# articles

title: Applying Lincoln’s Logic to the Abortion Debate
topic: Bioethics
author: Aaron Brake
date: 04/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/applying-lincoln-s-logic-to-the-abortion-debate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and with it came the formal abolition of slavery in this country. It states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”&nbsp;This amendment was especially significant considering that just eight years prior, in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were property and non-persons.</p>

<p>Even earlier than this, on July 1, 1854, Abraham Lincoln wrote this small fragment that seems to address some of the popular arguments put forward by slavery-choice advocates of his day. Should whites have the right to enslave blacks based on color, intellect, or interest? Lincoln <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/fragments-on-slavery/">responds</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is <em>color</em>, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.</p>

<p>You do not mean <em>color</em> exactly? You mean the whites are <em>intellectually</em> the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.</p>

<p>But, say you, it is a question of <em>interest</em>; and, if you can make it your <em>interest</em>, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The importance of Lincoln’s logic should not be overlooked. Lincoln understood that if you attempt to establish human rights or personhood by appealing to a set of arbitrary, degreed properties such as color and intellect, properties which carry no moral weight or significance and which none of us share equally, then you end up undermining human rights for everyone.</p>

<p>What slavery-choice advocates did in the past, abortion-choice advocates do today. Only, instead of arguing that blacks are non-persons based on color and intellect and can therefore be enslaved, they argue the unborn are non-persons based on size, development, and dependency and can therefore be killed.</p>

<p>But the reasoning of abortion-choice advocates today is just as flawed as that of the slavery-choice advocates then. If Lincoln were alive today and were to address the current abortion debate, he might say something like this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You say A. is big and B. is small. It is <em>size</em>, then; the larger, having the right to kill the smaller? Take care. By this rule, you are to be victim to the first man you meet, with a larger body than your own.</p>

<p>You do not mean <em>size</em> exactly? You mean human persons are <em>developmentally</em> the superiors of the unborn, and, therefore have the right to kill them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be victim to the first man you meet, with a development superior to your own.</p>

<p>But, say you, it is a question of <em>interest</em>; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to kill the unborn. Very well. And if another can make it his interest, he has the right to kill you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Scott Klusendorf states in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Case-Life-Equipping-Christians-Culture/dp/1433503204/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523306381&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+case+for+life&amp;dpID=41olijtYQAL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">The Case for Life</a></em>, “In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender (and still do at times), but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We’ve simply swapped one form of bigotry for another”&nbsp;(p. 66).</p>

<p>In the past, slavery-choice advocates adopted an elitist view and sought to create a subclass of human beings who didn’t qualify as human persons. Today, abortion-choice advocates do the same. They argue that larger, more developed, and independent human beings can kill smaller, less developed, dependent human beings.</p>

<p>Contrast this with the pro-life movement, which is inclusive and wide-open to all. Pro-life advocates argue that all human beings (including the unborn) are valuable human persons simply in light of being what they are: human beings who possess a common human nature. And no arbitrary, degreed property or characteristic, whether it be color, intellect, size, development, or dependency, should disqualify any human being from the right to life and liberty.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapplying-lincoln-s-logic-to-the-abortion-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapplying-lincoln-s-logic-to-the-abortion-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapplying-lincoln-s-logic-to-the-abortion-debate" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Is Jesus Necessary?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-jesus-necessary-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jesus is the central figure in our faith. There’s no doubt about that. But why? What’s the reason for placing such prime importance on Him? This question isn’t a pointless philosophical reflection. It’s the core concern of Christianity.</p>

<p>Why is Jesus necessary? To answer it simply, Jesus is the substitute who was punished on our behalf and satisfied God’s justice.</p>

<p>Every person on the planet is guilty of committing crimes against God. Because God loves us, He offers us the option to accept Jesus’&nbsp;punishment in our place. That’s how Jesus is our substitute. He lived the perfect life we couldn’t live and then paid the penalty we owed.</p>

<p>You see, we live in God’s jurisdiction - the universe. It’s His kingdom. He’s the King, and it’s His domain. God has set laws for the territory He governs. His principle is simple: Guilty people are punished.</p>

<p>This is just like an earthly government that sets laws for the territory it controls. The governing body has a system of punishments (and pardons) for criminals who break its laws. When a person is found guilty of violating the law, he is punished, often with time in prison. Occasionally, the government will offer a pardon to a criminal for a chance to go free. If so, <em>it’s the government that sets the terms of the pardon</em>, not the criminal.</p>

<p>In the same way, God has a system to deal with those who break His laws. That’s because He’s in charge, not us. If there’s a chance for clemency, He decides the terms. We don’t get to make the rules for reconciliation. God does. That’s why thinking we’re a “good person”&nbsp;doesn’t matter. Seeking to be “sincere”&nbsp;is irrelevant. Trying to be “true to yourself”&nbsp;won’t help. In God’s kingdom, He decides the terms for acquittal.</p>

<p>The great news is that God doesn’t want us to be punished. The reason is simple: He made us. He created our creaturely bodies with His own hands. He breathed in us a spirit. He fashioned our souls. We are His handiwork! He loves us...because we are His creation. That’s what motivates His mercy.</p>

<p>He also shows no partiality towards those whom He’s willing to pardon. A churchgoer has no advantage over a cheater or child killer. Clemency is equally available to each, no matter what they’ve done. This is great news.</p>

<p>Therefore, God is willing to grant us a pardon for our criminal behavior. We can accept His offer and go free or pay the penalty ourselves. It’s our choice.</p>

<p>Although it sounds too good to be true, people who are exonerated know it’s anything but easy. The process involves an important trade: We hand over the ownership of our life to God in return for amnesty. That means we’re no longer the absolute arbiter of our life. Rather, we hand over that privilege to the Judge who negotiated our freedom.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the Judge is good and looks after us, but His provision came at a price. In order for us to be absolved from our crimes and freed from our punishment, justice had to be completed. If our guilt was to be lifted from us, it needed to be placed on another. So, the Judge made an arrangement with a willing substitute to bear the blame: His Son.</p>

<p>This substitute agreed to trade His innocence for our guilt. He was able to make the trade because the Judge sanctioned the deal. The deal was fair because the substitute was willing, and He was willing because He’s part of the Judge’s family. It’s a family affair.</p>

<p>By agreeing to this trade, we are adopted by the Judge who negotiated our freedom. We become part of His family and, therefore, heirs. We can rightfully claim our inheritance.</p>

<p>Knowing all that this Judge has done, who wouldn’t take Him up on His offer? Who wouldn’t want to trade away their guilt? Who wouldn’t want to be free of punishment? Who wouldn’t be grateful to the Son for His trade?</p>

<p>Notice, God has done everything possible to keep people from being punished. Some people, though, rebel and refuse to meet God on His terms. They’re guilty of breaking laws and refuse to cooperate with the Power who offered them a pardon. They’ll end up paying for their crimes and getting what they deserve.</p>

<p>Those who accept God’s offer to be pardoned have much to be thankful for. That’s why Jesus is necessary. Our freedom comes at a cost, one that Christ was willing to pay. Without Him, we’d be justly punished, because without Him, we remain guilty.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-jesus-necessary-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-jesus-necessary-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-jesus-necessary-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


topic: Christian Living
author: Natasha Crain
date: 05/01/2018
title:
4 Things That Must Happen before More Christian Parents Will Care about Questions of Faith and Science

source:
https://www.str.org/w/4-things-that-must-happen-before-more-christian-parents-will-care-about-questions-of-faith-and-science

content:
            <div> 
		<p>In my newest book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Your-Kids-about-Conversations/dp/0801075521/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1525113245&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=talking+with+your+kids+about+god&amp;dpID=51el2L0KWrL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">Talking with Your Kids about God</a></em>, there are six chapters that focus on the intersection of faith and science. They answer the questions: Can science prove or disprove God’s existence? Do science and religion contradict each other? Do science and religion complement each other? Is God just an explanation for what science doesn’t yet know? Can science explain why people believe in God? and What do scientists believe about God?</p>

<p>I was particularly excited to write these chapters because I know how important the topics are for parents and kids to understand today, yet so many parents are uncertain of how to approach them. However, over the last few months, more than a few readers I’ve talked to at events or online have sheepishly told me they skipped that section of the book because (I’m paraphrasing) science is out of their “comfort zone.”</p>

<p>This is deeply problematic - not that someone would skip a section of my book, but that parents so often resist engaging in such a critical faith issue today.</p>

<p>The belief that Christianity is anti-science has become a leading reason why many young adults are walking away from faith. Researchers at the Barna Group have found that 29 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds with a Christian background say churches are “out of step with the scientific world we live in,”&nbsp;and 25 percent say “Christianity is anti-science.”&nbsp;The fact that more than a quarter of kids from a Christian background accept this harmful and false narrative should raise a giant flag of concern for Christian parents.</p>

<p>Think this subject is being handled or will be handled by your child’s youth group? Think again. Barna research has also found that only <em>one percent</em> of youth pastors address any issue related to science in a given year. The disconnect between the need and the response to that need is huge right now.</p>

<p>That means parents need to take responsibility for discussing these questions with their kids. But there are four things I think will have to happen before more parents do so.</p>

<h2>1. Parents will have to understand that it doesn’t matter whether we personally care about science or not - our kids still need to engage with these issues.</h2>

<p>In my experience talking with parents, I think this is the number one reason why most aren’t having these conversations: They just don’t personally care much about science themselves. To be sure, no one actually states that as the reason. Usually, parents just say it’s something they “need to look into”&nbsp;or that it’s “too complicated”&nbsp;(more about that in point four). But as with most things in life, if we truly believe something is important for our kids’&nbsp;well-being, we will rise to the task. We care out of <em>necessity</em>.</p>

<p>For example, my son recently had an allergic reaction to cashews after eating one for the first time. I went into mommy doctor mode and researched everything I could online to know how to best help him. Is there a ton of information on nut allergies? Yes. Are there differences of opinion on what to do? Yes. Did I feel overwhelmed by learning all this? Absolutely. Did I for one minute decide that it was too difficult to sort out so I wasn’t going to do anything at all to help him? Absolutely not.</p>

<p>I assure you that I don’t naturally <em>care</em> about nut allergies. But as soon as I knew it was important for my son that I educate myself on them, I got equipped. In the same way, it doesn’t matter whether we “care”&nbsp;about science; the question is whether knowledge of faith and science issues is <em>important</em> for our kids. Research (as I noted earlier) has answered that with an unequivocal yes.</p>

<h2>2. Parents will have to understand that it doesn’t matter whether our kids care about science or not - they still need to engage with these issues.</h2>

<p>One parent recently told me that his kids “just aren’t scientists.”&nbsp;He said they are more into the arts so he wasn’t going to try to get into the details of faith and science issues when that’s not an area of concern or interest for them.</p>

<p>Assuming that science questions won’t affect your kids’&nbsp;faith because they aren’t into science is a <em>big</em> mistake. In fact, I think kids who don’t dive into science are just as likely to have their faith challenged by these issues as those who do. Why? If they lack interest in personally considering the issues in any depth, they may simply defer to whatever seems culturally accepted. Culture says science and faith are opposites and I have to choose just one? Okay. Culture says science has disproven God and faith is just blind acceptance of something without evidence? I guess I’ll choose science because I don’t want to feel ashamed.</p>

<p>Does that mean every kid needs to understand the intricacies of scientific debate? Not at all. But, as I explain in my chapters on science, everyone should understand the key terms and concepts the debate turns on and the assumptions made by varying worldviews.</p>

<h2>3. Parents will have to recognize that questions of the relationship between faith and science are multifaceted.</h2>

<p>While many parents are overwhelmed at the thought of learning about science issues, others have oversimplified the matter. I see this a lot in Facebook groups. Someone posts a question about how their child is starting to question his or her faith because of “science,”&nbsp;and within seconds, everyone in the group has solved the problem by breezily pasting a link to the organization that champions their view on the age of the earth. Don’t get me wrong - age of the earth and evolution questions are extremely important (I wrote eight chapters on this in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Your-Kids-Gods-Side/dp/0736965084/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1525123058&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=keeping+your+kids+on+god%27s+side"><em>Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side</em></a>!), but there are many contours of the conversation beyond those particular issues. Kids who have knowledge of just one area - and just one view within that area - will not have the broader foundation needed to engage with today’s world.</p>

<h2>4. Parents will have to accept that we don’t have to be science experts to be knowledgeable guides.</h2>

<p>My nine-year-old daughter has been preparing for her first piano competition. After listening to her practice her piece many times recently, I realized that she kept struggling on the same couple of measures. She insisted, however, that there wasn’t a problem. I couldn’t easily describe where I heard the issue, so I asked her to play the piece while I looked at the music.</p>

<p>Even though I don’t play piano myself, I’ve been in enough of her lessons over the last three years to understand the basics of how to read music. I can follow along and see the rhythm, rests, dynamics, and so on. When she got to the trouble part, I said, “Here! This is the measure you need to look at!”&nbsp;My daughter, who is very independent and never wants help with anything, wasn’t exactly happy with my direction. She replied, “You’re not a piano expert. You don’t even know how to play piano! How would you know if something is wrong or where it’s wrong?”</p>

<p>It’s certainly true that I’m not a piano expert, but my daughter missed the point that I don’t <em>need</em> to be an expert in order to be a knowledgeable guide for her. I had learned enough of the basics and theoretical framework to show her where the problems lie - even if I couldn’t sit down and play the piece myself.</p>

<p>In the same way, parents don’t need to be science experts to be knowledgeable guides for their kids on the intersection of faith and science. But many parents “bow out”&nbsp;of the conversation because they just don’t feel qualified to have it. There’s no reason to do so. Just because you can’t teach your kids the intricacies of evolutionary theory (or anything else), that doesn’t mean you can’t be equipped to guide your kids in a meaningful, God-honoring way.</p>

<p>With a little motivation and effort, you can learn to show how beautifully science describes God’s creation - not disproves it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F4-things-that-must-happen-before-more-christian-parents-will-care-about-questions-of-faith-and-science" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F4-things-that-must-happen-before-more-christian-parents-will-care-about-questions-of-faith-and-science" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F4-things-that-must-happen-before-more-christian-parents-will-care-about-questions-of-faith-and-science" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Jesus? Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-jesus-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I was a young Christian in the early 70s sporting regulation Jesus-person bib overalls and hair down to my shoulders, I wore a hip necklace identifying me as a Christian. It was called an <em>ichthus</em>, the Greek word for “fish.”</p>

<p>The pendant consisted of two intersecting arcs with lines on one side extending past the junction point as tails, forming the simple silhouette of a fish. You can still see it on bumper stickers or in ads for businesses run by Christians.</p>

<p>The Greek word itself (ΙΧΘΥΣ) rested inside the body of the symbol, completing the icon. The <em>ichthus</em> formed an acrostic, with each letter representing Greek words identifying four vital pieces of the Christian message about the 1st century Jewish carpenter: <em>Iesous</em> (“Jesus”), <em>Christos</em> (“Christ”), <em>Theou</em> (“God’s”), <em>uios</em> (“Son”), and <em>sōtēr</em> (“Savior”).</p>

<p>The adornment was <em>de rigueur</em> - the current fashion - for hippies who got religion during the Jesus Movement. It was also a convenient novelty piece, sparking conversations with inquisitive strangers. The fish acronym summed up the Christian message: Jesus was the Messiah (“Christ”), God’s only Son, the Savior.</p>

<p>The acrostic also serves as a handy summary of the basic theology essential to the Christian understanding of Jesus of Nazareth. <em>Jesus</em> was a true human being who came to Earth as God’s promised “anointed one,”&nbsp;the <em>Christ</em>. He was no mere mortal, though. He was <em>God’s</em> own <em>Son</em> (God in human flesh, that is), God come down, “Immanuel”&nbsp;- God <em>with</em> us - the chosen <em>Savior</em> of the world.</p>

<p>In this, our 25th anniversary year for Stand to Reason, we are revisiting the essentials, firming up the foundation for you as Christ’s ambassador. In the first two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> this year, I focused on four reasons we’re convinced God is real. In these next two issues, I focus on God’s Rescuer - who He was and what He came to do - and answer the question, “Why Jesus?”</p>

<h2>“Jesus”&nbsp;- The Man</h2>

<p>When I speak to others about Jesus, I almost always refer to Him as “Jesus of Nazareth,”&nbsp;not “Jesus Christ.”&nbsp;There’s a reason for this. The second is a theological title - and sounds that way.</p>

<p>Though the content of that title is critically important (more on that soon), I don’t want people to think of Jesus first in a doctrinal sense - a religious figure spouting theological dogma, an excuse (some think) for Christians to foment spiritual discord and division. Instead, I want them to begin their thinking about Jesus the way His original audience first encountered Him - as a man, a genuine human being.</p>

<p>This is an obvious point, of course, but one that is often missed. It’s tempting to think of Jesus as otherworldly since in a certain vital sense He is. But that must not eclipse something else equally important: <em>He is one of us</em>. As I have written elsewhere:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Though conceived by a miracle, Jesus still entered the world through labor and blood and pain, like all children. He grew as we all do - through joy and sadness, compassion and anger, rest and weariness, delight and suffering, friendship and betrayal. All that is true of our essential humanity, and all that we experience - all that we desire, all that we dream; all that discourages us, all that delights us, all that disappoints us; all our hungers and hopes and distresses - all are true of Jesus. He is like us.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The true, complete, authentic humanity of Jesus was not a mere creative flourish by God, though. It could be no other way. For one, to die for us, Jesus needed to be alive like us. He needed to be like us to save us.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. (Heb. 2:14-15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Second, in our own misery we are naturally drawn to others who have shared in misery. They’ve been there. They understand. They know. Better, they might be able to help, given the struggle they share in common with us.</p>

<p>And so Jesus, “since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted”&nbsp;(Heb. 2:18). Better, “We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin”&nbsp;(Heb. 4:15).</p>

<p>Jesus faced the same trials, the same temptations, the same testings we all do, yet never was defeated. He is a strong friend, a bigger brother, a capable champion always there by our side. “Come to Me,”&nbsp;He welcomed, “all who are weary and heavy laden, and...you will find rest for your souls”&nbsp;(Matt. 11:28-29).</p>

<h2>“Jesus”&nbsp;- Man of History</h2>

<p>The humanity of Jesus is not merely a stray point of religious doctrine. It is a quantifiable fact of history that’s central to the Christian Story. Take any other religious leader - Gautama of Buddhism, Muhammad of Islam, Nanak of Sikhism, et al. - remove them from history, and their essential religion remains since the <em>teachings</em> ground the faith, not the <em>founder</em>. If those founders are fictions, the teachings remain with full force.</p>

<p>Not so with Jesus. Take Jesus out of Christianity and Christianity disappears. Some suggest that nothing meaningful is surrendered if Jesus never existed since the marvelous story is still intact. The Apostle Paul disagreed. He readily acknowledged that if Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection was a myth and the witnesses were trading in lies, then Christians were a pitiful lot. <sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> And fools, too, I might add, since it cost many of them their lives.</p>

<p>Everything essential to your convictions about Christ relies on Jesus being a genuine man of history. It is not surprising, then, that so much ink has been spilt to deny it. But these efforts fail. Nothing in the record suggests Christians have misplaced their confidence.</p>

<p>There is a reason the ancient historical accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth do not start with the phrase, “Once upon a time...”&nbsp;On the face of it, the authors did not appear to be writing fairy tales for future generations, but rather detailed accounts of the extraordinary events in the life of a particular Jewish carpenter who actually changed the course of human events.</p>

<p>The opening words of Luke’s account of Jesus’&nbsp;life are especially clear on this point:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.</p>

<p>In the days of Herod, king of Judea...(Luke 1:1-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Each of the ancient biographies of Jesus we know as the Gospels proceeds in the same fashion. The authors clearly intend to relate a remarkable story about a remarkable man who did remarkable things. They were convinced the events in their accounts really happened.</p>

<p>These were not recycled pagan myths of dying and rising saviors - sacred stories of ethereal supernatural heroes and netherworld gods - but reports of actual historical events involving flesh and blood people with their feet firmly planted on <em>terra firma</em>.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>The Gospel writers report history, not mythology. Their accounts include the vivid detail of an observer who witnessed the events personally or a chronicler who obtained the information from people who were actually there. Yet they are not merely reports, but arguments meant to persuade, citing evidence to prove their astonishing claims.</p>

<p>These facts on their own don’t make the accounts true, of course. But they do place these writings in a class of ancient literature that doesn’t allow them to be dismissed for frivolous reasons.</p>

<p>Some wonder why so little was written of such an amazing person if Jesus did, in fact, exist. But they see the situation entirely the wrong way around. What ought to be amazing is how <em>much</em> is recorded about an otherwise obscure man at an obscure time in an obscure place during a period when virtually nothing was written about any individual anywhere.</p>

<p>Though extensive detail of the life of Jesus is found only in the primary source documents we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> there are at least 17 additional primary historical references to Jesus outside of the New Testament giving corroborating evidence for Christ.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> These sources testify to, among other things...</p>

<ul>
	<li>His existence as Jesus - a wise, virtuous sage from Judea</li>
	<li>His supernatural powers (the Talmud accuses Him of sorcery)</li>
	<li>His brother named James</li>
	<li>His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius</li>
	<li>His resurrection reported by his disciples, who claimed He was alive three days after His crucifixion</li>
	<li>His substantial following, called Christians, who believed in holy living and immortality and worshipped Christ as a god</li>
</ul>

<p>There is no good reason to doubt that a man named Jesus of Nazareth had a significant impact on the ancient Near Eastern world in the first century, and every reason to believe He did. Anyone who denies that Jesus existed is simply not playing fairly with the facts. Jesus was a man of history, which is why historians write so much about Him.</p>

<p>Pulitzer Prize winner Will Durant in <em>The Story of Civilization</em> - the most successful work <em>of</em> history <em>in</em> history - concludes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The New Testament writers were not following “cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> As John notes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What we have <em>heard</em>, what we have <em>seen</em> with our eyes, what we have <em>looked at</em> and <em>touched</em> with our hands, concerning the Word of Life...what we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim to you also.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>“Christ”&nbsp;- The Rescuer</h2>

<p>The historical record for Jesus goes back two thousand years, but the record regarding Christ goes back thousands of years before that, back to the very beginning. Before going there, though, a confusion needs correcting.</p>

<p>The word “Christ”&nbsp;is the Anglicized version of the Greek word “<em>Christos</em>,”&nbsp;meaning “anointed one”&nbsp;or “messiah.”&nbsp;Strictly speaking, the messiah in the New Testament is a uniquely Jewish notion. Unfortunately, the word “Christ”&nbsp;has undergone a transformation - and corruption - in meaning over time.</p>

<p>Nowadays, depending on which New Age source you cite, “Christ”&nbsp;could mean a cosmic spirit, or an impersonal mind principle, or a state (“Christhood”) attained by various “Ascended Masters,”&nbsp;or the “I AM Presence,”&nbsp;or the mystical spiritual spark of divinity in all of humanity, etc., etc.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> The biblical record, of course, knows nothing of this nonsense.</p>

<p>In the biblical Story, the Christ is one born of woman who suffers injury while striking a fatal blow to the snake - the devil of old - undoing the destruction caused by the serpent and liberating those he’s enslaved: “He [the woman’s ’seed’] shall bruise you [the snake] on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel”&nbsp;(Gen. 3:15). This prophecy is a ray of hope, a veiled reference to the Messiah who was to come.</p>

<h2>The Rescue Plan</h2>

<p>Precisely how would Messiah rescue the world? God had a plan. Called the Abrahamic Covenant, it’s found in the opening lines of Genesis 12. Here is what God promises:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, and so you shall be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. <em>And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”</em>&nbsp;(Gen. 12:1-3)<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>First, God sovereignly sets apart and commissions one man: Abram. Next, He promises to bring a nation forth from that man. Finally, God promises that this man, through the nation he gives life to, will be a blessing to all the nations - the <em>goyim</em>, the gentiles - of the entire world.</p>

<p>Everything that follows in the Bible flows from this magnificent promise - the very backbone of salvation history. As their own story unfolds, Abraham’s people - God’s chosen race selected by Him to rescue the world - produce the only One who can accomplish that task - <em>Mashiach</em>, the Messiah:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[M]y kinsmen...Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises...and <em>from whom is the Christ</em>...(Rom. 9:3-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For this Christ, Israel anxiously waited, an expectation displayed clearly in Jesus’&nbsp;birth narratives, with each player recalling the promise to Abraham.</p>

<p>Zacharias, at the birth of his son, John the Baptist, blesses God, who “...has raised up a horn of <em>salvation</em> for us...to remember His holy covenant, <em>the oath which He swore to Abraham</em>, our father”&nbsp;(Lk. 1:69, 72-73).</p>

<p>At the annunciation, Mary, in her “Magnificat,”&nbsp;exalts the Lord, who “has given help to Israel His servant, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, <em>to Abraham and his offspring forever”</em>&nbsp;(Lk. 1:54-55).<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>At Jesus’&nbsp;dedication in Jerusalem soon after His birth, Simeon beholds Him in the temple and prays, “Now Lord, You are letting Your bondservant depart in peace...for my eyes have seen Your <em>salvation</em>, which You have prepared in the presence of <em>all peoples</em>, a light of revelation <em>to the gentiles”</em>&nbsp;(Lk. 2:29-38).</p>

<p>As predicted, that “anointed”&nbsp;king is a descendant of David: “I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom...Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever”&nbsp;(2 Sam. 7:12-16).<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>He is born in Bethlehem, the city of David: “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah...from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel...He will be great to the ends of the earth”&nbsp;(Micah 5:2, 4).<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>David himself, in Psalm 22, portends Messiah’s brutal death. The entire psalm reads like a detailed, first-person account of Jesus’&nbsp;crucifixion hundreds of years before such executions were a form of capital punishment:<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...</p>

<p>All who see me sneer at me;</p>

<p>They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,</p>

<p>“Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him”...</p>

<p>I am poured out like water,</p>

<p>And all my bones are out of joint;</p>

<p>My heart is like wax;</p>

<p>It is melted within me...</p>

<p>My tongue cleaves to my jaws...</p>

<p>A band of evildoers has encompassed me.</p>

<p>They pierced my hands and my feet.</p>

<p>I can count all my bones.</p>

<p>They look, they stare at me;</p>

<p>They divide my garments among them,</p>

<p>And for my clothing they cast lots.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>The Promised One</h2>

<p>Jesus, the Messiah, was a man of destiny. The Story predicted the place of His birth, His family lineage, how He would die, and the stunning impact He would have in life and in death. It’s no wonder, then, that belief in Jesus as the one and only Christ is crucial to the Christian message.</p>

<p>Jesus was called Messiah 543 times in the New Testament.</p>

<p>Jesus said that eternal life is knowing Him as Messiah: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Messiah whom You have sent”&nbsp;(Jn. 17:3).</p>

<p>A key issue of Jesus’&nbsp;trial was His claim to be Messiah: “And the high priest said to Him, ’Tell us whether You are the Messiah, the Son of God.’&nbsp;Jesus said to him, ’You have said it yourself’”&nbsp;(Matt. 26:63-64).</p>

<p>John said that the reason he wrote his Gospel was to use the evidence of Jesus’&nbsp;miracles to persuade the reader that Jesus is Messiah: “These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”&nbsp;(Jn. 20:31).<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>Peter’s first sermon to the Jews on Pentecost was to preach that God had made Jesus “both Lord and Messiah,”&nbsp;His resurrection bearing witness, and regarding this they were told to repent (Acts 2:36-38).</p>

<p>We are sons of God through faith in Messiah, Jesus (Gal. 3:26).</p>

<p>Those who deny that Jesus is the Messiah who came in the flesh are deceivers, liars, and antichrists:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Messiah has come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 Jn. 1:7)</p>

<p>Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? This is the antichrist. (1 Jn. 2:22)</p>

<p>For certain persons have crept in unnoticed...marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who...deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Messiah. (Jude 4)</p>

<p>Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?...Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father. (1 Jn. 2:22-23)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, Jesus of Nazareth is a true man of history, but His history started long before He was born. He is a true man, but He is no ordinary man. He is the Son of David, the future King, the promised Rescuer, the Messiah, the only Christ, the anointed deliverer, the seed of the woman with His heel on the head of the snake.</p>

<p>But He is still more...</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 107-8.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">1 Cor. 15:17-19.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">For more detail on this issue see the article, “Jesus, Recycled Redeemer?”&nbsp;at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">“Primary source documents”&nbsp;are the original source documents - the first-hand records from the actual time in history under study - that provide the basic raw material historians use to accurately reconstruct the past.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Gary Habermas, <em>The Verdict of History</em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 108.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Will Durant, <em>Caesar and Christ</em>, vol. 3 of <em>The Story of Civilization</em> (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1972), 557.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">2 Pet. 1:16.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">1 Jn. 1:1-3.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">For details, see Ron Rhodes, “<a href="http://ronrhodes.org/articles/the-christ-of-the-new-age.html">The Christ of the New Age Movement</a>.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">See also Gen. 22:18.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">This is why Jesus told the Jewish leaders, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad”&nbsp;(Jn. 8:56).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">God reaffirms this promise during Judah’s captivity in Babylon through the prophet, Jeremiah (33:20-21).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">The Jewish scholars at the time of Christ understood this passage to be messianic because the scribes cited this prophecy to Herod when the Magi visited him (Matt. 2:5-6).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Crucifixion was not a method of capital punishment for Jews and was only practiced under Roman jurisprudence (<em>The Encyclopedia Americana</em>, 1960, vol. 8, 253).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">John’s statement is a clear testimony of the significance of the use of evidence - apologetics - by the New Testament authors.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-jesus-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-jesus-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-jesus-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Beauty of Submission
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/11/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-beauty-of-submission
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our culture dislikes the idea of hierarchy. I think this is an inevitable result of a belief in instrumental value (i.e., the idea that our value comes from our abilities, what we contribute to society) rather than intrinsic value (where our value comes from being human beings made in the image of God). If our value is a result of what we <em>do</em>, then any preference for a hierarchical structure will be interpreted as a claim that those higher on the ladder are more <em>valuable</em> than those who are lower. But if we’re all equally made in the image of God, then our varying roles are merely the different ways we work to serve others, not statements about our value.</p>

<p>It’s within that second framework that the Bible calls husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,”&nbsp;and says, “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”&nbsp;(see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+5%3A22-33&amp;version=NASB">Eph. 5:22-33</a>).</p>

<p>As a complementarian, I think the Bible calls husbands to lead in the home and wives to submit to their leadership. That statement no doubt enrages many, but I think that’s mostly because people have a distorted understanding of both leadership and submission.</p>

<p>The Christian view of leadership and submission does not include what Wayne Grudem <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Feminism-Biblical-Truth-Questions/dp/1433532611/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523055248&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=evangelical+feminism+grudem&amp;dpID=41pNceY%2BkuL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">calls</a>&nbsp;“errors of passivity”&nbsp;(husband: wimp, wife: doormat) and “errors of aggressiveness”&nbsp;(husband: tyrant, wife: usurper). Instead, the Christian ideal is “loving, humble headship”&nbsp;and “joyful, intelligent submission.”</p>

<p>Leaving behind the issue of husbands and wives for a moment, I can give you a less-emotionally-charged example of a beautiful leadership and submission hierarchy in another kind of organized group I’ve been involved with for years, and in which I’ve seen these same errors and ideals lived out at various times: the hierarchy observed by musicians. As with the family or the church, musicians bring their varied parts together to create a complete, harmonious whole. But in order for this goal to be reached, there must be a clearly defined leader and the other members must submit to him or her.</p>

<p>Thinking specifically of flute quartets I’ve been involved with, I’ve found that the following is necessary for the creation of music - for optimally fulfilling the purpose for which the group was formed:</p>

<p>1. <em>The leader must lead</em>. (No wimps.) When no one’s taking charge to move things along for four women flute players in a practice room, there’s more talking and less playing.</p>

<p>2. <em>The leader must bring the best out of the other players</em>. (No tyrants.) I’ve been part of groups where the leader was so demanding and harsh that no one was able to play well. The good leader will encourage, expand, and increase the talent of the other players rather than beat them down so they’re hampered by fear.</p>

<p>3. <em>The players must play</em>. (No doormats.) Each player has an equally valuable, unique contribution to the group. If even one of them is not making an effort to fulfill her role, the music fails.</p>

<p>4. <em>The players must follow</em>. (No usurpers.) There’s a granting of authority to the leader that must take place on the part of the players if everything is to go smoothly. It’s impossible to lead those who won’t submit. If they are to accomplish anything as a group, the players must respect and support the office of first chair (though they are usually equally talented to, and occasionally even more talented than, the one who holds that office).</p>

<p>To sum up, every player - including the leader - must have her eyes on the goal (making music) rather than on herself.</p>

<p>As an example of how #4 can go terribly wrong, I was once assigned first chair flute in a quartet, but one of the players (who I suppose was upset she wasn’t first chair) made the subtle decision in her heart not to grant me the authority to lead her. What was supposed to be fun quickly became tedious as it proved impossible for the four of us to create anything together without the joyful and productive submission of all the players to my leadership. Her eyes were on herself; her desire was for my role instead of for the ultimate goal of the creation of music, and so she was not able to obtain either, and she destroyed the effectiveness of the entire group. Nobody was happy about this, including her.</p>

<p>As an illustration of error #1, I’ve also been part of an ensemble where the director had the idea that there should be <em>no</em> first chair - no designated leader with the responsibility of governing within each instrument’s section. He thought that since we were all there to have fun, we didn’t need a hierarchy. Wrong. This lack of an assigned leader led to tension, confusion, and hurt feelings. Who’s going to play the solo? Who should play which part? Who has the right to address those who are out of tune or playing something incorrectly? Who gives the final word for decisions that affect the flute section as a whole? Trust me, having an “equal partnership”&nbsp;structure for the entire section kept us from functioning in an optimal way.</p>

<p>On the other hand, when everything works correctly and the loving, humble headship of the leader meets the joyful, intelligent submission of the other players, the result is fulfilling for all - and not just for those who are playing, but also for everyone who is listening. This, to me, has become the illustration of hierarchical leadership and submission that finally helped me make sense of the subject. Having been both the submitter and the submittee, I know the value and joy of both, and I also know the irritating ineffectiveness that ensues when the structure is not accepted.</p>

<p>Luckily, musicians usually do accept and work within the structure that has been created for their good. Perhaps this is because they understand and appreciate the necessity of every part and have experienced the value of submission, even submission among equals. But imagine what would happen if all musicians were to reject submission just as many in marriage relationships have done. The result would be fruitless chaos...and no music.</p>

<p>Leadership and submission exist for the sake of beauty, fulfillment, fruitfulness, and peace. Most everyone has experienced successful leadership and submission in one way or another; but for some reason, when it comes to the husband-wife relationship, our defenses go up, and fear, anger, and resentment rear their ugly heads. It doesn’t have to be this way. Biblical submission is beautiful, and it leads to the creation of beautiful things.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-submission" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-submission" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-submission" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: C.S. Lewis on the Danger of Apologetics
topic: Christian Living
author: Keith Plummer
date: 04/17/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/c-s-lewis-on-the-danger-of-apologetics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In 1945, C. S. Lewis was invited to address a gathering of Welsh Anglican priests and youth workers on the subject of Christian apologetics. <a href="http://www.virtueonline.org/christian-apologetics-cs-lewis-1945">His talk</a> is filled with wise exhortation and counsel on a number of topics such as how those engaged in defending the faith should select and prioritize what they read, the necessity of knowing one’s audience and how to translate Christian truths into understandable language, and the difficulty and importance of keeping one’s hearers mindful that he/she is commending and defending the faith because of an earnest conviction that it is really true to the way things are and not because one has a fondness for it or believes it’s of instrumental value for creating a certain kind of society.</p>

<p>While there is much of great value throughout his talk (though I disagree with his suggestion of inclusivism), it is his concluding paragraph that I find myself thinking about more than any other. In it, Lewis issued a sober caution that anyone engaged in apologetics should take to heart: “One last word. I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist.”&nbsp;You might expect him to have explicitly identified the reason for such peril as demonic forces of opposition. While I doubt he’d deny that this figures in, that’s not what he concentrated on. Instead, he offered the following explanation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as the one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result when you go away from the debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“Spectral”&nbsp;is a word we don’t use very much today; it’s derived from “specter”&nbsp;which refers to a ghost or phantom. It’s noteworthy that even when he thought he had made a good case for a particular Christian truth, Lewis often left feeling like it was airy, lacking substance. This wasn’t because the doctrine itself was weak but because it seemed to temporarily depend upon whatever argument he offered in its defense. And even the best of our arguments fall far short of the truths to which they point.</p>

<p>Lewis expressed the same ideas poetically in his “<a href="http://www.cslewis.com/the-apologists-evening-prayer/">The Apologist’s Evening Prayer</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>From all my lame defeats and oh! much more</p>

<p>From all the victories that I seemed to score;</p>

<p>From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf</p>

<p>At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;</p>

<p>From all my proofs of Thy divinity,</p>

<p>Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.</p>

<p>Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead</p>

<p>Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.</p>

<p>From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,</p>

<p>O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.</p>

<p>Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,</p>

<p>Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Lewis knew, as should we, that the ultimate ground of Christian faith is not our arguments but God Himself. Thus, he concluded that apologists can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the reality - from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another’s continual help - <em>oremus pro invicem</em>. (Let us pray for each other.)</p>

<p>As we pray for our own apologetic efforts and those of others, let us pray not only that the Lord will make our labor fruitful. Mindful of the hazards Lewis marked out, let us also pray that we will open the Scriptures not first and foremost with the desire of adding to our apologetic arsenal but to feed upon Jesus, the reality to whom they bear witness.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fc-s-lewis-on-the-danger-of-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fc-s-lewis-on-the-danger-of-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fc-s-lewis-on-the-danger-of-apologetics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Double the Trouble if You Ignore the Context
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/double-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Never read a Bible verse. Never try to determine the meaning of a biblical text without reading its context. Always read a paragraph before and after. Even better, read the whole chapter or entire biblical book.</p>

<p>You’ve probably heard us at Stand to Reason say this in the past. It’s our way of reminding people to always read Scripture in context. If you don’t, this can create two related problems.</p>

<p><strong>First, when you ignore the context, you don’t know what the author is talking about.</strong> That’s a serious liability to figuring out what the verse in question means. That’s because context - more than anything - determines the meaning of the text you’re reading.</p>

<p>Some people think that knowing the original language is the most important element in interpretation. Although knowing Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic can be helpful, it doesn’t tell you everything. The Greek language might tell you the possible options for the meaning of a New Testament word. The context, though, will tell you which of those options is being used in the passage.</p>

<p>When you ignore the context, then, you are ignoring the information the author is giving you to tell you what he’s talking about. If you don’t know what he’s talking about, then it’s possible to misunderstand what he means. If you misunderstand the author’s intended meaning, then you’re misunderstanding what God is trying to tell you.</p>

<p><strong>Second, when you ignore the context, you are more likely to create new context from your life situation.</strong> When you don’t read the text before and after a verse, you create a context vacuum that you are tempted to fill with your own life circumstances. Since context determines the meaning of the smaller unit of text, your own life situation becomes the new context that changes the meaning of the verse.</p>

<p>For example, many people read or cite Matthew 18:20 out of context. They’ll be in a small group Bible study at someone’s home and begin their prayer with, “God, you tell us that where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”&nbsp;They wrongly interpret that verse to mean that if two or more believers are together, then God is present with them. That’s not what Jesus meant, though. Instead, He’s explaining how to handle a brother who sins. You can tell because the verses before and after verse 20 (also known as the context!) are about church discipline. Therefore, verse 20 should be understood in that light. Jesus is telling us we need two or more people to properly judge a believer who refuses to repent.</p>

<p>The reason the correct meaning of Matthew 18:20 is commonly missed is that believers often ignore the context, leading to the two problems I mentioned. First, they don’t read the whole passage where Jesus explains the subject He’s discussing. This creates a context vacuum. Second, they use their own life situation as new context, thereby changing the meaning of the verse. The believer thinks, <em>I’m in a Bible study with several other Christians. Jesus said, “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”&nbsp;Therefore, since there are more than two or three of us here in Jesus’&nbsp;name, we know that Jesus is with us.</em></p>

<p>This might seem benign, but it’s dangerous. In this case, the Christian has concluded that the verse tells him Jesus is with them. You might think, <em>What’s the harm in believing that</em>? In this case, the belief is not incorrect - Jesus <em>is</em> with them - but that verse doesn’t support that belief. The believer has ignored the Holy Spirit’s inspired context and then created his own context, thus changing the meaning of Jesus’&nbsp;teaching. Now Matthew 18:20 isn’t about church discipline but rather about believing Jesus is with you. That’s not Bible reading. That’s not allowing the Holy Spirit to transform you. That’s not listening to God but listening to yourself and baptizing your faulty interpretation with the authority of God’s Word. If a Christian wants a verse that supports the fact that Jesus is present with him, he can always turn to Matthew 28:20.</p>

<p>As I said above, misinterpreting Matthew 18:20 in this case doesn’t result in an unbiblical belief, but it’s still incorrect. Letting your own life situation become the context for a Bible verse, though, <em>can</em> lead to a more serious unbiblical or unethical belief.</p>

<p>I’ll close with a final thought, which I’ve already hinted at, and which might sound obvious. The Holy Spirit not only inspired the Bible verse you’re reading, but He also inspired the context - the words before and after. So, when you don’t read the context, you are simultaneously ignoring the Holy Spirit’s inspired context and overwriting it with your own life situation. God gave us the necessary information to figure out what His Word means. Now, I realize there are some passages that are difficult to understand even with the context. Generally speaking, though, reading the Holy Spirit’s inspired context will help you not only steer clear of common misinterpretations but also figure out what God wants to say to you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdouble-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdouble-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdouble-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Value of Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/20/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-value-of-hospitality-in-our-post-christian-world
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Rosaria Butterfield (a <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-bible-different-from-all-the-rest#.WtouHtMbPdc">former</a> lesbian, feminist professor) tells her story in this short video introducing her new book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Comes-House-Key-Post-Christian/dp/143355786X/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524247703&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+gospel+comes+with+a+house+key">The Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World</a></em>. Hospitality played a key role in her coming to Christ, and now she’s hoping to give Christians a vision of intentional hospitality towards those who would be considered our “enemies.”&nbsp;The video is inspiring, and I’m looking forward to reading the book.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We live at this time, where so many Christian ideas are understood as “hate speech.”&nbsp;After the Obergefell decision legalized gay marriage, that put the gospel on a collision course with the new law of the land. And I think many Christians have been struggling with, well, how do I speak? What do I do? How do I move forward?</p>

<p>Home is a vital place to invite your neighbors in to have some heartfelt conversations. We can love our children together, we can let some things slide, even though the world we live in would say that we’re supposed to be enemies. To me, hospitality is the ground zero of the Christian faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For more on Rosaria Butterfield, you can hear her interview with Greg on her previous book <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/interview-rosaria-butterfield-openness-unhindered-further-thoughts-unlikely-convert-sexual#.WtouzdMbPdc">here</a>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="262120176" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/262120176?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-value-of-hospitality-in-our-post-christian-world" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-value-of-hospitality-in-our-post-christian-world" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-value-of-hospitality-in-our-post-christian-world" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Beauty of Leadership
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-beauty-of-leadership
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Yesterday, I wrote about <a href="/w/the-beauty-of-submission">biblical submission</a>, and today I’m going to flip the coin over and talk about biblical leadership. Just as the good leader of a business will empower and encourage the other employees to flourish with creativity and skill to the best of their ability (especially in the areas where they are more skilled than the leader) and yet still bear the weight of responsibility for the working body as a whole, so the husband is to do the same with the members of his family.</p>

<p>As in the case of submission, the Christian concept of the husband’s leadership has to be understood in the context of the overall Christian worldview, with its understanding of intrinsic human value and the example of leadership set by Jesus. No hierarchy within a marriage is biblical if the leadership is not shaped by the three biblical ideas of equality, self-sacrifice, and humble service.</p>

<h2>A good leader recognizes equality within hierarchy.</h2>

<p>As Christians, we know that we have all been created in the image of God and so all have intrinsic value. In the secular world, on the other hand, value comes from external characteristics, achievements, or roles. It is not to be this way for us. The Bible is very clear that all who are fulfilling the task given to them are equal, regardless of role - not equal in terms of sameness, but in terms of honor, value, and necessity.</p>

<p>Paul describes this in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+12%3A14-26&amp;version=NASB">1 Corinthians 12:14-26</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,”&nbsp;it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,”&nbsp;it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you;”&nbsp;or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”&nbsp;On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>A good leader sacrifices himself.</h2>

<p>Hierarchy within marriage must also be viewed in the context of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+5%3A25-30&amp;version=NASB">Ephesians 5:25-30</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Christ gave His very life for the good of the church, and a husband is to lead with this same willingness to die - not only literally but also figuratively, giving himself up for his wife’s good every day, in order to nourish and cherish her as Christ nourishes and cherishes the church.</p>

<h2>A good leader is a humble servant.</h2>

<p>Women often reject submission because they fear the domination and oppression they’re sure will come. Sometimes, of course, it does. But these things have no place in a Christian hierarchy. Jesus, who wrapped a towel around His waist and washed His disciples’&nbsp;feet, is our model in this, and He not only condemned oppressive leadership but also went a step further, calling for leaders to lower themselves <em>below</em> those whom they lead in order to lift them up. See His words in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lk+22%3A25-27&amp;version=NASB">Luke 22:25-27</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called “Benefactors.”&nbsp;But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What man would not be drawn to the chivalry of this vision of leadership I’ve described? And what woman would not respect such a man and thrive under his leadership?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-leadership" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-leadership" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-leadership" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Hebrews Doesn’t Say What Atheists Think It Says about Faith
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/hebrews-doesn-t-say-what-atheists-think-it-says-about-faith
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An atheist objecting to one of my blog posts on Twitter said Christianity is “opposed to objective, empirical reality.”&nbsp;As evidence of this, he <a href="https://twitter.com/WeOfLittleFaith/status/989437678423855104">pointed to faith</a>, saying Christian faith is “belief without evidence”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is faith not belief in the conviction/evidence of things unseen, which by their nature, do not have evidence? This is what your book says, does it not?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is that what our Book says? Here’s Hebrews 11:1:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>What Are the “Things Not Seen”?</h2>

<p>Let’s start with the “things not seen.”&nbsp;What “things”&nbsp;is this chapter referring to? The verse parallels “things not seen”&nbsp;with “things hoped for,”&nbsp;and that is our first clue to what is going on in this passage. Here are some of the examples of faith given in the chapter:</p>

<ul>
	<li>By faith Noah, being warned by God about things <em>not yet seen</em> [i.e., the coming flood], in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household. (11:7)</li>
	<li>By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance [as promised by God]; and he went out [as instructed by God], <em>not knowing where he was going</em> [i.e., where God was taking him]. (11:8)</li>
	<li>By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised [i.e., she trusted He would fulfill His promise <em>before she could see the fulfillment</em>]. (11:11)</li>
	<li>By faith Joseph, when he was dying, <em>made mention of the exodus</em> [i.e., God’s future rescue] of the sons of Israel...(11:22)</li>
	<li>By faith Moses...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; <em>for he was looking to the reward</em>. (11:24-26)</li>
</ul>

<p>As you can see from these examples, “faith”&nbsp;is trust in God - trust that He will faithfully fulfill His promises in the future, trust that “He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”&nbsp;(which is how 11:6 defines “faith”). It’s the kind of trust that leads to visible obedience now. The “things hoped for”&nbsp;were not yet seen by these faithful people because those events were in the future. In other words, the use of the term “not seen”&nbsp;is not meant to convey the idea of a <em>lack of evidence</em>; it merely stresses the idea of a <em>future fulfillment</em>.*</p>

<p>Here’s the key to understanding this chapter:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having seen them and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. (Heb. 11:13-16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What we see in this passage is that the faith being defined in this chapter is faith in God to fulfill His promises. It’s choosing what God has for us in the future over what the world offers us now <em>because we trust Him</em>. And when we express that trust by being obedient to what He has called us to do, we make it clear to the world that we think God is <em>better</em> than anything else that might vie for our attention and allegiance. “God is not ashamed to be called our God”&nbsp;when this happens because we’ve glorified Him before the world by rightly portraying Him, through our actions, as being worthy of our trust.</p>

<h2>Do These “Things Not Seen”&nbsp;Have No Evidence by Nature?</h2>

<p>With this context in mind, is it the case, as the atheist contended, that “things not seen”&nbsp;“by their nature, do not have evidence”? Certainly not! We have assurance of all sorts of future events based on evidence. For example, I have assurance that the sun will rise (so to speak) tomorrow morning. This is based on the evidence of past events and my knowledge of how the solar system operates.</p>

<p>But here’s a closer parallel because it involves the fulfillment of a promise: I have assurance that I will receive a tax refund from the IRS in the next few weeks. As of now, the refund is “not seen”&nbsp;- it’s in the future - yet I have faith in (trust in, assurance of) its arrival. Why? Because the IRS has promised it to me, and I have every reason - that is, the evidence of both knowledge and past experience - to trust they will fulfill that promise.</p>

<p>In the same way, the people in Hebrews 11 trusted God because they had good reason to. You can read about how God revealed Himself to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 18. As a result, Abraham believed His promises. Further, God revealed His righteousness and justice to Abraham when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and He demonstrated His faithfulness and power when He fulfilled His promise of a son to Abraham and Sarah long after it was naturally possible. God didn’t leave His people without reason to trust Him; He interacted with Abraham and his descendants after him, giving evidence of His reality, His character, and His trustworthiness.</p>

<p>In fact, throughout the Bible, faith (that is, trust in God) is tied to evidence, with God acting in history for the explicit purpose of giving people the knowledge they need to undergird their trust in Him. Here are two examples of this - one from the Old Testament and one from the New (for more, see Greg Koukl’s “<a href="/w/faith-wishing-">Faith and Wishing</a>”):</p>

<ul>
	<li>I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, <em>so that you may know</em> that there is no one like Me in all the earth. (Exodus 9:14)</li>
	<li>“Which is easier, to say, ’Your sins are forgiven,’&nbsp;or to say, ’Get up, and walk’? But <em>so that you may know</em> that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”&nbsp;- then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”&nbsp;And he got up and went home. (Matthew 9:5-7)</li>
</ul>

<h2>The Conviction of Things Not Seen</h2>

<p>Now let’s move to the second half of Hebrews 11:1. What does it mean when it says faith is “the conviction [or “evidence,”&nbsp;in some translations] of things not seen”? It could be that this is a parallel of the first half of the verse, such that it’s simply another way of saying “the assurance of things hoped for,”&nbsp;but I think it could be saying something more than that. Consider what Donald Guthrie says in his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hebrews-Tyndale-New-Testament-Commentaries/dp/0830842454/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?s=home-garden&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524768601&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tyndale+commentary+guthrie&amp;dpID=418B8wK-cSL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">commentary on Hebrews</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[The] word <em>conviction (elenchos)</em>...basically means ’proof, test’, which suggests that faith is seen as the proof of the reality of <em>things not seen</em>. [Emphasis in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In what way could the kind of faith Hebrews 11 describes (see the partial list above) serve as evidence of God’s faithfulness, the future fulfillment of His promises, and the value of obedience and an eternity with God? Go back to the 11:13-16 passage I quoted earlier. It says, “For those who say such things <em>make it clear</em> that they are seeking a country of their own...<em>[T]hey desire a better country</em>, that is, a heavenly one.”&nbsp;In other words, when they trust God and respond to Him in obedience, though they may suffer now because of it, they <em>make it clear</em> they think God’s country is better than this one - that He is worth the suffering because the joy with Him in the end will be greater than any pleasure the world can give us now.</p>

<p>To put it simply, our confident expectation of the joyful fulfillment of all the promises we don’t yet see is a testimony to the world of God’s value and the certainty of His faithfulness.</p>

<p>As 11:4 says of Abel, who demonstrated his trust in God by obediently offering a sacrifice of the best of his flock (and was killed by his brother because of it), “through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.”&nbsp;That is, Abel’s sacrificial obedience at the cost of his life still stands as a <em>testimony</em> to us - i.e., evidence - that death by obedience to our good God is worth it because <em>God</em> is worth it. Joy with Him forever is better than avoiding death or having the world’s goods and pleasures now.</p>

<p>We see this same idea of our ongoing trust in God acting as a testimony of God’s glory expressed in 1 Peter 1:6-7:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In this [inheritance reserved in heaven for you] you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When we suffer because of our trust in and obedience to God, yet we persevere, we give testimony - evidence - to the world that our unity with Christ and our coming inheritance (a “thing not yet seen”) is more precious and imperishable than gold. Just as Abel’s sacrifice, Abraham’s trust in God’s promises, Moses’&nbsp;obedience at the cost of his comfort, and the faithfulness of so many other believers over the centuries still speak of God’s value and trustworthiness, so the testimony of our persevering faith now will “result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>*There is one example in the Hebrews 11 list that refers to the past rather than the future (God’s act of creation, which we were not there to witness), but the same principle applies: It’s an event no one has seen. It merely looks to the past rather than to the future.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhebrews-doesn-t-say-what-atheists-think-it-says-about-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhebrews-doesn-t-say-what-atheists-think-it-says-about-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhebrews-doesn-t-say-what-atheists-think-it-says-about-faith" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses on Truth Matters
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/25/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-jehovah-s-witnesses-on-truth-matters
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This week I had the pleasure of being a guest on Ratio Christi’s television program <em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmcvkSe5v1KGvZUBK0KZZi8A5xRCkjB5C" target="">Truth Matters</a></em>. During my discussion with host <a href="https://ratiochristi.org/people/tony-gurule">Tony Gurule</a>, we focused on how Christians can tactically engage Jehovah’s Witnesses when they show up at our door. This was an introductory level conversation but should be valuable for anyone looking to better understand and engage Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p>

<p>(Note: The audio is out of sync for the first thirty seconds)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="QTDKgQWL2aY" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QTDKgQWL2aY?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>You can read more about my approach using Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 in <a href="/w/ready-for-the-knock-on-your-door">Ready for the Knock on Your Door</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-jehovah-s-witnesses-on-truth-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-jehovah-s-witnesses-on-truth-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-jehovah-s-witnesses-on-truth-matters" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Christian, Read This Bill
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/24/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/christian-read-this-bill
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been saying for years that homosexuality is the topic our society will use to bully and restrict Christians. After reading California’s Assembly Bill 2943, I can see a hint of how this might happen.</p>

<p>If you’re a Christian, Muslim, or Jew (especially if you live in California), I encourage you to read <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943" target="_blank">Assembly Bill 2943</a> and <a href="https://adflegal.org/" target="_blank">Alliance Defending Freedom’s</a> (ADF) <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9njBaZTrCfSMFJfRGMzX2ZQeFh0R0U3bFVMS2ZYWUl1M2VF/view" target="_blank">analysis of it</a>. I don’t typically address bills before they become law, but this one has some significant implications for people with religious convictions. Plus, it was approved by California’s Assembly by a vote of 50 to 18. The bill will now go to the Senate.</p>

<p>ADF says that “AB 2943 outlaws speech, whether offered by a licensed counselor, a best-selling author, or even a minister or religious leader. It targets a specific message - that an adult who is experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion can find help to address those issues - for censorship.”</p>

<p>This law doesn’t only affect counselors and therapists, though. According to attorneys, its impact goes far beyond those scenarios. ADF offers a few good examples of the type of censorship entailed by this bill.</p>

<blockquote>
<ul>
	<li>A licensed counselor could not help a married mother of three who is experiencing unwanted attraction to a close female friend or confusion over her gender identity overcome those feelings;</li>
	<li>A religious ministry could not hold a conference on maintaining sexual purity if the conference encourages attendees to avoid homosexual behavior;</li>
	<li>A bookstore (including online bookstores like Amazon) could not sell many recently published books challenging gender identity ideology and advocating that these beliefs should be rejected by society; and</li>
	<li>A pastor paid to speak at an event addressing current social topics could not encourage attendees that they can prevail over same-sex desires or feelings that they were born the wrong sex.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, I encourage you to read it and the analysis for yourself.</p>

<p>Anyone familiar with my work addressing the topic of homosexuality can see how this bill - if it becomes law - will directly impact what I am <em>legally</em> allowed to do. I’m just one example, of course. Many other pastors, churches, organizations, conferences, books, and speakers will be in violation of this law if they continue to operate as they already do.</p>

<p>ADF summarizes their concern with this bill by stating that it “engages in viewpoint discrimination, is an impermissible content-based speech regulation, and impermissibly burdens free exercise of religion. It also interferes with the liberty interest of patients and their parents to choose the therapy that they believe is best to further their therapeutic goals.”</p>

<p>This post isn’t about promoting ADF, but they are aptly named - Alliance Defending Freedom - since this bill warrants ADF’s mission to defend our freedoms in this country.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristian-read-this-bill" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristian-read-this-bill" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristian-read-this-bill" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Even Love and Hate Need to Be Clarified
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/13/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/even-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“We just need to love gays and lesbians,”&nbsp;she told me. After a short pause, she added, “It’s wrong that some people hate them.”&nbsp;Since she had asked what I had recently covered in one of my talks and discovered it was homosexuality, she thought she would give her two cents about the subject.</p>

<p>I thought to myself, <em>I have no idea what she means.</em> Maybe it’s just me, but after hearing the words “love”&nbsp;and “hate”&nbsp;used in this context for years, I’ve realized that different people mean different things by those words.</p>

<p>When <em>I</em> think of loving people, I think of my feelings, attitude, and behavior towards others. I feel amiable toward them and I desire to know them. I ask about their life, family, and friends. I want to know what they do and what they enjoy. I speak to them kindly and treat them with respect, <em>even though I may disagree with their worldview, religious convictions, or behavior.</em></p>

<p>I differ from a large number of people I interact with. That’s partly because I travel a lot. I’m in a different state every other week. I visit about three different countries each year. I ride in taxis and talk to hotel staff. I visit mosques and sit in on services of other religions. I meet new people all the time - people who are different from me in very significant ways. I can honestly say I <em>love</em> these people and enjoy spending time with them and getting to know them.</p>

<p>Do I have the same love towards gays and lesbians? Of course. I don’t even countenance the thought of not loving them in the same way. It’s a non-question for me.</p>

<p>Do I think it’s wrong that some people hate them, as the woman I spoke to said? Absolutely. The way <em>I</em> understand the word “hate”&nbsp;would be the opposite of how I define love. When I think of hating someone, I think of my feelings, attitude, and behavior towards them. I have negative feelings about them, I want to avoid them, I don’t care about who they are, what they do, or what their thoughts are about anything. I never want to do anything for them and long to see them suffer. You get the picture. It’s nasty. To be honest, I don’t have that feeling about any person I know, even those who have hurt me in the past. I do hate Satan and I hate my sin. But I don’t even use that word to describe those who oppose what I do (I don’t even say I hate cats even though I’m very allergic to them).</p>

<p>If the woman I spoke to defined love and hate in those ways, then I’m on board with what she said. But as I suspect you know, some people have a different meaning in mind.</p>

<p>Love is often equated with moral agreement in the context of homosexuality. To love gays and lesbians entails upholding homosexual behavior, speaking in terms they approve, and voting in favor of public policies they support. If you don’t do that, you don’t love them. You hate them.</p>

<p>But when is that definition of love ever applied to anyone else or any other group? If I must maintain moral agreement, give religious approval, or vote consistently with the thousands of people I meet so that I can qualify as loving them, it would make loving them impossible.</p>

<p>Consider that I go to the Middle East often. I stay in Muslim neighborhoods. I attend mosques services. I talk to a lot of Muslims. I hold <em>very</em> different religious beliefs from theirs. I don’t share their moral convictions. I vigorously disagree with their theology. I don’t support their laws. I love them, though, and they respect me even though they know we don’t see eye to eye on the very things that define each of us. Moreover, they don’t claim I hate them.</p>

<p>But because love and hate are often redefined, it’s often said (and believed) that Christians hate homosexuals. Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly many things the Church has done towards the LGBT community that have contributed to that impression. I’ve met Christians who are genuinely homophobic. Some have told me that they hate (in the traditional sense of the word) homosexuals. But this is a minority of the believers I meet and speak to across the country. The majority of them love (in the traditional sense) their family and friends who identify as gay and lesbian.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, we need to be mindful when “love”&nbsp;and “hate”&nbsp;are used in this context. Even these words, which you’d think are obvious and need no clarification, often need clarification.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feven-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feven-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feven-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Gospel-Centered Is Your Apologetic?
topic: Christian Living
author: Brian Seagraves
date: 05/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-gospel-centered-is-your-apologetic-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Take a moment and ask yourself, “What do I think are the most important apologetic issues and concerns?”&nbsp;No, really, pause, do that, then continue reading if you would.</p>

<p>If you’re like many of us who are passionate about apologetics, worldview issues likely came to mind when you considered that question - maybe the problem of evil, the age of the earth, relativism, etc. To be sure, these are important foundational questions and topics we must be prepared to address. However, oftentimes apologetics today can seem to focus more on general theism or worldview/cultural issues rather than on Christianity and the gospel. We can tend to think of the journey from atheism to Christianity as a progression, which might look like accepting truths in an order: truth and morality is objective, a God exists, Scripture is generally historically reliable, miracles are possible, etc.</p>

<p>But someone who becomes a theist and who is not a Christian is still just an idolater. Philosophically speaking, the accuracy of their worldview may have improved. Spiritually speaking, they’re still dead in sin. This leads me to my central point: Simply having the right philosophical commitments and beliefs doesn’t make one a Christian, so if that’s where we put most of our time and effort - both in study and in conversation - we risk tacitly hoping the person will somehow coast across the “finish line”&nbsp;and arrive at the right place.</p>

<p>First Peter 3:15, which is often used as the “call to arms”&nbsp;for apologetics, focuses on giving an answer “for the hope we possess.”&nbsp;What is the hope of the Christian? If we are in Christ, we have been declared righteous because of Christ’s work on the cross. In other words, the call of 1 Peter 3:15 is a call to give a defense of the gospel.</p>

<p>So, we must have a robust concept of theology in our apologetics. If a person accepts our worldview commitments, are we prepared to articulate and defend the truth that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone? In other words, how much weight do we put on our preparedness to defend gospel essentials?</p>

<p>You may be thinking, “But most of my conversations naturally focus on worldview issues since those are the objections people commonly have,”&nbsp;and that’s understandable. We should address those. But we must also show the people we’re speaking to that their biggest problem is their sinfulness before a holy God. That is their fundamental issue. We do them no favors if we only discuss what are sometimes peripheral matters instead of showing them the reality of their condition. Now, of course, there is not a clean line between gospel issues and worldview issues; they overlap.</p>

<p>So, where does apologetics come in here? Going back to 1 Peter, why must our hope be in Christ? Why is it not in ourselves? Why must Christ be Lord in and of our hearts? These are all questions we should be able to answer and even suggest as important to the other person. They will necessarily touch on issues of faith, grace, justification, and works.</p>

<p>There are many cults and false religions that agree with us on many worldview commitments, but only the gospel is the power of God for salvation. Let us be prepared to make a full-orbed defense and presentation of it, and as we address worldview issues, let’s tie them back to their importance in understanding the gospel.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-gospel-centered-is-your-apologetic-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-gospel-centered-is-your-apologetic-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-gospel-centered-is-your-apologetic-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Worldview Training in Action
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/19/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/worldview-training-in-action
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On March 1, 2018, I got a phone call I’ll never forget. “Your grandpa’s kidneys aren’t functioning, and he’s not going to make it,”&nbsp;my mom told me.</p>

<p>I knew my grandpa’s health wasn’t great, but this news still came as a shock. Within a few hours, my wife and I packed our three daughters in the car and headed for the hospital.</p>

<p>On the way, we began prepping my daughters with the reality that this might be the last time they would ever see their great-grandpa. Attempting to encourage us, my six-year-old daughter said, “Don’t worry, we will see him again in Heaven.”</p>

<p>Her statement brought me to tears. Rather than emotional <em>support</em>, I was paralyzed by <em>sorrow</em>. You see, at that moment, my grandpa wasn’t a believer. He had <em>not</em> believed in Jesus to receive eternal life. Now time was running out.</p>

<p>When we got to the hospital, we weren’t allowed to see my grandpa. Doctors and nurses were busily running tests and attending to his needs. As a result, we were forced to wait in the lobby. After waiting for over an hour, we were told my grandpa needed some additional tests that would take another 45 minutes. Our young girls were getting antsy and hungry, so we decided to take them home.</p>

<p>After a quick bite to eat at home, I picked up my eldest sister, and we headed back to the hospital. I had to fly out the next morning for the reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference in Dallas, so this was likely my last opportunity to speak to my grandpa.</p>

<p>That night, a <em>miracle</em> happened. When we got back to the hospital, the lobby was empty. My family - my grandma, aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, and siblings - were gone. They <em>all</em> went for dinner, giving my sister and me an opportunity to speak to our grandpa <em>alone</em>.</p>

<p>Without going into all of the details, this was an answer to prayer. In our time together, we carefully laid out a very clear gospel message. Quite surprisingly, my grandpa received it with joy. If I’m honest, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. “It isn’t supposed to be this easy,”&nbsp;I thought to myself. There were no intellectual objections. He didn’t bring up any of the challenges I’ve been trained to refute. He just <em>believed</em>.</p>

<p>After praying with my grandpa, we left his hospital room overwhelmed by God’s goodness.</p>

<h2>Same Event, Different Feeling</h2>

<p>The next morning, I headed to the airport. As I drove, a very different feeling overwhelmed me: <em>doubt</em>. I didn’t doubt God’s goodness. I didn’t raise the problem of evil. It was deeper than that.</p>

<p>I thought, “Who am <em>I</em> to share about eternal life to a dying man? How can <em>I</em> be so sure I’m right? <em>I’m</em> not that smart. Maybe <em>I’m</em> wrong about all this.”&nbsp;It felt like I was hit in the gut.</p>

<p>The irony of the situation wasn’t lost on me. Here I am - a professional apologist - on my way to speak at an apologetics conference, and I’m debilitated by doubt.</p>

<p>The paralyzing question was like a broken record playing in my mind, “What do <em>I</em> really know?”&nbsp;After a few deep breaths, I did the only thing I could think of. I started <a href="/w/can-christians-have-doubts-about-god-1"><em>answering my doubt</em></a>.</p>

<p>Simply put, I went back to basics. What do I know? That is, what can I reasonably conclude from the evidence? I began to make a list.</p>

<p>I know that <a href="/w/there-is-no-truth">truth exists</a>.</p>

<p>I know that <a href="/w/why-god-part-1">God exists</a>.</p>

<p>I know that the <a href="/w/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable-">Bible is trustworthy</a>.</p>

<p>I know that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRU1iHLMryY">Jesus is God in the flesh</a>.</p>

<p>I know that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYEaUWQ9gY">Jesus rose from the dead</a>.</p>

<p>How do I know these things? Is it because I’m special? No. Is it because I have some secret insights? Not at all. It is because these beliefs are <em>the best explanation of reality</em>. They fit the way the world really is. They are true.</p>

<p>The evidence <em>informs</em> my Christian worldview. And my Christian worldview <em>shapes</em> how I live my life. At difficult times in our lives, we can confidently stand on the Christian worldview. Why? Because it’s true.</p>

<p>This is why the <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference</a> is so important. Doubts will come. In fact, the worst challenger you will ever face is yourself. The question is, are you ready with answers?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fworldview-training-in-action" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fworldview-training-in-action" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fworldview-training-in-action" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why We Don’t Measure Success by Results
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/18/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-we-don-t-measure-success-by-results
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At Stand to Reason, we often say that our task is to speak the truth in love and then leave the results to God. Judas is a perfect example of why we ought to measure our success by obedience, not by results. As Colin Smith noted in a <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/4-things-learn-judas/">recent post</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Judas walked with Jesus for three years. He saw the greatest life ever lived up close and personal. You can’t have a better model of faith than Jesus or a better environment for forming faith than Judas had in walking with the Savior.</p>

<p>He directly witnessed the miracles. When Jesus fed the 5,000, Judas was there. He took the bread and distributed it along with the other disciples. When Jesus calmed the storm, Judas was there. And he was there when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. You can’t have better evidence for faith than Judas had.</p>

<p>Judas heard all the teaching of Jesus, too. He heard the Sermon on the Mount, so he knew there is a narrow road that leads to life and a broad road that leads to destruction. He heard the warnings Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, so he knew there is a hell to shun and a heaven to gain. He heard the parable of the prodigal son, so he knew God is ready to welcome and forgive those who have wasted themselves in many sins...</p>

<p>Judas teaches us that even the best example, the most compelling evidence, and the finest teaching - the ultimate environment for incubating faith - cannot, in and of themselves, change the human heart.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus did and said everything perfectly, yet Judas walked away from Him. That means something else was necessary beyond perfect love and words: a work of God - a work God did not choose in this instance, for His own reasons. Does the fact that you can’t change a person’s heart tempt you to despair and hopelessness? It should do the opposite! It means that after we tell others about who Jesus is and what He’s done, we don’t have to carry the weight of responsibility for their salvation, but we can trust whatever happens to the wisdom and power of God; it leaves us to properly define apologetic success by our own obedience and faithfulness to what God has called us to do; and it directs all the glory to God, not our own competence, when we do see someone trust in Christ.</p>

<p>Make no mistake, God does use our words about the gospel as the means by which He saves people (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+10%3A12-15&amp;version=NASB">Romans 10:12-15</a>), so this is not an excuse for us to stay silent. It’s merely a reminder that if we speak the truth in love and clarity, God may use our words to open another person’s eyes, or He may not. That is up to Him, and this should be a source of joy to us. As <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/gods-work-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-fear-and-gives-us-hope#.WtdmydMbPdc">I said recently</a>, His power to give spiritual life to the dead frees us from fear and gives us hope, for the salvation of even the most impossible person is possible with God.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-don-t-measure-success-by-results" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-don-t-measure-success-by-results" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-don-t-measure-success-by-results" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Theologians on the Christian Life
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/27/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/theologians-on-the-christian-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As part of my post <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/hebrews-doesnt-say-what-atheists-think-it-says-about-faith#.WuMyetMbPdc">yesterday</a> about how Hebrews 11 defines “faith,”&nbsp;I noted that when we live in a way that reflects our trust in God above all else, that serves as a testimony to others of God’s value and character. I’ve seen the truth of this in my own life. I became intellectually convinced Christianity was true by reading arguments, but it wasn’t until I caught a glimpse of the beauty of God through the eyes of someone who followed Him that I wanted to follow Him too.</p>

<p>This is why I love biographies of Christians. Seeing others’&nbsp;love for God stirs up my love for Him like nothing else. I’ve recommended John Piper’s <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/biographies">biographies</a>, John Newton’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-Spirituality-John-Newton-Evangelical/dp/1573831182/ref=sr_1_7_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524844793&amp;sr=8-7&amp;keywords=john+newton+autobiography">autobiography</a>, and St. Patrick’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Saint-Patrick-Letter-Coroticus/dp/0385491638/ref=tmm_mmp_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1524844832&amp;sr=1-18">Confession</a></em> here before, and now I want to point you to the <em><a href="https://www.crossway.org/books/?series=Theologians%20on%20the%20Christian%20Life">Theologians on the Christian Life</a></em> series from Crossway. (If you’re a Kindle reader, they regularly go on sale, so keep an eye out.) These books are not strictly biographies (though they include biographical material - the amount of focus on this depends on the author), but rather, their purpose is to give you a sense of the person’s theology and how he applied that theology to the Christian life. If you’re looking for one to start with, I highly recommend Tony Reinke’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Newton-Christian-Life-Live-Christ/dp/1433539713/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524844654&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tony+reinke+newton&amp;dpID=41JMDANFD2L&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">Newton on the Christian Life: To Live Is Christ</a></em>.</p>

<p>Bethlehem College and Seminary recently hosted a conference featuring the authors of several of these books (only the fact that our <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">youth conference</a> was the same weekend could keep me from attending!), and now the videos are available online. I’ve posted one on Charles Spurgeon below to give you a taste, and you can find the rest <a href="http://andynaselli.com/8-videos-from-the-theologians-on-the-christian-life-conference?platform=hootsuite">here</a>, along with links to the corresponding books. I’m looking forward to listening to all of them!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="266567234" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/266567234?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftheologians-on-the-christian-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftheologians-on-the-christian-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftheologians-on-the-christian-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Newton on How You Can Be Deceived While Reading the Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/newton-on-how-you-can-be-deceived-while-reading-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It looks like the idea of receiving special instructions from God while reading the Bible is not a new one. Here’s what <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-Spirituality-John-Newton-Evangelical/dp/1573831182/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1525296157&amp;sr=8-8">John Newton</a> (author of the hymn “Amazing Grace”) had to say about this in a letter dated February 22, 1774:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There is a danger of leaning to impressions. Texts of Scripture brought powerfully to the heart are very desirable and pleasant - if their tendency is to humble us, to give us a more feeling sense of the preciousness of Christ, or of the doctrines of grace; if they make sin more hateful, enliven our regard to the means, or increase our confidence in the power and faithfulness of God. But if they are understood, as intimating our path of duty in particular circumstances, or confirming us in purposes we may have already formed, not otherwise clearly warranted by the general strain of the Word, or by the leadings of Providence, they are for the most part ensnaring, and always to be suspected. Nor does their coming into the mind at the time of prayer give them more authority in this respect. When the mind is intent upon any subject, the imagination is often watchful to catch at anything which may seem to countenance the favorite pursuit. It is too common to ask counsel of the Lord - when we have already secretly determined for ourselves! And in this disposition, we may easily be deceived by the sound of a text of Scripture, which, detached from the passage in which it stands, may seem remarkably to tally with our wishes! Many have been deceived this way; and sometimes, when the event has shown them they were mistaken, it has opened a door for great distress, and Satan has found occasion to make them doubt even of their most solid experiences.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Holy Spirit will indeed communicate comfort, grace, the preciousness of Christ, the ugliness of sin, etc. as we read the Bible. He is active in our hearts and minds as we read, enabling us to see God’s glory and turning our knowledge of Him and His commands into wisdom to apply to our lives. But do not forget: The <em>words of Scripture</em> - not “detached from the passage in which they stand,”&nbsp;but their meaning in their context - are inspired, not any impressions of private, personalized instructions we have while reading them, and we need to be careful to distinguish between the two. As Newton pointed out, it’s too easy for our fallen hearts, which are just waiting for excuses to do what we already want to do, to deceive us. Learn how to interpret the text well, and then lean on <em>that</em>. Apply <em>that</em>.</p>

<p>For more on this, see Greg’s “<a href="https://www.str.org/articles/never-read-a-bible-verse#.Wuerk9MbPdc">Never Read a Bible Verse</a>”&nbsp;and “Does God Whisper? <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-1#.WupW59MbPdc">Part 1</a>, <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-2#.WupW6tMbPdc">Part 2</a>, and <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-3#.WupW7NMbPdc">Part 3</a>.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnewton-on-how-you-can-be-deceived-while-reading-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnewton-on-how-you-can-be-deceived-while-reading-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnewton-on-how-you-can-be-deceived-while-reading-the-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Apologetics Film in Theaters on April 24th
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/28/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/apologetics-film-in-theaters-on-april-24th
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This looks to be an interesting <a href="https://faithlife.com/fragments-of-truth">apologetics film</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our faith is based on the New Testament - but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda.</p>

<p>In this new Faithlife original film, Dr. Craig Evans takes this claim head-on, traveling the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating that the case for the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is stronger than ever.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can’t talk to a skeptic for long without hearing objections about the reliability of the biblical text, so this is a topic we all need to be familiar with. (You might even have a skeptic friend who would be interested in seeing the film with you!)</p>

<p><em>Fragments of Truth</em> will be in theaters on April 24th only. See the trailer below, and buy tickets <a href="https://www.fathomevents.com/events/fragments-of-truth">here</a>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="76Z2-3OaHfA" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/76Z2-3OaHfA?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapologetics-film-in-theaters-on-april-24th" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapologetics-film-in-theaters-on-april-24th" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapologetics-film-in-theaters-on-april-24th" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Another Transition Regret Story
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/20/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/another-transition-regret-story
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an interview in <em>The Guardian</em> titled “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/16/transition-caused-more-problems-than-it-solved">Transition Caused More Problems Than It Solved</a>,”&nbsp;a man who is detransitioning after living 20 years as a woman explains why he regrets transitioning as a 19-year-old:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“I started to realise that I could have dealt with my own issues so much better without changing my body because that has brought so many more difficulties. Detransitioning isn’t as unusual as you might expect, but it is underground, for a number of reasons, and the trans community isn’t happy discussing this.”</p>

<p>He now thinks he was rushed into transitioning by well-intentioned but ultimately misguided people...</p>

<p>“One of my biggest struggles is that due to the medical procedures I underwent, I have difficulty with dating, am unable to have children, and still having problems finding a good hormone balance. And it is difficult being part of the psychological community that is so pro-transition right now and being one of the few critics”...</p>

<p>“I feel regrets about not having children and not being able to have biological children. This was something I didn’t appreciate when I was younger, but really feels like something missing now.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the interview, I see echoes of some of the points made by Ryan Anderson in the <a href="/w/overview-of-a-new-book-on-the-transgender-movement-1">lecture I posted last week</a>. The way to help those with gender dysphoria is to work to restore mental and physical health in a way that sees the body and soul as a <a href="/w/transgenderism-fragments-the-human-person">united whole</a>, not make radical <a href="/w/don-t-assume-we-should-change-the-body-to-match-the-mind">changes to the body</a> in an effort to change a person’s biological sex (as if that were possible).</p>

<p>I think the “well-intentioned but ultimately misguided”&nbsp;comment in the interview is key. Those who are pushing for people with gender dysphoria to transition are not doing so <a href="/w/how-to-help-transgender-children">out of bad motives</a>. They simply have a different understanding of who we are as human beings (evolved creatures whose bodies have no inherent purpose, who are without accountability to a Creator and His design); and, as a result, they have a different understanding of what leads to human flourishing (self-determination vs. making peace with the body you’ve been given). But good motives can’t protect people from the pain that results from misdiagnoses and harmful recommendations arising <a href="/w/argue-at-the-worldview-level">out of a faulty worldview</a>. Fighting against the reality of biological sex has serious consequences (such as sterility) that no one can avoid forever.</p>

<p>The Christian worldview is the one that matches reality, and so the <a href="/w/unique-understanding-and-unique-hope-for-transgender-people">real solutions</a> - physical, mental, and spiritual - that will ease the pain of those who suffer from gender dysphoria will come out of Christianity and its recognition of the <a href="/w/interview-nancy-pearcey-love-thy-body">value and purpose of the body</a>. Pray for our fellow citizens who are experiencing the anguish of gender dysphoria and are deciding even now where they will seek help. We will see more of this regret as efforts to push transitioning increase (see, for example, this <a href="/w/when-transgender-children-are-harmed-by-the-people-who-intended-to-help-them">Australian teenager</a> and <a href="http://waltheyer.com/">Walt Heyer’s</a> site, <a href="http://www.sexchangeregret.com/">SexChangeRegret.com</a>).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-transition-regret-story" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-transition-regret-story" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-transition-regret-story" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Beauty of Nature Helps Us Persevere
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/14/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-beauty-of-nature-helps-us-persevere
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-you-will-suffer#.WqcKu5MbMXo">we will all suffer</a> in this fallen world, I’m always eager to learn how great Christians of the past <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/secret-rejoicing-while-suffering#.WqcKyJMbMXp">persevered through suffering</a>. In an article titled “<a href="https://www.imb.org/2018/03/05/amy-carmichael-secret-fight-discouragement/">Amy Carmichael’s Secret to Fighting Discouragement</a>,”&nbsp;Eliza Thomas says Amy Carmichael’s love of nature helped her persevere in her ministry.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’ve often wondered how Amy could maintain such supernatural joy in the face of “griefs which can come down like an avalanche over the soul.”&nbsp;Reading her writings has taught me that there were four main things that bolstered her spirit and her faith - saturation in Scripture, delight in the presence of God, the support of a Christian community, and the glorious beauty of the natural world...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We need as many spiritual encouragements as we can find in order to thrive in the midst of suffering. The beauty of nature speaks to us of God’s beauty, and sometimes this is just what a dry soul needs.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Amy’s spiritual response to the beauty of the natural world is perfectly in step with the psalmist’s cry, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of his hands”&nbsp;(<a href="https://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Ps.%2019.1">Ps. 19:1</a>). Amy was a born naturalist because she understood that creation is a marvel that inspires worship of the Creator and that renews our minds for service in difficult spiritual landscapes...</p>

<p>The apostle Paul encourages us to set our minds on “whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, <em>whatever is lovely,</em> whatever is admirable”&nbsp;(<a href="https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Phil.%204.8">Phil. 4:8 NIV</a>, emphasis added). Attentiveness to aesthetic beauty is an aspect of Christian experience that enables believers to stand firm even in the face of suffering...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ve come across a similar love of nature in the life of <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/happy-birthday-wilberforce#.WqiwUpMbMXo">William Wilberforce</a>, who was known to constantly take long walks while praying or contemplating poetry and Scripture. He <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-William-Wilberforce-Campaign/dp/0061173886/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1520901985&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=wilberforce+metaxas">wrote</a> in a letter to his sister,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I was out before six, and made the fields my oratory, the sun shining as bright and as warm as at Midsummer. I think my own devotions become more fervent when offered in this way amidst the general chorus, with which all nature seems on such a morning to be swelling the song of praise and thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Just as Amy Carmichael’s love of nature poured out in her writing, Jonathan Edwards, another great lover of the beauty of nature, often referenced nature in his sermons. Stephen Nichols <a href="http://equip.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/sbjt-v14-n4_nichols.pdf">writes</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This Divine Being, who so permeates the universe, is, Edwards informs us, “distinguished from all other beings and exalted above ’em chiefly by his divine beauty.”&nbsp;This beauty is known in and through the world, and the world is, in an ontological sense, the communication of God’s being.”&nbsp;Edwards doesn’t merely employ nature to help one see God. In Edwards’s scheme of things God is communicated in that which is seen...</p>

<p>In short, Edwards finds much in nature worthy of his attention. Further, Edwards viewed his appreciation of the theater of creation as an act of worship.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As the great Christian men and women of the past have discovered, the beauty of nature speaks to us of God in countless ways. Not only does it uplift our souls in worship, but, as we see from the writings of both Carmichael and Edwards, it also gives us a language by which we can communicate the beauty of God to others. Let us learn from these persevering Christians! Fill your heart and mind with the beauty of nature.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-nature-helps-us-persevere" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-nature-helps-us-persevere" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-beauty-of-nature-helps-us-persevere" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: You Are Going to See God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/03/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-are-going-to-see-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We will see God. Think about that. We are going to see God - <em>you</em> are going to see God. You, Mr. or Ms. Ordinary, are actually, in reality, going to stand before God and see Him for yourself. We say this truth with our words all the time, but I don’t think we really <em>see</em> it in our future like we <em>see</em> that tomorrow we’ll go to work and see our co-workers. Sure, we think about <em>other</em> people seeing God, but think hard about this: One day, <em>it will be your turn</em>. You. Not someone else. As <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job+19%3A25-27&amp;version=NIV">Job said</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes - I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I imagine that thinking about this certain, future event in concrete terms could cause three very different reactions. First, for those who ignore God in this life, the idea can’t be very appealing. These are the ones who have never seen God in all His goodness, truth, and beauty. They don’t know Him as someone to be desired for true joy but, instead, always think of Him as someone to be avoided. They cling to their worn-out, threadbare ways, fearing God will take what they have away. They see God as the ultimate “taker”&nbsp;and spoiler of all things enjoyable. Such a person would dread seeing God in the end.</p>

<p>Second, for those who are keenly aware of their own sin but know nothing about Jesus and the grace the Father provided through Him “because of His great love with which He loved us”&nbsp;(Eph. 2:4-7), the idea of “seeing Him with their own eyes”&nbsp;would bring fear. Without a redeemer, meeting the Judge of the universe - who sees all and can’t be bribed - is a terrifying prospect.</p>

<p>But the third reaction (how I pray people would see God as He is so that <em>this</em> would be their reaction!), the reaction of those who know God in this life, is the one expressed by Job: “How my heart yearns within me!”</p>

<p><a href="http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Joyful_Joyful_We_Adore_Thee/">Joyful, joyful</a>, we adore Thee,</p>

<p>God of glory, Lord of love;</p>

<p>Hearts unfold like flow’rs before Thee,</p>

<p>Op’ning to the sun above.</p>

<p>Melt the clouds of sin and sadness,</p>

<p>Drive the dark of doubt away;</p>

<p>Giver of immortal gladness,</p>

<p>Fill us with the light of day!</p>

<p>You are going to stand before God. You will see Him with your own eyes. Your honest reaction to this fact will reveal what you truly think of Him and your salvation. If the third reaction isn’t yours, it’s time to get to know Him better.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-are-going-to-see-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-are-going-to-see-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-are-going-to-see-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Three Steps to Better Doctrinal Disagreements
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brian Seagraves
date: 04/05/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-steps-to-better-doctrinal-disagreements
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are so many points of view today on just about everything, and due to the internet and social media, it is easier than ever for errors to be propagated. Studies also show the average Christian’s knowledge of doctrine is far lower than it should be. Because of these and other factors, we must be able to identify and correct error for the sake of the lives and souls of those close to us (1 Timothy 4:16). But disagreeing in a way that isn’t disagreeable is a skill, and it is one that takes practice to develop.</p>

<p>While I don’t claim to be an expert at it, here are three tips that have helped me have more productive discussions in the face of doctrinal disagreements.</p>

<h2>1. Care about the person; critique the idea</h2>

<p>Bad ideas do no harm on their own. Incorrect doctrine in a dusty book on the shelf harms no one as long as the book stays there. Harmful ideas are really only harmful in as much as they are held and promoted by people. So the reason we should care about ideas is that we care about people. We should critique ideas out of love for the person who holds them and the people they influence. The stakes are high; what we believe truly matters (John 20:31).</p>

<p>Far too many disagreements today are more personal than they should be. As we have seen with the sexual revolution, people routinely identify their beliefs with themselves, not separate from themselves. Increasingly, this even occurs with Christians. It is harder than ever to have a discussion about the merits - and only the merits - of a point of view, but this is exactly what we must try to do. While it is nearly impossible to only critique the idea and not the person, since by critiquing the idea you are saying the person is wrong to hold it, we must focus as much as possible on the ideas while lovingly affirming our care for the person.</p>

<p>For some of us, the emphasis on “loving”&nbsp;is where we need the most work; we may have little problem seeing and addressing error. But to paraphrase Paul, “If we correct doctrine and have not love, we are a clanging cymbal.”&nbsp;Others of us may need to work on our ability to identify error. Lastly, many of us may simply need the courage to confront errors we know of while not fearing the social cost or name-calling that may result.</p>

<h2>2. Ask yourself: If understood charitably, does the person have a valid point?</h2>

<p>In my experience, many disagreements can be avoided by trying to understand the other person’s position charitably, as we would want others to do for us. I find it helpful to ask, “Is there a way for this statement to be true?”&nbsp;instead of trying to find a way in which it can be wrong. Now, ambiguities in a position can be a liability since they increase the chances that someone may get the wrong idea, or they could in fact be evidence of error. However, a lack of clarity does not mean that a person is wrong. If we seek clarification with an attitude of kindness (see step one), we are much less likely to harm a relationship, should the person not be in error.</p>

<p>It must be said, though, sometimes ambiguity and equivocation is an intentional means of obscuring a point so as to make it seem more palatable to those who may otherwise have disagreed. Discernment is always called for when interpreting others, especially in matters of doctrine.</p>

<h2>3. Use a tactical approach</h2>

<p>Lastly, in order to have better conversations that contain disagreements, we should use a tactical approach - use questions! Questions help achieve our prior two steps, though they do more than that. Questions allow us to get clarity on a person’s point of view so we understand what they actually believe, not just what we initially understood. After asking some questions like, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;we may determine that there is no disagreement after all. In a way, they give the benefit of the doubt to the other person (step two).</p>

<p>Questions are also less threatening; they minimize the chance that the disagreement will seem like an attack. And in this way, they help us with step one - caring about the person, not just critiquing the idea.</p>

<p>Should we determine that even after clarification an error is present, we can use questions to help make this point, like, “Have you considered that [insert point here]?”</p>

<p>Much of the New Testament contains letters correcting the doctrine of others; disagreeing with someone is not a negative thing. But we must strive to disagree in a loving way while trying to graciously understand where the other person is coming from. Sometimes, disagreeing is the most loving thing we can do, but we must ensure that our manner matches our message.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-better-doctrinal-disagreements" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-better-doctrinal-disagreements" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-better-doctrinal-disagreements" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: David Barash’s Theological Reason for Creating Human-Chimp Hybrids
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/15/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/david-barash-s-theological-reason-for-creating-human-chimp-hybrids
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You may have heard of <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/58/self/its-time-to-make-human_chimp-hybrids">David Barash’s article</a> in <em>Nautilus</em> calling for the creation of human-chimp hybrids. Though the article appears in a science magazine, the core reason he cites for creating “humanzees”&nbsp;is a theological one:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Looking favorably on the prospect of a humanzee or chimphuman will likely be not only controversial, but to many people, downright immoral. But I propose that generating humanzees or chimphumans would be not only ethical, but profoundly so, even if there were no prospects of enhancing human welfare. How could even the most determinedly homo-centric, animal-denigrating religious fundamentalist maintain that God created us in his image and that we and we alone harbor a spark of the divine, distinct from all other life forms, once confronted with living beings that are indisputably intermediate between human and non-human?...</p>

<p>When claims are made about the “right to life,”&nbsp;invariably the referent is <em>human</em> life, a rigid distinction only possible because of the presumption that human life is somehow uniquely distinct from other forms of life, even though everything we know of biology demonstrates that this is simply untrue. What better, clearer, and more unambiguous way to demonstrate this than by creating viable organisms that are neither human nor animal but certifiably intermediate?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, he wants scientists to create a cross between a chimpanzee and a human being in order to make a theological point: We are not created in God’s image. We are not uniquely valuable. We are evolved creatures, on the same biological continuum as all other animals.</p>

<p>Barash thinks proving this will somehow lead to better treatment of animals, but as I’ve written before, there are often <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/embracing-the-absurd#.Wqoc-pMbMXp">two conclusions</a> to which a consistent line of moral reasoning can lead, and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-birth-of-transableism-why-our-culture-bites-absurd-bullets#.WqodGZMbMXo">our culture’s recent track record</a> suggests Barash should not count on our society choosing the better conclusion in this case. Here’s what I mean: If Barash were to succeed in convincing everyone that human beings are the same as animals, why think we would treat animals as humans rather than that we would treat human beings as animals?</p>

<p>Indeed, there are indications <em>in this very article</em> that Barash’s own worldview leads to the latter. Not only does he mock the idea of attributing special value to unborn human beings (there’s certainly no sign of a desire to improve the treatment of <em>those</em> animals), but he also expresses a willingness to use even his own proposed animal hybrids to achieve his ends:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[F]aced with individuals who are clearly intermediate between human and ape, it will become painfully obvious that a rigid distinction between the two is no longer tenable. But what about those presumably unfortunate individuals thereby produced? Neither fish nor fowl, wouldn’t they find themselves intolerably unspecified and inchoate, doomed to a living hell of biological and social indeterminacy? This is possible, but it is at least arguable that the ultimate benefit of teaching human beings their true nature would be worth the sacrifice paid by a few unfortunates.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, denying our Creator God and our intrinsic value as human beings made in His image <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/ongoing-struggle-against-culture-defend-intrinsic-human-value#.WqnK1pMbMXo">does not lead to better treatment</a> of either humans or animals. <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/atheism-and-universal-human-rights#.WqqTa5MbMXo">It leads to</a> an instrumental view of value, where both human beings <em>and</em> animals are only as valuable as their ability to provide what we want from them.</p>

<p>But kudos to Barash for recognizing that the differences between our worldviews can be traced all the way back to the most basic of worldview questions: Is there a God? He knows that the answer to that question - whether it is “yes”&nbsp;or “no”&nbsp;- has implications that reach far into our culture, and so he thinks his answer is worth fighting for.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdavid-barash-s-theological-reason-for-creating-human-chimp-hybrids" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdavid-barash-s-theological-reason-for-creating-human-chimp-hybrids" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdavid-barash-s-theological-reason-for-creating-human-chimp-hybrids" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Was Jesus Who He Claimed to Be?
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-who-he-claimed-to-be-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="https://www.impact360institute.org/videos/who-is-jesus/">Impact 360</a> has a new video answering the question “Who was Jesus?”&nbsp;Was His claim to be God misunderstood? Was it a legend? Was it merely a political strategy? Did He never exist at all? Or was He who He claimed to be?</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="YQWCb-oIn54" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YQWCb-oIn54?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-who-he-claimed-to-be-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-who-he-claimed-to-be-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-who-he-claimed-to-be-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Long-Term Plan to Know Your Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/06/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been asked for advice on how to increase one’s knowledge of the Bible, and I love the question. Years ago, I read St. Patrick’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Saint-Patrick-Letter-Coroticus/dp/B007CGVNJM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522971740&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=confession+of+st+patrick+skinner&amp;dpID=51paCvs5cwL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">Confession</a></em> (written in the fifth century), and I was amazed and inspired by the way bits of Scripture just poured out of him in nearly every sentence. He clearly knew the Bible so well that it had become part of his language—part of <em>him</em>. Imagine how he was changed by his immersion in God’s beautiful, brilliant word. Imagine the joy it brought him. Imagine the humility, the comfort, the hope, the communion with God. Imagine how well he knew Jesus—how he was changed by meditation on the gospel. Imagine the wisdom he was able to offer others. I imagined all of this, and I was captivated by it. I’ve been working towards this kind of knowledge of the Bible ever since.</p>

<p>Does this vision motivate you, as well? You won’t get there overnight, but if you’re willing to be patient and purposeful about a long-term plan, it’s not out of reach for you. Here are some ideas for beginning to build your knowledge of the Bible over the next ten years.</p>

<p>I recommend you start by reading <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1496688888&amp;sr=1-1"><em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em></a>, which will teach you how to interpret what you’re reading. That’s a better beginning point than a commentary (which would present a particular point of view rather than give you the tools you need to discover the meaning for yourself).</p>

<p>Secondly, I recommend you read <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Cross-Understanding-First-Bible/dp/0310515467/ref=sr_1_2_title_0_main?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1383603580&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=from+creation+to+the+cross"><em>From Creation to the Cross</em></a>. The most important thing you can do as you’re first setting out to get a handle on the Bible (after you’ve learned how to interpret it) is to get an overview of the story. This book will do that for you. One invaluable thing I did at this stage was to attend a <a href="http://www.walkthru.org/live-events">Walk Thru the Bible</a> event, where they teach you the framework—the major themes and events—of the Bible’s storyline through the use of memory aids (hand motions, etc.). You can look for an event near you <a href="https://www.walkthru.org/live-events/bible-overview/">here</a>. (If there isn’t one near you, see if you can convince your church to <a href="http://www.walkthru.org/host-an-event">sponsor one</a> for your whole congregation.) All of this will help your reading go much more smoothly because you’ll have a big-picture understanding of how it all fits together. (Another option in this category is Greg’s <a href="https://store.str.org/SearchResults.asp?Search=fast+forward&amp;Submit=">The Bible: Fast Forward</a>.)</p>

<p>Then I would spend at least a few years reading through the Bible <a href="/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-">like this</a>—i.e., several chapters at a time, not just a few verses a day, reading for an overview, not getting too bogged down in details yet. Read the whole thing at least once a year.</p>

<p>After that, I would move on to reading the New Testament <a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/james-gray-on-mastering-the-bible/">like this</a>, adding on <a href="/w/tips-for-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible">memorization</a>, as well. You could trade off between reading one book of the New Testament every day for a month (over and over) and reading the Old Testament the next month, then back to a different book in the New Testament, then back to where you left off in the Old Testament the next month, etc. (You can start with the shorter books in the New Testament and/or divide the longer books, like the Gospels, into two parts.) If you stuck to that plan, it would take you roughly five years to read the New Testament thirty times and the Old Testament five times.</p>

<p>Because questions will arise as you read, I also recommend a few theology books that will help you make sense of what you’re reading. You could start these books at any point in your plan:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496690739&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+holiness+of+god+by+rc+sproul">The Holiness of God</a> (Why does God judge human beings? Do we deserve it?)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Deeps-Reveling-Excellencies-Jesus/dp/1433526409/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496690789&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=gospel+deeps">Gospel Deeps</a> (Keep the main thing the main thing!)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-God-J-I-Packer/dp/083081650X/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496690946&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=knowing+god">Knowing God</a> (Overview of theology)</li>
</ul>

<p>If you follow this plan, in ten years you’ll have an excellent foundation to build on for decades to come.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Overview of a New Book on the Transgender Movement
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/overview-of-a-new-book-on-the-transgender-movement-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Ryan Anderson summarizes the ideas in his new book about the transgender movement, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/When-Harry-Became-Sally-Transgender/dp/1594039615/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1520295329&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=when+harry+became+sally&amp;dpID=51aKm5tQyvL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">When Harry Became Sally</a></em>, in <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?441273-1/when-harry-sally" id="" rel="" target="" title="">this video</a>, and it’s worth watching. (Anderson’s portion begins at 5:05.)</p>

<p>I’ll highlight two of his points here. First, <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809097/ryan-anderson-transgender-worldview" rel="" target="" title="">at 26:05</a> he notes some of the philosophical contradictions in the transgender worldview. (For more detail on this from Anderson, see “<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/02/20971/">The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview</a>.”)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The transgender worldview combines a new form of the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism, in which the real self is something other than a material body, while also, at the same time, embracing materialism, in which only material bodies exist, and so simultaneously asserting two things that are mutually contradictory: only material bodies exist, but the real self is something other than the material body….</p>

<p>It relies on rigid sex stereotypes, in which girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks, and yet it insists that gender is purely a social construct, and thus there are no meaningful differences between men and women, all the while insisting that gender identity is real and meaningful but the facts of human embodiment are not.</p>

<p>And lastly, it embraces a radical expressive individualism, where people should be free to do whatever they want and to define the truth however they wish it to be, but it also enforces a ruthless paternalism, in which anyone who dares to dissent from transgender ideology will be coerced or punished.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Second, <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809106/ryan-anderson-cautious-therapeutic-approach-gender-dysphoria" rel="" target="" title="">at 44:26</a> he argues that pursuing sex reassignment treatments (surgeries, hormones, etc.) is harmful, particularly for children. (For more from Ryan Anderson on this topic, see <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/03/21151/">here</a>.)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that the vast majority of children will grow out of a stage of gender dysphoria naturally if their development is not blocked and if they’re given the time and the space to do so.</p>

<p>An effective therapy looks into the <em>reasons</em> for a child’s mistaken beliefs and feelings about their gender identity, and it addresses the problems that the <em>child</em> thinks will be solved by transitioning.</p>

<p>Many health professionals liken gender dysphoria to other types of dysphoria, serious discomforts with the body. They will describe [gender dysphoria] as similar to something like anorexia, or body dysmorphic disorder, or <a href="/w/don-t-assume-we-should-change-the-body-to-match-the-mind">body integrity identity disorder</a> [link added]. All these involve false assumptions and feelings about one’s body, which can then solidify into mistaken beliefs about the self. So Dr. McHugh finds that many other psychosocial issues usually lie underneath a child’s mistaken assumptions...</p>

<p>As a result, the most helpful therapies don’t try to remake the body to conform to mistaken thoughts and feelings—that’s impossible. But rather, they try to help people find healthy ways to manage that tension and that distress that they feel and then move towards accepting the reality of their bodily selves.</p>

<p>This therapeutic approach…rests on a sound understanding of what physical and mental health is and what the purpose of medicine [is] in restoring physical and mental health.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See the full video <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?441273-1/when-harry-sally" rel="" target="" title="">here</a>. (If you prefer the written word to video, reading the two articles by Ryan Anderson linked above will give you much of the same information as the video.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Foverview-of-a-new-book-on-the-transgender-movement-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Foverview-of-a-new-book-on-the-transgender-movement-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Foverview-of-a-new-book-on-the-transgender-movement-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How I Read the Bible
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-i-read-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Prayer is hard. I’ve already told you this. Bible reading, on the other hand, is easier - at least for me - but that doesn’t mean it’s simple. This critical source of nourishment also needs a plan, along with a personal pledge to fulfill it. As with many things, a good plan abets the pledge. It helps me be consistent and effective. Here’s mine.</p>

<p>I face three challenges in being steady in the Word with reading, study, and reflection: first, <em>what</em> to read (which Bible); second, <em>where</em> to read (which passages); third, <em>how</em> to read (what method helps me best understand what God’s Word teaches).</p>

<p>First, <em>which Bible</em>? There are three options: 1) a word-for-word, literal approach like the NASB or ESV; a thought-for-thought translation (“dynamic equivalent”) like the NIV; or a “free”&nbsp;translation or paraphrase like the Living Bible.</p>

<p>Here’s my advice. As a rule, select a solid translation and use the same translation the rest of your life. That one step will help you remember verses - often word for word - even if you’re not actively trying to memorize them. As the years pass, the same specific words read over and over will slowly settle into your soul.</p>

<p>For most of my Bible reading I use a real, straightforward, word-for-word literal translation - in my case, the NASB. I cut my spiritual eyeteeth on it, and I’m not changing. No need to, either. My version has cross-reference notes in the margins. And I use them. They help me get a sense of the connectedness of Scripture. I also have other translations handy for comparison - easy to get on the cheap at thrift stores.</p>

<p>Lately I’ve supplemented my reading with a version of The New Living Translation called <em>Immerse</em>. It’s a quality paraphrase with no chapter marks, no verse designations, and no headings. It reads like a book, or a novel, or a letter - much like the original readers read it (the ESV has a version like this, too).</p>

<p>It’s great when reading with my girls (think of it like training wheels), and the approach often gives me a fresh angle on the text. It’s not good for serious study, though, so don’t make a paraphrase your standard diet. And <em>don’t</em> preach from one, either.</p>

<p>Now, <em>where</em> to read. I have recently recommitted myself to an old wisdom, a kind of first principle of spiritual growth: If I’m going to be a serious disciple, I need to read the entire Bible. All of it. Every word. Regularly. So I’ve renewed my goal of reading the Bible through in a year.</p>

<p>Truthfully, I’ve never actually finished in 12 months. Sometimes it takes me two years or even a bit more, but the Bible-in-a-year objective keeps me disciplined, organized, and moving steadily forward. When I finish, I’ll start again.</p>

<p>I need the whole counsel of God - and so do you - and the only way to get it is to read it all. There’s no way around it. There are different ways to do this, though. Don’t start in Genesis and try to plow your way through the Pentateuch by March. You won’t make it. If you Google “Bible in a year plans,”&nbsp;you’ll find manageable options. Right now I’m using the “Book-at-a-Time Bible Reading Plan”&nbsp;from <em>Discipleship Journal</em>.</p>

<p>Start at the beginning of the plan (January) or start with the current date - or even jump around a bit if you like. It doesn’t matter as long as you’re working through entire books and checking them off until you complete the whole Book.</p>

<p>And don’t neglect regular “off schedule”&nbsp;reading in Proverbs and Psalms. They serve different purposes. Proverbs are for the mind - for judgment; Psalms are for the heart - for receiving comfort or expressing joy, sorrow or lament. We need them both, regularly, so don’t go long without dipping into these wonderful books. They refresh the soul in vital ways.</p>

<p>Some folks read a full chapter of Proverbs in one sitting, one for each day of the month (31 days, 31 chapters - easy). That’s too rich for me. I read a half chapter. On odd-numbered months I’ll read the first half of the chapter for the calendar day, and on even-numbered months the second half. Smaller portions are easier to digest.</p>

<p>Finally, <em>how</em> I read. In brief, I read <em>slowly</em> and <em>actively</em>. I pay attention to the details and <em>especially to the flow of thought</em>. I circle repeated words, draw lines between related concepts, check cross references, jot brief thoughts or questions in the margin (in pencil). If my mind drifts while reading, I go back to where I drifted off and start again.</p>

<p>I also mix my reading with prayer. It’s hard not to. Sometimes I pray the <em>prayers</em> of the Bible as if they were my own. Other times I pray the <em>content</em> of a passage, for me or for others. I pray the words, express wonder, give thanks, offer praise, confess shortcomings, ask questions.</p>

<p>So, there’s my brief tutorial. Like many things important, but sometimes burdensome, consistency is key. So step up. Read regularly, read slowly, read thoughtfully, and read the full counsel of God. Again, action always beats intention.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-read-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-read-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-read-the-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Earth-Like Planets? Not Quite
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/earth-like-planets-not-quite
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Every once in a while, the mainstream media buzzes over a newly discovered Earth-like planet. These headlines can give the impression that planets like Earth - which are capable of sustaining complex life - are common. We closely associate “Earth-like”&nbsp;with <em>life-filled</em>. But what do scientists mean by <em>Earth-like</em>?</p>

<p>In a recent <a href="http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2018/03/are-earth-like-planets-common.html#more">blog post</a>, particle physicist Michael Strauss describes <em>three</em> ways the term “Earth-like”&nbsp;is being used <em>by scientists</em>.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When scientists say that an Earth-like planet may have been discovered, they actually mean one of three things. Either (1) the planet is in such an orbit around its central star that allows the temperature on the planet to possibly harbor liquid water, or (2) the planet is about the same size as the earth, or (3) the planet is solid and rocky rather than gaseous.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, when scientists use the term “Earth-like,”&nbsp;most people immediately think of the planet’s ability to sustain life. If it’s “Earth-like,”&nbsp;then it must be able to support life, like Earth. But none of these three qualities - distance to the Sun, size, and rocky composition - means the newly discovered planet <em>will</em> support life. Much more is required.</p>

<p>Strauss continues,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Of course any one of these criteria, or even all three, does not actually give us a true Earth-like planet. We know that our moon is in the correct location to contain liquid water, but it is not “Earth-like.”&nbsp;We know Venus is about the size of the earth, but it is not “Earth-like.”&nbsp;We know that Mercury is rocky and not gaseous, but it is not “Earth-like.”&nbsp;So none of these criteria really give an Earth-like planet. Headlines and sound-bites are not meant to be precise but to draw attention, and it is much more exciting to proclaim an “Earth-like”&nbsp;planet has been found rather than a “Venus-like”&nbsp;planet (if even that could be claimed).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Beware of mainstream articles that are meant to sensationalize scientific findings. This happens all the time. If you’re not properly informed, you can easily be misled. So the next time you see a headline describing an “Earth-like”&nbsp;planet, ask yourself if the phrases “Moon-like,”&nbsp;or “Venus-like,”&nbsp;or “Mercury-like”&nbsp;would be equally appropriate. Chances are the article is more accurately describing a <em>lifeless</em> planet - that happens to be rocky, or Earth-size, or in the habitable zone, rather than anything like our <em>life-filled</em> planet.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-like-planets-not-quite" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-like-planets-not-quite" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-like-planets-not-quite" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God’s Work in Our Friends’ Salvation Frees Us from Fear and Gives Us Hope
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/04/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was once asked by a student at a <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics</a> conference how he could gain the courage and confidence he needed to talk to his druggie friend - who is <em>so far</em> away from God - about Christ.</p>

<p>You might have a few friends who seem ridiculously far away from Christ - friends you despair of ever reaching - but I have good news for you: Your spiritually hopeless friend is no farther away from Christ than any of your other lost friends. They are <em>all</em>&nbsp;“dead in their trespasses and sins”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A1-10&amp;version=NASB">Eph. 2:1-10</a>), and there’s only one kind of dead. Dead is dead. The good news is that <em>God</em> is as able to open the eyes of your seemingly-most-resistant friend as He is able to open the eyes of any other friend, so you need not shrink back because of any thought that your friend’s rebellion against God is too great.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions#.WsO0I9MbPdc">root difference</a> between believers and non-believers is spiritual, and spiritual death can only be reversed by the God who “gives <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+4&amp;version=NASB">life</a> to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”&nbsp;Granted, He does this <em>through</em> the means of our evangelism. Our words explaining the gospel (including words explaining that the gospel is <em>true</em>, an accurate description of reality - i.e., apologetics) are the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+10%3A12-15&amp;version=NASB">means</a> God uses to change people’s hearts and call them to Himself, <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/%E2%80%9Cforced-love%E2%80%9D-is-the-wrong-way-to-look-at-it#.WsOuqdMbPdc">enabling them</a> to see and love Him.</p>

<p>But our evangelism is only the <em>means</em>. <em>He</em> is the cause of any success we see, and that is what frees us from fear. Your friend’s salvation looks impossible? Well, good news! “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A25-26&amp;version=NASB">Matt. 19:25-26</a>). If even the most hardened criminal comes to Christ in the same way as your dear grandmother - by a miracle of God - then you can be as hopeful and fearless in talking to a hardened criminal as you can in talking to your grandmother.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Did Jesus Die and Come to Life Again?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-did-jesus-die-and-come-to-life-again-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Easter is coming up, and if you’re looking for a way to explain to people what it’s all about, Greg has a new book titled <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK443">The Story of Why God Died and Came to Life Again</a>.</em> It’s adapted from the chapters of <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK421">The Story of Reality</a></em> focusing on, you guessed it, why Jesus died and rose again.</p>

<p>From the introduction:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is clear to most people that the world is not the way it ought to be. Something has gone terribly wrong, and everybody knows it...</p>

<p>We are broken, true enough. But we are not simply malfunctioning. We are not machines that need to be fixed. We are transgressors who need to be forgiven. We have not merely “made mistakes,”&nbsp;like getting our sums wrong when balancing accounts. We have sinned. And with sin comes guilt. And with guilt comes punishment...</p>

<p>Man must pay, but he cannot pay. He must be freed, but slaves cannot free themselves. He desperately needs a rescuer. He needs to be saved by someone who does not himself owe, and who is not himself enslaved.</p>

<p>The Story could have ended here, since God owes no man a pardon. But this is not the end of the story. It is the beginning. With man lost and helpless and the world terribly broken, God Himself steps into the picture to initiate a rescue operation.</p>

<p>The rescuer is not an ordinary hero, though. He is a man, but not an ordinary man - a true man, of course, but still completely unique. He is called Immanuel, God with us. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>Let me tell you about Him.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Greg’s style in this book is very easy to read, even though he weaves apologetics into his explanation of who Jesus is and what He came to do. It’s a book you might want to always have on hand to offer people after spiritual conversations (our store offers <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK443">quantity discounts</a>), but it’s especially helpful around Easter.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-did-jesus-die-and-come-to-life-again-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-did-jesus-die-and-come-to-life-again-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-did-jesus-die-and-come-to-life-again-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Miracles Happen: Here’s One
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/21/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/miracles-happen-here-s-one
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are seasons of life that are <em>really</em> hard. My family is going through one right now. In the last month, we have been hit with the death of my grandpa, a painful autoimmune disease in my four-year-old daughter, the discovery of a large four-inch mass on my father-in-law’s spine, and the serious prospect of pancreatic cancer in my uncle. We’re getting hit hard. But I don’t think we’re unique. Many people go through periods like this.</p>

<p>During this painful season, we have been praying fervently. Unfortunately, we are not seeing the miraculous healings we are asking for.</p>

<p>These kinds of experiences have caused some to doubt God’s ability to act. Maybe we don’t see healing because God can’t heal. These circumstances may leave you asking, is there any good reason to believe miraculous healings happen today?</p>

<p>The short answer is, yes. And I can prove it to you. Don’t believe me? Keep reading.</p>

<h2>The Recorded Healing of Duane Miller</h2>

<p>In 1990, Duane Miller was serving as the senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Brenham, Texas when he contracted a flu virus. Duane’s situation went from bad to worse when the virus attacked his vocal folds, permanently damaging his nerve tissue.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://millertheology.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/the-miracle-moment-20-years-later/">his testimony</a>, Duane writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Over the next three years I was seen by over 63 specialists and their teams (totaling over 200 doctors) as they tried to diagnose and treat me. I had been left with a voice that sounded like the worst case of laryngitis you have ever heard, and could only make that if I screamed at the top of my lungs.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Given his inability to speak clearly, Duane resigned from his post in 1991. Soon after, Duane and his wife moved to Houston, where he became a private investigator and his wife became the primary breadwinner. They also began attending Houston’s First Baptist Church.</p>

<p>In 1992, Duane was asked to teach an adult Sunday school class. He declined at first, fearing no one would be able to understand him, but after some persistence, he reluctantly agreed. On January 17, 1993, Duane was scheduled to teach through Psalm 103, which was the curriculum assigned from the “Bible Book Series.”</p>

<p>Continuing his testimony, Duane recalls how he felt after reading the words of verse 3 (“who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases”). He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But, when I began to talk about healing, my words were, “I still believe God heals,��&nbsp;while my thoughts were, “but why not me?”&nbsp;I moved through that discussion as honestly as I could and began my third thought: He redeems my life from the pit.</p>

<p>I began my discourse, “I have had, and you have had, in times past, pit experiences.”&nbsp;On the word, “pit,”&nbsp;the pressure that had been in my throat for three years was gone as if someone had removed their hand from choking me. I continued, startled, “We’ve all had times when our life seemed to be in a pit, in a grave, and we didn’t have an answer for the pit we find ourselves in.”&nbsp;While I was speaking, I was swallowing choke-free, and I’ll never forget my thought, is that what I think it is?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It was. Duane was healed.</p>

<p>In the days that followed, doctors confirmed that his voice had been totally restored. In fact, the doctors couldn’t find <em>any</em> evidence that he ever had a problem.</p>

<p>What’s truly incredible about this story is that the whole thing was recorded. When you listen to the audio, it’s almost as if you are in the room as God restores Duane’s voice. Listen in amazement as his voice goes from barely understandable to crystal clear.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="NuBV3uPxaAc" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NuBV3uPxaAc?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>Be encouraged today. <em>God still heals</em>. Duane Miller’s story - and countless others - provide evidence. We must fight the temptation to judge God’s character and ability based on our immediate circumstances. Our current situation is <em>not</em> the full story. So the next time you begin to doubt God and His ability to act in your situation, listen to the miraculous healing of Duane Miller.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-happen-here-s-one" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-happen-here-s-one" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-happen-here-s-one" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Having a Fallen Nature Doesn’t Excuse Us from Guilt
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-having-a-fallen-nature-doesn-t-excuse-us-from-guilt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I sometimes hear the objection that God’s judgment against human beings is unfair since our fallenness was thrust upon us by Adam and we didn’t choose it. The objection is often presented as if we’re currently being prevented from doing what is right by something <em>outside</em> of us - as if we have a disability that is unrelated to the soul, against which the soul fights, rather than the problem being the desires of the soul and therefore the soul itself.</p>

<p>In a discussion about spiritual blindness in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Glory-Christian-Scriptures-Truthfulness/dp/1433552639/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">A Peculiar Glory</a></em>, John Piper says something that I think applies to this objection:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The root of our [spiritual] blindness is not that we are <em>victims</em> of darkness, but <em>lovers</em> of darkness. The root of our blindness is not that we are <em>hindered</em> from the light, but that we are <em>haters</em> of the light. We love the darkness of doing things our way, and we hate the light of the surpassing beauty of the all-authoritative, all-satisfying, sovereign Christ. And, therefore, our blindness is blameworthy - not, as the lawyers say, exculpatory. It does not remove our guilt. It <em>is</em> our guilt.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We’re not excused from our guilt in doing wrong just because we, by nature, love doing wrong. In the same way, the fact that God loves goodness and cannot do anything other than what is good (i.e., anything that would be outside of His nature) doesn’t mean He isn’t praiseworthy. He’s praiseworthy precisely <em>because</em> He loves only what is good and will only do what is good.</p>

<p>Our loves and desires are credited to us with either blame or praise precisely because they are a reflection of the core of who <em>we</em> are. It does not matter that we did not create our own nature.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-having-a-fallen-nature-doesn-t-excuse-us-from-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-having-a-fallen-nature-doesn-t-excuse-us-from-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-having-a-fallen-nature-doesn-t-excuse-us-from-guilt" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Good Friday
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/30/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/good-friday
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Justin Taylor has a series of videos based on his <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK384">book</a> <em>The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived</em> - one for each day of Holy Week. Take a few minutes and watch the one for Good Friday below. Don’t let this day pass by without thinking about what it meant for Jesus and what it means for us today.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="89429101" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/89429101?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>For more on what happened during Holy Week, you can find links to the rest of the videos (and accompanying articles) <a href="https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-final-days-of-jesus-friday-april-3-ad-33/">here</a>, or listen to Justin Taylor’s interview on our <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/justin-taylor - -the-final-days-of-jesus-february-25-2014#.Wr1ixJMbMXo">podcast</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgood-friday" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgood-friday" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgood-friday" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why There Are Only Four REAL Gospels
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/29/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-there-are-only-four-real-gospels
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If we’re not careful, we can begin to think of the Bible as <em>one</em> book. But it’s not one book; it’s a collection of books - sometimes referred to as the biblical canon. Of course, this correct understanding of the canon raises an important question: <em>why these books and not others?</em></p>

<p>For instance, the New Testament includes four Gospels about the life of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are called <em>canonical</em> Gospels because they are in the canon. But these weren’t the only Gospels about Jesus in the ancient world. In fact, we have discovered many <em>other</em> Gospels, like the <em>Gospel of Thomas</em>, the <em>Gospel of Mary</em>, the <em>Gospel of Philip</em>, and so on.</p>

<p>Given the plethora of Gospels out there, why does the New Testament only include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What is so special about these four Gospels?</p>

<p>I want to give four reasons why the four Gospels stand out as unique among all other Gospels in early Christianity. Simply put, the four Gospels are the <em>REAL</em> Gospels of Jesus’&nbsp;life because they were <em>recognized</em> widely in the early Church, they are the <em>earliest</em> Gospels we possess, they are <em>apostolic</em>, and they <em>lack obvious embellishment</em>.</p>

<p>First, they were <em>recognized</em>. Many people have a faulty understanding of how the New Testament canon was originally assembled. They mistakenly believe that <em>individuals with authority</em> used their authority to pick which books to include and exclude. On this view, the early church <em>created</em> the canon based on subjective feelings. In reality, it was the <em>books with authority in themselves</em> that just were the standard, or canon. On this view, the early church <em>recognized</em> the canon based on objective facts. This distinction is fundamental to properly understanding the formation of the canon.</p>

<p>Therefore, the church did not give authority <em>to the books</em>. Rather, it merely recognized the authority <em>of the books</em>. And the historical evidence backs this up. It can be demonstrated that the early church was using these four Gospels and ignoring - and even condemning - all the others. In fact, we don’t have a single canonical list from the ancient world that says, for example, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas, <em>or</em> Matthew, Luke, John, and Peter. It’s always the four canonical Gospels <em>without exception</em>.</p>

<p>An evidence for the early recognition of the four canonical Gospels is the <em>Muratorian fragment</em> (also known as the Muratorian canon). Dating back to the late second century (AD 180), the Muratorian fragment lists 22 of the 27 books in the New Testament, including the four Gospels. This shows that the core canon was already present <em>very early</em> in the history of the church. Was there still disagreement about a handful of New Testament books? Yes. But, the church was absolutely unified on the four Gospels.</p>

<p>Second, they are <em>early</em>. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all from the <em>first century</em>. Consequently, they are the earliest Gospels we have. All of the other Gospels date to the second century or later. The four Gospels take us closer to the events of Jesus’&nbsp;life than any other Gospel. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses to the events they recorded were still alive. This provides evidence of the reliability of the four Gospels.</p>

<p>Third, they are <em>apostolic</em>. That is, they were written by an apostle (as in the case of Mathew and John) or by a close companion of an apostle (as in the case of Mark and Luke). If we want a reliable Gospel, we want it to be written by an eyewitness or someone very close to an eyewitness. No one would have known Jesus’&nbsp;life and ministry better than the apostles.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the apostles weren’t merely <em>companions</em> of Jesus; they were <em>commissioned</em> by Jesus.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”&nbsp;(Matt. 28:18-20)</p>

<p>And He appointed twelve (whom He also named apostles) so that they might be with Him and He might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. (Mark 3:14-15)</p>

<p>But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is the backdrop for understanding why the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets”&nbsp;(Eph. 2:20).</p>

<p>Therefore, if a Gospel is to be authoritative, then it must be closely related to an apostle. For example, Luke was not an apostle, but he was a protégé of the apostle Paul. So it is not surprising that Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7). By the way, this is why many later Gospels are falsely attributed to apostles (e.g. the <em>Gospel of Thomas</em> and the <em>Gospel of Peter</em>). Observing the influence apostolic writings had on the early church, forgers used names of apostles to try to gain acceptance.</p>

<p>Finally, they <em>lack embellishment</em>. The later, non-canonical Gospels include legendary and embellished stories, whereas the four canonical Gospels read like real history. Writing at his blog, <a href="https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-2-apocryphal-writings-are-all-written-in-the-second-century-or-later/">Canon Fodder</a>, New Testament scholar Michael Kruger writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Many of these apocryphal writings contain obvious embellishments and legendary additions. For example, in the <em>Gospel of Peter</em>, Jesus emerges from the tomb as a giant whose head reaches the clouds, and he is followed by the cross itself which then speaks.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Contrast this account with the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels. It is interesting that none of the Gospels actually give a description of the resurrection happening. We read about the crucifixion and burial, but we don’t get an account of the resurrection as it’s taking place. When the women show up Sunday morning, the tomb is already empty and the resurrection has already happened. The <em>Gospel of Peter</em> - written in the second century - tries to fill in the gap with an obvious later embellishment.</p>

<p>Can you see why the four canonical Gospels are included in the canon while other Gospels are excluded? There is something special about these books. Always remember why the four Gospels are the REAL Gospels. They are <em>recognized</em>, <em>early, apostolic,</em> and <em>lack obvious embellishments.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-there-are-only-four-real-gospels" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-there-are-only-four-real-gospels" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-there-are-only-four-real-gospels" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Biased Perspective on Pro-Gay Theology
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/13/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-biased-perspective-on-pro-gay-theology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you haven’t&nbsp;seen <a href="http://www.christopheryuan.com" target="_blank">Christopher Yuan</a> share his story and testimony, I encourage you to see it sometime. It’s amazing. I’ve heard it several times since we’ve had him speak at our <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Apologetics conferences</a>. It’s a story of God’s grace and redeeming power.</p>

<p>Christopher spent his early life partying, selling drugs, and satisfying same-sex sexual desires. He had it all, from his perspective. Then everything changed. Federal agents showed up at his door (because of his drug dealing), and he went to prison.</p>

<p>But I’m not trying to tell you his story. Rather, I want to share an interesting thought he had when he was in prison. Although he was given a Bible, he was also given a book explaining how the Bible could be interpreted to affirm homosexuality. If he wanted to become a Christian, here was an easy way to meld his old life with a new faith. He said he had every reason to accept that interpretation and buy that argument. But he didn’t. He said he <em>couldn’t</em>. The argument was too weak and that interpretation too strained, he said. He wasn’t biased <em>against</em> pro-gay theology. If anything, he would have been biased <em>for</em> it. Remember, he wasn’t trying to fit a traditional, conservative Christian mold.</p>

<p>Since his time in prison, he has further studied this question (at the graduate level) and has come to the same conclusion. What an amazing story of how God took hold of a life and transformed it completely!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-biased-perspective-on-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-biased-perspective-on-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-biased-perspective-on-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Proclaiming the Gospel to Palestinians
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/proclaiming-the-gospel-to-palestinians
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If I had the chance to teach Palestinian Christians <em>and Muslims</em> theology and apologetics, would I take it? Absolutely! That’s why I spent a week doing just that. It was one of the most strategic opportunities I’ve had.</p>

<p>I taught in the West Bank. Virtually everyone I spoke to was Palestinian - the majority of them were Christian, and just over 20% were Muslim. I partnered with an organization that provides a premium education and an immersive American-English experience. That’s why many Muslim families are eager to send their children there. For a Palestinian family, this program’s education system provides the potential for their child to eventually study abroad and have a better life.</p>

<p>Teaching Palestinians afforded me two excellent opportunities. First, I provided Arab Christians a better understanding of their faith and evidence for the truth of the Gospel. I taught on subjects like the validity of the Bible, answering the problem of evil, relativism, the resurrection of Jesus, evolution, stem cell research and cloning, and tactics in defending the faith. Because many of these believers are challenged by skeptics, atheists, and Muslims, these subjects helped provide a reasonable defense for their faith and bolster their confidence.</p>

<p>I pray my work there will have more than just immediate effects. It is these very Palestinian believers that will grow up and become teachers, bankers, doctors, and leaders in their community. My hope is that they will be salt and light. In a region with little hope for peace, they will be the peacemakers. They will have the potential to transform their culture for Christ. They will proclaim the Gospel.</p>

<p>The second great opportunity was to speak to Palestinian Muslims. Typically, it’s not possible to go to a Middle Eastern country and openly teach about Jesus, at least not without some serious pushback. But that’s what made this opportunity so special. I was able to present a case for the Christian worldview to Muslims. For example, I was able to explain the reasons we can trust the Bible. Because Muslims believe our Scriptures are corrupted, they reject the true account of Jesus and His Kingdom message from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Therefore, I spent over an hour explaining why we believe the Bible is the word of God and how textual criticism helps us know what the original documents said.</p>

<p>I was also eager to teach about how we know Jesus rose from the grave. That’s significant because Muslims deny the death and resurrection of Jesus and instead believe the Quran’s claim that He ascended into heaven after His ministry was complete. Therefore, I presented the historical evidence that Jesus <em>died</em> and <em>rose again from the grave</em>. Naturally, many Muslims had significant reservations and responded with questions. These questions were welcomed, of course, because it allowed me to continue to clarify the truth while specifically addressing their skepticism.</p>

<p>It was exciting to have multiple opportunities a day, for an entire week, to make a case for the Christian worldview to Muslims. Both topics provided natural segues to the Gospel. After giving evidence for the resurrection, for example, I drew the following conclusion: If a dead man rose, then dead men rise. If Jesus was resurrected, then we will be resurrected as well (Rom. 8:11). After our death, we will come to life again, face God, and be held accountable for what we’ve done. If we’re found to be guilty of crimes against God (which, obviously, we all are), then we will either be either punished or pardoned. If, during our lifetime, we accepted God’s pardon through Christ, then God will forgive us...Otherwise, we will remain guilty and pay for the crimes ourselves. When it came to the trustworthiness of the Bible, I provided a similar Gospel presentation.</p>

<p>I am grateful to God for this opportunity. I’m praying that I was able to plant many seeds and water those that were planted by other Christian workers before me.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fproclaiming-the-gospel-to-palestinians" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fproclaiming-the-gospel-to-palestinians" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fproclaiming-the-gospel-to-palestinians" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Doing Church Biblically Can Be Messy
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/27/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/doing-church-biblically-can-be-messy
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was in Jerusalem two weeks ago and happened to meet a pastor through a friend. We sat down over dinner and chatted about his ministry back in the United States. He told me that a lesbian couple had been attending his church because they enjoyed the culture of his congregation and felt welcomed and loved.</p>

<p>Recently, however, the couple asked him to officiate their wedding. In an attempt to respond both truthfully and graciously, he asked the couple to meet him at his office to discuss their request and his answer and then go out for dinner. During the office meeting, the pastor explained how grateful he was that they felt welcomed by his church community, expressed how much he enjoyed being their pastor, and told them how he loved them. But because of clear biblical teaching on the matter of sex and marriage, he told them he couldn’t officiate their ceremony.</p>

<p>No doubt the couple was hurt by this response, but they continued with the evening’s plan to go out to dinner with the pastor and his wife. The couple didn’t return to church the following weekend, and the pastor told me that although he was saddened, he wasn’t surprised they didn’t come back. A few months later, though, the lesbian couple began attending his church again. The pastor asked why they came back, and they said they loved his church and felt more connected there than at other ones they had tried.</p>

<p>Here’s why I mention this. Doing church in a <em>biblical</em> way is often messy, difficult, and uncomfortable. There are many easier approaches this pastor could take with his church, none of which are biblical. For example, he could harp on homosexuality, never address other sexual sins, and make people with same-sex attraction feel unwelcome. Perhaps this lesbian couple would never make this church their home, and the pastor would be done with them. There would be no need for a messy conversation about sexual ethics and whether church attenders (but not members) need to abide by them. That would be easier on him and the congregation.</p>

<p>The pastor could take another approach. He could simply affirm homosexual behavior and deem it morally permissible. He could claim the biblical authors didn’t really know about loving, consensual homosexual relationships, and therefore Scripture doesn’t condemn gay relationships today. The lesbian couple would feel affirmed and welcomed at this church. There would be no difficult conversation about the sinful nature of homosexual sex. This would be easier on him and the congregation.</p>

<p>But biblical living is not about doing things the easy way. It <em>can</em> be easy, but many times it isn’t. Instead of choosing either of these easy routes, the pastor chose the biblical route, the more messy, difficult, and uncomfortable route. He chose to uphold biblical standards of sexuality <em>and</em> do his best to show love and compassion. In this case, the lesbian couple did return, and the way this story will unfold is still to be determined (let’s pray for a positive outcome).</p>

<p>But I’ve heard this same story unfold quite differently, where the lesbian couple doesn’t return. That’s because the biblical approach doesn’t always result in the outcome we want. What’s important, though, is that the pastor leads his congregation in a biblical way - a way that’s faithful to God. It would certainly be <em>easier</em> to either push the lesbian couple away or compromise biblical morals, but that’s not what we’re called to do. We’re called to do church God’s way, even if it’s the more messy, difficult, and uncomfortable way.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoing-church-biblically-can-be-messy" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoing-church-biblically-can-be-messy" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoing-church-biblically-can-be-messy" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Teaching Worldview to Kids
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/teaching-worldview-to-kids
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This week I had the opportunity to give a chapel talk at <a href="http://innovaacademy.ca/">Innova Academy</a>. This opportunity presented two unique challenges. <em>First</em>, I had a young audience. Innova is currently a kindergarten-to-eighth-grade school, which means the material I presented needed to be accessible. <em>Second</em>, I had limited time. I had less than 15 minutes to give my talk.</p>

<p>To make matters worse, I was determined to talk about a substantial subject: <em>worldview</em>. That’s right, folks. My goal was to teach worldview to kids.</p>

<p>Of course, it would have been much easier if I just told a quick Bible story and wrapped up with personal application. And there would have been nothing wrong with that. However, I wanted to address a fundamental need - a need many of our students don’t even know they have. Many of our students lack a <em>Christian</em> worldview. But this doesn’t mean they don’t have a worldview. <em>Everyone</em> has a worldview. What this means is they have a <em>non-Christian</em> worldview that will inevitably lead to their disconnection from the church.</p>

<p>In his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/You-Lost-Me-Christians-Rethinking/dp/0801015898">You Lost Me</a>, president of <a href="https://www.barna.com/">Barna Group</a> David Kinnaman writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I think the next generation’s disconnection stems ultimately from the failure of the church to impart Christianity as a comprehensive way of understanding reality and fully living in today’s culture...Our research shows that most young people lack a deep understanding of their faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Kinnaman pulls no punches. The church has failed to equip the next generation with a Christian worldview.</p>

<p>We need to do something about it. But what?</p>

<p>Well, it may help if our students understand what a worldview is and why it matters. So this became my goal. Here’s what I did.</p>

<p>I began by asking the students a question: <em>what is Christianity?</em></p>

<p>A question like this is going to get a plethora of answers. Some think it’s a <em>religious system</em> with commandments to follow. And that’s technically correct. Others might push back and argue that Christianity is a <em>relationship</em>. And that’s true too. Christianity entails a personal relationship with God. These are <em>true</em> enough. But they don’t go <em>far</em> enough.</p>

<p>Each of these looks at Christianity <em>from the inside</em>. That is, from the perspective of how a Christian lives out his personal faith.</p>

<p>But Christianity is more than that. What do I mean? It is not <em>merely</em> a view about personal faith and Christian living. It’s <em>also</em> a view of the world in general - a view about where the universe and human beings came from, a view about the meaning of life, a view about where evil came from, a view about where human value and rights come from, a view about what God is like, etc.</p>

<p>That is why I think Christianity is best described <em>as a worldview</em>.</p>

<p>Of course, this raises a further question: what is a worldview?</p>

<p>Simply put, a worldview is your view of the world. It is a <em>set of beliefs</em> that tell you what the world is like. It is your picture of reality.</p>

<p>To illustrate this concept, I had my six-year-old daughter draw a picture of the earth, and I placed it on a slide beside a photograph of the earth. The drawing is the picture of reality that my daughter had in her mind. So there is the drawing, and there is the <em>actual</em> earth. And we can evaluate the drawing - whether it’s good or bad - based on how well it matches up with the real image of the earth.</p>

<p>In the same way, Christianity is a description - or picture - of how the world really is.</p>

<p>Next, I went even deeper.</p>

<p>A worldview is a lot like <em>geographical</em> map. Think about the <em>purpose</em> of a map. A good map tells you the lay of the land. It attempts to inform you about what the world is like - where roads, rivers, lakes, and cities are located.</p>

<p>After putting a roadmap of Italy on the screen, I asked the students, “How do you know if this is a <em>good</em> map?”</p>

<p>One student responded, “A map is a good map if it describes reality <em>accurately</em>.”</p>

<p>He was right. We know we have a good map <em>if</em> it matches up with reality. Next, I showed them what Italy <em>really</em> looks like by using a satellite image taken from space. Each student could see that this was a good map.</p>

<p>But not all maps accurately describe reality. To illustrate my point, I placed another roadmap on the screen. This time it was Iceland, not Italy. Like the map of Italy, it contained roads, rivers, lakes, and cities. However, every student could tell that <em>this map</em> was not a good map of Italy. In fact, if you took this map with you to Italy, you would get lost.</p>

<p>In the same way, a worldview is a <em>good</em> worldview if it describes the world accurately. Conversely, if your worldview does not accurately match up with reality, then you have a <em>bad</em> worldview. And following a bad worldview - like following a bad map - will have consequences.</p>

<p>Just as a map makes claims about reality, the Christian worldview makes claims about reality. For example, the Christian worldview teaches that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. That’s what Easter is all about. In fact, this belief is fundamental to salvation. Paul says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”&nbsp;(Rom. 10:9).</p>

<p>But all other major worldviews hold that Jesus <em>did not</em> rise bodily from the dead. He died and stayed dead.</p>

<p>So, how do we know which worldview is right? Check reality. If there is good evidence that Jesus <em>actually</em> rose from the dead, but your worldview holds that He didn’t, then you have a bad worldview. And this has serious consequences because believing in the death-defeating, resurrected Jesus is the only way to be saved.</p>

<p>If we want to help our students to successfully navigate this culture, they need worldview training. And we need to start early. How early? Well, both my four-year-old and my six-year-old were in that chapel. As a result, they are both in a better position of understanding the importance of having a worldview that matches up with reality. My prayer is that this will serve as a foundation as they come to see that the Christian worldview is true and put their trust in Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-worldview-to-kids" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-worldview-to-kids" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-worldview-to-kids" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How I Pray...Even When It’s Hard
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/31/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-i-pray-even-when-it-s-hard
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Prayer is hard. When “Amazing Grace”&nbsp;hymnist, John Newton, observed that we are dragged before God like slaves and we run away like thieves, he was talking about prayer. “I find myself so unwilling to engage in it,”&nbsp;he lamented. When Tim Keller wrote, “I can think of nothing great that is also easy,”&nbsp;he was writing about prayer.</p>

<p>For me, consistent prayer has always been a battle, a fight. One of the most difficult things for fallen people to do is to come to God on bent knees with empty hands; as one put it, “I am loath to come to prayer, and when I’m there I am loath to stay.”</p>

<p>Yet some things cannot be put off. I cannot pray today’s prayers tomorrow. Tomorrow has its own demands. Disciples follow disciplines - tasks they wrestle with each day, every day. Making peace with that fact was a step toward my own consistency.</p>

<p>Since connecting with God in intimate friendship is vital for survival, I thought you might like to know, briefly, how I pray, however feebly, in my own labor to connect with God - not to hold myself up as a model, but to offer a hand, a modest guide, an encouragement to a fellow sojourner. Here is what I do. Here is how I pray.</p>

<p>The impulse at first is to hurry (so much to do), to run my request list and move on. But I resist it. Instead, I start by quieting myself and connecting. I reach out to the Lord, almost always with the words, “Father, hallowed be Thy name.”&nbsp;It’s a beginning, an embrace, an initiation of intimacy - “Father. You are holy. I am not. I need You.”</p>

<p>The reason I settle my body and my mind to focus on God - daily, ideally - is to attach to Him, to honor Him, to plead with Him, to devote myself to Him. That is my need. I don’t always succeed in connecting deeply, yet still <em>I</em> first reach to <em>Him</em>. That’s the beginning - “Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you”&nbsp;(Ja. 4:8).</p>

<p>Next I sing a hymn, a song sweet to me with words that come from my heart, expressing my hunger, my desire, my love, my dependence - or maybe extolling a Divine virtue. I find older music more satisfying. Lately, one favorite is the chorus to “’Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus,”&nbsp;with lyrics altered to sing <em>to</em> Him, not <em>about</em> Him: “Jesus, Jesus, how I trust <em>You</em>, how I need You more and more...Oh for strength to trust You more.”</p>

<p>Next, I open my copy of <em>Valley of Vision</em>, a collection of short Puritan prayers. I read aloud, praying one prayer only - slowly, thoughtfully, intentionally - modifying the words here and there to match my own intentions and theology, making it my own, applying it to my personal circumstances and expanding on it as I like.</p>

<p>My next supplication starts with some form of “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.”&nbsp;I want God to make changes, and the first place the Kingdom needs to descend is in my own life, and in my home with my own family. Here I get specific citing my own failings and inadequacies, asking God to change me in the ways I’m aware I clearly must change. If I need to admit wrong, or plead for strength, or beg for sanctification in me, this is the time.</p>

<p>Next comes my family - my wife, my girls. I do battle for my family, praying God’s Kingdom for those who are mine. “Deliver us from evil,”&nbsp;Jesus taught us to pray. That is what I ask for my own, noting specific areas where I see struggle or particular needs that must be met - conflicts, shortcomings, desires, hopes - all for my own.</p>

<p>From there I move to others - the urgent, pressing needs of friends first, usually - or to more general concerns I’m aware of. Finally, I pray for help with the specific tasks ahead of me that day - my “daily bread,”&nbsp;so to speak.</p>

<p>I exit simply by devoting myself and my day to God, closing with the short doxology at the end of the Lord’s prayer, or with David’s parting benediction in Ps. 19: “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer,”&nbsp;or with something else meaningful. It’s up to you.</p>

<p>That’s the basic pattern. I don’t do each thing every time I pray - sometimes I leave steps out - but the sequence connects me to God, gets me moving, and keeps me on track. If anything feels mechanical or rote, I stop, refocus, then start that part over.</p>

<p>At times, though, I abandon the plan entirely. Some issues are so pressing the prayers gush out spontaneously with feeling and intensity, and I don’t want an imposed pattern to impede my connection with God when that happens. I just let it go.</p>

<p>The structure is not rigid, but a tool, a guideline, an approach. It helps when I pray aloud, but not always. Sometimes I simply whisper, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me”&nbsp;over and over since they’re the only words I can muster.</p>

<p>Remember, the first rule of prayer is to pray - action always beats intention. Second, attachment to God is the goal. It’s where the life is - in Him, not in a method.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-pray-even-when-it-s-hard" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-pray-even-when-it-s-hard" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-i-pray-even-when-it-s-hard" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can There Be Any Meaning in a Universe without God?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-there-be-any-meaning-in-a-universe-without-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has released a new video explaining why the existence of God is necessary for meaning to exist and responding to the common challenges atheists offer against this claim.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="NKGnXgH_CzE" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKGnXgH_CzE?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>See more Reasonable Faith videos:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument#.WoZoEJOplR1">The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/could-%E2%80%9Cgood%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cevil%E2%80%9D-exist-without-god#.WoZhqJOplR0">The Moral Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-finely-tuned-universe-necessity-chance-or-design#.WoZoG5OplR1">The Fine-Tuning Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-contingency-argument#.WoZoB5OplR1">The Contingency Argument</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-there-be-any-meaning-in-a-universe-without-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-there-be-any-meaning-in-a-universe-without-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-there-be-any-meaning-in-a-universe-without-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Aussie Apologetics
topic: Announcements
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/14/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/aussie-apologetics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I just returned from the land of kangaroos and koala bears, otherwise known as the land down under. I spent eight days teaching theology and apologetics in Victoria, Australia. It was a privilege and delight to partner with my Australian brothers and sisters in Christ and equip them for the defense of the Gospel.</p>

<p>Besides realizing that Aussies shorten nearly every word in the English language (e.g. breakfast is brekky, mosquito is mozzie, etc.), I also learned that they don’t hold the same negative view of apologetics that some American Christians do. There wasn’t a jaded belief about apologetics, thinking it’s argumentative, academic, and unnecessary to the Gospel. In fact, they welcome it because of the increasingly secular culture.</p>

<p>Victoria, the Australian state I taught in, is particularly hostile to Christian values. In 2008, they passed a radical abortion bill that legalized abortion up until birth. They also recently made provisions for physician-assisted suicide. And within the last few months, Australia voted to legalize same-sex marriage (SSM).</p>

<p>During these sweeping changes in public policy (and especially during the SSM debate), believers told me they experienced a tremendous amount of hostility, name-calling, and intimidation from SSM advocates when they tried to discuss it. That’s why they were hungry for apologetics. They wanted practical training to help them communicate their convictions in a persuasive yet gracious way.</p>

<p>The group I spent most of my time with had previously been trained in evangelism, had studied Koukl’s <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316" target="_blank"><em>Tactics</em></a> book, and had consumed a steady diet of Stand to Reason material prior to my arrival. They were prepared and eager to learn even more. I look forward to returning in the future. Please join me in praying for them to be faithful ambassadors for Christ in the land down under.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faussie-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faussie-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faussie-apologetics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Faith Isn’t a Way of Knowing; It’s a Way of Trusting
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/15/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/faith-isn-t-a-way-of-knowing-it-s-a-way-of-trusting
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are different ways we gain knowledge of God. For instance, we can know God through the created world (general revelation) and through the inspired word (special revelation). We can <em>also</em> know God through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit apart from external evidences.</p>

<p>Whatever the means by which someone comes to know God, the order is always the same: knowledge of God <em>precedes</em> faith in God. That is, knowledge leads people to put their faith in God. Let’s look at one example from the Old Testament.</p>

<p>At a pivotal time in Israel’s history, God appears to Moses in the burning bush. God instructs Moses to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, “The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, please let us go a three days’&nbsp;journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God”&nbsp;(Ex. 3:18). Uncertain as to why anyone would listen to him, Moses says, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ’The Lord did not appear to you’”&nbsp;(Ex. 4:1). God’s response is pertinent to the biblical relationship of knowledge and belief:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”&nbsp;He said, “A staff.”&nbsp;And he said, “Throw it on the ground.”&nbsp;So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it. But the Lord said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail”&nbsp;- so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand - “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”&nbsp;(Ex. 4:2-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God gives Moses powerful miracles to perform as evidence that God appeared to him. Greg Koukl notes in “<a href="/w/faith-is-not-wishing">Faith Is Not Wishing</a>,”&nbsp;“What God <em>didn’t</em> say in response is as important as what He <em>did</em> say. He didn’t say, ’Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to take this on blind faith.’”&nbsp;Instead, God gives Pharaoh and the people good evidence to believe. So belief follows from what we have good reason to think we know.</p>

<p>Here’s another way of putting it: <em>biblical faith is trust based on knowledge grounded in evidence.</em></p>

<p>Given the clear teaching of Scripture, it’s astonishing that some atheists <em>mischaracterize</em> the relationship between faith and knowledge. For example, philosopher Peter Boghossian defines faith as “pretending to know what you don’t know”&nbsp;in his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1518648045&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+manual+for+creating+atheists&amp;dpID=41MchZGqb3L&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">A Manual for Creating Atheists</a></em>. For Boghossian - and many other so-called “street epistemologists”&nbsp;- faith is a way of knowing. In philosophy, this is called epistemology.</p>

<p>However, faith is <em>not</em> an epistemology. Responding to Boghossian in his weekly podcast, <em>Reasonable Faith,</em> philosopher <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/a-manual-for-creating-atheists/">William Lane Craig said</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This is so fundamental. This is a watershed. He [Boghossian] says that faith is an unreliable epistemology. He wants to make faith an epistemological category instead of a moral virtue. It is right there that we need to dig in our heels and say this is a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is not an epistemological category...Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. So it is once you have come to believe that something is true using reliable epistemological means that you can then place your faith or trust in that thing. To do so is a virtue.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So faith and knowledge are connected, but they are not the same thing. They are in completely different categories. Faith is <em>not</em> a way of knowing. Rather, faith is a way of trusting in what you know to be true.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-isn-t-a-way-of-knowing-it-s-a-way-of-trusting" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-isn-t-a-way-of-knowing-it-s-a-way-of-trusting" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-isn-t-a-way-of-knowing-it-s-a-way-of-trusting" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God’s Wrath Is His Love Reacting to Evil
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/07/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-s-wrath-is-his-love-reacting-to-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Delighting-Trinity-Introduction-Christian-Faith/dp/0830839836/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">Delighting in the Trinity</a></em>, Michael Reeves explains how God’s triune nature relates to His love and wrath. As three Persons eternally in communion, God <em>is</em> love. It’s essential to His nature. Expressions of wrath, on the other hand, are not essential to His nature. Rather, He did not express any wrath until after creation and the fall, when His love reacted to sin and evil in the world.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>With this [triune] God, it is not as if sometimes he <em>has</em> love and sometimes he <em>has</em> wrath, as if those are different moods so that when he’s feeling one he’s not feeling the other. No, for all eternity the Father was loving his Son, but never once was he angry. Why? Because there was nothing to be angry with until Adam sinned in Genesis 3. So God’s anger at evil from Genesis 3 onward is a <em>new</em> thing: it is how the God who is love responds to evil.</p>

<p>Like God’s holiness, then, his wrath is not something that sits awkwardly next to his love. Nor is it something unrelated to his love. God is angry at evil <em>because</em> he loves. Isaiah speaks of the pouring out of God’s wrath as his “<em>strange</em> work,”&nbsp;his “<em>alien</em> task”&nbsp;(Is 28:21), because it is not that God is naturally angry, but that evil provokes him: in his pure love, God cannot tolerate evil. That makes complete sense to me as a father: if I could twiddle my thumbs and yawn while my daughters suffered, it would prove I didn’t really love them; but precisely <em>because</em> I so love them I hate the thought of anything evil befalling them. How much more is it so with the Father of lights, in whom there is no darkness at all. Love cares, and that means it cannot be indifferent to evil. “<em>Love</em> must be sincere. <em>Hate</em> what is evil; cling to what is good”&nbsp;(Rom 12:9). Only such love is sincere...</p>

<p>[W]ith the God who is eternally love [as a result of His triune nature], his anger must rise <em>from</em> that love. Thus his anger is holy, set apart from our temper-tantrums; it is how he in his love reacts to evil. The Father loves his Son, and so hates sin, which ultimately is rejection of the Son; he loves his children, and so hates their being oppressed; he loves his world, and so hates all evil in it. Thus in his love he roots out sin in his people, even disciplining them that they might be freed from their captivity to it. In his love he is patient with us. And in his love he promises finally to destroy all evil as light destroys darkness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If, when you think of God, you picture a being who is primarily angry with sinful human beings, you have missed the Christian God. His triune nature makes Him different from all other conceptions of gods. He is love because He is three Persons who love, without beginning and without end. And we see His love interact and react in all sorts of ways with those who are outside Himself. His wrath is simply what happens when He, a being of love, encounters our evil.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-wrath-is-his-love-reacting-to-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-wrath-is-his-love-reacting-to-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-wrath-is-his-love-reacting-to-evil" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Is Truth?
topic: Philosophy
author: Aaron Brake
date: 02/06/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-truth-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“What is truth?”&nbsp;Pontius Pilate wasn’t the first, or the last, to ask this.</p>

<p>The question, at first blush, may sound profound. In reality, I think we all know the answer to this age-old inquiry. I say that because we presuppose a certain definition of truth in our speech and actions every day of our lives. Perhaps the problem is <em>not</em> that we do not know what truth is but rather that we <em>do not know that we know</em>. In other words, we may not be confident in our knowledge of what truth is because we struggle to articulate a definition. But this is easily remedied if we take a few moments to reflect on the nature of truth.</p>

<h2>Three Views on Truth</h2>

<p>Historically, there have been three dominant theories of truth put forth by philosophers:<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>First, there is the <strong>pragmatic theory</strong> of truth: <em>truth is what works</em>. Three major problems with this view are as follows:</p>

<p><em>Problem #1</em>: The view seems counterintuitive. For example, there are some true beliefs which are not very useful (e.g., the belief that my cat has grey and white fur), and some false beliefs which may turn out to be very useful (e.g., my false belief that people actually read my articles is useful motivation to continue writing them).</p>

<p><em>Problem #2</em>: The view is self-defeating. If truth is what works, then the pragmatic theory itself must not be true, since most philosophers throughout the ages have not held to the pragmatic theory (i.e., it didn’t “work”&nbsp;for them) but rather have found the correspondence theory to be much more useful!</p>

<p><em>Problem #3</em>: The view implies relativism. Imagine two individuals who hold contradictory beliefs. On the pragmatic view, as long as these contradictory beliefs are useful for the respective individuals who hold them, we would have to conclude they are both true. But if that is the case, then truth is relative, a view which itself is untenable and self-refuting.</p>

<p>Second, there is the <strong>coherence theory</strong> of truth: <em>truth is logical consistency (coherence) among a set of beliefs an individual holds</em>. Three major problems with this view are as follows:</p>

<p><em>Problem #1</em>: This view implies that contradictory propositions can be true. On this view, it is possible for two different people to hold contradictory beliefs yet for both beliefs to be “true”&nbsp;as long as these beliefs cohere with each individual’s web of belief respectively. This leads to the absurd notion that contradictory propositions can both be true.</p>

<p><em>Problem #2</em>: For the same reasons as problem #1, and like the pragmatic view, this view implies relativism. On the coherence view, what is true is relative to each individual’s belief system. Two contradictory beliefs may both be “true”&nbsp;as long as they cohere with their respective systems. But relativism is false; therefore, like the pragmatic view, the coherence theory must be rejected.</p>

<p><em>Problem #3</em>: This view, like the pragmatic view, seems counterintuitive. The reason is that the coherence theory cuts the knower off from the real world. What is true is not what matches reality but rather what coheres within a given system of belief. But most people intuitively understand that truth has something to do with the way the world really is.</p>

<p>Coherence is important but not enough. It is a necessary condition for truth but by itself is not sufficient.</p>

<p>Finally, there is the <strong>correspondence theory</strong> of truth: <em>truth is when an idea, belief, or statement matches (or corresponds with) the way the world actually is (reality).</em></p>

<p>This may rightly be labeled the “common sense”&nbsp;view of truth. While not taught explicitly in Scripture, it is assumed throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The correspondence theory of truth states that an idea, belief, or statement is true if it matches, or corresponds with, reality. In this sense, reality is the truth-maker, and the idea, belief, or statement is the truth-bearer. When the truth-bearer (an idea) matches the truth-maker (reality), they are said to stand in an “appropriate correspondence relationship,”&nbsp;and truth obtains.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Consider the following statements:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Donald Trump is the current President of the United States.</li>
	<li>The city of Los Angeles is located in California.</li>
	<li>Elective abortion kills an innocent human being.</li>
</ol>

<p>Are these statements <em>true</em>? They are if, in fact, they match reality. Statement number 1 is true if, in reality, Donald Trump is the current President of the United States. Statement 2 is true if, in fact, the city of Los Angeles is located in California. And statement 3 is true if elective abortion really does kill an innocent human being. Easy enough, right? Aristotle put it this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>A Case for Correspondence</h2>

<p>Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland notes two main arguments which have been advanced in favor of the correspondence theory of truth: the descriptive and the dialectical.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The descriptive argument simply presents specific cases that help illustrate the concept of truth. For example, in Moreland’s bookstore case, an individual named Joe has the thought “Richard Swinburne’s book <em>The Evolution of the Soul</em> is in the bookstore.”&nbsp;When Joe enters the bookstore and sees the book, he actually experiences truth, a correspondence relation between his thought and reality. Again, this is the “common sense”&nbsp;definition of truth since it is the view we all presuppose in our daily actions and speech; i.e., everyone assumes the correspondence theory of truth when reading a medicine label or dialing a phone number.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> This leads to the second argument.</p>

<p>The dialectical argument asserts that those who deny the correspondence theory of truth or present alternative theories actually presuppose the very thing they reject, showing the self-defeating nature and incoherence of their alternative view. Moreland presents this argument in the form of a dilemma:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Those who reject the correspondence theory either take their own utterances to be true in the correspondence sense or they do not. If the former, then those utterances are self-defeating. If the latter, there is no reason to accept them, because one cannot take their utterances to be true.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, either a proposed view of truth corresponds to reality or it does not. If it does, the arguer presupposes the correspondence view, the very thing he rejects when arguing for an alternative view. On the other hand, if a proposed view does not correspond to reality, then we have no reason to accept it.</p>

<p>In short, denying the correspondence theory of truth is an implicit admission that one’s view should not be taken seriously, for only a view which matches the way things really are is worthy of our attention and belief. Contrary to the postmodern adage, truth is not “stranger than it used to be.”&nbsp;Rather, truth is what we have taken it to be all along, what we assume it to be every day.</p>

<h2>Correspondence and the Christian</h2>

<p>Is the correspondence theory of truth optional for Christians? I don’t think so. The apostle Paul stated,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:14-15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Our belief in the resurrection is not true simply because it works for us (the pragmatic view) nor because it is consistent with our web of Christian belief (the coherence view). The Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ is true because it is an objective fact of history that corresponds with reality! Indeed, how could the early Christians point to the empty tomb as verifiable evidence of the resurrection unless, in fact, the tomb was empty? Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis concludes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, the correspondence view of truth is not simply one of many options for Christians. It is the only biblically and logically grounded view of truth available and allowable. We neglect or deny it to our peril and disgrace.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">The following summaries and critiques are taken from Steven B. Cowan and James S. Spiegel, <em>The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy</em> (Nashville: B&amp;H, 2009), 35-45.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">J.P. Moreland, <em>Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 80.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Aristotle, <em>Metaphysics</em>, book 4, chapter 7.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Moreland, <em>Kingdom Triangle</em>, 81-82.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">See R. Scott Smith, <em>Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church</em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 174-180.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Moreland, <em>Kingdom Triangle</em>, 82.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Douglas Groothuis, <em>Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism</em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 110.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: It All Comes Back to God
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/it-all-comes-back-to-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s a reason the Bible begins the way it does. Notice the first verse: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”&nbsp;(Gen. 1:1). God is there before anything begins, and He starts it all. Without Him, there would be nothing. The universe and everything in it is His kingdom. He’s the King, and it’s His domain.</p>

<p>The rest of the Bible that follows from that verse is predicated on the idea that there is a God. Every creature is His. Every natural law is His. Every moral truth is His. Without Him, we have no foundation for our theology, ethics, or values. Everything can be traced back to Him.</p>

<p>This has significant implications for what we believe. Nothing makes sense without first acknowledging God exists and has made all things. Remembering that can help us better understand discussions with people who don’t share our religious convictions.</p>

<p>I often find myself talking to skeptics about morality. They are astonished that I would uphold certain sexual ethics, for example. In one sense, I understand their bewilderment. Biblical morality can appear archaic or unnecessarily limiting if it seems to be without just cause. If there’s a God who made us, though, then His moral rules are timeless, relevant, and justified.</p>

<p>This is why it’s often pointless to justify a sexual ethic on its own merit when talking to a skeptic. If you want to show that the ethic is good, you can predicate its reasonableness on the existence of God. That’s because all things come back to God. Let me offer a few examples.</p>

<p><strong>Abortion</strong>: Christians believe abortion is a serious moral crime because it kills an innocent human being. Many non-Christians, though, believe abortion is morally permissible. They’re mystified as to the reason we hold our view. If you think about it, though, abortion is wrong because there’s a God who says human life is intrinsically valuable. Therefore, the wrongness of abortion is ultimately grounded in the existence of God. Without Genesis 1:1, there’s no God, no one made in His image, and nothing wrong with killing an innocent human being. As you can see with abortion (or any other bioethical issue), it all comes back to God.</p>

<p><strong>Homosexuality</strong>: Christians believe that homosexual behavior is sin. Most people in society, however, vigorously disagree with us. Conversations on the subject can result in a fruitless back and forth: “Homosexuality is wrong,”&nbsp;“No, it’s not,”&nbsp;“Yes, it is,”&nbsp;etc.</p>

<p>This matter, though, also comes back to God. One could ask, “If you believed there was a God who created and designed us, invented sex for men and women, and communicated His plan to humanity, would it matter to you what He said about homosexuality?”&nbsp;If they don’t agree, then no discussion about the morality of homosexual behavior will matter. After all, they don’t even grant that the God who made us (if they even believed in Him) would have the authority to guide their thinking on the subject. If, however, they believe it <em>would</em> matter what God said if He existed, then perhaps a discussion about God would be logically prior to a discussion about what He said about sex and homosexuality.</p>

<p>The point I’m making is that our sexual ethics are ultimately predicated on God’s existence. If there is no God, then there are no morals to tell us how to conduct sexual expression. Again, it all comes back to God.</p>

<p><strong>Is Jesus the only way?</strong> The Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven is offensive to many non-Christians. We’re told it’s arrogant to suggest that other religions aren’t also a legitimate path to God.</p>

<p>The claim that Jesus is the only way, however, is not a man-made claim. Christians didn’t think of it. It was Jesus who boldly proclaimed, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”&nbsp;(John 14:6). Christians simply follow His teaching.</p>

<p>As you can see, even the exclusivity of Jesus comes back to God. If there is only one God, then He alone determines the terms to enter heaven. If He decides that everyone must be pardoned and the only way to receive a pardon is to become Jesus’&nbsp;disciple, then that becomes the only way to heaven. If there were another God, then perhaps there would be other terms. But since only one God exists, there’s only one way.</p>

<p>Recognizing that our beliefs and values all come back to God reminds us that He is our foundation. It all starts with the first verse, “In the beginning, God...”&nbsp;and all things follow from there.</p>

<p>There are also practical ramifications. Sometimes we get distracted by the details of our faith when we’re talking to people who don’t share our convictions. We end up debating secondary issues (I don’t mean unimportant ones). Instead, sometimes we need to back up and talk about the more foundational belief that there’s a God and everything is ultimately grounded in Him.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-all-comes-back-to-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-all-comes-back-to-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-all-comes-back-to-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Do We Do Now That Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-do-we-do-now-that-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Australia recently legalized same-sex marriage (SSM). Many Australian believers, who opposed the new legislation, were met with angry attitudes and nasty name-calling leading up to the vote. They tried to share their convictions in a civil manner but were often met with hostility. Then the legislation passed, SSM became law, and they were faced with a new cultural landscape.</p>

<p>I just returned from Victoria, Australia a few weeks ago. I was invited partly because of the national debate over SSM. Many believers were eager to get equipped to understand the subject, the rational arguments for and against their view, and the art of persuasive - yet civil - dialogue with people who disagree with them. I spent eight days teaching theology and apologetics on numerous subjects but also addressed the public policy concerns with SSM.</p>

<p>One question I was asked was, <em>Now that same-sex marriage has become legal, what do we do?</em> Many Americans asked a similar question after SSM was legalized in the United States in 2015. My answer is that we should do the same thing Christians did when abortion became legal.</p>

<p>It’s true that many pro-life Christians were despondent after Roe v. Wade. But they didn’t just sulk in their misery. They regrouped, prayed for wisdom, and put together a strategy to save unborn lives and support women facing crisis pregnancies. Despite abortion remaining legal, pro-lifers started numerous pro-life organizations that are committed to training people to persuasively yet graciously make a case that abortion kills innocent human beings. They have speakers, video curriculums, workbooks, textbooks, and hands-on training that equip believers to change minds on abortion. By changing minds, they can change public opinion. By changing public opinion, they can change public policy.</p>

<p>Realizing that changing laws can also save lives, pro-lifers invested in legal and legislative groups that fight against abortion rights. They put their money where their mouth was and petitioned to pass parental notification and fetal pain laws, institute waiting periods before abortions, and ban grisly abortion procedures. Of course, making elective abortion illegal would be a great legislative victory, but in the meantime, they knew they could still save lives with other legislation.</p>

<p>Finally, pro-lifers didn’t only care about <em>unborn</em> people. They decided to also care about <em>born</em> people - vulnerable women considering abortion. To accomplish that end, pregnancy resource centers (AKA crisis pregnancy centers) began popping up across the country. These facilities provide counseling, medical services, diapers, clothing, and other support to pregnant women who have nowhere to turn. Some of these centers even find housing for women if they need it during their pregnancy. Today there are around 3,000 centers in the USA that care for women, far more than the 1,000 or so abortion clinics that would kill their unborn children.</p>

<p>Notice how after abortion became legal, Christians sought to change minds through rational arguments, change laws through legislation, and care for women who are, or potentially are, abortion-minded. Today, the pro-life movement is surging, and despite the current legal landscape, there is hope that more unborn lives can be saved each year.</p>

<p>Australians (and Americans) faced with legalized SSM can take a cue from the pro-life movement. Despite the political loss, Christians can still serve, minister to, and love people who identify as LGBT or who are married to a same-sex person. And they can make headway in the same categories that the pro-life movement did.</p>

<p>Believers can learn how to make a persuasive case against SSM by not only understanding the biblical arguments against it (to address Christians who support SSM) but also the secular arguments (to address secular individuals). Furthermore, even though the legislative process is in its infancy, there is still a legitimate case to be made against SSM that draws upon many public policy concerns with the law. Finally, believers can reach out to friends and family who identify as gay or lesbian and show them the love of God. Whether these men and women are married to a same-sex partner or not, the Gospel can reach any heart. In fact, we’ve seen people in a committed same-sex relationship accept Christ, become convicted of their sin, end their relationship, and pursue God with every fiber of their being. Whether SSM is legal or not, believers can still make a huge impact in the lives of people in the gay community.</p>

<p>That’s not only the message I gave to Australians; it’s the message I offer to anyone who’s lost hope because a political process or legislation didn’t go their way. The Gospel isn’t hindered by human laws. The government can’t shut down the work of the Holy Spirit. No matter the political landscape, individual believers can reach out to those who don’t know Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-do-we-do-now-that-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-do-we-do-now-that-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-do-we-do-now-that-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Apologetics Can Fuel the Spiritual Disciplines
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/07/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-apologetics-can-fuel-the-spiritual-disciplines
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many years ago, when I first started to seriously memorize the Bible, I decided to begin memorizing Proverbs. Spending that amount of time on anything is somewhat of a risk, and I felt vulnerable as I considered the task. Is it worth it? Will I really be changed by it? Are the proverbs entirely true and wise? Am I willing to submit to everything I find there, even when it conflicts with my personal ideas and habits? In order to move ahead, I had to make a conscious decision to put the full weight of my trust in God’s wisdom.</p>

<p>This morning, as I was reading Donald Whitney’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Disciplines-Christian-Donald-Whitney/dp/1615216170/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1520443227&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=spiritual+disciplines+for+the+christian+life&amp;dpID=51-XjG42PML&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life</a></em> and considering my need to increase my time in prayer, I found myself hesitating, asking myself the same questions of trust: Will God really hear me? Will my prayers make a difference? Am I willing to put the full weight of my trust in His words about prayer - enough to devote a significant amount of time to it?</p>

<h2>Finding Out What We Really Believe</h2>

<p>When our Christian ideas meet real life, and we’re faced with putting our money where our mouth is, that is where we find out what we really believe. The Christian life requires trust in God - that is, <em>faith</em>. In order to intentionally conform our minds to His through Bible reading, memorization, and meditation, we have to trust in the value of His Word. If we’re going to spend time, not acting, but <em>asking</em> through prayer for God to act, we have to trust that He is there and that He truly uses prayer as a means to act in our behalf. To submit to His commands, we have to stand on the fact that He is wise and loving and that His Word is true.</p>

<p>How do we gain this kind of trust - the kind of trust that can carry the weight of significant demands for our time and attention; the kind of trust that can rest in God’s promises, power, and actions; indeed, the kind of trust that enables the submission of our entire life to God? Quite simply, we have to be convinced that Christianity is true, and here is where apologetics can serve us.</p>

<h2>Reminders of the Truth</h2>

<p>This is not to say our conviction of the truth of Christianity comes entirely from apologetics. I don’t think that’s the case. The Holy Spirit removes the spiritual obstacles preventing us from seeing the truth of Christianity. We see the glory of God and His Gospel directly in His revelation and recognize its reality. God reveals Himself to be trustworthy over time as He works in our lives. But as long as we are living as fallen creatures, we will have to combat our tendency to wander with reminders of the truth.</p>

<p>We meditate on the ways God’s <a href="https://www.str.org/article/we-live-very-fortunate-universe#.WqAivJMbNR0">creation</a> declares His glory (Ps. 19:1), giving evidence of His “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument#.WqAgUJMbNR0">eternal power</a> and divine nature”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:20). We consider the objective moral law’s need for a <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/why-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality#.WqAk15MbNR0">Moral Law Giver</a>. We learn how the Bible has been transmitted over time and how we deal with <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/explain-textual-criticism-your-friends#.WqAhcpMbNR0">variant readings</a> so we can trust we have access to His original words. We remind ourselves of the evidence of the reality of <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-resurrection-was-a-real-event-in-history#.WqAhyZMbNR0">Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection</a>, knowing that if the resurrection did <em>not</em> happen, our trust is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). Through apologetics, we remind ourselves of the truth and remove the obstacles of doubts and questions so that all that remains is for us to fully place our trust in Him and step out in obedience.</p>

<p>If you’ve been neglecting the disciplines God provided for communing with Him and receiving His help, why not spend some time reviewing good evidence to believe this is all true as the <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/dont-neglect-god-sake-apologetics#.WqA7m5MbNR1">first step</a> in your plan to develop new spiritual habits?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-apologetics-can-fuel-the-spiritual-disciplines" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-apologetics-can-fuel-the-spiritual-disciplines" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-apologetics-can-fuel-the-spiritual-disciplines" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Keep Praying for Melinda
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/keep-praying-for-melinda
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>[See <a href="/w/urgent-prayer-request-for-melinda">here</a> for information about Melinda’s accident, and see <a href="/w/an-update-on-melinda-s-condition">here</a> and <a href="/w/melinda-is-showing-signs-of-progress">here</a> for previous updates on her condition.]</em></p>

<p>It’s been nearly three months since Melinda’s accident on December 2. I visit her almost every week in the step-down unit where she’s being taken care of about two hours away.</p>

<p>Melinda is off the ventilator since she’s been breathing so well on her own, but still has a breathing tube to supplement oxygen as needed. She has a tracheostomy, so she isn’t able to talk - though she doesn’t seem to be able to talk regardless. She continues to move her legs well, which is good since it helps prevent atrophy, and sometimes she’ll slowly lift her hand to scratch her cheek.</p>

<p>During my 30-40 minute visits I hold her hand and chat with her, read Scripture to her, and pray for her. Though her eyes are open, there’s almost no response to my words except that she’ll nod slightly if I ask if she knows me and understands what I’m saying. Mostly she gazes off to the side, or her eyes will close and she’ll drift off for a bit. She has a TV at the end of her bed now (tuned to the food network, since Melinda loves to cook), but she doesn’t seem to take much notice.</p>

<p>In March, Melinda is scheduled to return to UCLA where the doctors will do surgery to replace the portion of her skull they removed the night of the accident to release pressure on her brain and save her life. That is a big step forward, but it’s not clear it will speed up the healing in her brain that needs to take place.</p>

<p>There’s really no way of knowing how much Melinda will recover, but it’s clear her progress has been slow so far, and it’s uncertain how much improvement she will ultimately make.</p>

<p>Since some may wonder what’s the point of caring for her if she’ll never “get better,”&nbsp;I want to share with you Melinda’s own thinking on that matter. It comes from the words of her advance directive she signed 12 years ago and left in my care (I have the original). Here is what she wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If I am permanently disabled but not certified terminal, I wish all care provided to sustain my life and alleviate my physical discomfort. I do not wish my life to be terminated due to permanent physical disablement. I personally do not consider nutrition and hydration to be medical treatment, but basic sustenance which every living organism requires to live. I do not wish nutrition and hydration to be withheld or withdrawn to facilitate or accelerate my death.</p>

<p>I wish my life and death to be a testimony of the intrinsic value of all human beings which God has given us by virtue of our creation in His image, and of my absolute faith and trust in my salvation through my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I have absolute confidence that I will be with God in Heaven upon my death and anticipate that time joyfully. Therefore, my life should not be artificially prolonged. However, neither is my life to be artificially shortened based on a functional or instrumental view of life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, Melinda has seen the world as it truly is. She knows that the decision to go be with her Savior or to live as a handicapped person - even severely handicapped - the rest of her years is not her decision to make. It is God’s decision, and Melinda will accept from God’s hand any “momentary light affliction”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 4:17) as long as God gives her breath. And if she is willing to bear this burden for Christ’s sake, then we should be willing to accept whatever role God has given us in her life as well.</p>

<p>Please continue to pray. I will keep you posted on any progress.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkeep-praying-for-melinda" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkeep-praying-for-melinda" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkeep-praying-for-melinda" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does My Question for Pro-Gay Theology Advocates Have a Fourth Option?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/27/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-my-question-for-pro-gay-theology-advocates-have-a-fourth-option-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week I <a href="/w/a-question-to-ask-those-who-adopt-pro-gay-theology" target="_blank">posted a question</a> to ask pro-gay theology advocates. What should we believe about their claim that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality?</p>

<p>Option 1: Jesus was wrong.</p>

<p>Option 2: The Church has been wrong.</p>

<p>Option 3: Some 21st century Americans reading their Bible in Tallahassee (or Tempe, Tulsa, or Tacoma - doesn’t really matter what city or whether the city begins with “T”) are wrong about the Bible affirming gay relationships.</p>

<p>Option 1 is incredibly unlikely given that Jesus is God. Option 2 is unlikely given that the Church has unanimously believed and taught for 2,000 years that sexual activity is reserved for a married man and woman and, consequently, homosexual sex is sin. That leaves us with option 3 being the most likely possibility. Plus, we can show that <a href="/w/the-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need" target="_blank">pro-gay theology arguments are mistaken</a>, which further underscores why option 3 is most likely.</p>

<p>Pro-gay theology advocates try to sidestep my question with an objection. They try to play - what they believe to be - their trump card. They say, “But Alan, there hasn’t been a category for modern gay people until recent times. The Bible and/or biblical authors didn’t know about loving, consensual homosexual relationships. Therefore, the Bible and the Church can’t be condemning gay relationships as we understand them today.”&nbsp;In other words, none of the options are true because the modern category of gay relationships was never in view by Jesus or the Church.</p>

<p>Four responses to this objection come to mind.</p>

<p>First, this objection suggests the Bible, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not anticipate this moment in history when 2-4% of the population began entering into “loving, consensual, gay relationships.”&nbsp;It’s as if God was caught by surprise. He didn’t bother to look far enough into the future to see what His creatures would do and plan His special revelation accordingly.</p>

<p>That’s not consistent with how we understand God and the Bible, though. Scripture often anticipates and even predicts future events. The biblical authors - inspired by the Holy Spirit - warned of coming trends (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:3), penned messianic prophecies (e.g. Psa. 22 and Isa. 53), anticipated the anti-Christ (e.g. Matt. 24), and even described the end times (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:52, Revelation, etc.). Isn’t it safe to assume the God who inspired all these predictions with such detail also gave us holy writ addressing behavior within modern gay relationships?</p>

<p>Second, it seems pro-gay theology advocates suggest Scripture provides no moral framework to assess same-sex behavior of today. That seems odd. There are many examples where biblical principles penned thousands of years ago address a modern behavior. For example, embryonic stem cell research didn’t occur during the biblical era. We can easily draw upon a biblical principle, though, that addresses this modern technology. Scripture teaches that it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. Embryonic stem cell research kills innocent human beings. Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Voila!</p>

<p>The same is true of modern gay relationships. Scripture teaches that homosexual sex is sin. It doesn’t say homosexual sex is allowed if it’s consensual. It doesn’t say homosexual sex is permitted within a loving relationship. Rather, it says the <em>act</em> of two men or two women having sex is sin (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, etc.). Since the majority of modern gay relationships entail that act, those two people involved are committing a sin. Therefore, the Bible provides us with a principle that <em>can</em> apply to homosexual relationships of today.</p>

<p>Third, by claiming there was no biblical category for modern gay relationships, pro-gay theology advocates are essentially claiming option 2: the Church has been wrong. Remember, the Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) has always condemned homosexual sex. If someone engaged in it, that person would be considered guilty of sin. Whether you sodomized a man in prison, engaged in a sexual tryst at a bath house, or pursued an ongoing and consensual sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, it never mattered to the Church. If pro-gay theology is correct, then the Church has been incorrectly condemning both <em>abusive</em> forms of homosexual behavior and <em>non-abusive</em> forms (e.g. loving, gay relationships). In other words, the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years because it incorrectly identified loving and consensual gay relationships as sin. That’s an example of option 2.</p>

<p>Far from sidestepping the three options I laid out, the revisionist rebuttal further affirms that option 2 is what they’re essentially claiming (intentionally or not). But this is an incredible claim. It means God, in His infinite power and sovereignty, allowed the Church (His bride) to mistakenly teach for 2,000 years that any type of homosexual sex is sin and wrongly condemn countless thousands of innocent men and women who pursued loving, consensual gay relationships.</p>

<p>Fourth, even if it were true that the Bible and/or biblical authors weren’t aware of the modern category of gay relationships, it wouldn’t matter one bit. The Bible doesn’t make a distinction between abusive homosexual sex and loving, consensual gay relationships. That’s a 21st century invention. What the Bible prohibits is a man exchanging the natural sexual function of a woman and, instead, having sex with another man (Rom. 1:26-27, which also mentions lesbianism). That can certainly occur in an abusive homosexual sex act, but it can also occur in a loving and consensual gay relationship in Tallahassee. The Bible, therefore, prohibits <em>all types of homosexual sex</em>, not just abusive or coercive forms. Modern gay men and women don’t escape the prohibition of Scripture just because their sex acts are consensual or characterized by love.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-my-question-for-pro-gay-theology-advocates-have-a-fourth-option-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-my-question-for-pro-gay-theology-advocates-have-a-fourth-option-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-my-question-for-pro-gay-theology-advocates-have-a-fourth-option-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can the Bible Be Reliable if It Had Human Authors?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-the-bible-be-reliable-if-it-had-human-authors-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are some who think that because men wrote the Bible, it <em>must</em> contain mistakes. After all, to err is human. Of course, this assumes that men <em>always</em> make mistakes.</p>

<p>It’s true that people make mistakes all the time. However, it doesn’t follow that because men <em>can</em> make mistakes, that they <em>always</em> make mistakes. Certainly there are books that are both written by men <em>and</em> contain no mistakes. Therefore, pointing out the fact <em>that</em> the Bible was written by men does nothing to undermine the Bible’s reliability. The challenge doesn’t work.</p>

<p>It’s not enough for the challenge to assert that the biblical authors <em>can</em> make mistakes. Rather, they would need to point to specific instances were men <em>have</em> made mistakes in the text. Once those are on the table, then we can talk about them to see if they call into question the Bible’s reliability.</p>

<p>Let me make one further comment. Implicit in the challenge is the assumption that the Bible was <em>merely</em> written by men. However, the Christian claim is not that men wrote the Bible <em>alone</em>. Rather, the claim is that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”&nbsp;(2 Pet. 1:21). The Bible is the product of men <em>and</em> 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, <em>you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,</em> which is at work in you believers”&nbsp;(1 Thess. 2:13).</p>

<p>The apostles and prophets who wrote the Scriptures were not perfect. They had their faults. But God can use imperfect people to accomplish His perfect purpose. That is to say, fallible human beings can write an infallible book because the infallible God inspired them. As 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 He wants.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-the-bible-be-reliable-if-it-had-human-authors-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-the-bible-be-reliable-if-it-had-human-authors-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-the-bible-be-reliable-if-it-had-human-authors-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Question to Ask Those Who Adopt Pro-Gay Theology
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/20/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-question-to-ask-those-who-adopt-pro-gay-theology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Pro-gay theology seems to be picking up steam in some circles. People are eager to baptize their affirmation of homosexual behavior with the Bible. It doesn’t work for many reasons I’ve <a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1" target="_blank">written about before</a>.</p>

<p>Recently, however, I’ve been asking those who adopt pro-gay theology a question. They are asking us to believe one of three options. Which of the following should we believe?</p>

<p><strong>Option 1</strong>: Jesus was wrong. He upheld the Genesis account of male-female creation (Matt. 19:4), taught that only a man and woman can create a one-flesh union (Matt. 19:5), believed male-female marriage was a God-ordained institution (Matt. 19:6), and taught that all sexual activity outside marriage was sin. But one option is to believe that Jesus was mistaken on that.</p>

<p>Moreover, Jesus personally converted Paul, who wrote nearly half of the New Testament. Paul, like his master, Jesus, upheld the male-female prerequisite for one-flesh union as taught in the Genesis account of creation. He described the male-female marriage union like Christ and His bride (the Church), an analogy that necessitates the sex differences in male-female marriage to make the analogy work (Eph. 5:21-32). He also taught that homosexual behavior was sin (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10).</p>

<p>One option, then, is to believe that Jesus and Paul, who was trained by Jesus, were wrong.</p>

<p><strong>Option 2</strong>: The Church has been wrong. Another possible option is that church teaching has been wrong for 2,000 years. Since its inception, the Church has taught that marriage is only between a man and a woman, sexual activity can only occur in a marriage, and homosexual behavior is sin. The body of Christ has never wavered from this teaching.</p>

<p>Furthermore, although different denominations have held different views on baptism, the eucharist, and other doctrines, the Church has been unified on sexual ethics. It’s never wavered from its teaching on male-female marriage for 2,000 years.</p>

<p>The second option, then, is to believe that the Church has been wrong all along.</p>

<p><strong>Option 3</strong>: Some Americans are wrong. This third option is to believe that a group of 21st century Americans (of course there are more in other Western countries) are wrong about the Bible and theology. They’ve been influenced by the culture and most likely wouldn’t have adopted pro-gay theology 500 years ago or even 50 years ago. Now, however, they’ve “discovered”&nbsp;that the Bible affirms homosexual relationships at precisely the same time secular culture began accepting homosexuality.</p>

<p>The third option is to believe that this is no coincidence.</p>

<p>So, which is it? What does the advocate of pro-gay theology expect us to believe? Was Jesus wrong, has the Church been wrong, or is a group of 21st century Americans wrong?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-question-to-ask-those-who-adopt-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-question-to-ask-those-who-adopt-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-question-to-ask-those-who-adopt-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does the Lack of Original Autographs Make Biblical Inerrancy Irrelevant?
topic: History
author: Aaron Brake
date: 03/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-lack-of-original-autographs-make-biblical-inerrancy-irrelevant-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Biblical inerrancy may be defined as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hen all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>One important element of this definition is that inerrancy only applies to the original autographs. But since we no longer have possession of the original autographs, the question is often raised, “Of what use or importance is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy? Is biblical inerrancy even relevant?”&nbsp;Some conclude that inerrancy is altogether <em>ir</em>relevant. In his book <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>, Bart Ehrman states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t <em>have</em> the originals! We have only error-ridden copies...”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This objection, left unanswered, may undermine our confidence and trust in Scripture, leading some to reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and others to conclude it is wholly irrelevant.</p>

<h2>Let’s Get Metaphysical</h2>

<p>But I believe our confidence in Scripture is not misplaced and biblical inerrancy <em>is</em> relevant. To help explain why this is so, let us consider the distinction commonly made by metaphysicians between word <em>tokens</em> and word <em>types</em>.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Consider the following words:</p>

<p>RED BLUE RED</p>

<p>Now ask yourself this question: “How many words are there?”&nbsp;The question is ambiguous because there is a sense in which it looks like there are two words (RED and BLUE), and another sense in which it looks like there are three words (RED, BLUE, and RED). The question receives clarification when we distinguish between word <em>tokens</em> and word <em>types</em> and specify which of the two we are interested in.</p>

<p>If we are asking how many word <em>tokens</em> there are, then we have three: two tokens of the word RED and one token of the word BLUE. A <em>token</em> is an individual, particular kind of thing. It is a specific thing that can only exist in one place at one time. If, on the other hand, we are asking how many word <em>types</em> there are, then we have two: the word type RED and the word type BLUE. A <em>type</em> in this case is a universal. It is repeatable and can be in more than one place at one time. It is the <em>same</em> word, which carries with it the <em>same</em> meaning.</p>

<h2>Back to Biblical Inerrancy</h2>

<p>What does this have to do with biblical inerrancy? When it is asserted that biblical inerrancy is irrelevant because we do not possess the original autographs, there is a failure to distinguish between the text <em>tokens</em> and the text <em>type</em>. We <em>do</em> have the original text <em>type</em>, even though we may not possess the original text <em>tokens</em>.</p>

<p>To help think about this further, consider that it is the word as a <em>type</em> that conveys meaning, not the word as a <em>token</em>. When we think of the word as a <em>token</em> we are thinking of it as a material object (i.e., black ink scribbled on a parchment). But when we think of the word as a <em>type</em>, we are thinking of it as a <em>bearer of meaning</em>. It becomes a shareable thing that we can have, for example, both in our mind and in a book in front of us at the same time.</p>

<p>Now, this is where textual criticism comes into play. When it comes to the text of the New Testament, even though we do not have the original text <em>tokens</em> (the original autographs as material scribbling on parchment), we are able to reconstruct with great confidence the original text <em>type</em>. Without going into a full-length treatment on the topic of textual criticism, Daniel Wallace notes the following concerning the New Testament text:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Besides the nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament text we possess, we also have between fifteen and twenty thousand copies of ancient translations and over 1 million quotations of the text by the church fathers.</li>
	<li>Over a period of 1400 years, the New Testament text grew by only 2%.</li>
	<li>Only 1% of textual variants are meaningful (to some degree) and viable.</li>
	<li>Not one textual variant in this category (meaningful and viable) affects any essential Christian doctrine or teaching.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></li>
</ul>

<p>In other words, when we take into account the work of textual critics, we have good reason to believe that we possess the text <em>type</em>, which bears the original meaning of the original text <em>tokens</em>. This is very important to understand: the problem with identifying the original text is <em>not</em> that we have lost the original text/meaning. We haven’t. Variant readings are stubbornly preserved, a fact known as the <em>tenacity</em> of the New Testament text. The original reading is present; we only need to identify it.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Notice now that the issue of biblical inerrancy becomes an <em>epistemic</em> one, i.e., “Do we have good reason to believe we have the original text/meaning in this particular passage?”&nbsp;The concern is no longer with the metaphysical claim, which says we could <em>never have</em> the original text/meaning. We <em>do</em> have the original text <em>type</em>, just not the original text <em>tokens</em>.</p>

<h2>Why Didn’t God Preserve the Originals?</h2>

<p>The next question often raised is this: “Why would God allow the original manuscript text <em>tokens</em> (i.e., the original autographs) to be lost?”</p>

<p>Here is one answer I find compelling: <em>We have greater epistemic certainty about the original text</em> type <em>through the application of textual criticism to the thousands of available copies than we would if we only had the original text</em> tokens<em>.</em></p>

<p>How so? If Christians claimed to have the original autographs, it would seem rather easy to raise epistemic doubts regarding how we know those “originals”&nbsp;have not been corrupted or tampered with in the last 2,000 years. Would it really be possible to establish a 2,000-year-old chain of custody for the original autographs? Apologists would be very hard-pressed to come up with a convincing and reliable answer. In other words, if we were basing our entire case for the reliability of the New Testament on twenty-seven material objects (the original autographs or text tokens), we would need to provide a very reliable epistemic case that those material objects have maintained their integrity for the last 2,000 years, and that would prove very difficult.</p>

<p>But thanks be to God, this is not the history of our received New Testament text. Instead, God in His wisdom took the originals, and using fallible men to reproduce them, diffused the original text <em>type</em> into thousands of documents that together provide a broad, reliable epistemic basis and assurance we still possess the original text. Given the historical scenario, wholesale change of the text became impossible:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>By having the text of the New Testament in particular explode across the known world, ending up in the far-flung corners of the Roman Empire in relatively short order, God protected that text from the one thing we, centuries and millennia later, could never detect: wholesale change of doctrine or theology by one particular man or group who had full control over the text at any one point in its history...there was never a time when anyone or any group could gather up all the manuscripts and make extensive changes in the text itself.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The original text type diffused into thousands of documents could then be reconstructed through the process of textual criticism, allowing us to have great confidence in our New Testament and ensuring the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is still relevant today.</p>

<p>So, let’s put this all together: Metaphysically, the original text is present as a <em>type</em> today even if the <em>tokens</em> are gone, and it is the type that matters because it is the type which carries meaning. Can we ascertain the original text type and meaning? That is an epistemic question and we are on more epistemically solid ground regarding the text of the New Testament when we apply textual criticism to the thousands of copies in our possession than we would be having only claimed to possess the originals. The tenacity of the New Testament text guarantees the original reading has been preserved, and no variant in the text affects any major doctrine or essential teaching of the Christian faith. Therefore, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is still relevant today. Some may reject inerrancy on other grounds, but it shouldn’t be rejected because we no longer possess the original text tokens.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,”&nbsp;in <em>Inerrancy</em>, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 294. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Bart D. Ehrman, <em>Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why</em> (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 7, emphasis his. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">I am indebted to J.P. Moreland for much of the following insight and commentary (used with his permission), with some additions of my own. Any mistakes are mine. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">See chapters 4-8 of his book <em>Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture</em> (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski and M. James Sawyer. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">James R. White, <em>The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?</em>, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009), 78. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">White, <em>The King James Only Controversy</em>, 77-78. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-lack-of-original-autographs-make-biblical-inerrancy-irrelevant-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-lack-of-original-autographs-make-biblical-inerrancy-irrelevant-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-lack-of-original-autographs-make-biblical-inerrancy-irrelevant-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What “Living Biblically” Will Probably Get Wrong
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/28/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-living-biblically-will-probably-get-wrong-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This week, CBS launched a new sitcom called <a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/living-biblically/"><em>Living Biblically</em></a>. The series, which premiered on Monday, is loosely based on A. J. Jacobs’&nbsp;best-selling book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Year-Living-Biblically-Literally-Possible/dp/0743291484"><em>The Year of Living Biblically</em></a>.</p>

<p>The show centers on the life of Chip, played by Jay Ferguson. After losing his best friend and finding out his wife is pregnant, Chip decides he wants to be a better man. Quite serendipitously, Chip turns to the Bible for help.</p>

<p>At one point in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eOrYkODN9g">promotional video</a> for the show, Chip is in a confessional with his priest friend, Father Gene. Chip declares, “I’ve decided to live my life 100% by the Bible, to the letter.”</p>

<p>I think the concept of the show is a good one, and it will no doubt attract a sizeable audience - believers and unbelievers alike. However, there is a liability to a show based on the premise of living biblically. If you want to live biblically, then you need to understand the Bible.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn’t have a good track record in this area. In fact, the trailer is already raising some serious red flags. Here’s one.</p>

<h2>The Bible Says</h2>

<p>Near the end of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eOrYkODN9g">trailer</a>, Gary, who appears to be one of Chip’s co-workers, says, “Hey Chip, I hooked up with this chick, Josie from CrossFit, last night. Hottest caboose I’ve ever seen.”&nbsp;He then quickly adds, “Aside from my wife, of course.”</p>

<p>Wanting to do his best to live according to the Bible, Chip asks Father Gene, “Biblically, what should I do?”</p>

<p>Gene replies, “The Bible says you’re supposed to stone adulterers. Of course, you’re not going to do that in 2017 because of jail.”</p>

<p>In the next scene, we see Chip at a restaurant throwing a stone at Gary, who is on a date with someone who is not his wife.</p>

<h2>Thinking Biblically</h2>

<p>A show about living biblically should understand a biblical approach to living. If you want to <em>live</em> biblically, then you need to <em>think</em> biblically.</p>

<p>If someone wants to live biblically <em>today</em>, are they obligated to obey the commands given in the Mosaic Law?</p>

<p>Father Gene gets one thing right. The Bible condemns adultery. Furthermore, the punishment <em>under the Old Covenant</em> was death. In fact, the Lord said to Moses, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”&nbsp;(Lev. 20:10).</p>

<p>This was one of 613 laws that were given to the chosen people of Israel through Moses. It is often referred to as the Mosaic Law. This was part of the Old Covenant, which was a treaty made between God and the nation of Israel. God promised to protect and bless Israel <em>if</em> they kept the terms of the covenant. However, if they didn’t, there would be consequences (Deut. 28). Ultimately, the Israelites were to be set apart to accomplish God’s plan of redemption for the world.</p>

<p>But does the Mosaic Law apply to people <em>today</em>? The short answer is, no! No command in the Mosaic Law is incumbent upon us in virtue of being part of the Mosaic Law.</p>

<p>Consider this <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today">analogy</a>. If you live in the United States, there is nothing in Canadian law that applies to you. The States have their own laws. There is a law in Canada against murder. It is section 222 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Now if you’re living in New York, then you’re not under <em>this</em> law and its punishment. It only applies to people in Canada. Does that mean you are allowed to murder in New York? Of course not! New York has its own law and punishment against murder.</p>

<p>The Mosaic Law is <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/think-of-the-mosaic-covenant-like-a-state-law#.WpXsb5MbNR0">like a state law</a>. It only applied to <em>specific</em> people at a <em>specific</em> time. People living today are <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/why-were-not-under-mosaic-law#.WpYRdJMbNR0">no longer living under the Old Covenant</a> because it is “obsolete”&nbsp;(Heb. 8:13). There is a new covenant with new terms. And it includes <em>anyone</em> who puts his or her trust in Jesus.</p>

<p>If the Mosaic Law isn’t binding on New Covenant people, does this mean the Bible permits adultery? Not at all! Under the New Covenant, adultery is wrong. In fact, Jesus raises the moral standard. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.”&nbsp;But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27-28)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even though Jesus <em>raises</em> the moral standard, He <em>removes</em> the prescribed punishment. In John 8, the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery. They say to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”&nbsp;(John 8:4-5).</p>

<p>Jesus responds by reminding the Pharisees they are just as sinful as the woman. He says, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”&nbsp;(John 8:7). One by one, the men leave the woman standing before Jesus.</p>

<p>Jesus shows that we are no longer under the Law but under grace (Rom. 6:14). There is a new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20). If the Mosaic Law were still binding, they would have been <em>obligated</em> to stone the adulteress.</p>

<p>But notice how the story ends. Jesus says to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”&nbsp;She says, “No one, Lord.”&nbsp;And Jesus says, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more”&nbsp;(John 8:10-11).</p>

<p>So, who was living biblically in this story? Was it the scribes and Pharisees <em>following the Old Covenant</em>, or Jesus?</p>

<p>Jesus doesn’t ignore her sin, but He is quick to offer her grace. This is consistent with His words in John 3: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him”&nbsp;(John 3:17).</p>

<p>Living biblically <em>does not</em> mean following the Mosaic Law. In fact, if someone were following the Law, it would be evidence that they are <em>not</em> living biblically. Living biblically entails thinking biblically. If you want to live according to what the Bible teaches, then you need to understand what the Bible teaches. This includes understanding the Old and New Covenants.</p>

<p>Under the Old Covenant and theocracy, adultery was punishable by death. However, under the New Covenant, adultery is <em>still</em> wrong, but there is no commandment for citizens to punish those responsible.</p>

<p>If the past is any indication of the future, Hollywood will fail to make a distinction between the covenants. But if you want to live, as Chip says, “100% by the Bible, to the letter,”&nbsp;then you cannot only read the Old Testament. The Bible doesn’t end at Malachi.</p>

<p>I’m sure <em>Living Biblically</em> will get some things right, but my suspicion is it will get this wrong. Unfortunately, it’s easier to pull a verse out of its historical and theological context than to think hard about what is really going on.</p>

<p>I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-living-biblically-will-probably-get-wrong-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-living-biblically-will-probably-get-wrong-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-living-biblically-will-probably-get-wrong-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines on the Bible and Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/13/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/sean-mcdowell-and-matthew-vines-on-the-bible-and-homosexuality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On the <a href="/w/an-evaluation-of-the-dialogue-between-sean-mcdowell-and-matthew-vines">Wednesday podcast</a> last week, Greg and I talked about a recent dialogue between Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines on the topic “What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?”&nbsp;Greg continued his evaluation on Friday’s podcast commentary, “<a href="/w/two-more-responses-to-matthew-vines-s-case">Two More Responses to Matthew Vines’s Case</a>.”</p>

<p>I’ve posted the McDowell/Vines dialogue below so you can view it along with the podcasts. Below that, you’ll find a list of links to help you think through the issues brought up by these conversations.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="yFY4VtCWgyI" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yFY4VtCWgyI?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p><strong>Matthew Vines’s Arguments and Approach</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/alan-shlemon-matthew-vines-s-reformation-project-conference-november-11-2014-">Matthew Vines’s Reformation Project Conference</a>&nbsp;–&nbsp;Podcast with Greg Koukl and Alan Shlemon</li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1" target="_blank">A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need Part 1</a> and <a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-2">Part 2</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/answering-matthew-vines-s-40-questions-july-22-2015-">Answering Matthew Vines’s 40 Questions</a>&nbsp;–&nbsp;Podcast with Greg Koukl and Alan Shlemon</li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-response-to-matthew-vines-the-bible-doesn-t-support-same-sex-relationships">A Response to Matthew Vines: The Bible Doesn’t Support Same-Sex Relationships</a> by Amy Hall</li>
	<li><a href="/w/bad-reasons-to-adopt-pro-gay-theology">Bad Reasons to Adopt Pro-Gay Theology</a> by Alan Shlemon</li>
	<li><a href="/w/start-preparing-to-defend-marriage-within-the-church">Start Preparing to Defend Marriage within the Church</a> by Amy Hall</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
<strong>Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/sam-allberry-is-god-anti-gay-january-28-2014-">Sam Allberry –&nbsp;Is God Anti-Gay?</a>&nbsp;–&nbsp;Podcast with Greg Koukl</li>
	<li><a href="/w/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue">Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue</a> by Amy Hall</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-Teach-about-Homosexuality/dp/1433549379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1448384406&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=kevin+deyoung+homosexuality">What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?</a> by Kevin DeYoung</li>
	<li><a href="/w/did-paul-know-about-homosexuality-">Did Paul Know about Homosexuality?</a> by Amy Hall (quoting Kevin DeYoung)</li>
	<li><a href="/w/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-1">What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?</a> by Greg Koukl</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
<strong>Singleness, Temptation, and Following Jesus</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/be-willing-to-submit-to-our-good-god-on-the-issue-of-homosexuality">Be Willing to Submit to Our Good God on the Issue of Homosexuality</a> by Amy Hall</li>
	<li><a href="/w/gay-or-straight-we-all-must-decide-if-we-love-jesus-above-all-else">Gay or Straight, We All Must Decide if We Love Jesus above All Else</a> by Amy Hall</li>
	<li><a href="/w/are-singles-condemned-to-a-life-of-loneliness-">Are Singles Condemned to a Life of Loneliness?</a> by Amy Hall</li>
	<li><a href="/w/to-the-christian-who-is-being-tempted-by-a-relationship">To the Christian Who Is Being Tempted by a Relationship</a> by Amy Hall</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsean-mcdowell-and-matthew-vines-on-the-bible-and-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsean-mcdowell-and-matthew-vines-on-the-bible-and-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsean-mcdowell-and-matthew-vines-on-the-bible-and-homosexuality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Studying Apologetics Is Hard, but That’s Good
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/06/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/studying-apologetics-is-hard-but-that-s-good
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At Stand to Reason, we obviously encourage believers to study apologetics. That’s not the easiest subject to study, though. It involves - at the very least - theology and philosophy. Despite the challenge, it’s eminently worthwhile.</p>

<p>If you learn how to study <em>well</em>, you will not only learn more effectively, but you will also enjoy both the process and its fruit.</p>

<p>Harold Martin, former Director of General Education at Harvard University, wrote the foreword to the book, <em>Study Is Hard Work</em> by William H. Armstrong. In it, Martin says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The student who takes to heart the injunctions and advice of this book should not expect to find all doors magically opening before him. Studying <em>is</em> hard and <em>remains</em> hard; but learning to study well makes the effort pleasant, just as learning to ski well, though skiing continues to tire the muscles and strain the nerves, makes both sidestepping up a slope and schussing downhill enjoyable experiences. The students who have learned to enjoy study because they know how to do it well are prepared in the best sense of all for work in college and for life. Whatever helps them to learn how to study well is, therefore, an important contribution to their liberal education.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I found this to be true in my own life. When I first began studying apologetics, it was hard. It took time. I read and re-read the same paragraphs. I played and replayed the same cassette tapes (I know...I don’t look that old!) of J.P. Moreland talking about actual infinites or the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals. It took a lot of energy to get basic concepts. But I pressed through and eventually grasped an idea. Then another. And another. That it was hard made the fruit of my efforts that much more sweet.</p>

<p>Today, I’m here to report, it’s <em>still</em> hard! That’s right. It still takes focused time and energy to learn new things. I’ve slowly gotten better at learning and can more efficiently learn new things. And although I don’t have as much free time as I used to, I can assuredly say I enjoy both the process and the ends. Study is a means to an end and an end in itself. But it’s still hard, and that’s good.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudying-apologetics-is-hard-but-that-s-good" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudying-apologetics-is-hard-but-that-s-good" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudying-apologetics-is-hard-but-that-s-good" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Who Is the God of Mormonism?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/who-is-the-god-of-mormonism-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One thing you’ll discover as you’re talking with your Mormon (<a href="https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng">LDS</a>) friends is that though we use the same terms, we often mean very different things. Mormons have different definitions of gospel, repentance, salvation, grace, Hell, and nearly every term you’ll be using in your conversation. If you fail to explicitly define your terms, you could easily leave the conversation thinking you’re both in complete agreement. (Ask, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;early and often!)</p>

<p>The term “God”&nbsp;is no exception to this. In fact, it’s the most foundational difference between Christian and LDS theology.</p>

<h2>An Exalted Man</h2>

<p>The key to understanding the god of Mormonism is the idea that he is the same species we are; we’re just in an earlier stage of development. Here’s a <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng">quote</a> from Joseph Smith:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible - I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form - like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another...</p>

<p>I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to official LDS doctrine,* Heavenly Father has not always been a god. He was once like us (some say <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyH61ybnPBE&amp;feature=player_embedded">he was a sinner</a>, and some think he never sinned), but he followed a plan (just as we’re required to follow a plan) to reach godhood. (See <a href="/w/is-god-an-exalted-man-">here</a> for more on how the LDS view of God is connected to their view of the gospel.) He has a physical body as we do and is not a tri-personal being; rather, the Father, Son, and Spirit are completely separate beings - three separate gods.</p>

<h2>Biblical Problems</h2>

<p>It’s helpful, when <a href="/w/strive-for-clarity">clarifying</a> the differences between the LDS and Christian views of God with your LDS friends, to have a few verses ready to discuss.</p>

<p><strong>Isaiah 43:10</strong> says, “Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.”&nbsp;This verse is a problem for the Mormon understanding of the Father and the Son, let alone the gods that preceded the Father and the faithful Mormons who will be exalted to godhood in the future.</p>

<p><strong>Isaiah 44:8</strong> reiterates, “Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.”&nbsp;Again, this contradicts the LDS view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods and that the Father himself has a god over him.</p>

<p><strong>Psalm 90:2</strong> speaks of God always being God: “Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”</p>

<p><strong>1 Kings 8:27</strong> contradicts the idea that God has a physical body: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!”</p>

<h2>Philosophical Problems</h2>

<p>Besides biblical problems, the LDS conception of God also suffers from philosophical problems.</p>

<p><em>There can’t be an infinite regress of gods.</em> You can’t have a god who has a father god, who has a father god, on and on, forever and ever. There <a href="/w/who-created-god-">has to be a first cause</a> that is self-existent - uncaused by, and not contingent on, anything else. That cause is, by definition, greater than any god who was born as a man and became a god. Isn’t that first, uncaused, self-existent God the one we want to worship?</p>

<p><em>The moral law is greater than the LDS god.</em> In LDS theology, God perfected himself by following moral rules (i.e., the “plan of salvation”&nbsp;provided by his god). Those rules didn’t come out of his character; rather, he conformed his character to those rules <em>because those rules were greater than he was</em>. So where did the moral law come from if all gods have been conforming themselves to it? Again, we’re back to the need for a self-existent being, out of whose very character came the moral law.</p>

<p><em>The LDS god is not infinitely perfect.</em> Many Mormons believe all gods are still progressing - our god is farther along than we are, his god is more advanced than he is, etc. But if God is getting better, then he isn’t perfect now; and if he isn’t perfect now, then isn’t it possible for Him to make mistakes? How could we worship a god like that?</p>

<h2>The Number One God</h2>

<p>I want to worship the first and only true God, the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally existing in <a href="/w/how-the-triune-nature-of-god-draws-us-into-prayer">love and fellowship</a>, the God who was before <em>all</em> things and brought <em>all</em> things into existence, the God whose character is the foundation of the moral law, the infinite and eternally perfect God.</p>

<p>This story from <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Transition-Leslie-Reynolds/dp/0801058112/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8">Mormons in Transition</a></em> haunts me:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Tim Schmall had a natural sense of the one and only sovereign God. He recalls being told when he was twelve or younger “that the God whom [they] had, according to LDS theology, is one of many gods.”&nbsp;Tim wrestled with this concept, then asked, “Who’s the number one God?”&nbsp;The answer he recalls receiving was, “We don’t know, so we don’t ask,”&nbsp;or, “There isn’t a number one, and if there is, it doesn’t matter. We don’t have anything to do with him.”&nbsp;Tim remembers being “really distraught and disappointed about it.”&nbsp;He recalls “going home and being afraid and upset and getting down on my knees to pray, sneaking a prayer: ’This prayer is to the number one God. I wish you could be my God.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are Mormons out there today who secretly feel this same desire for “the number one God.”&nbsp;God may be drawing your own friend or family member to Himself! Tell them about the God you love.</p>

<p>*Don’t assume every Mormon you speak to will have the same views as the official doctrine of the LDS church. As with those in Christian churches, many in LDS churches are lacking theological knowledge and have picked up ideas from the culture. Make sure you ask questions to draw out and respond to their particular beliefs.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-the-god-of-mormonism-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-the-god-of-mormonism-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-the-god-of-mormonism-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why God? Part 2
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-god-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The simplest way I have ever found to explain my reasons for believing in God is this: <em>God is the best explanation for the way things are</em>. That statement sums up in one sentence my basic approach to 45 years of making a case for God’s existence and for the truth of Christianity.</p>

<p>In the <a href="/w/why-god-part-1">last issue</a> of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I talked with you about two specific ways that idea played out for me. First, I argued that the existence of God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe—why something is here rather than nothing. Second, I argued that the existence of God is the best explanation for our deeply embedded commitment to objective Morality,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> our understanding that the <em>world</em> is not the way it’s supposed to be—and our clear sense that <em>we</em> are not the way we are supposed to be either.</p>

<p>Atheism, on the other hand, explains nothing. It is the ultimate non-explanation, “explaining”&nbsp;by denying that explanations exist.</p>

<p>“Why is there something rather than nothing?”&nbsp;No reason. “What caused everything?”&nbsp;Nothing. “What accounts for Morality?”&nbsp;There is no Morality to account for. “Why is there Evil in the world?”&nbsp;There is no real Evil in the world since there is no real Morality. “What is wrong with the world?”&nbsp;Nothing. It just is. “How do we fix the world?”&nbsp;We can’t fix what’s not broken. We can only make it more tolerable to our personal tastes.</p>

<p>I realize I’ve painted a rather dark picture of the atheist’s situation, but it is true to their view. 20th century British philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell, put it candidly:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast heat death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Dark? Yes. Painfully honest? Indeed. Accurate? Completely. On a materialistic view of the universe, things just <em>are</em>. Nothing more. No explanation for anything important. No purpose for anything dear. Rather, universal stillness. Nothing-ism. Naught to build on other than Russell’s “firm foundation of unyielding despair.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>We can do better.</p>

<p>Non-explanations to vital concerns will not do when good explanations are at hand. And that is what we have. I have given two substantial reasons to believe in God: the origin of the universe and the grounding of Morality. Here are two more—first, the dazzling design at every level of the universe, and second, the “fit”&nbsp;between the biblical view of reality and the existential dilemma of the human condition. First, design.</p>

<h2>Making Contact</h2>

<p>Let me start with a question: How would we know if there is intelligent life in other parts of the universe? Scientists know the answer. They would look for something coming from another world that was not produced by natural causes. And they <em>are</em> looking—or listening, rather. The project is called SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.</p>

<p>SETI’s basic principle for recognizing the existence of intelligent life beyond the Earth was showcased years back in a fascinating film called <em>Contact</em>. In the movie, agnostic SETI astronomer, Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), scrutinizes radio signals from outer space, “waiting for E.T. to call.”</p>

<p>One night he does, with a series of audio pulses counting out each prime number—integers divisible only by themselves and the number 1—from 2 to 101. It was a <em>complex</em> series of 26 numbers conforming perfectly to a <em>specific</em> external code—what scientists call “specified complexity”—a clear sign of intelligence. Indeed, the pulse had sequenced through only the first four primes—2, 3, 5, and 7—before Ellie said, “There’s no way that’s a natural phenomenon.”</p>

<p>But there was more. The signal was coupled with a second transmission, the image and audio of Adolf Hitler presiding over the 1936 Olympics. It was the first TV broadcast strong enough to drift into outer space 52 years earlier, handily returned to sender from the star system Vega, 26 light years away. Interlaced within the TV signal frames was another surprise: encrypted pages of text that when decoded revealed detailed plans for building a one-person galactic transport. The blueprint, they said, was “the jackpot.”</p>

<p>Ellie—and all her previous naysayers—is now completely convinced of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials based on incontrovertible evidence—a sophisticated code revealing a detailed blueprint providing instructions to build an unimaginably complex machine.</p>

<p>Curiously, though, Ellie is unconvinced of God’s existence. Why? “As a scientist I rely on empirical evidence,”&nbsp;she tells her love interest, Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), who prefers religious experience over reason. “And in that matter, I don’t believe there is data either way.”&nbsp;Why should she believe that God created everything then left us no evidence, she argues. “I need proof,”&nbsp;she says simply.</p>

<p>Joss has nothing to offer other than his “you’ve-got-to-have-faith”&nbsp;bromides. We can offer a better solution, though—a simple one right in front of Ellie’s and Palmer’s eyes, but one that hadn’t occurred to the writers, apparently. Had Ellie applied the same rules to the question of God that she had to the question of E.T.s, she would have had her evidence—in spades.</p>

<p>Think about it. Ellie Arroway finds a blueprint for a spaceship and properly infers intelligence as its source. Yet every single cell in her body carries within it a code—embedded in the DNA double helix—of a detailed blueprint vastly more complex than the one for her galactic transport.</p>

<p>Nowadays even third graders know where code like this comes from. It comes from programmers. It is designed by intelligence. So here’s the question: Who wrote the code? Who programed Ellie Arroway’s DNA with tens of thousands of pages of information using three billion base pair “words”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> of assembly instructions? Indeed, who programmed the DNA of every other one of the more than five billion species estimated to have lived on planet Earth?</p>

<p>Ellie asked for evidence. Here it is. The evidence—proof, if you will—for the existence of God <em>is exactly the same kind of evidence</em> that Ellie took as proof for the existence of extraterrestrials—a sophisticated code revealing a detailed blueprint providing instructions to build an unimaginably complex machine.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> To quote Ellie, “There’s no way that’s a natural phenomenon.”</p>

<p>Right. The human genome is no accident. Rather, it is a detailed plan carefully laid out by an intelligent mind.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Regarding E.T.s, Arroway has the evidence she needs: a blueprint of a spaceship. Regarding God, she also has the evidence she needs: a blueprint of a human body.</p>

<p>And remember, computer code is binary—zeros and ones. DNA is a four-character digital code, making it much more sophisticated and much more powerful. Note biochemist Michael Denton:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet...could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Fingerprints Everywhere</h2>

<p>And DNA is just the tip of the design iceberg. Signs of intelligence—God’s fingerprints, as it were—are everywhere in the natural world, with countless examples of design chronicled in scores of works—books, DVDs, etc.—authored by believers and nonbelievers alike.</p>

<p>There’s the remarkable positioning of our planet in just the right place in our solar system—what even secular scientists call the “Goldilocks Zone”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup>—with just the right size; just the right seasons dictated by just the right tilt of Earth’s axis; just the right magnetic field with just the right intensity; just the right-sized moon creating just the right tides and just the right continental drift; just the right ratio of oxygen to nitrogen; just the right ratios of carbon dioxide to water vapor—and on and on and on.</p>

<p>There’s the incredibly fine-tuned constants of physics that dictate the precise constitution of our physical universe—the force of gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the initial entropy of the universe, the cosmological constant, the proton-neutron mass difference, the expansion rate of the universe, and on and on—with a miniscule change in of any one of them resulting in a universe completely unfit for life anywhere. It’s what scientists now call the “rare Earth”&nbsp;hypothesis.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>There’s the discovery that every living cell is chock full of microscopic nanomachines made of molecules that are <em>irreducibly complex</em>—alter or remove one part and the entire machine breaks down—meaning they could not have been constructed by a step-by-step evolutionary process. It’s an unmistakable evidence of design that even Darwin admitted would falsify his theory:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. <sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> <sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>There’s the stunning ability of reptiles (sea turtles), fish (salmon), mammals (whales), and insects (monarch butterflies)—to name just a few—to navigate to precise locations on the globe by tuning in to the Earth’s magnetic field.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> It’s unthinkable in the extreme that the same incredibly sophisticated virtual GPS system would independently evolve by accident in creatures far removed from each other on the evolutionary tree of life.</p>

<p>These design features (and there are many more) are so universally acknowledged, they prompted even anti-Christian astronomer Fred Hoyle to quip, “A super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> They were also instrumental in convincing one of the 20th century’s most vocal philosophical atheists, Antony Flew, to embrace belief in God.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> He simply had no other choice but to, as he put it, “follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>Clearly, God’s “fingerprints”&nbsp;are everywhere for those who are willing to look. He has not only left His mark on the world, though. He has also left His mark on man.</p>

<h2>Our Restless Souls</h2>

<p>Augustine of Hippo most famously described the restlessness of the human soul and also suggested its only proper place of repose. “You have made us for yourself, O Lord,”&nbsp;he wrote in his <em>Confessions</em>, “and our hearts are restless until they can find rest in You.”</p>

<p>I think it is safe to say that this restlessness, this sense of longing, this ineffable yearning to be filled—or maybe yearning to be fixed—is a universal human affliction, a malady that has nothing to do with our natural appetites, since satisfying them never sates the hunger of our hearts. This ache of the soul can be muted by other distractions, but it can never be entirely silenced.</p>

<p>Two facts of the human condition lie at the heart of our inescapable sense of longing. One is that we are broken. The second is, it hasn’t always been this way. There remains a remnant of former beauty the brokenness cannot efface.</p>

<p>As to being broken, we all know this. We face our own failures every day. But it’s worse than that, isn’t it? Our brokenness is moral. As I have written elsewhere:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We are not simply malfunctioning. We are not machines that need to be fixed. We are transgressors who need to be forgiven. We have not merely “made mistakes,”&nbsp;like getting our sums wrong when balancing accounts. We have sinned. And with sin comes guilt. And with guilt comes punishment.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Further, we know there is a place from which we have <em>fallen</em>. “What else does this craving, and this helplessness proclaim,”&nbsp;wrote Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and religious philosopher, “but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?”<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>We know it is not enough for us simply to <em>be</em>. Something has gone <em>missing</em> that must be replaced. We feel a “sweet pain...a primal memory deep in our souls reminding us of the way the world started—good, wonderful, whole, complete.”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup></p>

<p>We were made for something better, and we scrap and scrape to climb back up, to return to the heights. That struggle is central to just about every film we have ever seen and every story we have ever read. The exceptions, of course, are the dark, nihilistic yarns, the dystopian tales that tell us we are nothing.</p>

<p>Note the conflicting visions—the vision buried deep in our humanity, and the contrary vision flowing from the atheistic, nothing-ism view.</p>

<p>Atheism, of course, denies the guilt. It must. Without Good, there is no Bad. It also denies the beauty. Again, it must. If no God, no guided design, only biological accidents, physical parts stuck together without reason or purpose—cosmic junk. Man is nothing and his life means nothing. Atheism leaves us, once again, with naught.</p>

<p>No, our true longing is a hunger that atheism simply cannot satisfy, a thirst it cannot quench. Holly Ordway was an atheist who watched her soul suffer injury, corrupted by a belief that did not fit reality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My atheism was eating into my heart like acid...I could not have explained the source of my own rationality, nor of my conviction that there were such things as truth, beauty, and goodness. My worldview remained satisfying to me only insofar as I refrained from asking the really tough questions.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ordway was not drawn to God initially because of DNA, irreducible complexity, or the finely-tuned constants of the universe. Rather, she first saw God in John Keats, John Donne, and Gerard Manly Hopkins. In short, she was alerted to God by beauty.</p>

<p>As an atheist, she had been feasting on despair for years, and she was starving. “However satisfied I declared myself intellectually...atheism...was a terrible place to live,”&nbsp;she realized. “It was the winter of my soul.”<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>

<p>The thaw began when, as a newly minted college professor, Ordway reread the canonical poets of English literature and for the first time realized that the soul-satisfying beauty of their verse flowed naturally and natively from their Christian view of the world—<em>God’s</em> world:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I sensed something deeper in the poems I was reading. I could feel power thrumming in the lines of the poems, an electricity of meaning, drawing from some source beyond my reach.<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The world of Hopkins, Keats, and Donne was a world where transcendent beauty made sense, where longing and hunger could be satisfied, where rising up from the fall was possible—a world where there was hope. Inside her, something moved—“My heart in hiding/Stirred...,”&nbsp;“...hope, wish day come...”&nbsp;(Hopkins).</p>

<p>A realistic hope, though, or empty wish? C.S. Lewis answers: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup></p>

<p>This other world was the one Ordway hungered for. This was the understanding that made sense of the actual world she lived in. But there was also a dark side to her discovery.</p>

<h2>Our Guilty Selves</h2>

<p>The understanding of reality that made sense of beauty and meaning and hope also made sense of this world’s brokenness—both completely unintelligible in Holly Ordway’s atheism. The disturbing part was this: The brokenness that was real was also moral—and personal. “I considered myself a ’good person,’”&nbsp;she wrote, “but in my heart I was afraid to be judged on the real self behind my outward image.”<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup> She was guilty, and she knew it.</p>

<p>Years back I lectured to a capacity crowd at the University of California at Berkeley. I made the case against moral relativism simply by pointing out how frequently we encounter—and ultimately violate—genuine, deep Morality. It happens every day of our lives. This discovery, I noted to the audience, has explanatory power since it accounts for the personal feelings of guilt each of us experiences. We <em>feel</em> guilty because we <em>are</em> guilty.</p>

<p>That, of course, is the problem. We know we’re beautiful, but we also know we’re broken. That’s undeniable reality. Yet atheism gives us no reason to believe either of these things. It cannot account for our wonder and it cannot repair our brokenness. God alone gives the remedy. “The answer to guilt is not denial,”&nbsp;I told the students at Berkeley. “The answer to guilt is forgiveness.”</p>

<p>I have told that story many times to audiences, and every time I say those words something moves inside me. Forgiveness. Mercy. Repair. Restoration. Rebirth. New life. Hope. This is what our souls long for.</p>

<p>French philosopher Guillaume Bignon found his own naturalistic atheism being challenged as he encountered Christ in the New Testament.<sup id="fnref:24"><a href="#fn:24">24</a></sup> Nevertheless, the cross confused him. “Why did Jesus have to die?”&nbsp;he asked over and over again as he worked through the historical accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;life. It made no sense to him.</p>

<p>Then something completely unexpected happened. “God reactivated my conscience,”&nbsp;he told me. “That was not a pleasant experience. I was physically crippled by guilt, not knowing what to do about it.”</p>

<p>Suddenly it dawned on him, “<em>That’s</em> why Jesus had to die. Because of <em>me</em>. Because of <em>my</em> guilt.”&nbsp;He immediately surrendered all his brokenness to the only One who could repair it, giving all his guilt to the only One who could forgive. When he did, “The feelings of guilt just evaporated.”</p>

<p>Atheism cannot do this. It cannot explain the beauty and wonder of being human. And it has no answer to human brokenness. It cannot provide the consolation of true forgiveness. Only God in Christ can solve the crisis in our hearts. It is the road home. Pascal again:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This [craving is what man] tries in vain to fill with everything around him...though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object—in other words, by God himself.<sup id="fnref:25"><a href="#fn:25">25</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because our souls bear God’s own image, we are beautiful. Because we have rebelled against the God who gave us our beauty, we are fallen, guilty, lost. We cry out.</p>

<p>Here is our remedy, stated simply in a Christmas card I received from a friend: “The birth of Christ...invites us to believe that the cries of a broken world have actually been heard—a Savior was born.”<sup id="fnref:26"><a href="#fn:26">26</a></sup></p>

<p>Where atheism fails, Christianity succeeds. It’s the best explanation for the way things are.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I capitalize “Morality”&nbsp;because I’m referring to what I call “deep morality”—objective morality as opposed to some individual or cultural make-me-up that satisfies our interests for the moment. By “Evil”&nbsp;I mean a true violation of Morality, what people always have in mind when they raise the problem of evil against God. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,”&nbsp;in <em>Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell</em> (New York: Modern Library, 1927), 2-3. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">The nucleotide bases that pair to form the instructions are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">See Stephen Meyer’s <em>The Signature in the Cell</em> for a thorough—and utterly compelling—treatment of this subject. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">For those tempted to object, “but now you’re outside of science,”&nbsp;remember: The entire <em>scientific</em> SETI project depends on our ability to recognize the signature of intelligence in encoded messages. The methodology here is exactly the same. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Michael Denton, <em>Evolution: A Theory in Crisi</em>s (London: Burnett Books, 1985), 334. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Google the phrase. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">See Richards and Gonzales, <em>The Privileged Planet</em>, and Ward and Brownlee, <em>Rare Earth</em>, for more details. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Charles Darwin (1872) <em>Origin of Species</em>, 6th ed. (New York: New York University Press, 1988), 154, as quoted in Michael Behe, <em>Darwin’s Black Box</em> (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 39. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">I’m aware of attempts to get around this problem by suggesting, <em>theoretically</em>, that evolution could have “constructed”&nbsp;the simpler parts of these machines for a different use, then repurposed them for the larger mechanism. But the sheer number of these molecular machines combined with their staggering complexity—the smaller parts themselves are irreducibly complex—makes that alternative a <em>practical</em> impossibility. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">See the superb Illustra Media DVDs, “Living Waters”&nbsp;and “Metamorphosis,”&nbsp;for details. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflection,”&nbsp;16. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Antony Flew, <em>There is a God—How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind</em> (New York: HarperOne, 2007). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Ibid., 42, cf. 155. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 78. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Blaise Pascal, <em>Pensées</em> VII (425). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Koukl, 83. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Holly Ordway, <em>Not God’s Type</em> (Chicago: Moody, 2010), 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Ibid., 27, 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Ibid., 31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1952), 106. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23">Ordway, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:24">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/november/how-french-atheist-becomes-theologian.html. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:24">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:25">Blaise Pascal, <em>Pensées</em> VII (425). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:25">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:26">My thanks to Jonathan Noyes. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:26">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-part-2" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-part-2" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-part-2" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Full of Facts, Empty of Knowledge and Virtue
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/full-of-facts-empty-of-knowledge-and-virtue
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Each new day seems to fulfill Neil Postman’s prediction that we are <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X" target="_blank"><em>Amusing Ourselves to Death</em></a>. While he feared society would medicate itself with the television entertainment industry, I can’t help but think how today, with the internet and the gadgets that connect us to it, his prophesy is now being fulfilled in a new way. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and Google Home give us immediate access to Wikipedia and an array of “facts”&nbsp;from the internet. Though we have far more access to random bits of data at our fingertips (or lips), it doesn’t seem like we’re becoming better educated or developing more virtue. Obviously, this isn’t true of every corner of our culture or every person, but it largely seems to be the trend.</p>

<p>I’ll leave you with a quote from Postman’s book, where he contrasts <em>Brave New World</em> with <em>1984</em>, suggesting Aldous Huxley’s vision reflects our culture’s trend more than George Orwell’s.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.</p>

<p>What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”&nbsp;In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These are sobering words, especially when I reflect on my own penchant for gadgets and technology. Makes me want to take a hike in the woods as I write this.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffull-of-facts-empty-of-knowledge-and-virtue" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffull-of-facts-empty-of-knowledge-and-virtue" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffull-of-facts-empty-of-knowledge-and-virtue" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Can We Condemn Evil if God Is Sovereign?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/18/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-we-condemn-evil-if-god-is-sovereign-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was recently asked, “If God is in control of our death, then how do we answer suicide and abortion? Would not God’s control over death make Him the agent of cause, which would therefore mean we are not able to condemn such practices?”</p>

<p>This is not just a question about suicide and abortion; it applies to every evil thing anyone does. God “ordains”&nbsp;the steps of man (Prov. 20:24) and “works all things after the counsel of His will”&nbsp;(Eph. 1:11). But if it’s true God is sovereign, how can evil be evil? Part of the answer can be found in the story of Joseph. Joseph says to his brothers who sold him into slavery, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive”&nbsp;(Gen. 50:20).</p>

<h2>The Same Action, Different Intentions</h2>

<p>We see in that passage that the same action was caused by different intentions. The brothers meant evil, and they bore the responsibility for that evil. But God meant the same action for good. He used the brothers’&nbsp;evil intentions to bring about <em>His</em> desired result (i.e., to save the line of Christ), and He did not have evil intentions in doing so. Therefore, God was not guilty of evil, but the brothers were.</p>

<p>We see another example of this in Acts 4:24-28, where the disciples say of the people who put Jesus to death:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There, we see that the most grievous sin ever committed - the killing of Jesus - was something God predestined to occur. But this doesn’t mean the people didn’t sin in killing Him! No one would say that killing Jesus wasn’t a sin just because it was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world for Jesus to die on the cross. In fact, it was said of Judas that “it would have been better for that man if he had not been born”&nbsp;(Matt. 26:24). The people sinned <em>and</em> God meant it as part of His plan for His glory and the good of His people.</p>

<h2>Evil Is Punished</h2>

<p>We see this yet again in the Old Testament when God uses the evil intentions of the nations to punish Israel and then turns around and promises to judge and punish those nations because of the actions that came from their evil intentions. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is+10%3A5-12&amp;version=NASB">Isaiah 10:5-12</a> is one example of this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger</strong></p>

<p>And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,</p>

<p><strong>I send it against a godless nation</strong></p>

<p><strong>And commission it against the people of My fury</strong></p>

<p>To capture booty and to seize plunder,</p>

<p>And to trample them down like mud in the streets.</p>

<p><strong>Yet it does not so intend,</strong></p>

<p><strong>Nor does it plan so in its heart,</strong></p>

<p><strong>But rather it is its purpose to destroy</strong></p>

<p>And to cut off many nations...</p>

<p>So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “<strong>I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria</strong> and the pomp of his haughtiness.”&nbsp;[Emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The people of Assyria did not do their work in submission to God to carry out His good and just plans. They did evil out of the evil of their hearts, and they were punished for it. <em>At the same time</em>, God intended for their actions to be just punishment from Him against the Israelites, so this was not a sin on God’s part. Both parties had their own intentions and purposes. The Assyrians acted to commit evil. Therefore, the Assyrians were condemned in doing evil, and God was justified in bringing about justice against the Israelites (and later, against the Assyrians).</p>

<p>Whenever anyone does evil, we condemn the evil. But we can also take comfort in knowing <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/don%E2%80%99t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain#.WllcxpOpndc">there’s a purpose</a> for <em>everything</em> because God is sovereign. (Incidentally, knowing there’s a purpose also helps us to forgive those who sin against us, just as it helped Joseph.) Most of the time, we will not know what that purpose is. God may be revealing the evil of sin, or drawing people to repentance, or planning an act of grace in the future, or showing people the results of life without Him, or drawing out virtue, or humbling someone, or raising someone up, etc., etc. We just don’t know. But the fact that there <em>is</em> a purpose doesn’t change the fact that it’s a sin for the person committing the act of evil. And make no mistake: <em>It is the evil human being who is performing the evil deed out of the evil desires of his own heart, not God.</em></p>

<h2>Evil Is Evil</h2>

<p>In Romans 3, Paul responds to the claim that evil isn’t really evil if good comes from it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just. (Rom. 3:5-8)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How can it be that God will judge the world if our sin is working for His glory in some way? Paul doesn’t explain in detail how all of this fits together. He merely says the condemnation of those who do evil is just, and this is true even though our evil reveals God’s glory in the end. Our evil, which springs from the evil in our hearts, is evil, and we must condemn it.</p>

<h2>God Does Not Do Evil</h2>

<p>But does this mean that God Himself, by ordaining that we would act according to our own evil desires in a way that will ultimately accomplish His purposes, is doing what Paul warned against - i.e., doing evil that good may come? I don’t think so. To begin with, the passage is talking about people who do evil as evil, and then, as an excuse, say it’s okay because their unrighteousness will glorify God by revealing His righteousness. This would be similar to saying that because God’s grace increases when we sin, we ought to sin to glorify God’s grace (Paul likewise condemns this in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+6&amp;version=ESV">Romans 6:1</a>). This is a different situation from what we’re discussing here - it’s doing evil as evil. God never does evil as evil. Rather, it’s human actors that do evil as evil.</p>

<p>Here’s an illustration that I think will help you see that God is not doing evil, even if He ordains that <em>we</em> act out the evil desires of our hearts: Imagine a wartime situation - a scene from World War II, where wounded men are lying on a battlefield. One man lying there, a medic, sees an angry, sadistic enemy soldier approaching one of his friends with a knife. The medic knows his friend’s injury requires his leg to be amputated immediately if his life is to be saved, so he says to the enemy soldier, “If you really want to torture him, you should cut off his leg.”&nbsp;The enemy soldier thinks this is an excellent idea because he <em>does</em> want to torture, so he cuts off the medic’s friend’s leg. But in doing this, he saves the friend’s life, just as the medic intended.</p>

<p>The medic channeled the soldier’s evil desires in a way that would save a life, even though the enemy soldier didn’t intend to save a life (quite the opposite!), nor did he ever even know he saved one. He knew only that he satisfied his evil desires by engaging in an act of torture. In the same action, the soldier tortured and the medic healed. The enemy soldier took direct action; the medic, only indirect action, using the means of the soldier’s evil desires.</p>

<p>I think you can see that while the enemy soldier did evil here, the medic did not. If that can be true for a limited human being, how much more for an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, loving God who knows every result that would come from every possible action!</p>

<p>We may not understand how all of this works, and I may not even be right about everything I’ve said above. (I know many would disagree with me - even here at Stand to Reason!) But as we’re trying to figure this out, we must start with what we see in Scripture. And what we see is this: God is sovereign. And yet, He is sovereign in such a way that we are still truly acting out of our desires and truly responsible for our sin. Whatever solution we use to reconcile these two facts needs to account for both.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-we-condemn-evil-if-god-is-sovereign-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-we-condemn-evil-if-god-is-sovereign-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-we-condemn-evil-if-god-is-sovereign-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Faith Just a Feeling?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/17/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Faith - properly understood - is <em>not</em> a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.</p>

<p>So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.</p>

<p>This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle - they can change from day to day. The psalmist David knew this very well. In Psalm 73, he describes how he was feeling “envious of the arrogant”&nbsp;because of “the prosperity of the wicked”&nbsp;(Ps. 73:3). Moreover, he writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>They scoff and speak with malice;</p>

<p>loftily they threaten oppression.</p>

<p>They set their mouths against the heavens,</p>

<p>and their tongue struts through the earth.</p>

<p>Therefore his people turn back to them,</p>

<p>and find no fault in them.</p>

<p>And they say, “How can God know?</p>

<p>Is there knowledge in the Most High?”</p>

<p>Behold, these are the wicked;</p>

<p>always at ease, they increase in riches.</p>

<p>All in vain have I kept my heart clean</p>

<p>and washed my hands in innocence.</p>

<p>For all the day long I have been stricken</p>

<p>and rebuked every morning.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When David’s feelings are left unchecked, he begins questioning his faith. Notice again verse 13. In a moment of emotional weakness, he declares that his faithfulness to God was “all in vain.”</p>

<p>However, David doesn’t let his feelings steer his faith. In fact, it’s just the opposite. David’s faith in God governs his feelings. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Nevertheless, I am continually with you;</p>

<p>you hold my right hand.</p>

<p>You guide me with your counsel,</p>

<p>and afterward you will receive me to glory.</p>

<p>Whom have I in heaven but you?</p>

<p>And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.</p>

<p>My flesh and my heart may fail,</p>

<p>but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At the end of the day, David doesn’t know why God allows the wicked to prosper. God never tells him. But he doesn’t allow his emotions - envy in this case - to get the better of him. He trusts in the God who has guided his life and has continually shown Himself faithful.</p>

<p>Feelings have their proper place in the Christian life. After all, God created them. But since they are far too easily influenced, and far too influential, they must not be allowed to instruct faith. Instead, faith <em>instructs</em> our feelings.</p>

<p>This same point is made by C. S. Lewis in <em>Mere Christianity</em>. He states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That’s it exactly. Reason assesses what is true, and faith holds on to it. And when moods rise up to confront and challenge our faith, we correct them. Lewis goes on to say,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods ’where they get off,’&nbsp;you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If feelings don’t inform faith, then what does? Biblical faith is informed by <em>evidence</em>. Jesus said, “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works”&nbsp;(John 10:38). What works is He talking about? The blind are seeing. The lame are walking. The deaf are hearing. The dead are rising. He is saying, “Believe <em>based on</em> the objective evidence.”</p>

<p>Emotions can be unreliable guides to the truth. But evidence doesn’t lie.</p>

<p>So feelings <em>follow</em> faith, and faith <em>follows</em> facts. For instance, my wife tells me daily that she loves me and does all kinds of things to show me. Those are the <em>facts</em>. These facts - and others - form the basis of my faith in her. And out of that faith comes feelings like joy, love, and safety. Similarly, there are facts about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ that form the basis of my faith in Christ. And out of that faith comes feelings of gratitude, humility, joy, and hope.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-faith-just-a-feeling-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-faith-just-a-feeling-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-faith-just-a-feeling-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How the Triune Nature of God Draws Us into Prayer
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/25/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-the-triune-nature-of-god-draws-us-into-prayer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been enjoying Michael Reeves’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Delighting-Trinity-Introduction-Christian-Faith/dp/0830839836/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1516859138&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=delighting+in+the+trinity">Delighting in the Trinity</a></em>. The title is an apt description! Reeves shows his readers “how God’s triune being makes all His ways beautiful.”&nbsp;The way he describes God’s love - the kind of love that can only come from a Father, not only for the other Persons of the Trinity but also for us - was actually overwhelming to me. It felt like a glimpse of an answer to Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:17-19 that we, “being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.”</p>

<p>Here’s what Reeves says about the Trinity and prayer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[In Christian prayer,] we join in with the fellowship as the Father, Son and Spirit are already enjoying it. That is, the Son - who is already interceding for us with his Father - brings us to be with him before his Father. Think of the high priest going into the presence of the Lord in the holy of holies: just so the Son takes us before his Father - and there the Spirit helps us (Rom 8:26). And so the Spirit supports us, the Son brings us and the Father - who always delights to hear the prayers of his Son - hears us with joy. With the Son, secure in him, enabled as he is by the Spirit, we pray to our Father.</p>

<p>Now, to pray like this - to pray “Abba”&nbsp;in Jesus’&nbsp;name, empowered by the Spirit - isn’t just the flashy Christian’s way of showing off his theological virtuosity; it is to revel in the shape of God’s own fellowship and beauty.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As Reeves explains, love and fellowship would be foreign to a single-person god - not native to him but something he may or may not have adopted later - for love is only possible when someone else exists to love. How could we count on our fellowship being welcomed by a single-person god? What if he tired of it and wished to return to his naturally-solitary state?</p>

<p>How different this is from a God who, by nature, has always been in fellowship, expressing love! With this God, fellowship isn’t just possible; it’s the very cause and purpose of creation. Fellowship overflows from our triune God, and our Father calls us into it.</p>

<p>To think we have the opportunity to enter into the fellowship of the Trinity through prayer today - right now! - is beyond incredible. If you need help getting started, <a href="https://www.challies.com/vlog/why-i-pray-with-an-app-three-minute-thursdays-11/">go here</a> and take three minutes to hear what Tim Challies has to say about an app called <a href="http://www.geero.net/prayermate/">Prayermate</a> that makes it easier to develop a habit of prayer.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-triune-nature-of-god-draws-us-into-prayer" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-triune-nature-of-god-draws-us-into-prayer" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-triune-nature-of-god-draws-us-into-prayer" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Nature Discriminates against Same-Sex Marriage
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/nature-discriminates-against-same-sex-marriage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not the result of bigotry; it’s the result of the unchangeable facts of biology. Marriage existed before government (and certainly before government attempted to define it). It’s the <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5263/">natural result</a> of the fact that the man/woman union produces children, and it exists to bind the man, woman, and child together for the stable good of everyone in society.</p>

<p>As Trevin Wax <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/reading-lines-justice-sotomayors-closing-remarks-case-christian-baker/">explains</a>, nature itself discriminates against same-sex marriage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Traditional marriage celebrates the bringing together of the two halves of humanity, the sexual union of a male and female that bears fruit in new life. Nature is terribly discriminatory, for only traditional marriages bring forth children. That’s why, when a male-female couple is unable to conceive, we sense the loss and mourn. Deep down, we know that marriage is oriented (not exclusively, but profoundly) toward procreation.</p>

<p>Same-sex marriages, on the other hand, can only serve as the basis of a family that has been engineered. Children do not flow naturally from the marriage. The relationship can be loving, stable, and committed, but the union is sterile, not artificially through birth control or tragically through infertility, but due to the nature of the union itself. Human bodies were designed to reproduce through the union of male and female. No other arrangement works. So, no matter how many times Macklemore sings “Same Love,”&nbsp;there is and will remain a profound difference in same-sex marriage versus traditional marriage. Only one kind of union can result in children.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It may seem like it’s useless to discuss lost political battles, but it’s still as necessary as ever for Christians to understand <em>why</em> we hold to a man/woman-only definition of marriage (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/worshipping-images-of-ourselves#.WllTSpOpkXo">here</a> for a theological reason, as well). Our understanding of the body, sexuality, and marriage will continue to be relevant, regardless of the law, not only because we will need to argue for our freedom to hold to this position in the future, but also because we must keep knowledge of this truth alive until our culture’s view of sexuality falls apart. And it <em>will</em> fall apart eventually. A false view of sexuality can’t be propped up forever because the consequences can’t be swept under the rug forever (for more on this, read Jeremy Neill’s argument that “<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15720/">On Human Sexuality, Conservative Victory is Inevitable</a>”).</p>

<p>For more on the arguments for man/woman-only marriage, see “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue#.WllVBpOpkXo">Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue</a>.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnature-discriminates-against-same-sex-marriage" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnature-discriminates-against-same-sex-marriage" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnature-discriminates-against-same-sex-marriage" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Intelligent Design Isn’t a God-of-the-Gaps Argument
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-intelligent-design-isn-t-a-god-of-the-gaps-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Intelligent design is just a God-of-the-gaps argument,”&nbsp;exclaimed a prominent theistic evolutionist. We had just met, but I was shocked at what I was hearing. This kind of ignorance might be excusable from a person on the street, but not from an accomplished theistic evolution advocate associated with Biologos.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this is a common tactic in these discussions. Rather than honestly dealing with arguments that Intelligent Design (ID) theorists make, theistic evolutionists dismiss ID as God-of-the-gaps.</p>

<p>Consequently, Crossway publishing and Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute have teamed up to produce <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM">a short video debunking this objection</a>. In this clear and concise video (see below), Meyer carefully describes the salient difference between a God-of-the-gaps argument and the case for ID. Allow me to summarize.</p>

<h2>Argument Based on Ignorance</h2>

<p>The God-of-the-gaps argument is a particular kind of argument known as an <em>argument from ignorance</em>. This is an informal fallacy. It takes the following structure:</p>

<p><em>Cause A</em> is insufficient to produce <em>Effect E</em>.</p>

<p>Therefore, <em>Cause B</em> must have produced <em>Effect E</em>.</p>

<p>This is obviously fallacious. Just because we know <em>Cause A</em> isn’t sufficient to produce the effect, that doesn’t mean we know <em>Cause B</em> did it. We would need independent reasons to believe <em>Cause B</em> is capable of producing the effect. But that important premise is missing in this form of argumentation.</p>

<p>It is fairly easy to see how this relates specifically to the God-of-the-gaps argument. Here is how the ID argument is often caricatured by its opponents:</p>

<p><em>Natural processes</em> are insufficient to produce <em>the information in DNA</em>.</p>

<p>Therefore, <em>God</em> must have produced <em>the information in DNA</em>.</p>

<p>If this were the argument made by ID proponents, then it would be a God-of-the-gaps argument. But this is <em>not</em> their argument. This is a straw man, a misrepresentation of their argument.</p>

<h2>Argument Based on Information</h2>

<p>The case for ID takes an entirely different structure than the God-of-the-gaps argument. An additional premise is added. And this makes all the difference.</p>

<p>The ID argument looks more like this:</p>

<p><em>Natural Processes</em> are insufficient to produce <em>the information in DNA</em>.</p>

<p><em>ID</em> is sufficient to produce <em>the information in DNA</em>.</p>

<p>Therefore, <em>ID</em> is the best explanation of <em>the information in DNA</em>.</p>

<p>In taking this structure, the argument becomes valid. It’s called an <em>inference to the best explanation</em>. And we use this as a form of reasoning all the time.</p>

<p>I was recently speaking on the West Coast at a camp and had the opportunity to walk to the beach in Twin Rocks, OR. It was a cold and windy day. As a result, there wasn’t another soul on the beach as far as the eye could see. While walking alone, I stumbled upon a message in the sand. It read, “Jesus loves you.”&nbsp;Without hesitation, I concluded that <em>someone</em> must have written this precious truth in the sand. But how did I arrive at this conclusion? The answer is quite simple. <em>This was the best explanation.</em></p>

<p><em>Natural processes</em> are insufficient to produce “<em>Jesus loves you”&nbsp;in the sand</em>.</p>

<p><em>ID</em> is sufficient to produce “<em>Jesus loves you”&nbsp;in the sand</em>.</p>

<p>Therefore, <em>ID</em> is the best explanation of “<em>Jesus loves you”&nbsp;in the sand</em>.</p>

<p>Wind, waves, sand, and erosion are not capable of producing a simple message like “Jesus loves you.”&nbsp;On the other hand, an intelligent mind can.</p>

<p>We know of a cause that is capable of producing this kind of information. Our uniform and repeated experience points us to an <em>intelligent mind</em>. This is <em>not</em> an argument from ignorance. It’s <em>not</em> a mind-of-the-gaps.</p>

<p>This is the argument ID theorists are making. After showing that natural processes are <em>incapable</em> of producing new functional information in the DNA digital code, they look at what causes are <em>capable</em> of producing new functional information. And that cause is intelligent agency. This is bolstered by the fact that we have all kinds of independent evidence that <em>minds</em> produce information.</p>

<p>Now, identifying exactly <em>who</em> that intelligent designer is requires further investigation. For instance, I found out later that the message “Jesus loves you”&nbsp;was written by one of the students from the camp where I was speaking. But even if I never figured out <em>who</em> the designer was, I would still know <em>that</em> design was the best explanation.</p>

<p>In sum, ID is not based on ignorance; it’s based on information. That is, ID theory rests upon what we know. First, we <em>know</em> that natural, undirected processes are insufficient to produce new functional information, like that found in the DNA digital code. Second, we <em>know</em> that minds are sufficient to produce new functional information, like that found in the DNA digital code. Taken together, it follows that ID is the best explanation.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="tGqzCA1mnyM" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tGqzCA1mnyM?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-isn-t-a-god-of-the-gaps-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-isn-t-a-god-of-the-gaps-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-isn-t-a-god-of-the-gaps-argument" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


