’m asking you personally, me, Mr. B, your Red Pen Logic teacher, to help us create more videos by sending us a <a href="https://www.str.org/redpen">gift</a>. No complicated Patreon commitments. Just a simple gift to Stand to Reason, the sponsor of Red Pen Logic, here at the end of the year to help us to continue to produce great free content for you and for many others. If that’s you, then click the link in the description, and thank you for your support. Class dismissed.</p>


title: Don’t Miss the Challenge and the Gift for You!
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-miss-the-challenge-and-the-gift-for-you-
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/DIbcIaKLeVo?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Thanks to good friends like you, STR is discipling believers every day to stand strong for Jesus—to stay bolted to God’s reality at a time when relativism rules.</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>This is a culture that is increasingly detached from reality. They call good “evil” and evil “good,” and this confuses Christians, which is why it’s so important for us to keep them bolted to reality.</p>

<p>This is why we do the radio show and the video blogs. This is why our team is writing, teaching, and doing interviews—because what we want to do with your help is to bolt the body of Christ to reality so they are not swept away by the foolishness of our culture.</p>

<p>And I want you to know something. We could not have done the great things that we’ve been able to accomplish in 2020, we will not be able to do the things that we plan in 2021, without your help. It’s also why a group of very special people—financial partners with Stand to Reason—have pooled their pledges, so to speak, to offer a challenge of $225,000 they’re already going to give, to challenge you to either—as a group—meet that challenge or exceed that challenge by the end of the year.</p>

<p>And when you send your <a href="https://www.str.org/donate">gift</a>, I will immediately send you a signed copy of <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk482.htm"><em>The Story of Reality Study Guide</em></a>. And if your gift is $60 or more, I will throw in <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/dvd079.htm">the six DVDs that go with it</a> so you will have the complete set and a complete course to keep you bolted to reality.</p>

<p>We don’t know what 2021 holds for us, but we do know it holds challenge. We do know that we want to meet that challenge, and we do know we need your help. So, will you accept the challenge? Will you send your best gift today? Can we count on you? Please <a href="https://www.str.org/donate">respond</a> right away. Thank you.</p>


title: Last Chance to Help Us End the Year Strong
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/28/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/last-chance-to-help-us-end-the-year-strong
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/rD7xjsyyjV8?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>We at Stand to Reason want to help you stay bolted to reality in 2021. Will you help us do that by making a <a href="https://www.str.org/donate">generous gift</a> before the year is over?</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Well, the clock is ticking down, and we’re almost at the end of 2020. And I’m asking you for your most generous gift to help propel us into 2021 so that we can get the job done that we need to do.</p>

<p>Your partnership with Stand to Reason is so important to us. My prayer is that you will help us one more time here in 2020 by sending your best gift now so we can help other Christians be bolted to reality as they face the storms that they will be facing in 2021.</p>

<p>So, will you accept the challenge? Please send your best gift now so we can end the year strong, and I thank you. Best blessings to you and to your family.</p>


title: Jesus Mythicist Finds No Evidence Jesus Existed after Excluding Evidence He Existed
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/21/2020
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/h5rm4Zt2Jtk?rel=0
source:
https://www.str.org/w/jesus-mythicist-finds-no-evidence-jesus-existed-after-excluding-evidence-he-existed

transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_NoEvidenceForJesus_Eater+final.001.jpeg/e7cd0130-cd54-87d4-546e-635808a6602b?t=1608229704806" style="height: auto; width: 440.98px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>You may be surprised to hear that some people think Jesus never existed. They believe Jesus is a mere myth with no historical evidence to back him up. Here’s the problem. First, the claim that we have no documentation for Jesus’ existence outside the Bible is just plain false. Authors like Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, and others all make reference to Jesus—a historical person.</p>

<p>Second, even if we didn’t have any extra-biblical evidence, so what? We still have reliable historical documentation from early witnesses collected together in the book we now call the Bible. Only a blind-eyed bias against the Bible would dismiss this early evidence for Jesus.</p>

<p>Though popular on the internet, the idea that Jesus never existed completely ignores the facts. In the introduction of Bart Ehrman’s book <em>Did Jesus Exist?</em>&nbsp;he says, “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings....&nbsp;But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.”</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>If you close your eyes to the evidence, then you won’t be able to see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Maybe you just need to open your eyes. 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 in the process.</p>

<p>In today’s tweet, Eater makes the incredible claim that there is “no documentation for Jesus’ existence except for the Bible...just sayin.” The implicit assumption is that if the Bible is the only historical documentation we have for Jesus existing, then we don’t have good reason to believe he actually existed. What color pen should we use today? Just kidding.</p>

<p>You may be surprised to hear that there are some people who think Jesus never existed. They believe Jesus is a mere myth with no historical evidence to back him up. This, my friends, is simply false. And it’s not only false, it’s foolish. At least that’s the word that world-class Bible scholar and agnostic skeptic Bart Ehrman uses to describe what he calls “Jesus mythicists.”</p>

<p>So why don’t you take it from here, Bart?</p>

<p>“I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.”</p>

<p>But Bart, is there any historical evidence for Jesus’ existence?</p>

<p>“I mean, okay yeah, I mean I have a whole book on it.”</p>

<p>So there’s a little bit of evidence.</p>

<p>“There is a lot of evidence. I mean, there is so much evidence.”</p>

<p>Like how much evidence?</p>

<p>“It is not—I mean, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody who—I mean, this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.”</p>

<p>But surely, there must be some scholars of antiquity who doubt Jesus’ existence.</p>

<p>“There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed.”</p>

<p>But Bart, what are the reasons that scholars give for Jesus’ existence?</p>

<p>“The reason for thinking Jesus exists is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That’s why.”</p>

<p>So here’s the question: Why don’t these scholars doubt the existence of Jesus like so many skeptics do? Because of evidence like the records of second century Roman historian&nbsp;Cornelius Tacitus, who is one of the best historians of antiquity. In his last major work titled <em>Annals</em>, Tacitus records how Nero, concerned about rumors that he secretly burned Rome, shifted the blame to Christians:&nbsp;“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts...whom the crowd called Chrestians. The founder of its name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by one of the procurators Pontius Pilate.”</p>

<p>Or consider the evidence of first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He mentions Jesus twice in his <em>Jewish Antiquities</em>—once in book 18 and once in book 20, where he describes the killing of James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, whom Josephus calls the brother of Jesus who is the Messiah.</p>

<p>Then there’s the evidence from the second century Greek satirist&nbsp;Lucian of Samosata. Though he doesn’t specifically name Jesus, he clearly refers to Jesus with contempt as a crucified sophist whom the Christians worshiped as a god.</p>

<p>So, it’s simply not true that there’s no historical documentation of Jesus’ existence outside the Bible. There’s lots of it coming from nearly 20 secular sources.</p>

<p>But there’s another problem with this tweet. What about the historical evidence inside the Bible? Eater assumes that the biblical evidence doesn’t count as actual evidence. Since the biblical documentation for Jesus must be biased (the argument goes) it cannot be a reliable source of historical information. In other words, if we want real evidence, then we have to look elsewhere. Well, we did look elsewhere, and we came up with some pretty cool stuff.</p>

<p>But why not count the Bible as real evidence? Here’s why you should. The Bible isn’t just an individual book that can be dismissed, because it’s not just an individual book. It’s a bunch of books. It’s a library. What we call the Bible is actually a collection of individual historical documents that ancient historians do not just dismiss because they’re under one cover.</p>

<p>Sure, they may not believe everything they read in the Bible because of their own bias. I get it. But that doesn’t mean they write the whole thing off. The reality is, within the biblical text, we have reliable historical evidence for Jesus just like Bible scholar and agnostic Bart Ehrman said.</p>

<p>In fact, speaking of the apostle Paul, Bart says, “One author that we know about knew Jesus’ brother and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an eyewitness to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.” There you have it.</p>

<p>So, what have we learned? First, the claim that we have no historical documentation for Jesus’ existence outside the Bible is just plain false. Authors like Tacitus, Josephus, and Lucian, and many others all make reference to a historical Jesus. Second, even if we didn’t have any extra-biblical evidence, so what? We still have reliable historical documentation from early witnesses collected together in a book that we now call the Bible. Only a blind-eyed bias against the Bible would dismiss this early evidence for Jesus. Though popular on the internet, the idea that Jesus never existed completely ignores the facts.</p>

<p>In the introduction to Bart Ehrman’s book&nbsp;<em>Did Jesus Exist?</em>&nbsp;he says, “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause with a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.... But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain Jesus did exist.”</p>

<p>Those who care about evidence follow the facts rather than dismiss them. The evidence is right there before their eyes if they just open them up and look. Class dismissed.</p>


title: Mr. B vs. The Bible Thinker: Responding to Atheist Fallacies
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/11/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/mr.-b-vs.-the-bible-thinker-responding-to-atheist-fallacies
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WWN48lqa-sY?rel=0
transcript:
    <p><img src="/documents/20123/374271/RedPenLogic_10WaysToProveGodDoesntExist.002.jpeg/2f877a8c-c058-4566-04a3-ee5bb5b473f2?t=1610086069708" style="height: auto; width: 526.989px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>So, a few days ago I was scrolling through the comments sections on the Red Pen Logic YouTube&nbsp;channel, and I came across something that left me speechless. The comment claimed to offer “10 Ways to ‘Prove’ God Doesn’t Exist.”</p>

<p>This comment also caught the attention of my friend Mike Winger. For fun, I challenged Mr. Winger to respond to all 10 challenges...in less than 3 minutes. But why should Mike get to have all the fun? So, because I’m a good sport, I decided to show Winger how it’s done.&nbsp;Game on, Wing-man!</p>

<p>To see how Mike Winger did with these same 10 “proofs,”&nbsp;click <a href="https://youtu.be/8LSI_NplhY4">here</a>.</p>
  <br>


title: STR Book Club: The Universe Next Door
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Stand to Reason
date: 01/04/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/str-book-club-the-universe-next-door
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/oBlvBPPhEvg?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Have you seen&nbsp;the most recent STR book club? Jon, Alan, and Tim discuss James Sire’s worldview book, <em>The Universe Next Door. </em>Pick up your copy <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk479.htm">here</a>, and watch all seven&nbsp;episodes <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoCtBcnaHo6PSIcKIkXEPjJ1qAbCe3kJD">here</a>.</p>
  <br>


title: Interview: William Lane Craig – Atonement and the Death of Christ
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/18/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/interview-william-lane-craig-atonement-and-the-death-of-christ-1
link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/UUfooN5BtlI?rel=0
transcript:
    <p>Greg talks to philosopher William Lane Craig about his newest book, "Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration."</p>
  <br>
    <h2>Transcript</h2>
    <p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>At this particular podcast, I stand to reason for classical Christianity and for classical Christian values.</p>

<p>And that’s what we’re all about here, a mere Christianity approach. And also, take your calls, answer questions that you have, make commentary on the culture and the things that you face as a follower of Christ to help encourage you as a follower of Christ, and also equip you to Stand to Reason for classical Christianity and classical Christian values. Normally, you could call in, 855-243-9975. Don’t do that now. Just for the record, 855-243-9975, and get in the queue, and chat with me.</p>

<p>Today though, whenever I have an interview discussion with a colleague or an author that has something to add for you, I don’t take callers, because I want my guest all to myself as it were. But sometimes, people ask me what I listened to in the way of podcasts or in the way of blogs, what I go to and I read. And when it comes to podcasts, my answer is always the same, not much. Just because I’m not one of those internet guys that’s surfing all over and listening on stuff.</p>

<p>I got other things to do, which is to make things for you, produce some stuff that will help you through Stand to Reason. But I do have a very short list, and there’s only two podcasts. Many of you know I listen to Dennis Prager, there’s one. But the other one is William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith Podcast. And I also read his weekly update piece, which you could subscribe to and get in your internet or your email as well. And I love listening to the podcasts and also reading the weekly update for a good reason.</p>

<p>And that is that both give me insight and often help me solve theological questions or answer challenges that I’ve been stumped on or I’m not entirely clear on. And they do so in a way that gives me a good tutorial and clear thinking, and you know at Stand to Reason, this is what we’re about, us, kind of a subtitle handle for STR, is clear thinking Christianity. And so, if I drink from the Reasonable Faith well on a regular basis, it keeps my mind sharp.</p>

<p>And I think there’s an elegance that I experience in Bill Craig’s thinking that just has served me well over the years. And even when I disagree with it, which is on occasion, but not today, because we’re going to be talking about his new book, Atonement and the Death of Christ. Here it is right here for those viewing on video. And the author, of course, William Lane Craig, my guest. And Bill, it’s been quite a while since I’ve had you on the show. And I’m thrilled to have you back. Welcome.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Thank you, Greg. It’s great to be with you. We are definitely friends with Stand to Reason and so appreciative of the ministry you’ve had now for so many years.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>It’s been great too to learn from you even from the earliest times when you were teaching and I was an MA student at... I won’t mention the C that I got in your class. But other than that, we’ve had a great thing going on, I know. Thank you so much for your contribution, the many times you’ve been on the program here. And just as a little aside, when I went online and looked up your book on Amazon, this particular book, there’s a little biographical thing there that... and it says here that... let’s see.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>At the age of 16 as a junior in high school, you first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded your life to Christ. I was just curious, am I to understand that very quickly after you heard the gospel for the first time, that you embraced it and became a follower of Christ? Or was there a season of back and forth and questioning, and that kind of thing for you?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>There was a season of about six months of the most intense soul-searching I have ever been through in my life, real agony. And during those six months, I read the New Testament from cover to cover. I was introduced other Christians in the high school. People like this I’d never met before, I went to Christian meetings. I read Christian books. It was a very, very deep search for God that finally ended in my conversion experience.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Would you say there’s one particular thing that... well, I mean, made the difference that was the game-changer for you? Is it just a collection of things all amassed together?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Well, I think it was the overpowering realization that God loved me as an individual. I’ve always been an aficionado of science. And I understood the modern scientific view of the world, of the size of the universe, the destiny of mankind, and the idea that the creator, God of the universe, could love me, just overwhelmed and staggered me. Because I realized that if this were really the truth, that this is the greatest news ever announced.</p>

<p>And I could do nothing less than devote my entire life, to sharing this good news with mankind. So, for me, my conversion was simultaneous with a full-time call to vocational Christian ministry.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, and that’s a call you pursued pretty aggressively over the years. And that passion that you just described you have then, it’s obviously you still have now. And it comes out in your presentations, your many debates, that I’m sure many of our listeners and your viewers have participated and watched, gone to benefited from. And plus, you your website, just to mention this for everybody else, reasonablefaith.org, reasonablefaith.org has a massive amount of information on it.</p>

<p>And we like to encourage people to go to str.org to check out if they have questions about things. But Reasonable Faith is another place, you can just type into the search box. And there are all kinds of stuff there that will help you, as I said, delivered in a very elegant way. Frankly, Bill, I don’t know how you can keep up with all of this stuff. How much volume you produce is just absolutely beyond me.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Well, Jan and I have a method. We call it the turtle method, after the tortoise and the hare, the famous fable. And we really believe that if you just take little steps, day by day, relentlessly, ploddingly, steadily, it’s amazing. You look back, and you say, “How did we accomplish so much?” But it’s just that slow, steady progress that is so productive.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, that’s good counsel. So, I don’t know if that was how your latest book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, subtitled, An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration, came to be the tortoise method, little by little here. But let’s talk about this because you opened the book with these words. This is a book about the relationship between the death of Christ and the atonement for sin. Its controlling question is, how is it that Christ’s death atones for our sins?</p>

<p>And so, maybe it would be good to start out with just the meaning of the word, atonement. And I think most of the people that are listening to either of our shows, broadly an evangelical audience, have a sense that, well, this is easy. Jesus died for our sins. He paid for me, and that’s the basis of God’s forgiveness of me, the work of Christ. But that isn’t the only way people have understood atonement down through the ages.</p>

<p>So, let’s just start with a definition in general of the word, atonement. And then, we’ll look at some other options.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>One of the insights that came to me during the course of this research that I never realized before was that the word, atonement, has two very different meanings. One would be the etymological meaning that is deriving from its original root. It comes from the Old English expression, at-one-ment. Meaning, a state of harmony or unification. And atonement in this sense would be closest to the New Testament word, reconciliation.</p>

<p>We’re reconciled to God through the death of Christ. But interestingly enough, Greg, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible that are usually translated to atone or atonement. The Hebrew word is Kippur, which most of us know from the Hebrew festival, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. And what Kippur means is to purify or cleanse, and it takes us its object, impurity or sin.</p>

<p>And so, the fundamental meaning of atonement is that Christ’s death in some way purifies or cleanses us of our sins, and the result of that then will be reconciliation to God. And this is important because most contemporary theories of the atonement are about reconciliation, but they leave out atonement in the biblical sense of the word. So, they are theories of atonement without atonement, paradoxically.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>In other words, no purification, no cleansing, at least with regards to the way the Hebrew words are used. You mentioned the Greek as well. So, how does the Greek characterize this notion?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Exiléosi is the Greek word, and this is used several places in the New Testament. And it’s the same basic meaning. It means, to cleanse or to purify of sin or impurity.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, we have-</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That word is also used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, we got the similar meanings from both the Old and the New Testament. And I have heard the at-one-ment way of describing atonement. It’s actually easy to remember for your folks and your audience or your church. But you’re suggesting that at-one-ment is really a consequence, if I understand you of atonement, reconciliation, and not the nature of atonement itself?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s exactly right, Greg. And that for me was a major insight.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, I know that there are four or five different ways that people theologically have characterized atonement. One of them entails the notion... well, maybe more than one. You defend a particular view in this book, and we’re going to get in detail to that. But why don’t you talk about some of the ways historically that Christians committed to Scripture, have characterized the atoning work of Christ on the cross?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Sure. I think it’s good to distinguish between what I call the doctrine of the atonement and theories of the atonement. The doctrine of the atonement is very simply that Christ died for our sins. And thereby, reconciled us to God. But theories of the atonement, down through history, have been very different. For example, there’s the so-called Christus Victor model of the atonement, which thinks of Christ’s work in terms of His victory over Satan, who had held us bondage, and over the consequences of sin, mortality, death and hell.</p>

<p>And Christ rescued the hostages held by Satan. Thereby, breaking his power, and setting us free from the consequences of death and mortality, and hell. That’s one theory. Another one would be the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which says that as a result of our sin, we owed to God a debt of infinite magnitude that we cannot repay. And so, what God does is He becomes incarnate in Christ. And since he had no sin, He had no debt to pay.</p>

<p>And therefore, He could give His life on our behalf to pay our debt that we owe to God. That’s the satisfaction theory.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>As I recall, was that one of Anselm’s contribution to the discussion?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Okay, satisfaction. Okay.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s right. This is Saint Anselm’s theory, and it sounds misleadingly like the Reformers’ theory, but it’s actually very different. The Protestant Reformers instead held that as a result of our sin, we stand under a legal verdict of condemnation before the bar of God’s justice. We are like criminals who have incurred a capital offense. And therefore, deserve to die. But what God did to save us was become incarnate in the person of Christ.</p>

<p>And on the cross, He bore the suffering or the penalty that we deserved as the punishment for our sin. Thereby, freeing us from liability to punishments so that we could be pardoned and reconciled to God. Those are just three of many, many different theories of the atonement that have been offered historically.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Now, this third one sounds to be like the substitution, the penal substitution view that you’re defending in your book.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s right. Yes.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>And it’s the one I think that a lot of us Christians, when I say, us, I mean, evangelicals, of people who are listening to our programs, are probably most familiar with in my own work and trying to make some of this clear to a popular audience. The Story of Reality is the title of the book. I cite the Reformers’ phrase, the marvelous exchange, because there is this exchange, 2 Corinthians 5:21, you cite that in your book that He receives our guild, and we receive His righteousness.</p>

<p>So, there’s that two-fold element in it that amounts to justification. It’s all tied in there. So, this would be at the core of the penal substitution view. Can you give a little bit-</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yeah. Can you give a little more detail of the calculus so to speak of the penal substitution view?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. It’s very closely connected to the reformers doctrine of justification. In contrast to Catholic theology, the reformers did not think of justification as God’s infusing into us moral virtue that turns us into morally virtuous people, rather they think of justification as a legal declaration of righteousness. On God’s part, he has credited to our account Christ’s righteousness, and he has credited to Christ our sin and condemnation.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>And therefore, God offers a legal declaration of righteousness on the basis of the satisfaction of divine justice by Christ’s substitutionary punishment.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, in the infusion view, that would be the Roman Catholic view. One is progressively justified, if I understand it correctly.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Right. That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Which strikes me as a conflation of using more Protestant ideas, a conflation of sanctification with justification. Would that be fair way of putting it?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Oh, I think so. I was talking with the Christian philosopher, Frank Beckwith, who is a Catholic about these issues-</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>And who has been on this show on team gazillion times. We wrote a book together, of course, over 20 years ago, and Frank is a good, a dear friend.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. Well, Frank remarked to me that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement fits much better with a Protestant view of justification than it does with a Catholic view, precisely for the reasons you just mentioned. On the Protestant view, when God declares you justified or righteous in Christ, it is complete, it is finished, it is forever. And although you grow in sanctification, nevertheless, your justification is complete, and entire and finished.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, this explains something. By the way, Frank endorsed your book. I sat there on the flap there, it’s a very sweet endorsement. But it explained something, because I was raised Roman Catholic. In the Vatican I tradition, I left mid-60s, when things were getting kinder and gentler, so to speak. But theologically, it seems more distant from Scripture in a number of ways. But then, that’s a separate topic.</p>

<p>What you just described, this difference between declaration and imputed righteousness of the penal substitution view, the Protestant view, and the infusion view, which is the Roman Catholic view, helps explain why evangelicals claim confidence in their salvation because of Christ. And Roman Catholics refuse to claim that confidence precisely because it sounds arrogant to claim you have had enough infusion of grace to be justified by God. Is that fair?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. I have performed sufficient meritorious works in order to merit eternal life. And yes, that sounds arrogant. Whereas, Protestant Christians just glory in the righteousness of Christ that is credited to them without any merit on their part.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>It’s funny, a number of years ago, I was on a radio show where there was a Roman Catholic priest, and a Jewish rabbi and a Jewish talk show host. This was with Dennis Prager back in the ‘80s. And religion on the line, I was the Protestant. And I was making the case that Jesus was the only way of salvation. And I was accused of being self-righteous at that moment. And the irony I told them is that, “I am the only person on this panel who does not think my righteousness is going to get me into heaven. Yet, I’m the one who has been accused of self-righteousness.” It’s ironic.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>How ironic.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yes. And it’s tied to this broader question. Okay. Now, there’s quite a bit of controversy about this view, the penal substitution, understanding Jesus died in our place. He took our punishment. And because he did that, then, we can take his righteousness. We’re clean before God. And in fact, more than clean. We are holy. Sharing in Christ’s holiness, as a quick summary there. But part of the concern though, I mean, even somebody as Augustus, C.S. Lewis has been, it seems to me dismissive of the distinctions here.</p>

<p>And here’s what he says... I’d like to hear your response. And Mere Christianity of all places, which is a fabulous book. And both of us, I’m sure, highly recommend it. But he writes, “We are told that Christ was killed for us, that his death has washed out our sins, and that by dying, he disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That it is what has to believe to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all of this are, in my view, secondary.”</p>

<p>Now, that flies in the face a little bit of the thrust of your book, which is that, “Jesus is not just Christus Victor. And there’s not just a satisfaction that’s been done. But at the Foundation, the table, so to speak of the doctrine, is penal substitution.” You see that as much more essential understanding of the work of the cross in that way than certainly C.S. Lewis did.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. I certainly do think that it’s true for someone to be saved to be a beneficiary of Christ’s atoning death, without having an understanding of the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. But nevertheless, I do think that this aspect of atonement theory is firmly grounded in Scripture so that any biblically adequate doctrine of the atonement has to include penal substitution as an essential element.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yeah. Maybe it’s because I was raised the way I was, with this doctrine solidly in place for me, that I was quite surprised to see Lewis argue that this isn’t really a detail of mere Christianity. What mere Christianity is what he just described and certainly, as you pointed out. That’s really what people need to believe to be regenerated and reconciled to the Father. But it also surprises me that so many are, they find this controversial and even offensive. And particularly now, in more progressive circles. So, what is going on there?</p>

<p>I mean, why is this such a hard thing for people to embrace when...? And we’ll get to this in a moment, the biblical, especially the New Testament support seems to be so overwhelming.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Historically speaking, what happened was that, in the late 1600s, there was a Unitarian theologian named Faustus Socinus, who wrote a blistering attack upon penal substitutionary and satisfaction theories of the atonement. And it was a brilliant piece of work. I think the objections to the atonement have never been stated more powerfully than did Socinus. And that even contemporary critics don’t hold a candle to Socinus. And that work was very, very influential in the history of theology.</p>

<p>And I think that when you look at the objections of contemporary theologians to the penal substitutionary element of the atonement, they tend almost all to be neo-Socinian objections. They are just warmed over versions of the objections that Socinus launched against the reformers.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, here’s what I like to do in terms of moving forward. I’d like to look at the New Testament evidence. And I also want to talk about Isaiah 53, which is really... maybe it’d be better to start there, because Isaiah comes before the New Testament and so much of the New Testament material trades on Isaiah 53. And then, we’ll look at some of the objections as well, that people bring up today, which I suspect are basically the same ones Socinus brought up hundreds of years ago.</p>

<p>I read over this Isaiah 53 section, and it’s actually a portion of 52 and much of 53 that cover this material. And to be honest with you, Bill, when I read over this, these verses resonates so soundly with my understanding of Jesus as my substitute, who was punished by God for my sins so that I could be made righteous and stand righteously before the Father, even though I’m not righteous in myself. I can’t imagine how somebody can read Isaiah 53 and not come to the same conclusion.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. For any of our listeners that aren’t familiar with this chapter of Scripture, what Isaiah describes here is this very enigmatic figure called, the servant of the Lord. And this righteous servant of Yahweh is described as being punished as bearing the sins of the people, and thereby making them righteous before God by bearing their sin in his own suffering and death. But commentators on Isaiah 53 will say, “The central message of this chapter is the notion of vicarious punishment or penal substitution.”</p>

<p>And what happens in the New Testament, Greg, is that New Testament authors... and I believe Jesus himself pick up on this figure of the righteous servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. And they say, “That’s Jesus.” They identify that figure with Jesus. And at his arrest and last supper, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 53. He says, “If I do not die,” he said, “how will the Scripture being fulfilled?” “And he was numbered with the transgressors.”</p>

<p>A quotation from this servant of the Lord passage in Isaiah 53. And then, at the Last Supper, as he describes the elements of the Passover, he says, “This cup is my blood which is poured out for many.” Again, alluding to the language of Isaiah 53. And then, authors of the New Testament identify Jesus himself with this suffering servant of Isaiah 53, who is substitutionarily punished for the sins of the people, thereby making us righteous.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>You mentioned, by the way, in your book, and you also make the same point with I think some things that Peter says, and connecting his statements with this passage. So, Jesus statement and also in 1 Peter, and there are other places, but you make the point that these are statements that could not be applied to any other passage in the Old Testament. This is the only place with a language that we see from Jesus at the last supper, and I think it’s 1 Peter, matches as an Old Testament prophecy related to Messiah.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s right. Or even take the very simple statement that we’ve all heard in 1 Corinthians 15. That Christ, that is Messiah. That Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. Now, what Scriptures? What is Paul talking about that? When you’ve column the Old Testament, there is no other passage in the Old Testament that is even remotely about Messiah dying for our sins apart from Isaiah 53.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>What is Peter saying?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>He says, “For He Himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.” Using the language of sin bearing that is from Isaiah 53. And then, he says that, “Through His stripes we are healed. Through his wounds, we are healed.”</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Right. I also cite a passage. I’ve been in the 1 Peter a lot lately, partly because of the direction that the culture is going. And 1 Peter is written as a number of New Testament books explicitly to suffering Christian. So, I think there’s a lot in there, but for us now. But he also says, “Just as Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves for the same purpose.” Now, I guess that’s not necessarily an explicit reference to Isaiah 53.</p>

<p>But it does identify what’s going on in there. And then, of course, Jesus experienced, it makes application to us as Christians to expect the same treatment.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. I think that the key language here is the phrase that I quoted about bearing our sin. Because this notion of sin bearing is a common Hebrew idiom. That means to be punished, or to be held liable to punishment. And so, this is a phrase that is pregnant with meaning.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, when you say liable to punish, the way it’s used in the Hebrew is, it’s used characteristically of guilty people who bear the guilt. And therefore, bear the punishment. Is that fair?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes, that’s right. So, a sinner, he shall bear his guilt. The Scripture says over and over again. Meaning, he will be held liable for punishment. The only exception is that, sometimes the priests who make atonement for the people in the tabernacle in the temple are said to bear the sins of the people by making atonement for them. And there, it’s not their own sins that are being borne. The priests are making substitutionary atonement for the people by offering sacrifice.</p>

<p>And, of course, this whole rich sacrificial system described in Leviticus and carried out for centuries in the tabernacle in the temple is a metaphor, a type of the sacrificial self-offering of Jesus on the cross.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yeah. And in that regard, you make an interesting comparison between the... let me see where my notes are on this, a discussion about the relationship of the Lamb that was slain and the in sacrifice and then the laying of hands on the other goat, the escape goat, which is released. You identify two aspects of what’s going on there that are captured in the work of Christ. We’ll talk about that.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Right. What you’re referring to there is the sacrifice of Yom Kippur that we were talking about earlier, the Day of Atonement. And this was an annual festival in Israel in which all of the transgressions sins and iniquities of Israel were cleansed and taken away. And it featured this extraordinary ceremony with two goats that are a unit. They’re like two sides of the same coin. And one of the goats is killed as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the people.</p>

<p>And the other one then, the priest lays hands on the goat, and places on the goat the sins of the people symbolically. And then, it’s driven out into the wilderness, symbolizing that their sins now have been decisively removed and taken away. And so, these two sides of the atonement are beautifully symbolized in this dual sacrifice.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>What’s interesting about Yom Kippur as I was reading through material... and if you just read through Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, this really can be a confusing mess. Just for the casual reader. I could never make sense out of it in any particular way.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>A bloody mess.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yes, a bloody mess. But I appreciate that as you’re resolving this issue of atonement and trying to apply the Old Testament passages in an appropriate way to the work of Christ, you make these distinctions. This is one of the things I have appreciated about you, Bill, is these kinds of distinctions that are really helpful. And you just mentioned one of them. It’s only on Yom Kippur that all of the sins are carried away.</p>

<p>All the other sacrifices are for particular kinds of sins that individual sacrifice for themselves. And there are some sins for which there was no sacrifice.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes, that’s exactly right. Oddly enough, that sins committed with a high hand, as the Old Testament puts it, weren’t covered by these sacrificial offerings. They were too serious. But on Yom Kippur, all of the transgressions and equities and sins are taken away.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, the reason I think this is significant is because Jesus sacrifice is meant to reflect the sacrifice on Yom Kippur, not the sacrifices, the incidental sacrifices that we said. This is a piece of information that never really occurred to me. And now, it’s coming more into focus.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>That’s the burden of the Book of Hebrews. If our listeners will read the Book of Hebrews, they’ll find repeated references to this sacrifice of Yom Kippur and the taking away of our sins. And the author there reflects that, really, in fact, it’s impossible that the blood of sacrificial animals could take away sins, but the blood of God’s own son is of such worth that it cleanses and for eternity.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, it alerts us then that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament was not efficacious on its own. Like it might have been-</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Right. It was provisional.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>... in pagan religions. But it prefigured or looked forward. I like to think of it like you’re using a credit card, the bill gets paid later, but the effects of that are experienced in the moment. Would that be fair in putting-</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Oh, I love that analogy, Greg. That’s very good, I think.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>We’re translators. We take the smart guys. And all the good things you say, we try to throw the ball so people can catch it. I want to read just a couple of the lines here from Isaiah 53, just to emphasize how clearly it seems to me that this substitution is in view by Isaiah in this passage. Verse five, “He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.” Verse six, “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”</p>

<p>Verse eight, “For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.” Later to verse 10, “He gave his life as an offering for sin.” Verse 11, “The righteous one, my servants shall make many righteous and he shall bear their iniquities. Verse 12, “Yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” And we see a reference to Jesus high priestly role that is also repeated there in the book of Hebrews.</p>

<p>Again, I find myself... it’s unbelievable to me that people don’t... let me put it this way. You don’t need to be a biblical scholar to see Jesus here in this passage. And, in fact, I’ve been told that when people read this passage to others, even Jews, and they ask, “Who is this describing?” they always say Jesus. Because it seems to fit so clearly what Jesus work on the cross.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. I don’t understand how people can say that penal substitution is not an essential aspect of atonement in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, you also notice it mentioned here. And then, you have one whole chapter devoted to Isaiah 53. And incidentally, folks, just so you know, this is a very thorough treatment. It’s exegetical, its historical, and philosophical and forensic too. There’s a lot of how the legal things work together in a very balanced way that Bill has worked out. And that’s beyond my can. Frankly, I’m more interested and certainly, and for the sake of our discussion on the biblical material.</p>

<p>But I just want them to know that in your book that we’re talking about right now, "Atonement and the Death of Christ," there is a lot more material that he deals with, and he’s looking historically and forensically looking at how laws work in common government experience and how there’s a fit here with many of the concepts that we see here in justification by Christ through his substitutionary atonement.</p>

<p>But back to some of the contrary... oh, by the way, my take, I mean, my understanding is, maybe you have something to say about this, is Isaiah 53, when Jews read it, say, “Well, the suffering servant, is this real?” and it’s almost with a wave of hand that they seem to just dismiss this passage. Do you know of any other more cogent explanations they might have for this passage?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>I’ve heard some say that it might be Isaiah himself. But that strikes me as implausible. I want though to emphasize, Greg, that the burden of my extra Jesus is not to try to prove that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Jesus. Rather, what I’m trying to show is that in this Old Testament book, the idea of vicarious substitutionary punishment of the servant of the Lord is clearly taught. And then, you go to the New Testament.</p>

<p>And New Testament authors and Jesus Himself identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with Jesus. So, any Christian, who believes in the teaching of the New Testament is committed to that identification.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Right. I read that particular portion that you mentioned there just now. And just to underscore it, your initial examination of Isaiah 53 is merely to see that whoever is being described here is one who is suffering vicariously, as you mentioned, for the sins of others. That penal substitution is in view here. We don’t even have to ask, who satisfies this? Who did this at this point? Actually, in Isaiah, nobody knew then the foundation was being laid for the one who would do what Isaiah describes. Fair enough?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yeah. Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>And then, we see as you document here... and I actually never realized, frankly, Bill, until I read your book here that there were so many, either direct or indirect references to Isaiah 53. You’ve already mentioned a few of them.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes, it permeates the New Testament.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, here, let’s talk about some objections. Because I think that the some of the objections are understandable. Okay. And one wonders, I think some of the objections are coming from critics who are meant to discredit the Bible. In other words, they say, “I can see that’s what it teaches, but what it teaches is bizarre.”</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes, right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>And I think this is the reason some Christians might reject it as well. So, they might think the notion of, for example, “Satisfying divine justice is just plain crude.” Okay. ���So, God wants to forgive, why doesn’t he forgive? Why does he just let people go? Why does he got to beat somebody up in this bloody abusive way in order to accomplish the forgiveness that it seems that he’s fully capable of doing by an act of will?”</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. One thing that surprised me during the course of this research is that historically, Christians have actually differed on this very question. A good number of the church fathers, as well as Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius, who was a brilliant penal substitutionary theorist, agree that God could have simply chosen to forgive us without demanding the satisfaction of divine justice. But all of those thinkers will say that God chose to do it through the incarnation and passion of Christ because he had good reasons to do it that way.</p>

<p>What Aquinas and Grotius both say is that, “The passion of Christ illustrates two truths about God in a way that is so graphic and powerful, but nothing else could have done it.” And that is, it shows the holiness of God, his hatred of sin and evil. In that, he places upon Christ the penalty of sin that we deserve. The other thing that it shows is the inexhaustible love of God for sinners. In that, God himself would take on human form, and in the person of Christ, give his own life to satisfy the demands that his own justice had exacted.</p>

<p>And so, in the passion of Christ, we see the holiness and the love of God powerfully, powerfully demonstrated much more so than if he had just said, “Okay, I’ll forgive you all,” which might have taken on the appearance of cheap grace. And certainly, Greg, I think you would agree with me that historically, the passion of Christ, the image of the cross, in literature, in art, in film, has proved so powerful in drawing people to faith in Christ even more than the teachings of Jesus. It is his suffering and death that have powerfully drawn people to repentance and faith in him.</p>

<p>And so, even though these thinkers say, “God could have done it that other way,” he chose to do it this way because he had good reasons. Well, if I might say quickly, the other response by many of the reformers is to say, “No, divine justice had to be satisfied because this is an essential attribute of God, just as much as the love of God is essential to his nature and therefore cannot be compromised. So, the justice of God is essential to his nature and therefore cannot be compromised.</p>

<p>And so, God had to find a means of reconciling us to himself, that compromise neither his love nor his justice. And he did it through the self-sacrificial offering of Christ who paid the demands of divine justice that were our justice are, and thereby shows his tremendous love and forgiveness. So, there are those two options that are available in dealing with this question.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, to me, that’s part of the elegance of the cross that you have this apparent contradiction, the love of God so wonderfully expressed in the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, “For God so loved in this way, love the world, that He gave His Son.” And the sacrifice that God Himself made on our behalf... I mean, God the Father made through giving his son. Jesus was the one who suffered and died, it was the second person, but it was a sacrifice for the Father, in a sense, to give. And he expresses his love that way.</p>

<p>The question that comes up at this particular point is... I’m just thinking of it. I cover what I wanted to cover here. Yeah. Is that, this then, if God did this, the father did this to his son. This is an example of what some will characterize as divine or cosmic child abuse, which is in my view, a grotesque disparagement on this work of God. But how would you... this phrase has come up, especially with the progressive church.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yeah. think this is so gross caricature, Greg, that it hardly deserves refutation. What the doctrine of the incarnation and atonement state is that Christ voluntarily took on a human nature and gave his life for us in an act of supreme self-sacrifice. So, far from being child abuse, this is a wonderful demonstration of God’s love for us, that he would condescend to take on our fallen human nature and give his life to redeem us to himself.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>It strikes me as a low Christology too because what’s lost in that claim of divine child abuse is that the child that is allegedly being abused is not only doing it by his own voluntary, a willingness, but the child is God Himself.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Right. Exactly.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>And so, the punishment is, God is taking on His own punishment on Himself in the person of the word who became flesh in the person of Christ.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yeah. And I think what that will alert us to is, when we hear theologians, caricaturing the atonement that way, we ought to probe more deeply into their doctrine of Christ, because it may well be that for them Christ is purely human rather than the second person of the Trinity.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Now, when I summed this up in the story of reality, I made a comment that it turned out to be very, very controversial. And then, I’ve had some people really push back hard, “I like your response to it.” But I said is that Jesus came to save us. And to save means to rescue from imminent danger. What is the danger? And the danger is the Father. And that’s the whole notion of propitiation, that Jesus said, “Don’t fear Him who can kill the body and not the soul. But fear rather Him who can throw both body and soul in hell,” in Matthew 10.</p>

<p>So, the idea that the Father is the one who is being propitiated, that is satisfied, whose anger and wrath is being appeased, is deeply offensive to people. I’m just curious, your comment on the way I characterize that. And-</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>I wouldn’t do that, Greg. I think that’s very dangerous and apt to mislead people into caricatures. I think it’s far better to do what you said earlier about John 3:16, that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish. We need to emphasize that this is a self-giving act of God himself on our behalf, and that it is true that the justice of God must be satisfied. But as you just said a moment ago, it is God Himself who satisfies the demands of His own justice on our behalf.</p>

<p>So, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think it’s too apt to mislead.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, I violated one of my own rules in taking something out of context. More of what I say in that section is, it is the Father Himself who initiated the plan out of His love to rescue us. But what He’s rescuing us from is the wrath that He has towards sinners, so that both of them are packaged in there. I guess what people were offended by is not this is isolated wrath of God because I didn’t isolate it that way. But the fact that God needed appeasement at all, okay?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. Well, now, that gets back to the question that we’ve just been talking about. And as I say, I think there are two different ways that Christians have responded to that. One is to say that it’s not necessary but that He chooses contingently to do this in this way. And the other is to say that justice is an essential attribute of God just as is His love. In the book in the end, I come down in favor of the second option, that justice is an essential attribute of God. And therefore, the demands of justice do need to be satisfied in order for forgiveness of sin to take place.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>So, would you agree that the notion of propitiation like we see in 1 John, He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, is God word, is Father word, it is a satisfaction of God’s just wrath towards us? Would that be fair?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes. I think that’s right. But I would say God word rather than Father word.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Okay. All right. Fair enough. So, there was an objection. Let me just see if... I’m a little tight on this one. So, I’ll let you respond quickly to it. I actually read it online when I was reading some of the reviews of your book. And this here, the person says... it was I think the only one that gave it a number one. And I always go to the bottom to see what people complain about. And here’s what he says. He said, “Craig begins his biblical review with the skewed emphasis that sacrifice is primarily about God getting something.”</p>

<p>That’s what we were just talking about. “This is plainly wrong because the motif of Jesus as a sacrifice is primarily about God giving.”</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Oh. Well, I think that that person must not have read my exegesis about the Levitical animal sacrifices in the Old Testament that were offered for the purposes of the expiation of sin and the propitiation of God’s wrath. There is nothing that could be clearer than that purpose of sacrifice in the Old Testament. And I quote the greatest Jewish commentators on Leviticus like Jacob Milgrom in support of this understanding of the Levitical sacrifices. Now, the truth of what the reviewer is saying is, indeed, that God Himself provides the sacrifice just as He did for Abraham.</p>

<p>Remember when he was about to sacrifice his son, Isaac? And Isaac says, “Where’s the lamb, father?” And He says, “God will provide, my son.” And God does then provide a ram for sacrifice. And similarly, yes, God has provided Christ as our sacrifice for sin. And the purpose of that sacrifice is, again, expiation of sin and propitiation of divine wrath, and satisfaction of justice.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>A cleansing and a satisfaction in those two things. I read this first, I thought it was just a false dichotomy. It’s not either or. Both things are happening. And I think it was captured in the clarification of my own citation. And that is that God’s love gives, but He gives because something needs to be given back to Him to satisfy justice. Is that a fair way of putting it?</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Well, let’s see. I got one left here. I don’t know if you can do justice to this question, and that is human sacrifice. You know what? I’m not going to do this because I’m going to direct people... I don’t want to crowd you here at the end, because this could take more time than we have. But I do want to say, thank you so much, Bill, for your tremendous contribution to the body of Christ over the many, many, many years that you’ve been doing this, the contribution you’ve made to my own life, and to the many, many, many listeners from Stand to Reason, in addition to the reasonable faith crowd.</p>

<p>And like I mentioned earlier, you’ve been a great tutor for me, theologically, philosophically, and in just the area of clear thinking. And I just want to thank you for that. And thank you for coming on board with me today.</p>

<p>William Lane Craig:</p>

<p>Well, it’s been a joy, Greg. And those are very humble remarks that are much appreciated.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl:</p>

<p>Yeah. Well, you’re doing a great job. And Dr. Craig is known most I think by many people for his debates with atheists. And if you ever want a tutorial on how to do that, just go to YouTube, and you’ll find the information there. The book once again is "Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical and Philosophical Exploration." And the author, Dr. William Lane Craig. I’m Greg Koukl for Stand to Reason. I sounded like Porky Pig there.</p>

<p>Stand to Reason or STR, let’s put it that way. Go out and give them heaven this week, friends. Bye-bye now.</p>


