# articles

title: Craig, Law, and the Evil God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/08/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/craig-law-and-the-evil-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In William Lane Craig's recent <a href="http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/10/william-lane-craig-vs-stephen-law-does.html" target="_blank">debate</a> with Stephen Law, Law focused heavily on his "evil god challenge" to show why we should conclude there is no good God.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Here's the challenge (all quotes are from Craig's and Law's recent posts on the debate, not from the debate itself): If we can look around us, see the good in the world, and recognize that it's not likely there's an evil god (because of the existence of good), then isn't it just as reasonable to look around us, see the <em>evil</em> in the world, and recognize&nbsp;it's not likely there's a <em>good</em> God? "So why think belief in a good god is more reasonable than belief in an evil god?" (That is, aren't both equally&nbsp;<em><a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html" target="_blank">unreasonable</a></em>?)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So, the evidential problem of evil is, similarly, that there’s such vast quantities of seemingly gratuitous evil over hundreds of millions of years that it’s just not plausible that it’s the price paid for some greater good. It's just not plausible that not even an <em>ounce</em> of it is really gratuitous. Is this a "proof"? It's a “proof” only in the sense that, in the absence of any good counter-argument, it gives us <em>very good grounds</em> <em>for supposing there’s no good god </em>(just as the evidential problem of good gives us <em>very good grounds </em>for supposing there’s no evil god)….</p>

<p>The point is, there’s clearly evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there’s no evil god. But then why isn’t there evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt there’s no good god?...</p>

<p>These [cosmological and teleological] arguments provide no more support to belief in a good god than belief in an evil god. So, given belief in an evil god is absurd, why should we suppose belief in a good god more reasonable, notwithstanding the cosmological and teleological arguments?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Craig responded to the evil god challenge by saying that one can't conclude either that there is a god who is evil or that there's One who is good merely by weighing the good and evil we see around us, since either god could have reasons we can't perceive for permitting goodness or evil (respectively), even if he doesn't prefer it. Rather, it's the moral argument for the existence of God that argues that God (the self-existent, personal being argued for in the cosmological and teleological arguments) must exist as the perfectly good Person who grounds objective moral <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;id=9162" target="_blank">values</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.<br>
2. Evil exists.<br>
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)<br>
4. Therefore, God exists.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, even without this argument, taking into account that there is both good and evil in the world, we would have reason to prefer the idea that the God who exists is good rather than evil simply because of the nature of good and evil. Good is our obligation, our standard, the ideal. Evil is a rejection of those obligations, actions that fail to measure up to that standard, a twisting of what should have been done. So if ultimate reality (the god) is evil, good becomes inexplicable—not just because the evil god would be unlikely to <em>allow </em>goodness, but because there would be no explanation for its existence <em>at all</em>. The same can't be said if ultimate reality (God) is good. With a good God hypothesis, the question of whether or not He would be likely to allow evil to occur still must be answered (as it must in the case of "evil god" and goodness), but at least one could make sense of the fact that something greater than evil exists.</p>

<p>Here's how Craig <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;id=9162" target="_blank">explains</a> it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I talked earlier about reasons to think that the Creator/Designer of the universe is good. Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to flout, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. In other words, if Law’s evil god exists, then God exists.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So even if Craig had not offered the moral argument for a good God, it's not the case that the existence of good and evil equally disprove both an evil god and our good God. Evil could exist in a world grounded in ultimate goodness, but how could one even make sense of goodness and its obligations existing in a world grounded in ultimate evil?</p>

<p>You can read Craig's full answer to the evil god challenge at <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;id=9162" target="_blank">Reasonable Faith</a> and Law's response to that answer on his <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html" target="_blank">website</a>. Or listen to the original <a href="http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/10/william-lane-craig-vs-stephen-law-does.html" target="_blank">debate</a> hosted by <a href="http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable" target="_blank">Unbelievable</a>.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/UnbelievableJB" target="_blank">@UnbelievableJB</a>)</p>

<div class="mcePaste" id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;">So why think belief in a good god is more reasonable than belief in an evil god?</strong></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcraig-law-and-the-evil-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%2Fcraig-law-and-the-evil-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%2Fcraig-law-and-the-evil-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: The Power of Graphic Images
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-power-of-graphic-images
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Americans are in for a rude awakening. Starting September 2012, some people will wake up to strategically-placed graphic pictures. And they won’t like what they see. But it’s about time. Countless lives have been lost because of this “choice.”&nbsp;What’s most surprising is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the ones behind this new graphic image campaign. Why? So people will be outraged by what they see and do something to stop it. I’m talking, of course, about smoking.</p>

<p>That’s right. The FDA is on a mission to get Americans to kick the habit. Taking a cue from the pro-life playbook, they’re going to slap graphic images onto cigarette boxes to depict the health risks of smoking. One disturbing image shows a man holding a cigarette while he blows smoke out of his tracheostomy, which is a surgical hole in the front of his neck that extends into the windpipe. Another picture is a close-up of a person’s mouth with a cancerous tumor on their lip. The caption reads, “Cigarettes cause cancer.”</p>

<p>It turns out the FDA is also concerned about the potential smoking has to harm children. Two of the cigarette labels warn about the health risks to kids. One image shows a wisp of smoke hovering near a child with the warning, “Tobacco smoke can harm your children.”&nbsp;The other shows a newborn in a hospital incubator with the words, “Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.”</p>

<p>Why is the FDA willing to use disgusting pictures to persuade people out of their free choice to smoke? Because it works. Graphic images change minds.</p>

<p>Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (which oversees the FDA), said in a White House speech announcing the anti-smoking campaign that, “These graphic warning labels will...tell the truth...with pictures showing negative health consequences of smoking that are proven to be effective.”&nbsp;She’s right. The warnings will work. In fact, I’ve used the same tactic many times for a different purpose.</p>

<p>Last month I was invited to speak at a fundraiser banquet on behalf of the Family Life Center in Effingham, Illinois. The goal was to raise money for this center that helps women facing crisis pregnancies. Four hundred men and women dressed up to sit in a fancy hotel ballroom. They enjoyed a pleasant evening while they ate a delectable dinner. Everyone was comfortable. But then I got up and showed graphic pictures of the remains of children killed through abortion.</p>

<p>You might be asking yourself, <em>What was he thinking?</em> Why do such a thing? For the same reason the FDA is going to show graphic images of smoking-related diseases. Images tell the truth in a way words can’t convey. Unless people are made uncomfortable about abortion, they are less likely to do anything about it. So I bothered them about the unseen reality of dead children so they would do something: open their wallets.</p>

<p>I didn’t <em>only</em> show graphic images. I also equipped them to defend the pro-life position with tactics that work. These are the same tactics I teach the pro-lifers I take to the streets. Using graphic images, though, is a powerful tactic that changes minds, even on a controversial issue like abortion. I know that. You know that. It seems like the FDA knows that, too.</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-power-of-graphic-images" 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-power-of-graphic-images" 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-power-of-graphic-images" 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 Should We Use Graphic Images?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/18/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-should-we-use-graphic-images-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Yesterday, Alan <a href="/w/the-fda-s-campaign-against-choice" target="_blank">spoke</a> about the power of graphic images to convey truth and affect behavior. The ancient Roman poet Horace said it well: “Less vividly is the mind stirred by what finds entrance through the ears than by what is brought before the trusty eyes...”</p>

<p>Should such images be used when we’re arguing against abortion? I think yes, but care needs to be taken to make sure they’re used appropriately.</p>

<p>This 12-minute <a href="http://vimeo.com/25061075" target="_blank">video</a> is an excellent example of how to do this. <a href="https://prolifetraining.com/" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a> warns the students what they’ll see, compassionately assures them it’s not for the purpose of condemnation, gives them hope for complete freedom from their guilt, shows the graphic images, and then justifies their use by giving an example of how a graphic image was profoundly effective in the past in communicating truth on the issue of human rights.</p>

<p>This video is worth bookmarking, passing on, and playing for others when you’re explaining the truth about abortion to your family and friends.</p>

<p>(If you prefer to read rather than watch, here’s a <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2011/11/bad-reason-2-for-not-showing-abortion.html" target="_blank">discussion</a> of this approach at the Life Training Institute Blog.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="25061075" 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/25061075?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%2Fhow-should-we-use-graphic-images-" 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-should-we-use-graphic-images-" 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-should-we-use-graphic-images-" 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: Depend on God Who Raises the Dead
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/03/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/depend-on-god-who-raises-the-dead
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Second Corinthians 1:8–9 has been life-changing for me:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead….</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Kevin DeYoung has <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/10/27/when-you-feel-like-death-part-2/" target="_blank">this</a> to say about the passage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>After talking about his crushing burdens and the death sentence he felt, Paul says, “But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead”….</p>

<p>It’s an amazing statement Paul makes. When most of us start to suffer we doubt God more. We question his goodness. We wonder what in the world he’s doing. But Paul says, “No, no. We’ve got it backwards. Affliction is supposed to make us doubt ourselves. We are supposed to be questioning our strength. We are meant to wonder, what in the world can I do about this?” And the answer is nothing. When you are utterly burdened beyond strength, what can you do? You could put a 500 pound crate in front of me and tell me to pick it up and bring it outside, and I won’t be able to do it. I don’t care how I maneuver the thing, I am not strong enough to carry that weight. Most of us don’t think, or care to think, that one of the things God is up to when he sends crushing affliction, is breaking our mean streak of independence….</p>

<p>Self-confidence and independence are among the best virtues in our eyes, when divine-reliance and dependence are what God wants to see in us. The verb in the beginning of verse 9 is in the perfect tense instead of the past tense, which may indicate an ongoing sense of desperation in Paul. True, he was delivered, but the experience of feeling that death sentence was still with him…. He knew what it was to be desperate, to be crushed with burdens, to be discouraged, to be anxious, to look death square in the eye.</p>

<p>And what did he learn from it all? That he was not in control. That he could not save himself. That he could not make himself better. That he could not carry on in his own strength. That from here on out, he would rely on God and not on himself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s easy to learn and repeat these words about dependence, but unfortunately, I think this is one of those lessons that can only be truly learned through experience. If you’re feeling helpless, you’re on the right track. God wants us to know that <em>He</em> is the One who is working in the world through us—He is glorified when we recognize this, and His glory is the purpose of all His work. So as long as we think, even a little, that we can take care of things on our own, as long as we fail to recognize our need to seek Him to fill our weak and starving souls, His purpose can’t, and won’t, be achieved through us because we would steal God’s credit for any accomplishments.</p>

<p>So let suffering do its work in us, knowing “He <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:7-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">disciplines</a> us for our good.” And when we get to our lowest point, the best news is that God “who <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%204:13-25&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">gives life to the dead</a> and calls into being that which does not exist” can certainly give us new life, as well.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdepend-on-god-who-raises-the-dead" 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%2Fdepend-on-god-who-raises-the-dead" 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%2Fdepend-on-god-who-raises-the-dead" 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: Israel’s Failure Led to Evil and Suffering
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/15/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/israel-s-failure-led-to-evil-and-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I explained <a href="/w/the-judgment-that-led-to-salvation" target="_blank">here</a> how God’s destruction of the Canaanites through the Israelites had a dual purpose. First, it was God’s judgment against the Canaanites, and second, it would prevent Israel from taking on the same evil customs practiced by the Canaanites (see also <a href="/w/not-genocide-but-capital-punishment" target="_blank">here</a>), enabling their culture to develop in a way that would bless, and ultimately redeem, the people of the world.</p>

<p>So just as God removed an evil, destructive culture in the flood for the sake of the future of all men, so God’s commanding the removal of the Canaanites from Israel’s land was intended to be the deserved judgment that would lead to our salvation. (This was a unique command in salvation history because the New Covenant does <em>not</em> create a physical nation with physical borders.)</p>

<p>But as far as Israel failed to do this, misery resulted. Psalm 106 describes part of what happened:</p>

<p>They did not destroy the peoples,</p>

<p>As the Lord commanded them,</p>

<p>But they mingled with the nations</p>

<p>And learned their practices,</p>

<p>And served their idols,</p>

<p>Which became a snare to them.</p>

<p>They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,</p>

<p>And shed innocent blood,</p>

<p>The blood of their sons and their daughters,</p>

<p>Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;</p>

<p>And the land was polluted with the blood.</p>

<p>Thus they became unclean in their practices,</p>

<p>And played the harlot in their deeds.</p>

<p>Just as God had warned would happen if they failed to follow His command of judgment and removal, the Israelites’&nbsp;interactions with Canaanite culture drew them in. They followed the gods of the Canaanites and did those idols’&nbsp;deeds rather than the deeds commanded by the true God. And so instead of reflecting God to the world by acting as a living parable of life and holiness (and opposition to evil), they became an image of death, embracing evil even to the point of murdering their own children.</p>

<p>Even worse, since everyone knew there was a particular God connected with Israel, the Israelites were not only committing murder, they were lying about the very nature of God to the whole world, blaspheming Him as a God of death through their actions. In the end, because they committed the same evils as the Canaanites, they also suffered the same judgment—removal from the land.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fisrael-s-failure-led-to-evil-and-suffering" 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%2Fisrael-s-failure-led-to-evil-and-suffering" 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%2Fisrael-s-failure-led-to-evil-and-suffering" 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: Seeing God Will Humble a Person
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/22/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/seeing-god-will-humble-a-person
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Was Moses being proud when he <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2012:3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">wrote</a>, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth”? Must someone else have written it for it to be true? I love James Hamilton’s <a href="http://jimhamilton.info/2011/09/14/failed-humblebrag-mosaic-self-promotion-or-true-humility/" target="_blank">answer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The irony is obvious, right? It’s hardly humble to declare yourself the most humble man in the world.</p>

<p>Unless it’s true.</p>

<p>In which case, it wouldn’t be a <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/07/02/new-word-to-add-to-the-lexicon-and-to-avoid-in-practice-the-humblebrag/" target="_blank">humblebrag</a> fail. Nor is Moses touting his own virtue….</p>

<p>If anything will create humility, face to face interaction with Yahweh will do the job. Moses knew the greatness of God like no one else. Moses thereby knew both his inadequacy and his massive task like no one else.</p>

<p>Moses knew from this direct interaction with God what God’s intentions were and what part God intended Moses to play in the program. Only a reprobate fool would be made proud by such knowledge, and Moses is neither.</p>

<p>So Moses, I contend, is humbly speaking the truth. The access Moses had to God made him the humblest man in the world, and part of the proof of his humility is that he doesn’t cave to the proud desire to avoid doing anything that might make people think he isn’t humble.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This also makes sense given that the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers 12:1-3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Numbers 12:3</a> verse in question comes in the midst of the story of Miriam’s and Aaron’s grumbling against Moses’ position of authority—a position that Moses had desperately tried to get out of as he stood before God, to the point of provoking God’s <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus 4:1-17&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">anger</a>. God’s glory had informed informed Moses of his utter lack of natural ability to fulfill his role. He never wanted it and would have been relieved to pass it on to his brother or sister. And so here, he reminds us of this.</p>

<p>Only Moses, among all the people living on earth, had seen God “face to face” and felt the anguished inadequacy that seeing towering greatness evokes. His words were spoken not as a reflection on his virtue, but out of his keen awareness of his own smallness—an insight he uniquely bore because of his encounters with God.</p>

<p>Now <em>that</em> makes sense to 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%2Fseeing-god-will-humble-a-person" 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%2Fseeing-god-will-humble-a-person" 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%2Fseeing-god-will-humble-a-person" 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: Don't Just Doubt Your Faith, Doubt Your Doubts
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 11/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-just-doubt-your-faith-doubt-your-doubts
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Brett’s monthly letter for November 2011</em></p>

<p>Dear Friend,</p>

<p>Students need space to share their doubts. We all do. If serious questions about Christianity and uncertainty toward God are not recognized and explored, they remain in the heart and mind only to surface farther down the road, and often with greater force. Simplistic Christian responses will not suffice. “Do extra devotions”&nbsp;or “just have faith”&nbsp;don’t do justice to a student’s real struggle with doubt.</p>

<p>I encounter student doubt all the time. My work actually helps to surface doubts, as I raise challenges to Christianity and then explore answers in my talks. I remember when Helia, a freshman at a Christian college in Southern California, approached me after the talk I gave at a Summit Ministries conference this past summer and shared her struggle with doubt. I was glad for her honest questions and told her as much. Why? I want students to get their doubts on the table while they’re <em>with</em> me. So I always allow space for questions, the starting point for dealing with doubt.</p>

<p>But what’s the next step? How do you help a student move from doubt to confidence in God’s truth? Here’s where some prominent voices in youth ministry are doing more harm than good. Andrew Root, coauthor of the new book, <em>The Theological Turn in Youth Ministry</em>, has an entire chapter on doubt titled, “Doubt and Confirmation: the Mentor as Co-Doubter.”&nbsp;Root seems to suggest that doubt is not something to eventually overcome. Rather, it is an end in itself: “But what if the objective of the confirmation teacher was not to work to pass on anything but was rather to be a partner and companion in doubt?...what if the best way to actually pass on the faith was not through lessons, certainty, and knowledge, but through doubt?” (p. 194)</p>

<p>Kara Powell and Brad Griffin of the Fuller Youth Institute head up the nationally recognized Sticky Faith project, an attempt to help parents and youth leaders cultivate a lasting faith in their students. In their article, “I Doubt It,”&nbsp;they begin well, discussing the need to create safe places where students can share their doubt. But after that, what?</p>

<p>Powell and Griffin write, “Students need to understand the basics of Christian faith in order to discuss their faith with others, and training in core beliefs (sometimes called apologetics) can be helpful.”&nbsp;All right, sounds great. I’ve seen confident faith emerge in many young lives as a result of good apologetic training. But in the next sentence, they undermine what they’ve just suggested. “However, learning to <em>argue</em> about faith may not be the most helpful approach.”&nbsp;So according to Griffin and Powell, apologetics “can be helpful,”&nbsp;but since it really amounts to arguing about faith, it “may not be the most helpful approach.”&nbsp;With that, apologetics gets a quick dismissal. And parents and youth leaders lose a valuable tool in dealing with doubt.</p>

<p>Thankfully, Jesus offers a different approach. In Mark 9:14-29, the father of a demon-possessed son pleads with Jesus, “I do believe; help my unbelief.”&nbsp;What an honest expression of doubt. And how does Jesus respond? He casts the demon out of the boy. Jesus provides evidence in the form of a miracle, confirming His claims about Himself.</p>

<p>What is Jesus’&nbsp;response to “Doubting Thomas?”&nbsp;Before seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas declares, “Until I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into he place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe”&nbsp;(John 20:22). When Jesus first appears to Thomas, He offers evidence: “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing”&nbsp;(v. 28).</p>

<p>Jesus offers the way forward for students struggling with doubt. When students are given sound apologetic instruction, they discover the rich storehouse of evidence confirming the truth of Christianity. Such evidence can move them from unbelief to confident faith. Together, you and I are doing that for thousands of students across the country every year. Thank you for being a partner.</p>

<p>Helping students doubt their doubts,</p>

<p>Brett Kunkle</p>

<p>STR Student Impact</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-just-doubt-your-faith-doubt-your-doubts" 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%2Fdon-t-just-doubt-your-faith-doubt-your-doubts" 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%2Fdon-t-just-doubt-your-faith-doubt-your-doubts" 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: Are Faith and Reason Compatible?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/13/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-faith-and-reason-compatible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A lot of Christians think that faith and reason are at opposite ends of the spectrum; that reason is used to get knowledge on one side, and on the other side are the things that you don’t have good reasons for like faith. There is a sense that Christians in faith are leaping in the dark and believing ridiculous things because this is all that we have available to us. If we use reason and are thoughtful about our faith, somehow we are not doing what God wants.</p>

<p>Many Christians would nod their head to that statement.&nbsp; These are the kind of people who say, “If you’ve got all this evidence for it, then where is room for faith?” They see faith and reason as opposites, and the relationship might be considered the relationship of divorce. These are two entities divorced from each other, one on either side.&nbsp;</p>

<p>David Horner uses a metaphor in his wonderful book, <em>Mind Your Faith</em>.&nbsp; He says it’s not divorce; it should be marriage.&nbsp; Faith and reason are partners working together.</p>

<p>Horner states that one of the biggest objections that the New Atheists have brought against religion is that religious people have blind faith. They believe in things for which there is no evidence; ergo, the conflict between faith and reason.&nbsp; But Christians are people of reason and faith, but not people of blind faith.</p>

<p>It’s curious, as David Horner points out in his book <em>Mind Your Faith</em>, that when New Atheists make this charge, they never define reason or faith so that we can compare what we mean by reason and faith. In his book, he does both.</p>

<p>Horner states that reason is: “Assessing reasons for a point of view and logical relationships to see if there’s adequate justification for a belief. But faith has four components.” I’ll say three, because I think the last two are very similar. “First, there is an object. When you have faith, you have something or someone you have faith in. Secondly, there is content, which are details about what it means to put your faith in that thing, like a chair.” That’s the object of your faith. The belief, or the content, is that the chair will hold your body weight. And the third thing is an act of trust or commitment when you go over and sit in the chair. So those are three elements of faith: object, content, and trust or commitment. I thought that was a pretty good characterization.</p>

<p>When you think about the definition of rationality and the definition of faith, where is the conflict? The answer is there is none. If you define what reason is, and you define what faith is, you realize that there’s no conflict.</p>

<p>Reason assesses, faith trusts. Reason assesses whether or not something or someone is trustworthy, and then faith believes that certain things are true in light of the reasons. Not blind faith, but a reasonable step of trust.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It’s a great distinction I’m going tout as a great way of characterizing the relationship of faith and reason: not divorce, but marriage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Reason assesses, faith trusts. No conflict. The opposite of faith is not reason; the opposite of faith is unbelief, or lack of trust. The opposite of reason is not faith; the opposite of reason is irrationality. So it certainly is possible to have reasonable faith, and it is also possible to have unreasonable unbelief.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-faith-and-reason-compatible" 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%2Fare-faith-and-reason-compatible" 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%2Fare-faith-and-reason-compatible" 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: “Mormons Aren’t Christians” Is Not an Epithet
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/14/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/-mormons-aren-t-christians-is-not-an-epithet
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Newsroom at LDS.org posted <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/on-faith-blog-how-mormons-answer-not-christian-claims" target="_blank">this</a> in response to the current controversy:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Recent political events have once again brought the “Mormons aren’t Christians,”&nbsp;“Mormons are a cult”&nbsp;epithets into the national spotlight. In his <a href="https://www.deseret.com/2011/10/23/20224969/how-do-mormons-answer-not-christian-claims" target="_blank">“On Faith”&nbsp;commentary</a> this week, Church Public Affairs managing director Michael Otterson suggests why people make such claims and shares his own experience of being labeled not Christian.</p>

<p>Otterson says one problem is that half the U.S. population knows very little about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, he says, this may be changing.</p>

<p>“Research shows that people have a far better view of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they know a member personally,”&nbsp;Otterson says. “There is a point when those people who have seen Mormons caricatured in their Sunday School classes realize that the second-hand prejudices they have learned don’t fit with their first-hand experiences with faithful Latter-day Saints.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Otterson’s commentary explains further:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you try to track the number of references to Jesus Christ in the service, you may lose count. So just observe the families, listen to the prayers, leaf through the hymn book to see if any of the hymns seem familiar, and make up your own mind as to how Christian our people are. Jesus taught us: “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think a great deal of confusion is happening because people aren’t defining their terms. The word “Christian”&nbsp;actually means something. It doesn’t simply refer to a <a href="/w/lds-test-is-necessary-not-sufficient" target="_blank">person who follows the ethical teachings</a> in the New Testament, nor does it refer to everyone who uses the name “Jesus.”&nbsp;Christianity entails an entire worldview—a particular view of God, man, salvation, purpose, heaven and hell, etc.</p>

<p>Christianity is a religion with one self-existent, eternal, Trinitarian God. In Mormonism, they worship a Father God (but many other gods exist for other worlds), who has a physical body and most likely has not always been a god, but was born into another world and advanced to perfection by following his Father’s plan of salvation. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also gods.</p>

<p>Christianity teaches that men and women were created by a God who will forever be infinitely greater than His creatures. Mormonism teaches that we are of the same species as God (begotten in the pre-existence by Heavenly Father and Mother, as Jesus was), and if we follow the right path and fulfill all the requirements, we can become gods of our own worlds.</p>

<p>The same kinds of distinctions could be made in all the other areas I mentioned. These are not unimportant distinctions, they’re radically different understandings of core concepts. So it’s not an epithet to say that Christianity and Mormonism are very different—different enough to require different names. This conclusion is not a matter of emotion, fear, or hatred.</p>

<p>But I think perhaps when we say that Mormons aren’t Christian, we ought to take a moment to explain what we mean. We’re not saying they’re weird, scary people, or that they’re being brainwashed or controlled by a cult leader, or that they’re immoral. We’re merely saying that the word “Christian”&nbsp;actually means something, and it has meant that thing for centuries. To claim that their theology fits into that word is to misunderstand what is meant by “Christian.”</p>

<p>Mormons may believe that they are more truly following Christ and His plan of salvation than we are (since they have the restored priesthood, the temples, the covenants and ordinances, and more scripture) and so, are more deserving of the name Christian; but even if they were correct about this, to appropriate the name Christian now is to imply that they’re just another denomination, and that is just confusing and misleading. And to demand that we call them Christian is to ask us to say that the nature of God, man, and salvation—the very heart of Christianity—is unimportant, or at least, less important than mere moral behavior. It’s not fair or reasonable to ask this of us.</p>

<p>I think many Mormons aren’t familiar with Christian doctrine, and so they may not understand why we think our two religions are different enough to consider them separate religions. And to make matters more confusing, we use some of the same theological words but assume different meanings for those words. So if this issue comes up, take some time to define each term and explore the differences so they know you’re not saying they aren’t Christian out of prejudice or ignorance, it’s just a matter of recognizing the fundamental <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/10/13/mormonism-101/" target="_blank">differences</a> in our theology.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-mormons-aren-t-christians-is-not-an-epithet" 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%2F-mormons-aren-t-christians-is-not-an-epithet" 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%2F-mormons-aren-t-christians-is-not-an-epithet" 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 Judgment that Led to Salvation
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/07/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-judgment-that-led-to-salvation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When God judged the Canaanites through the Israelites, He gave the Israelites a warning:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live. And as I plan to do to them, so I will do to you (Numbers 33:55-56).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s the last sentence of this that clues us in as to why, in addition to the reason of the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2015:15-16&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">deserved judgment</a> against the Canaanite culture, God wanted to drive out the Canaanites. If the Canaanites remained in the land, they would “trouble”&nbsp;the Israelites. And we know from the last sentence what “trouble”&nbsp;means: If their being “troubled”&nbsp;would lead to God judging the Israelites as He did the Canaanites, then being “troubled”&nbsp;means that having the Canaanites there would cause Israel to commit the same sins the Canaanite culture encouraged. The misery that would follow from Israel being immediately swallowed up by the evils in the Canaanite culture would be devastating.</p>

<p>God had to drive out the Canaanites because He was building a culture that would bless the world. Culture is more powerful than most people realize. The practiced and accepted sins in a culture pull at everyone, and it’s almost useless to try to resist. Just as in the case of the Flood, in order for God to start anew, He had to protect His invaluable seedling from the giant and aggressive weeds of child sacrifice and other evils that threatened to destroy His small and growing blessing for all future generations. A wall had to be built to allow the Covenant time to shape a people who would bring us the Scriptures and the Messiah.</p>

<p>But despite the warnings, and though they had the Law, the Israelites failed to completely drive out the Canaanites, and they ultimately did adopt the Canaanite sins, bringing on themselves their own judgment of destruction and exile.</p>

<p>And in the process of this unfolding of God’s work among men from creation to the cross, God revealed to the whole world the depth of our weak sinfulness and just how desperately we need Him. We human beings simply cannot be righteous on our own and fulfill our purpose of loving and reflecting God.</p>

<p>We couldn’t reflect God when God Himself walked with us and we could see perfection.</p>

<p>We couldn’t reflect God when we had no law.</p>

<p>We couldn’t reflect God when we had a beautiful Law.</p>

<p>Fail, fail, fail. Enter Christ. What was left but for God to return not only to stand among us, not only to free us from the Law, not only to reveal His perfections (the standard behind the Law) more clearly than even the Law could, but to dwell within us, changing us and empowering us from within, and to stand in our place as the righteousness we failed to achieve?</p>

<p>And so in the end, after the depth of our inability to be righteous on our own had been revealed, and after God’s righteous judgment—past, present, and future—was made plain, Jesus came and “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:9-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">purchased</a> for God with [His] blood men from <em>every</em> tribe and tongue and people and nation.”&nbsp;This was no mere tribalism; what began as a focus on Israel was always intended to end with the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1-3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">world</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%2Fthe-judgment-that-led-to-salvation" 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-judgment-that-led-to-salvation" 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-judgment-that-led-to-salvation" 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 FDA’s Campaign against Choice
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/17/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-fda-s-campaign-against-choice
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Americans are in for a rude awakening. Starting September 2012, some people will wake up to strategically-placed graphic pictures. And they won’t like what they see. But it’s about time. Countless lives are lost because of this “choice.” What’s most surprising is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the ones behind this new graphic image campaign. Why? So people will be outraged by what they see and do something to stop it. I’m talking, of course, about smoking.</p>

<p>That’s right. The FDA is on a mission to get Americans to kick the habit. Taking a cue from the pro-life playbook, they’re going to <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteWarningLabels/default.htm" target="_blank">slap graphic images</a> onto cigarette boxes to depict the health risks of smoking. One disturbing image shows a man holding a cigarette while he blows smoke out of his tracheostomy, which is a surgical hole in the front of his neck that extends into the windpipe. Another picture is a close-up of a person’s mouth with a cancerous tumor on the lip. The caption reads, “Cigarettes cause cancer.”</p>

<p>But I’m mystified by the FDA’s willingness to infringe on a person’s freedom to choose. Aren’t Americans allowed to do what they want with their own bodies? It’s like the abortion-rights slogan, “My body, my choice.” If it’s ever fitting to invoke this right to bodily freedom, it’s when a person chooses to smoke. It’s&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;body. Therefore, it’s&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;</em>choice. So why does the FDA want to interfere?</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to defend smoking or downplay its health risks. I’ve worked in hospitals for ten years and seen the damage that cigarette smoking can do. I’ve worked to rehabilitate cancer patients who have lost the strength to sit, stand, and walk. I’ve even dissected deceased human beings and seen the tar-stained lungs of smokers. Do I think cigarette smoking is unhealthy? Absolutely. That’s why I understand the FDA’s motivation to protect the health of Americans. But shouldn’t the government stay out of the personal choices of Americans who want to light up?</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because cigarettes not only harm smokers, but may also harm their children. The FDA seems to suggest this since two of the cigarette labels warn about the health risks to kids. One image shows a wisp of smoke hovering near a child with the warning, “Tobacco smoke can harm your children.” The other shows a newborn in a hospital incubator with the words, “Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.” The FDA is concerned that people who freely choose to smoke will harm their children. That’s why they’re going to try to persuade them out of that choice.</p>

<p>But here’s the strange part. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (which oversees the FDA), is an outspoken supporter of abortion rights. Not only does she believe a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, she fights to protect that choice. But she’s against the choice to smoke, partly because of her concern for kids.</p>

<p>If Secretary Sebelius was genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, she would discourage abortion choice, not protect it. Instead, the FDA tries to stop a pregnant woman from&nbsp;<em>harming</em>&nbsp;her child through smoking, but permits her to&nbsp;<em>kill</em>&nbsp;that same child through abortion. Both are free choices. Both harm another body. But only smoking is discouraged, despite abortion being more deadly.</p>

<p>The FDA is rightly concerned about the welfare of children who may be harmed by reckless free choices their parents make. In a White House speech announcing the anti-smoking campaign, Kathleen Sebelius stated that, “These graphic warning labels will…tell the truth…with pictures showing negative health consequences of smoking that are proven to be effective.” She’s right. The warnings will work.</p>

<p>But it’s a shame the FDA won’t tell the truth about abortion and show the negative health consequences of that free choice. They could warn women about abortion by putting a label on the front door of Planned Parenthood clinics: “Although smoking during pregnancy&nbsp;<em>might</em>&nbsp;harm your baby, abortion during pregnancy is&nbsp;<em>guaranteed&nbsp;</em>to kill your baby.” At least then the FDA would be consistent.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</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-fda-s-campaign-against-choice" 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-fda-s-campaign-against-choice" 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-fda-s-campaign-against-choice" 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: Naturalists Still View Science as Prescriptive
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/04/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/naturalists-still-view-science-as-prescriptive
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an <a href="http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable?mod_page=1" target="_blank">Unbelievable</a> podcast discussing the <a href="http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7B60341144-D0C2-4258-9FED-7DCF2867B6BD%7D" target="_blank">question</a>, “What was the primary cause of Nazi ideology—Darwinism or Christian anti-Semitism?”&nbsp;a listener asked, “Has Darwinism become prescriptive? When did this happen?”</p>

<p>Here is the argument I have heard many times against the Darwinism-created-eugenics claim: Darwinism is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, those who made it prescriptive (i.e., who reasoned natural selection is true, therefore we can create better human beings through careful breeding, therefore we should) were misusing the scientific knowledge. This was not the fault of Darwinism, but merely a misunderstanding of the role of science.</p>

<p>The problem with these scientists of the past was that they didn’t submit themselves to an ethic that values human life—an ethic that, in order to provide an “ought,”&nbsp;would need to come from something outside of a naturalistic view of reality built only on <em>non-prescriptive</em> scientific observation and ideas about evolution. They failed to do so, with barbaric results.</p>

<p>Scientists today can clearly see what went wrong, and so they condemn those in the past. But if they now recognize that the mistake made by those past scientists was that of confusing the descriptive role of science with a prescriptive one, do they carefully guard themselves against this confusion today, or is their naturalistic scientism causing them to continue to make the same mistake? For if the scientific method determines what is considered to be real and therefore important, and science is only descriptive, then they can discover no moral prescriptives, and the descriptive becomes prescriptive by default.</p>

<p>Think of embryonic stem cell research. When scientists argue against people who oppose ESCR for ethical reasons, they don’t usually counter with their own ethical arguments; rather, they charge their opponents with being <em>anti-science</em>. That is, they view the science of ESCR as prescriptive (what they <em>ought</em> to do), not merely descriptive (what <em>can</em> be done). Therefore, if you are against ESCR, they say you are against science itself.</p>

<p>But as scientists now admit was the case with eugenics, science has nothing to say about whether or not we <em>ought</em> to destroy human beings in their earliest state of development for the sake of scientific research. This is an ethic-of-intrinsic-human-value-vs.-ethic-of-instrumental-human-value question about how science ought to be used, not an ethics-vs.-<em>science</em> question. Just as they recognize was the case with eugenics, science is <em>amoral</em>. Yet they continue to make science their ethic, just as some did in the case of eugenics. Unsurprisingly, the results are less than ethical.</p>

<p>Scientists should learn from the past. It’s better to stop giving science a prescriptive role and submit to non-naturalistic ethics now, rather than follow the amoral dictates of science and naturalism now and have to explain away atrocities later.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnaturalists-still-view-science-as-prescriptive" 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%2Fnaturalists-still-view-science-as-prescriptive" 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%2Fnaturalists-still-view-science-as-prescriptive" 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: Argument from Desire
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/22/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/argument-from-desire
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Peter Kreeft <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm" target="_blank">explains</a> how our innate, unmet desire for something beyond the "finite and partial" argues for the existence of God:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."</li>
</ol>

<p>The first premise implies a distinction of desires into two kinds: innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial. We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness. We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Red Sox world championship.</p>

<p>Now there are differences between these two kinds of desires. We do not, for example, for the most part, recognize corresponding states of deprivation for the second, the artificial, desires, as we do for the first. There is no word like "Ozlessness" parallel to "sleeplessness." But more importantly, the natural desires come from within, from our nature, while the artificial ones come from without, from society, advertising or fiction. This second difference is the reason for a third difference: the natural desires are found in all of us, but the artificial ones vary from person to person.</p>

<p>The existence of the artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired objects exist. Some do; some don't. Sports cars do; Oz does not. But the existence of natural desires does, in every discoverable case, mean that the objects desired exist. No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Kreeft argues for the second premise and conclusion and then responds to objections <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm" target="_blank">here</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%2Fargument-from-desire" 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%2Fargument-from-desire" 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%2Fargument-from-desire" 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 We’ve Infuriated Centuries of People
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/20/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-we-ve-infuriated-centuries-of-people
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I spit my drink out laughing when I read this <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110923161605/http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/14/taking-the-gloves-off" target="_blank">piece</a> from Al Stefanelli, the Georgia State Director for American Atheists:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It should come as no surprise that the individuals who abide by fundamentalist Christian and radical Islamic doctrines would be the first to cry out that they are being persecuted when their dangerous, damaging and disingenuous beliefs come under attack. Most of these people lack the maturity and intelligence to act in a socially acceptable manner.&nbsp;Many of them are sociopaths and quite a good number of them are psychopaths.&nbsp;All of them are clearly delusional....</p>

<p>Bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny and everything else that is part and parcel of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam should not be tolerated….</p>

<p>The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along.&nbsp;They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.</p>

<p>They want us to die.</p>

<p>Their interpretation of the Bible and Koran are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves….</p>

<p>But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Oh, those reasonable, loving atheists. But seriously, why do I post this? For two reasons. First, it can be wearing on us to constantly hear jabs at Christians, and it’s easy to start believing maybe they’re right about us being horrible human beings, or backward, or gullible. But then they tip their hand with something like this—something we know without a doubt to be false, and suddenly the truth becomes much more clear.</p>

<p>And second, I think one thing Stefanelli says here insightfully sums up a big reason why people do hate Christians and Christianity. It shows up in smaller ways with atheists, and more clearly in extreme, totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union. It’s this comment:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The truth is, what has infuriated people about Christians throughout the centuries is that they can’t get us to conform to them. From <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Shadrach</a>, to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+4%3A1-22&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Peter</a>, to <a href="http://torturedforchrist.com/" target="_blank">Richard Wurmbrand</a>, no law, threat, or torture can turn true Christians from loving and serving God or affirming what we know to be true. Because we believe in, and are accountable to, someone higher than human law and power, totalitarian leaders (like Stalin) recognize that Christians are a threat to them. And not because Christians are out to kill them, but because by their mere existence Christians threaten their power and plans.</p>

<p>The Soviets had their methods of breaking people and forcing them to conform to their ideas about a utopian society, and those methods worked for the most part. But what could they do with Christians who remained free from them, even through torture? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tortured-Christ-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0882643266/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1316210614&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Wurmbrand</a> talks about the constant propaganda that was piped through the prisons: “<em>Christianity is stupid! Christianity is stupid! Christianity is stupid! Give up! Give up! Give up!”</em>&nbsp;Their inability to break Christians and bring them to their side was maddening.</p>

<p>Of course, I’m not at all saying that Stefanelli is a Stalin. I’m only saying this: When people who have strong ideas about how things ought to be discover they can’t persuade us from God and His word, that is when they become desperate and hysterical with anger. So don’t be surprised when it happens. Just take heart and remember that every time you endure such things, you are <a href="/w/how-our-suffering-glorifies-god" target="_blank">testifying</a> to the truth and glory of the God of the Bible, who is worth more to you than the comfort of conforming.</p>

<p>[UPDATE: American Atheists removed the post from their site, but here is a <span class="asset  asset-generic at-xid-6a00d83451d2ba69e20167640908e1970b"><a href="http://str.typepad.com/files/americanatheists_eradicatethechristians.pdf">PDF</a></span> of the post, provided by <a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/american-atheists-reason-rally-eradicating-christianity-fleeing-dialogue-and-debate/" target="_blank">Wintery Knight</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%2Fhow-we-ve-infuriated-centuries-of-people" 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-we-ve-infuriated-centuries-of-people" 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-we-ve-infuriated-centuries-of-people" 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 God Whisper? Part 3
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Civil war battles were tumultuous affairs. The thundering of guns and muskets was not just deafening, it was dangerous, drowning out the one means of group communication: the bugles.</p>

<p>Before the invention of modern military “coms,” battle instructions were delivered using musical signals. Buglers directed skirmish maneuvers like “forward,” “in retreat,” “change direction to the left,” “cease firing,” and the like. Lack of clarity could be deadly. Confusing the bugle call for “advance” with the call for “retreat” might cost the battle.</p>

<p>Even in the first century buglers were vital to combat maneuvering, which is why Paul traded on that image when chastising the Corinthians for speaking in tongues without an interpreter. The practice yielded no profit because the communication lacked clarity:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you,<em>unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken</em>? For you will be speaking into the air. (1 Cor. 14:7–9)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul’s point was simple. Communication requires clarity. Though his specific concern was tongues without interpretation, Paul’s general principle applies to any type of divine revelation. The “lesson of the bugle” is just as applicable to claims of revelation today as it was in Paul’s day: Unless the speech is clear, the message will not get through.</p>

<p>This insight seems to have been overlooked of late, though. Many well-meaning Christians apparently believe God<em>is</em>in the habit of communicating important details regarding His purpose for our lives with speech that is not clear.</p>

<p>The fault is not with God, they say, but with us. God is “trying” to communicate, but something is lacking. We haven’t learned to listen properly. To lay hold of his spiritual birthright—a conversational relationship with God—each Christian needs to learn to “hear” the voice of God.</p>

<p>In two previous issues of<em>Solid Ground</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup>I raised questions about the biblical legitimacy of this idea. I looked closely at passages on being “led by the Spirit” and Jesus’ sheep “hearing” His voice. I asked if the pattern in Jesus’ life or the practice of the Apostles in Acts supported this notion.</p>

<p>In this final installment, I want to address some other ways this idea has been defended. According to Scripture, does prayer involve two-way communication where we talk to God, then listen as God talks to us? Does the Bible teach God is “trying” to speak to each one of us? Can His efforts be thwarted by inattention, excessive activity, lack of spiritual skill, or sin, as some suggest? And if we don’t currently possess this skill, does the divine record suggest it can be taught as Eli taught young Samuel?</p>

<p>My questions are not about what God<em>can</em>do, or even what He<em>does</em>do in unique circumstances, but about what the Bible teaches Christians in general are to expect from being in relationship with God. What does the text actually teach?</p>

<h2>Pray and Listen</h2>

<p>Two-way communication is essential to all relationships. Classically for Christians in relationship with God this has meant Bible study and prayer. We let the “word of Christ richly dwell within” (Col. 3:16), then by “prayer and supplication with thanksgiving” we make our requests before God (Phil. 4:6).</p>

<p>Recently, though, an alternate approach has become popular, dubbed by some as “listening prayer.” Prayer is conversation with God, the argument goes, and all conversation is two-way. We speak, then God speaks. Therefore, prayer should include listening to God as well as talking to Him.</p>

<p>The Psalmist tells us to “be still” (Ps. 46:10). God spoke to Elijah through “a still, small voice” (1 Kings 19:12, KJV). If we quiet ourselves properly during prayer, we can expect the same. The basic sequence is this: pray, be still, get impressions (the small voice), then interpret.</p>

<p>It’s always a good idea when supporting texts are offered for an idea to go back and read the larger passage itself.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Sometimes surprises await. Here is what we find in 1 Kings 19:11–13 (NASB):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So He said, “Go forth and stand on the mountain before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord was passing by. And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing [“a still small voice” KJV, “a gentle whisper” NIV]. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. And behold, a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please notice that whatever was happening in v. 12 (either a voice, a whisper, or a gentle blowing) it was something Elijah<em>heard</em>. It was not a feeling, an impression, or an inner nudge needing interpreting. Throughout the account God speaks directly, but gently, to a deeply depressed prophet,<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup>assuring him he was not alone as he feared. Nothing in this passage suggests our need to “listen” for God’s<em>inner</em>whispers.</p>

<p>In like manner, Psalm 46 teaches a different lesson than the “be still and listen” advocates suggest. The psalm opens this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God is our refuge and strength,<br>
A very present help in trouble.<br>
Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change<br>
And though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The psalmist continues to magnify God as a mighty stronghold giving protection and gladness to all who seek safe harbor in Him, then concludes with this application: “Cease striving [“be still” ESV, KJV, NIV] and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations. I will be exalted in the earth.”</p>

<p>As the New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation suggests, “be still” doesn’t mean be quiet and listen, but rather stop striving and rest. It means trust in God’s power, not listen for His voice. The “listening prayer” application is completely foreign to the point of this psalm.</p>

<p>There is a more serious problem with this practice, though. In a discipleship group I led years ago, we isolated every single verse in the New Testament having anything to do with prayer. We outlined our findings under headings like “What to Pray,” “How to Pray,” “Attitude in Prayer,” “Where to Pray,” “God’s Role in Prayer,” and more, all with detailed subheadings. We didn’t miss a thing.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Remarkably, 25 pages of citations yield not a single reference to listening prayer, not one. Jesus leaves it out of His instruction on prayer to His disciples (Lk. 11:1–4). Paul tells us to devote ourselves to prayer (Col. 4:2), to pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17), to pray at all times (Eph. 6:18)—the list goes on and on—but neglects to ever mention listening. Hmmm. The same for Peter, James, and Jude. Why the silence?</p>

<p>The complete lack of scriptural support for this notion raises an important question. If the Bible never hints at this practice, why is it so frequently advanced in popular texts as a vital part of discipleship and spiritual formation?</p>

<p>Prayer may be conversational in tone, but nothing in Scripture suggests it’s anything like a two-way conversation. The Bible is replete with references to listening to God through the Word.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> It is completely silent on the role of listening through prayer.</p>

<p>Even so, some insist that hearing God is a legitimate skill that can be taught, evidenced, they say, by the relationship between Eli and little Samuel.</p>

<h2>Eli and Samuel</h2>

<p>The relationship between Eli, the priest, and his servant, the young boy Samuel, has been offered as an example of a godly man mentoring a younger believer in the art of “recognizing” the voice of God. In like manner, there are mentors today who can impart the same skill to willing disciples.</p>

<p>The model looks something like this. The godly man, Eli, adept at recognizing the voice of God, teaches the skill to the younger believer. Samuel then applies the guidelines and succeeds in connecting with God, an experience available today to any Christian.</p>

<p>At this point I invite you to read 1 Samuel 1–3 to discover for yourself what the text actually says. It reveals an entirely different picture from the model outlined above. Indeed, not a single detail just described can be found in the account.</p>

<p>To start with, Eli was not a godly man adept at recognizing the voice of God. First, there wasn’t much for him to hear since “Word from the Lord was rare in those days” (3:1). Second, Eli was not a godly man. The only record we have of God ever communicating with Eli is when a prophet pronounces a curse on him and his family for their immorality (2:27–36). Further, the text explicitly states that little Samuel did not yet know the Lord (3:7). So neither was in relationship with God to begin with.</p>

<p>When God does speak to Samuel, the little boy hears Him perfectly, even though he had not developed any special perceptive abilities (3:4, 6, 8). What Samuel hears seems to be an actual voice, not a nudge or an impression or an inner sense. Indeed, the voice is so clear Samuel takes it to be Eli calling from another room (3:4–8).</p>

<p>Eli does not teach Samuel anything about the distinguishing characteristics of God’s voice, but rather—after the third time being awakened by the boy—“discerns” that the voice Samuel has been hearing is God’s (3:8) and instructs him to answer.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>God then speaks to the boy by appearing to him in a vision (3:10a, 15). Afterwards, Eli drills Samuel on the details (3:16–18), hardly the actions of a man accustomed to hearing from God.</p>

<p>The account ends with these words: “Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail” (the test of a true prophet), “and all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of the Lord” (3:19–20). Clearly this was not an experience available to every child of God—Jew then, or Christian now—but the unique call of one of the greatest prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.</p>

<p>In short, nothing in this passage supports the idea that older believers can mentor younger believers in the ability to hear or recognize God’s voice. I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but the passage itself is so at odds with the interpretation given by those in this tradition, I have wondered to myself if they ever actually studied the account in light of their instruction.</p>

<p>But there is a deeper problem with the entire approach of learning to hear God’s voice that goes to the issue of God’s character.</p>

<h2>Does God Try?</h2>

<p>The idea that skill in hearing God needs to be developed seems odd, since no mention of this is made in Scripture and no biblical examples of developing this skill with increasing success exist. Instead, the prophet had one chance to get it right (Deut. 18:20–22).</p>

<p>But there’s another problem. Let me introduce it with a question: Does God try? It’s a trick question, so don’t answer too quickly. It might help to answer another question first: What is implied by the notion of trying?</p>

<p>A try is an attempt with an uncertain outcome. “Trying” suggests the possibility of failure. Human beings try, but God does not. Only two things could cause Him to falter: want of knowledge or want of power. God lacks neither. Therefore, God cannot fail in what He intends to do. Therefore, God never<em>tries</em>. He simply<em>acts</em>.</p>

<p>How is it, then, that some suggest God is<em>trying</em>to speak to us, but can’t get through? Of course, I know the answer: There is no lack in God, only in us, they say. God is speaking, but we are fallible—inept, distracted, unskilled in the spiritual disciplines.</p>

<p>Consider this problem, though. A standard challenge to inerrancy is that the Bible was written by men. God may have been involved, but men make mistakes. Any amalgam of divine and human action falls short of perfect truth. End of issue.</p>

<p>How do we answer? We point out that God is bigger than man. What God attempts, He accomplishes. Since the final product is determined by God’s ability, not man’s liability, it doesn’t matter whether men or monkeys wrote the Bible, there will be no errors. The perfection of the text is rooted in the character of God guaranteeing it accomplishes His intended purpose (Isaiah 55:11). God doesn’t try.</p>

<p>The same is true for hearing God’s voice. If human limitation interferes with God’s communication, we surrender our argument for the inerrancy of Scripture. If, however, God is big enough to secure word-for-word accuracy of the text, the same rationale applies to hearing the voice of God. It is impossible for man to short-circuit God’s design.</p>

<p>Think about it. If you genuinely intend to accomplish something and expend effort to do so and someone else stops you, who is stronger, you or he? Even Saul of Tarsus—unregenerate, in rebellion, on a bloody rampage against the saints—heard when Jesus spoke to him.</p>

<p>Yes, people may not “listen,” that is, obey.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup><em>But I don’t know a single instance in Scripture where God intended to speak to somebody who failed to hear Him.</em>God’s intention coupled with an act of His will and joined by His power always accomplishes its goal. Suggesting otherwise is a libel on God’s character.</p>

<p>If God wants to communicate, He succeeds. You cannot fail to hear Him even if you are deaf—remember, even the dead will hear His voice (Jn. 5:25)—because God always accomplishes what He intends. No skill needs to be learned to hear Him. Nowhere does Scripture suggest such a thing.</p>

<p>What the Bible does teach about God’s intimate involvement with our lives takes a different shape.</p>

<h2>A Very Present Help</h2>

<p>I’m convinced God is a very present help in time of trouble, confusion, and distress (Ps. 46:1). He’s not merely a source of comfort, but also a source of understanding, creativity, or sudden awareness of answers to hard questions or insight on difficult problems.</p>

<p>I’ve often prayed when stymied by a computer malfunction, stonewalled on a writing assignment, or vexed by lost keys (and found them soon after praying). Countless times I’ve trusted the Spirit for skill in clarifying difficult concepts for an audience or maneuvering in a tricky conversation. A friend tells how prayer even brought a flash of insight on a plumbing problem. God sometimes responds to such prayers subtly, sometimes dramatically. Clearly, God is at work.</p>

<p>One way God works is to give wisdom, which He promises to those who ask, especially in the midst of trying situations (James 1:5). Some think, however, this means God simply tells them what to do. God speaks; they listen. This is not wisdom, though, because even a fool can follow directions.</p>

<p>Wisdom is skill at living. It’s insight into the way the world works. Merely following orders requires no discernment, no deliberation, no knowledge, no reflection, no understanding—in short, no wisdom.</p>

<p>There’s a difference between receiving revelation of some sort (“God told me…”) and growing in wisdom, or gaining insight to unravel a problem, or getting creative “inspiration,” or experiencing the outworking of a spiritual gift. Special revelation is extremely rare and carries with it a unique authority. By contrast, creative inspiration or insight is common, especially for the Christian actively depending on God and leaning on Him for help (Prov. 3:5–6).</p>

<p>Since God is directly involved in both, but through different means, I think it’s best to use different language for each. There’s a distinction between “God gave me this song” or “God told me how to fix my sink,” and “My ability or inspiration or insight come from the Lord.” If God really gave the song, we’re not free to rewrite, partly because they’re God’s words, not ours, partly because improving God’s song seems like a contradiction in terms.</p>

<p>However, if we see God as the spiritual force behind our gifts and accomplishments, we can pray for wisdom, help, inspiration, and creative solutions to vexing problems expecting Him to respond without being committed to saying God gave me this song, or told me where to find my keys, or God spoke to me about how to fix my plumbing.</p>

<p>Does the Holy Spirit<em>speak</em>to us? That depends entirely on what one means by “speak.”</p>

<p>Scripture identifies different ways the Holy Spirit subjectively works in us. The Spirit teaches, convicts, comforts, and leads us out of sin. The Spirit renews us, giving us godly desires. I believe God even gives us ideas we have the freedom to act on. There is also the ineffable way God communicates giving solace, wisdom, insight, and understanding.</p>

<p>None of these involve personal revelation, though, which is what we normally mean by the word “speak.” I wouldn’t say my wife “speaks” to me when she hugs me, though I may infer from this she loves me. When she talks, there is propositional content. When she hugs, there is comfort. The two are different, so we should keep these concepts distinct, as Scripture does.</p>

<p>It’s clear to me that many Christians use the phrase “the Spirit speaks to us” in ways the Bible just doesn’t support. Scripture simply doesn’t teach anything like a conversational relationship with God or that we must each individually hear from Him to live the optimal Christian life. Nor is there any advantage to active listening. If God wants to say something, He will. There’s no need to be quiet and “tuned in” lest you miss His message.</p>

<p>Not only is it unnecessary, it’s dangerous. Even in stillness there’s something to hear, if only the hum of our own thoughts and impulses. The danger lies in assigning divine authority to them. There is no biblical justification for this and perils abound. Christians choose jobs, schools, investments, careers, and even spouses this way.</p>

<h2>God in a Box?</h2>

<p>Does this put God in a box? Not at all. I am not dictating what God can or cannot do. He can intervene in any way He chooses. However, we must base our teaching and conduct on what the Scriptures actually teach, not on what might be possible with a sovereign, all powerful God. J.I. Packer notes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God may reveal Himself and give guidance to His servants any way He pleases. It is not for us to set limits on Him. But it remains a question as to whether or not we are entitled to expect “hotline” disclosures on a regular basis. The correct answer is no. All the biblical narratives of God’s direct communications with men are exceptional on their face, and the biblical model of personal guidance is quite different.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In one sense, all theology boxes God in by describing the borders of His person and character. It’s based on God’s own self-revelation, though, not on our private ideas. When God describes Himself and His ways, these are not limits; they’re truths.</p>

<p>Which view is more limiting of God: the view God is free to speak whenever He wants is capable of making Himself heard even when we are not listening, or the view God can only get through when we’re quiet, focused, and listening intently?</p>

<p>Does the Bible teach we should get our private, personalized marching orders directly from God? It does not. Rather, it urges us, enjoins us, commands us, time and again, to listen for God in the pages of His Word.</p>

<p>Spiritual maturity is not the ability to hear God’s voice. It is the ability to know, understand, and apply Scripture in every circumstance.</p>

<p>Arguably, the greatest movement of God's Spirit in the last 1000 years was the Reformation. It was not started by a whisper from God. It was started by a verse of Scripture: “The just shall live by faith.” Martin Luther was simply listening to the only Word of God we are ever enjoined to hear, know, and obey—the Bible.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">See the May-June and July-August 2011 issues, available in enhanced digital form at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">The operating principle at STR is “never read a Bible verse.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">One of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament, by the way, suggesting that Elijah’s experience—like his entire ministry— was unique and not a model for us to copy.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">You can find the complete outline at http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/ntprayer.pdf?docID=138.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">A small sampling includes 1 Pet. 2:2; Eph. 6:17b; 2 Tim. 2:15, 3:16–17, 4:1a; 1 Jn. 2:14; Titus 1:9.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Considering the details of the account, I take this discernment to be a simple process of elimination. Someone is speaking to Samuel. It’s not Eli. No one else is around. It must be God.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">When the text says something like, “Listen to the voice of the Lord,” it usually is using the word “listen” synonymous with the word “obey,” much like a mother who says, “Listen to me when I tell you to do something.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">J.I. Packer,<em>Hot Tub Religion</em>(Wheaton: Tyndale, 1987), 117.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&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-god-whisper-part-3" 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-god-whisper-part-3" 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-god-whisper-part-3" 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 Will Those Saved by God’s Grace View Hell?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/24/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-will-those-saved-by-god-s-grace-view-hell-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>David Clotfelter spends the first third of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sinners-Hands-Good-David-Clotfelter/dp/B003D7JZAI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1314144137&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy</a> on the subject of hell—establishing what the Bible says about it, responding to alternate interpretations, and discussing the justice of never-ending punishment for our sin.</p>

<p>Regarding the justice issue, Clotfelter offers the explanation given by Anselm and Jonathan Edwards:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[B]ecause God is a Being of infinite worth, to whom we owe an infinite obligation, sin against God is an infinite evil requiring an infinite punishment. And since the punishments of hell cannot be infinite in intensity, as that would violate the principle that the lost are punished according to their deeds, it must be the case that hell is infinite in duration.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As he explains, the fact that our sins require an infinite punishment makes it necessary for Jesus to pay for those sins. A crime against an infinitely worthy being requires a punishment that a finite person will never finish paying; a punishment paid by an infinitely worthy being pays for that crime.</p>

<p>But sometimes the question comes up of how those who have been forgiven by God will view hell throughout eternity. Will they be saddened forever by its continued existence? Here’s what Clotfelter has to say:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]f indeed it is just for God to punish the wicked everlastingly, then it is a certainty that the saints in heaven will perceive that justice and will rejoice in its administration, even as they rejoice in all of God’s works and decisions. This does not mean that either they or God will derive glee from watching the torments of the damned. It means that they will agree that God’s decision to punish the wicked is right and good, and that the punishment that He allots to each lost person is precisely what that person deserves. They will realize that it is only God’s grace that stands between them and a similar fate, and so there will be no element of pride or vindictiveness in their joy….</p>

<p>[T]he joy the redeemed in heaven will feel over the punishment of the wicked will in no way derive from sadism or a spirit of revenge, but it will express their gratitude toward God for their own salvation and their clear-eyed understanding of the justice of His judgments.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As fallen creatures, we greatly overestimate our righteousness and vastly underestimate God’s. So when the doctrine of hell first brings us face-to-face with the truth about both, we naturally rebel against it emotionally. The temptation is to exchange the Bible’s words about hell for something—like universalism (everyone will be saved) or annihilationism (the lost will cease to exist)—that makes more immediate sense to us. But don’t give up when you find yourself in tension with the Bible. Instead, dig until you find all the pieces you need to see the complete picture that honors and glorifies the true God.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God is not merely holy; He is infinitely holy. He is not merely good; He is so good as to pay an infinite price for our salvation. He does not merely dislike sin; He hates it with a passion that can be fully expressed only on Calvary or in the depths of an everlasting hell. The Bible’s doctrine of eternal punishment does not only teach us about punishment; it teaches us about the character of God. As John Piper has written, “The infinite horrors of hell are intended by God to be a vivid <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-echo-and-the-insufficiency-of-hell" target="_blank">demonstration</a> of the infinite value of the glory of God.”</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-will-those-saved-by-god-s-grace-view-hell-" 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-will-those-saved-by-god-s-grace-view-hell-" 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-will-those-saved-by-god-s-grace-view-hell-" 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: Ancient Words, Ever True?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/ancient-words-ever-true-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Has God Spoken? Can the Bible Be God’s Revelation?</em></p>

<p>Whenever I hear the opening lines of Michael W. Smith’s song, “Ancient Words,”&nbsp;I am always moved: “Holy words long preserved /for our walk in this world. / They resound with God’s own heart. / Oh, let the ancient words impart.”</p>

<p>Being aware of God while gazing on the ocean is all well and good, C.S. Lewis noted,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> but if you want to go anywhere on that sparkling sea, you must have a map. Going somewhere with God is no different. In His case, though, the map is not made of symbols, but of words—ancient words.</p>

<h2>Why Words?</h2>

<p>Why any words at all, though? Isn’t experience with God enough? As the songwriter says, “You ask me how I know he lives: He lives within my heart.”</p>

<p>Experience has its place (Paul used his own dramatic Damascus Road encounter as evidence for skeptical Jews), but it also has its liabilities. Lots of people have spiritual experiences. Any Mormon can tell you of his experience with Jesus, the created spirit brother of Lucifer. Jehovah’s Witnesses experience the incarnation of Michael the Archangel. New Ager’s experience Jesus the Ascended Hindu Master.</p>

<p>Each has an experience, but each can’t be right. Which is the true Jesus? What objective authority separates wheat from chaff? Classically, Christians have turned to details recorded in Scripture as authoritative, objective grounds for truth. God has spoken in the ancient words of the Bible.</p>

<h2>The Fingerprints of God</h2>

<p>Hundreds of places in the Old Testament we find the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord,”&nbsp;or its equivalent. The writer of Hebrews affirms, “God...spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways”&nbsp;(Heb. 1:1).</p>

<p>Jesus and the Apostles constantly affirm the authority of the Old Testament with the simple statement, “It is written...”&nbsp;The words of a text are attributed equally to the writers (“Moses said...”) and to God (“God said...”). Paul reminds us that all Scripture is profitable precisely because it is “inspired”&nbsp;(<em>theopneustos</em>, “God-breathed”), the very counsel of God.</p>

<p>Of course, just claiming it’s so doesn’t make it so. How do we know? Do we have any evidence God has spoken in the Bible?</p>

<p>The challenge can be reduced to a simple question: “What kind of book is the Bible?”&nbsp;I submit there are only two plausible answers. <em>The Bible is merely a book by man about God, or it is a book given by God through man</em>, <em>to man.</em></p>

<p>If the first, then the Bible is a record of human wisdom marked by human limitations. That’s all.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> If the second, then God is the ultimate author and His word is the last word. Further, being essentially a supernatural book, it would likely bear supernatural marks, God’s fingerprints in a sense.</p>

<p>Do we have any good reasons to think God has spoken supernaturally in the Bible? Or have men merely opined? The way to answer this question is to look at the book itself. I want to offer six reasons I think the Bible is God’s book, six evidences of supernatural authorship conveniently paired with parts of the hand so you won’t forget.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<h2>The “Pinky”</h2>

<p>For the first evidence, think “pinky—prophecy.”&nbsp;The Bible has fulfilled prophecy—detailed, precise, predictions relating to individuals and entire empires given with hairsplitting accuracy.</p>

<p>Daniel gives prophecy so exact it reads like history written after the fact. For one, at the threshold of the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of Babylonian captivity for Judah (Jer. 29:10), Daniel is given the amazing “70 weeks”&nbsp;prophecy. Identifying the specific time of Messiah’s advent and subsequent execution, it was fulfilled in the exact 173,880-day time period he predicted (Daniel 9:24-25, cf., Luke 19:41-44).<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>There were dozens of specific prophecies fulfilled in Jesus’&nbsp;life alone.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> His own prediction that the temple would be destroyed stone by stone (Luke 21:5-6) was dramatically fulfilled 40 years later when Roman legions under Titus razed Jerusalem.</p>

<p>Is fulfilled prophecy sufficient in itself to make our case for divine authorship? Maybe not for some. Even so, it’s an important piece of a cumulative case for the Scripture’s Divine authorship. Chalk up one for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>The Ring Finger</h2>

<p>A wedding ring, symbolic of marital unity, reminds us of the second evidence for the Bible’s supernatural origin—a remarkable unity of purpose and plan despite its diverse origins.</p>

<p>The Bible consists of sixty-six books written by forty or more authors from diverse backgrounds (rabbis, warriors, shepherds, kings, historians), in a diversity of conditions (dungeons, deserts, battlefields, palaces, pastures), on a diversity of controversial subjects, over a fifteen-hundred-year period of time.</p>

<p>The Bible doesn’t read like sixty-six different stories, though. Instead, a profound harmony of perspective is woven through the account from Genesis to Revelation as God progressively unveils His rescue plan for fallen creation.</p>

<p>No individual writer understood the plan completely. Each in his time, as if guided by an unseen hand, added his piece to the puzzle. Later, at the advent of Christ, all the pieces come together, revealing the full picture of God’s strategy for salvation that had been unfolding for ages.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>This remarkable continuity defies naturalistic explanation. Chalk up two for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>The Large Finger</h2>

<p>The largest finger brings to mind the Bible’s ability to address the big issues of life in a coherent way that’s also entirely consistent with our deepest intuitions about reality. Simply put, the worldview of the Bible makes sense.</p>

<p>First, the fundamental questions vexing mankind for millennia are all confronted in Scripture: What is life’s meaning? Who is God? What does He want? What makes man special? Why is there evil? What went wrong? How can we fix it?</p>

<p>Second, we are all intuitively aware of certain unavoidable facts. The universe is filled with order, meaning, and moral significance. Man is a unique creature, distinct from all other living things in his transcendent nobility, but is deeply damaged and morally broken, plagued by guilt he desperately tries to suppress.</p>

<p>The biblical worldview takes each of these things seriously. The universe is filled with order, meaning, and morality by a holy Creator who made us for friendship with Him. Yet we rebelled against our Sovereign, severing that relationship, damaging our own souls, and crippling the created order.</p>

<p>Evil is the wreckage left behind by our rebellion. Man is noble because he bears God’s image. Man is cruel because he is fallen. He <em>feels</em> guilty because he <em>is</em> guilty. Though our hearts long for restoration, reconciliation, and forgiveness, our wills remain defiant. Only God can rescue us.</p>

<p>Deep inside we already know most of these things. The Bible simply connects the dots, then offers the sole solution to the central problem. The problem is personal guilt that comes with rebellion. The solution is forgiveness that comes with surrender, what the Bible calls “repentance.”</p>

<p>The Bible has supernatural insight. Its assessment of the problem and its antidote for the cure both resonate with our deepest longings, and also fit our common-sense intuitions about the world and ourselves. Chalk up three for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>The Index Finger</h2>

<p>The index, or “pointing,”&nbsp;finger reminds me that the Bible points to history for verification. It’s a reliable, detailed record from the distant past of events that have profound spiritual significance. This is important for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, a book allegedly given by God must get its history right. And it does.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Menahem Mansoor, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has affirmed, “Biblical archaeology’s greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>David Ussishkin, Jewish professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, acknowledges: “In general, the evidence of material culture fits the biblical account beginning with the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Archaeology and the biblical record fit hand in glove. The trade journal <em>Biblical Archaeological Review</em> demonstrates this time and again. No other religious book can summon historical evidence to support its unique theological claims.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>The New Testament documents are the best historical documents of the ancient world when approached using the standard cannons of historical research untainted by naturalistic (anti-supernatural) presuppositions. There are five reasons historians take the New Testament material seriously.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>First, the accounts are early. As ancient records go, the narratives were written very close to the events they report.</p>

<p>Second, multiple, independent, primary source documents verify each other. In addition to the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writings of Peter and Paul, 17 secular references<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> along with prodigious archaeological evidence further corroborate the canonical accounts.</p>

<p>Third, the New Testament documents include details of eyewitness testimony: times of day, weather conditions, local customs, names of provincial rulers, and other minutia characteristic of authentic accounts.</p>

<p>Fourth, the Gospels include embarrassing details. Jesus’&nbsp;disciples are petty, slow to understand, arrogant, and unfaithful. Peter denies Christ; the rest flee. Women, disrespected in the ancient world, are the first to witness the risen Christ. Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels are works of fiction?</p>

<p>Fifth, there was no motivation for the writers to deceive. Those who lie, do so out of self-interest. A testimony that brings torment, torture, and execution is not likely to be fabricated. The earliest disciples—those who were in a position to know the truth—signed their testimonies in blood. Peter wrote, “We did not follow 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”&nbsp;(2 Pet. 1:16). His claim fits all the facts.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>In the most successful work of history in history, <em>The Story of Civilization</em>, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Will Durant writes:</p>

<p>Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them...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:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>“But isn’t the Qur’an historically accurate?”&nbsp;I am asked. Possibly, but that alone is not adequate to show supernatural authorship. Something more is needed, which leads to the second point: Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible is a record of <em>supernatural</em> events.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>The historical documents of the Gospels not only record Jesus’&nbsp;claim to be God. They also faithfully document the miracles and resurrection from the dead that substantiate this claim. Jesus’&nbsp;acts of power give His words tremendous authority (John 20:30-31).</p>

<p>If these things really happened, then Jesus is no ordinary man, and the book He endorsed as divine is no ordinary book. History itself is our ally, here.</p>

<p>In a dramatic reversal of New Testament scholarship over the last 50 years, the majority of scholars—even secular ones—now affirm four facts of history. One, Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross and was buried in a tomb. Two, the tomb was empty Sunday morning. Three, numerous people (including skeptics like James and Saul) experienced what they thought was the resurrected Jesus. Four, belief in the resurrection launched the early church.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>What historians do not agree on is what best explains these four facts of history. But there aren’t that many options. No explanation fits the evidence better than the one given by those previously gutless disciples who now put their lives on the line for this testimony: He who was dead is alive. He has risen.</p>

<p>The Bible records supernatural events in history to support its claims. Chalk up four for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>Thumbs Up</h2>

<p>“Thumbs up”&nbsp;was the emperor’s sign that a gladiator had won the right to live to fight again. It reminds me that the Bible supernaturally changes people’s lives in deep, profound, and irreversible ways.</p>

<p>This is the acid test of God’s influence on revelation, its ability to dramatically transform. Whether old or young, rich or poor, learned or illiterate, noble or of mean birth, regardless of culture or country or era, the Bible has a revolutionary impact on those who heed its counsel.</p>

<p>And it’s promised in the text: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature. The old things passed away. Behold, new things have come”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 5:17). When people consistently obey this book, something radical happens, both to individuals and to whole cultures.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>Yes, people can change on their own. However, obedience to Scripture changes us in ways we could never have accomplished by ourselves (we’ve tried). The Bible has a supernatural impact in human lives. Chalk up five for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>The Fist</h2>

<p>The clenched fist reminds me that the Bible is a fighter. It has demonstrated remarkable survival through time and persecution.</p>

<p>Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will not pass away”&nbsp;(Matt. 13:31). Isaiah wrote, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever”&nbsp;(Is. 40:8). In prison himself for the Bible’s testimony, Paul promised, “The Word of God cannot be imprisoned”&nbsp;(2 Tim. 2:9).</p>

<p>No other book in history has seen such concerted attempts to obliterate it—both externally (through destruction) and internally (through criticism)—to no avail. No other book has been printed as much, translated as much, read as much, or quoted as much as the Bible. No other name has been written about as much, pondered as much, sung about as much, or recognized as much all over the globe as the name of Jesus.</p>

<p>The Bible’s obituary has been written many times, but it refuses to stay in the grave. It remains today the best selling book of all time. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. This defies a naturalistic explanation. Chalk up six for the supernatural side.</p>

<h2>A Verdict and a Confession</h2>

<p>The Bible has the stamp of the supernatural: supernatural predictions, supernatural unity, supernatural insight, a reliable record of supernatural events, supernatural impact, and supernatural survival.</p>

<p>Does this <em>prove</em> the Bible is God’s book? That depends upon what you consider proof. It’s always possible to be mistaken, but I have built a cumulative case here. Our claim is reasonable. Christians <em>do</em> have compelling evidence for the divine authorship of the Bible.</p>

<p>But now I’m going to confess something surprising: These persuasive evidences have almost nothing to do with why so many people around the world are convinced that the words of the Bible are also God’s own words. It certainly isn’t why I believe.</p>

<p>I came to believe that the Bible was inspired the same way most Christians do. I encountered the truth firsthand and was changed. Without really being able to explain why, I knew I was hearing the words of God and not just the words of man.</p>

<p>Consider this question: When Jesus addressed the multitudes, did He routinely give six compelling reasons to believe His words before actually speaking them? No. He simply began to talk and people marveled, even His detractors.</p>

<p>Soldiers sent to arrest Jesus returned empty-handed. Why had they disobeyed orders? They had <em>listened</em>. “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks,”&nbsp;they said (Jn. 7:46). Jesus didn’t start with reasons why people should believe His words. Instead, He let the words do the work themselves. And His words worked because they were the very words of God.</p>

<p>If you really want to know if the Bible is God’s Word, read it. Let Jesus speak for Himself. There is a powerful role the Spirit plays that is hard to describe, and is therefore difficult to explain to others.</p>

<p>For one, it is personal, subjective. Two, it’s non-rational. In a sense, we are not persuaded, as such. We are wooed and won over, and that’s very different from weighing reasons and coming to conclusions. Note, I didn’t say it was <em>ir</em>-rational, but non-rational. God uses a different means to change our minds about the Bible.</p>

<p>Even so, the reasons given above are still vital. Here’s why: The <em>objective</em> reasons are important to show that our <em>subjective</em> confidence has not been misplaced, that what we’ve believed with our hearts can be confirmed with our minds. The ancients called this, “Faith seeking understanding.”</p>

<p>When you start giving people reasons to change their minds—to believe in the Bible, for instance—their first instinct is to resist, to keep on believing what they’ve always believed. It’s human nature.</p>

<p>Offering good reasons is a fine approach. I do it all the time. In this case, though, skeptics will find the reasons more compelling <em>if something else happens first</em>. It’s best if they first <em>listen</em>.</p>

<p>If you want people to believe in the Bible, encourage them simply to listen to Jesus for a while, then have them draw their own conclusions. Most people respect Jesus. They’ve just never listened closely to what He’s said. They’ve never allowed His words to have their impact.</p>

<p>Don’t get into a tug-o-war with skeptics about inspiration. Instead, invite them to engage the ideas first, then let God do the heavy lifting for you. The truth you’re defending has a life of it’s own because the Spirit is in the words. Once others have listened a bit, any further reasons you give for biblical authority will have the soil they need to take root in.</p>

<p>If all the evidence—subjective <em>and</em> objective—shows that God has spoken in the Bible, then our appropriate response is to bend the knee. Our beliefs bow to revelation, because God Himself is the best the authority to tell us what is right and true and good.</p>

<p>When God speaks, our opinions are silenced. The ancient words are the final word—“ancient words, ever true, changing me, changing you.”</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2005/cs-lewis-on-the-importance-of-theology/ <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Of course, even if the Bible were entirely man-made, that wouldn’t by itself undermine the Bible’s message. There are millions of books not penned by inerrant hands that overflow with truth—even spiritual truth (Christian bookstores are filled with them). Though I believe in inerrancy, I don’t need inerrant Scripture to substantiate Christianity. Christianity stands or falls not on inerrancy, but on facts of history pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. If the salient events recorded in the Gospels actually happened, then the claims of Christ are fully justified and Christianity is on solid ground. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Some might object that proving the Bible with the Bible is circular. But this is not so in our case. If our method subtly presumed the thing we were trying to prove—the divine inspiration of the Bible—that would be circular. But it does not. Instead, we’re merely looking to the text for evidence of Divine authorship. This is not circular. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">http://deeperwalk.lefora.com/2010/08/26/israels-70-years-exile-to-70th-and-final-week/#ad_not_found. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">See, for example, <em>Messianic Christology—A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah</em>, by Arnold Fruchetenbaum (www.ariel.org). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See “The Bible: Fast Forward”&nbsp;CDs at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">For more detail, see “Archeology, the Bible, and the Leap of Faith”&nbsp;at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8"><em>Biblical Archaeology Review</em>, May/June 1995, 29. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid., 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">This connection can be overstated. Piecing together hard data from thousands of years ago is difficult, and archaeological evidence is especially vulnerable to bias in its interpretation. Old Testament scholars of the “minimalist”&nbsp;school, for example, characteristically refuse to accept any biblical account without independent corroboration, a virtual impossibility when dealing with texts this ancient and not a demand made on other texts. Even so, a very strong case can be made for the correlation of biblical historical claims and archaeological evidence. An even-handed approach using the standard criteria of historiography minus naturalistic bias yields high marks for the Bible as an historical source. McDowell’s <em>New Evidence that Demands a Verdict</em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) covers this ground thoroughly. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">See STR’s “Jesus: Man or Myth”&nbsp;at str.org for more detail. See also Habermas and Licona’s <em>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), chapter 2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Gary Habermas, <em>The Verdict of History</em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 108. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">See also Richard Bauckham’s <em>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">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:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">By the way, these are accounts, not “Bible stories.”&nbsp;They really happened. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">See Habermas and Licona’s <em>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</em>, chapters 3 and 4, and William Lane Craig’s <em>Reasonable Faith</em>, third edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 349, 361-389. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">See “Christianity’s Real Record”&nbsp;at str.org. See also Alvin Schmidt, <em>Under the Influence—How Christianity Transformed Civilization</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) and Carroll and Shiflett, <em>Christianity on Trial</em> (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17"> ↩</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%2Fancient-words-ever-true-" 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%2Fancient-words-ever-true-" 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%2Fancient-words-ever-true-" 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: Prayer Begins with Hope in God
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/05/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/prayer-begins-with-hope-in-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is the National Day of Prayer, and while prayer is a central part of life for some of you, I have no doubt that many of you are sheepishly reflecting on the fact that you’re not very big on prayer. Perhaps some of you are even defiantly resisting prayer,&nbsp;or are merely depressed and unable to motivate yourselves to plead with God when you’ve faced so many disappointments and feel so far away from Him.</p>

<p>Or maybe you’re like me, and you’ve been in each of these places at one time or another. When I was in the lowest point of my prayer life, I came across <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Praying-Life-Connecting-Distracting-World/dp/1631466836/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1546448592&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+praying+life" target="_blank"><em>A Praying Life</em></a> by Paul Miller and found it to be very helpful. (Here’s a <a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/a-praying-life" target="_blank">review</a> of the book by Tim Challies that explains its strengths and weaknesses.)</p>

<p>Beyond recommending the book, I wanted to say a word of encouragement to those who are having trouble praying. First, the greatest killer of prayer is a loss of hope. A turning point for me when I was feeling most hopeless happened when I was reading <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%204:13-25&amp;version=ESV" target="_blank">Romans 4</a>. In this chapter, Paul is explaining that we’re the descendants of Abraham, and the heir of the promises made to him, if we share in the faith of Abraham. Then Paul hits us with a description of God that changes everything: “Him whom [Abraham] believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”</p>

<p>Meditate on that for a moment. God “gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”&nbsp;God has the power to give your spirit the life and hope that is now lacking in you—He calls it into being out of nothing. Do you feel dead? God is the God who gives life where it does not now exist. This is who God is. This is what He does. But He doesn’t always do this immediately. Do you have the faith to trust in Him while waiting as Abraham waited?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Without becoming weak in faith [Abraham] contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform (Romans 4:18–21).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s likely that an end to your hopelessness, leading to an ability to pray again, seems impossible to you—just as impossible as the birth of Isaac seemed to Abraham. So, like Abraham, don’t try to focus all your faith on this happening. Instead, focus your faith on <em>God</em>, trustworthy and powerful, who gives life to the dead. Meditate on who He is. Don’t worry if you don’t believe you’ll ever have hope again. Just start by believing the truth about <em>God</em>. Like Abraham, “in hope against hope”&nbsp;put your faith in <em>Him who is able to call into being that which does not exist</em>.</p>

<p>Second, your soul is real. There are spiritual realities in life just as there are physical realities. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that my soul can starve just as surely as my body can starve. You need to pray and <a href="/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-" target="_blank">read the Bible</a> <em>as much</em> as you need to eat because there is the same reality of necessity in both cases. Do you place as much urgency on the one as on the other? Do you ever decide not to eat for a few days because you’re too busy? Is your soul suffering now the way your body would be if you stopped eating? The answer to your apathy or despair might be as simple as beginning to eat again.</p>

<p>Let <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Praying-Life-Connecting-Distracting-World/dp/1631466836/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1546448592&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+praying+life" target="_blank"><em>A Praying Life</em></a> be a starting point for 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%2Fprayer-begins-with-hope-in-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%2Fprayer-begins-with-hope-in-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%2Fprayer-begins-with-hope-in-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: The Right to Fashion Our Lives How We Want
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/18/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-right-to-fashion-our-lives-how-we-want
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was going to comment on this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=2&amp;ref=magazine" target="_blank">article</a> in the New York Times, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,”&nbsp;but I think the horror of it speaks more clearly for itself than I ever could. (If you can stomach reading the whole article, I think it’s an important read.) The story is about the increasing number of women who are choosing to end the life of one of their twins because they only want one:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Consider the choice of which fetus to eliminate: if both appear healthy (which is typical with twins), doctors aim for whichever one is easier to reach. If both are equally accessible, the decision of who lives and who dies is random. To the relief of patients, it’s the doctor who chooses—with one exception. If the fetuses are different sexes, some doctors ask the parents which one they want to keep.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At first, “reductions”&nbsp;were only done for medical reasons—i.e., to save the lives of the other unborn children. But since our culture can offer no consistent argument as to why the deaths of these children shouldn’t be obtained for <em>other</em> reasons, the practice has become just another way for women to design their perfect lives.</p>

<p>So here are a couple stories to give a face to what happens when we decide that “ethics evolve with technology,”&nbsp;as one doctor put it.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[“This is not what I want for my life”] was the thinking of Dr. Naomi Bloomfield, an obstetrician near Albany who found out she was pregnant with twins when her first child was not quite a year old. “I couldn’t have imagined reducing twins for non-medical reasons,”&nbsp;she said, ��but I had an amnio and would have had an abortion if I found out that one of the babies had an anomaly, even if it wasn’t life-threatening. I didn’t want to raise a handicapped child. Some people would call that selfish, but I wouldn’t. Parents who abort for an anomaly just don’t want that life for themselves, and it’s their prerogative to fashion their lives how they want. Is terminating two to one really any different morally?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(No, it isn’t. It’s just easier to see it for what it really is.)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Evans estimates that the majority of doctors who perform reductions will not go below twins. Shelby Van Voris was pregnant with triplets when she discovered this for herself. After she and her husband tried for three years to get pregnant, they went to a fertility doctor near their home in Savannah, Ga. He put Shelby, then 30, on fertility drugs, and when that didn't work, he ramped things up with injections. By then, her husband, a 33-year-old Army officer, had been deployed to Iraq. He left behind three vials of sperm, and she was artificially inseminated. “You do weird things when mortars are flying at your husband’s head,”&nbsp;she said. She soon found out she was carrying triplets. Frantic, she yelled at the doctor: “This is not an option for us! I want only one!”</p>

<p>Her fertility specialist referred her to a doctor in Atlanta who did reductions. But when Shelby called, the office manager told her that she would have to pay extra for temporary staff to assist with the procedure, because the regular staff refused to reduce pregnancies below twins. She contacted three more doctors, and in each case was told: not below two. “It was horrible,”&nbsp;she says. “I felt like the pregnancy was a monster, and I just wanted it out, but because we tried for so long, abortion wasn’t an option. My No. 1 priority was to be the best mom I could be, but how was I supposed to juggle two newborns or two screaming infants while my husband was away being shot at? We don’t have family just sitting around waiting to get called to help me with a baby.”</p>

<p>Eventually, she heard about Evans and flew to New York for the procedure. “I said, ’You choose whoever is going to be safe and healthy,’”&nbsp;she says. “I didn’t give him any other criteria. I didn’t choose gender. None of that was up for grabs, because I had to make it as ethically O.K. for me as I could. But I wanted only one.”</p>

<p>She paid $6,500 for the reduction and left Evans’s office incredibly relieved. “I went out on that street with my mother and jumped up and down saying: ’I’m pregnant! I’m pregnant!’&nbsp;And then I went and bought baby clothes for the first time.”</p>

<p>Today, her daughter is 2½ years old. Shelby intends to tell her about the reduction someday, to teach her that women have choices, even if they’re sometimes difficult.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What have we become? God have mercy on us.</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-right-to-fashion-our-lives-how-we-want" 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-right-to-fashion-our-lives-how-we-want" 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-right-to-fashion-our-lives-how-we-want" 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: Evil and the Cross
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/22/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/evil-and-the-cross
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today, on this Good Friday, we think about an event that was not only the result of evil but also the reason for allowing evil to exist in the first place. That event is the revealing of the perfection and beauty of God’s grace and righteousness through the demonstration of both on the cross:</p>

<blockquote>For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:23-26).</blockquote>

<p>Why did God allow evil to come into this world? Why not create everything in the state of perfection we will be in after this world comes to an end? I think the answer is that God had a goal in mind that is greater than the suffering, and that goal is the revealing of Himself to His people so that we will be able to fully express our pleasure in Him through worship, enjoying Him for an eternity.</p>

<p>In other words, we experience suffering and sin so that Jesus could die on the cross for us.</p>

<p>That might sound backward to you. But if God’s greatest goal is to reveal His perfections to us (a greater goal than our temporary comfort on this Earth), then in order for us to know God’s grace, His mercy, His power, His justice, His righteousness, His love, and our need for Him, He allowed sin into this world so that we could see and experience Him in these ways. And the pinnacle of this demonstration of Himself happened at the cross.</p>

<p>Evil isn’t necessary for God’s goodness to <em>exist</em>, but it <em>is</em> necessary for God’s goodness to be revealed to us. I always think of the heroes of United 93 as an illustration of this. Before 9/11, the people who would soon give their lives on that flight went about their daily business doing ordinary things. They had already developed the character, invisible to us, that would direct their actions on that tragic day, but the depth of their self-sacrificing courage wasn’t made visible to us until evil led to the expression of it.</p>

<p>In the same way, God was God before sin was in the world. He was always full of grace, but without our sin, would we have known it? He was always just, but without judgment, would we have seen it? Would we have ever seen a love that seeks out enemies if there had been no enemies? Our knowledge and appreciation of God would have been forever stunted in a world without the cross.</p>

<blockquote>In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, <em>to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved</em> (Ephesians 1:5-6).</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevil-and-the-cross" 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%2Fevil-and-the-cross" 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%2Fevil-and-the-cross" 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: No “Lost” Books of the Bible
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-lost-books-of-the-bible-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Has archaeology unearthed ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible that Christians don’t have the true Bible?</em></p>

<p>Browsing through the religious section in your local bookstore, you’re likely to stumble on a handful of titles that suggest the discovery of “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible. Generally, these represent works that were “politically incorrect”&nbsp;according to the theological notions of the time. Branded as spurious by early church leaders, they were discredited and destroyed. Luckily, a handful of copies survived. Archaeologists have rescued these previously “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible. The <em>Gospel of Thomas</em>, unearthed in the Nag Hammadi library in Upper Egypt in 1945, would be an example.</p>

<p>Invariably, this sends a jolt through the system of the conscientious Christian. Could it be that archaeology has unearthed ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible the Bible that Christians have is incomplete?</p>

<p>It may be hard to believe, but this question can be answered without ever reading any of the books in question. No research needs to be done, no ancient tomes addressed, no works of antiquity perused. Curiously, the entire issue can be answered by a close look at one word: Bible.</p>

<h2>The Bible Divine</h2>

<p>The whole question of alleged lost books of the Bible hinges on what one means by the word “Bible.”&nbsp;It can only mean one of two things, it seems to me. There is a religious understanding of the word, and there is a more secular definition.</p>

<p>When one asks an evangelical Christian what the Bible is, he’s likely to say simply, “It’s God’s Word.”&nbsp;When pressed for a more theologically precise definition, he might add that God superintended the writing of Scripture so that the human authors, using their own style, personalities and resources, wrote down, word for word, exactly what God intended them to write in the originals. This <em>verbal plenary inspiration</em> is a critical part of the Christian definition of the word “Bible.”</p>

<p>The key concept for our discussion is the phrase “exactly what God intended them to write.”&nbsp;This is a critical part of the first definition of the word “Bible,”&nbsp;the idea that God was not limited by the fact that human authors were involved in the process.</p>

<h2>Man’s Mistakes</h2>

<p>A common objection to the notion of inspiration is that the Bible was only written by men, and men make mistakes. This complaint misses the mark for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, it does not logically follow that because humans were involved in the writing process, the Bible must necessarily be in error. Mistakes may be possible, but they’re not necessary. To assume error in all human writing is also self-defeating. The humanly derived statement, “The Bible was written by men, and men make mistakes,”&nbsp;would be suspect by the same standards. The fact is, human beings can and do produce writing with no errors. It happens all the time.</p>

<p>Further, the challenge that men make mistakes ignores the main issue—whether or not the Bible was written <em>only</em> by men. The Christian accepts that humans are limited, but denies that man’s limitations are significant in this case because inspiration implies that God’s power supersedes man’s liabilities.</p>

<p>A simple question—Columbo style—serves to illustrate this: “Are you saying that if God exists, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?”&nbsp;This seems hard to affirm. The notion of an omnipotent God not being <em>able</em> to accomplish such a simple task is ludicrous. If, on the other hand, the answer is “No, I think He is able,”&nbsp;then the objection vanishes. If God is capable, then man’s limitations are not a limit on God.</p>

<p>The divine inspiration of the Bible automatically solves the problem of human involvement. If God insures the results, it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys do the writing, they will still write exactly what God intends. That is part of what it means for the Bible to be divinely inspired.</p>

<p>The important thing for our purpose here is not to defend the notion of divine inspiration, but to understand that God’s authorship and supernatural preservation are <em>necessarily entailed</em> in the first definition of the word “Bible.”&nbsp;The Bible is the 66 individual books contained under one cover that are supernaturally inspired by God, and are preserved and protected by His power.</p>

<h2>The Bible Secular</h2>

<p>The second definition of the word “Bible”&nbsp;is not religious, and therefore assumes no supernatural origin. This view says that while Christians treated the Scriptures as divinely inspired, they were mistaken. The Bible merely represents a consensus, a collection of books chosen by the early church to reflect its own beliefs.</p>

<p>A book that didn’t make the cut was rejected for one reason: Early Christians didn’t accept its theology. The cause was human and political, not divine and supernatural. Christianity is no different from other religions that have collections of authoritative writings. Even individual professions identify certain books as official representations—“bibles”—of their respective fields. The Bible, then, is merely a collection of books chosen by the early church to represent its own beliefs.</p>

<p>So we have two possible meanings for the word “Bible,”&nbsp;a supernatural one and a natural one. Either the Bible is divinely given and divinely preserved—the conservative Christian view—or it’s merely a human document representing the beliefs of a religious group known as Christianity—the view of just about everyone else. Given either of these two definitions, could any books of the Bible be <em>lost</em>?</p>

<h2>No Lost Books</h2>

<p>Start with the first meaning, the supernatural definition of the Bible. Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort? The answer is certainly no. Remember, on this view God Himself is supernaturally preserving and protecting the integrity of His work.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether the Christian claim about inspiration is accurate or not, it is obvious that on this definition it is not possible God would misplace His own book. The “lost books” thesis would thus be reduced to, “Certain books that almighty God was responsible to preserve and protect got lost.”</p>

<p>This is silly. God would be both almighty and inept at the same time. If the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of God, then the power of God Himself guarantees that no portion of it will ever be lost. There will always be a fully adequate testimony of His Word in every generation.</p>

<p>Could there be lost books given the second definition? What if Christians are wrong in attributing God’s stewardship to the Scriptures? What if the Bible ultimately turns out to be merely a product of human design? If that’s the case, then the term “Bible”&nbsp;refers not to the Word of God (the first definition), but to the canon of beliefs of the leaders of the early church (the second definition). Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort?</p>

<p>The answer again is certainly not. The “lost books”&nbsp;thesis would be reduced to this: “Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs that they actually believed reflected their beliefs.” The contradiction is obvious.</p>

<p>If the Bible is a collection of books the early church leaders decided would represent their point of view, then they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with, so even by the second definition, “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible would be a misnomer.</p>

<p>Consider this scenario. You decide to write a book about your personal beliefs drawing from stacks of notes containing reflections you’ve collected over the years. After recording the ones you agree with, you discard the rest. Later, someone rummaging through your trash comes upon your discarded notes. Could he claim he’d stumbled upon your lost beliefs?</p>

<p>“No,”&nbsp;you respond, “these were not lost. They were rejected. If they were really my beliefs, they’d be in the book, not in the garbage.”</p>

<p>It’s ironic that “lost books”&nbsp;advocates often point out that rediscovered texts were missing because the early Church Fathers suppressed them. It’s true; they did. Critics think this strengthens their case, but it doesn’t. Instead it destroys their position by proving that the “lost books”&nbsp;were not lost but discarded, rejected as not representative of Christian beliefs. Therefore, they did not belong in the Christian Bible. If they never were <em>in</em> the Bible in the first place they couldn’t be lost <em>from</em> the Bible.</p>

<h2>Recall Vote?</h2>

<p>Another approach to Scripture is worth mentioning. Some academics, like those of the Jesus Seminar, reject the idea that the Bible has supernatural origins. Since the Bible is just man’s opinion anyway, why not have a recall vote? Amend the text to fix what is now considered defective or out of step with the times.</p>

<p>Such a reshuffling of the biblical deck—tossing out some books and including others to reflect what the church currently believes about spiritual truth—is certainly an alternative on a naturalistic view of the Scripture. If the members of the Jesus Seminar want to include the Gospel of Thomas in <em>their</em> bible, they’re welcome to. Keep in mind though, they would not be restoring a “lost book”&nbsp;of the Bible, but merely redefining the canon to fit modern tastes.</p>

<p>Regardless of how you view the Scripture—as supernatural or as natural—there is no sense in which there could be lost books of the Bible. If the Bible is supernatural—if God is responsible for its writing, it’s transmission, and its survival—then God, being God, doesn’t fail. He doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t forget things, and He’s not constrained by man’s limitations. God can’t lose His lessons.</p>

<p>However, if the Bible is not supernatural—as many will contend, especially those who claim to have found lost books—one faces a different problem. By what standard do we claim these are bona fide lost books of the canon of the early church? If, from a human perspective, the Bible is that collection of writings reflecting the beliefs of early Christianity, then any writings discarded are not books of the Bible by very definition.</p>

<p>Has archaeology unearthed previously unknown ancient texts? Certainly. Are they interesting, noteworthy, and valuable? Some. Are they missing books of the Bible? The answer is no. Two thousand years later, the rediscovery of something like the Gospel of Thomas may be archaeologically significant. It might be a lost book of antiquity, a great find, even a wonderful piece of literature. But it is not a lost book of the Bible.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-lost-books-of-the-bible-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%2Fno-lost-books-of-the-bible-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%2Fno-lost-books-of-the-bible-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: Darwin Day Is Not Really about Darwin
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/12/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/darwin-day-is-not-really-about-darwin
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s Darwin Day, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.</p>

<p>But this annual celebration is more about the Darwinists of today than the Darwin of yesterday. Conspicuously absent each year is a tribute to one of Darwin’s most noteworthy traits: intellectual honesty.</p>

<p>When you read Darwin’s book,&nbsp;<em>On the Origin of Species</em>, you can sense his honesty about the problems with evolutionary theory. Like a good scientist should do, he acknowledges that his theory could be proven false (it’s falsifiable). He even offers specific examples of the kind of data that is necessary to show he’s mistaken about his theory. He was a fair-minded man.</p>

<p>Not so with Darwinists today. According to them, evolution is not only a proven fact, but&nbsp;<em>impossible to disprove</em>. It’s scientific dogma. Sure, they give a nod to falsifiability by saying evolution is “testable,” “open to evidence,” and is “forever uncertain,” but this is just lip-service. Their lips would serve the scientific community far better if they uttered the words “open to error” and actually meant it.</p>

<p>If Darwinists were open to evidence against evolution, they would consider the evidence of design and intelligence in biology. Though these might qualify as evidence to reasonable scientists, they are the very things Darwinists disqualify&nbsp;<em>by definition</em>.</p>

<p>Noted Darwinist Douglas Futuyma says, “In a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for…creation.” Notice he doesn’t say, “There is no evidence,” or “We haven’t found any evidence yet.” He says there&nbsp;<em>can’t be</em>. That’s because he’s not open to any evidence that might possibly cast doubt on Darwin’s theory. So much for continuing Darwin’s legacy of being fair-minded. Futuyma has left the school of science and entered the department of dogma.</p>

<p>Why have Darwinists abandoned the falsifiability of evolution? It’s because, in their mind, any evidence against evolution is evidence for an intelligent Designer. Darwinists aren’t interested in the&nbsp;<em>right</em>&nbsp;answers, but the&nbsp;<em>right kind</em>&nbsp;of answers.</p>

<p>It’s too bad for Darwin. His legacy couldn’t continue the treasured scientific tradition of fair-mindedness and falsifiability. Instead, Darwin Day celebrations reflect the mentality of Darwinists rather than Darwin, a man of more noble character than his theory’s progeny.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdarwin-day-is-not-really-about-darwin" 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%2Fdarwin-day-is-not-really-about-darwin" 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%2Fdarwin-day-is-not-really-about-darwin" 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 Grand Design: A Quantum Leap
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-grand-design-a-quantum-leap
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Quantum physics. Ugh. The term itself is enough to make grown men weep and send theologians scurrying. It can also send chills up the spine of the Christian marshaling evidence from science for the existence of God.</p>

<p>Stephen Hawking is the “quantum king.”&nbsp;The Lucasian professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, his <em>Brief History of Time</em>, published in 1988, sold nine million copies. According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/books/08book.html"><em>The New York Times</em></a>, Hawking is “the most revered scientist since Einstein.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>So when Stephen Hawking says quantum physics renders philosophy dead, theology unnecessary, and a Creator superfluous, the temptation is strong to roll over and wave the white flag of surrender.</p>

<h2>Down the Rabbit Hole</h2>

<p>Hawking’s new book, <em>The Grand Design</em>, co-authored with Cal Tech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, makes all those claims, and more. One can’t read very far in the book, though, without wondering if he��s just stepped over the edge and tumbled down Alice’s rabbit hole.</p>

<p>It’s the feeling I had reading the transcript of an airing of “<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/10/lkl.01.html">Larry King Live</a>”&nbsp;when King, Hawking, Mlodinow, and Deepak Chopra opined about the book. At many points the discussion moved beyond esoteric to borderline incoherent. Here, in no particular order, is a sampling of the panel’s comments on “nothing”:<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Hawking: Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing. [Non-being creates being?]</p>

<p>King: Who created the nothing?...Where did the nothing come from? [“Nothing”&nbsp;is created?]</p>

<p>Mlodinow: According to quantum theory, there is no such thing as nothingness. [Is this news, that “no-thing-ness”&nbsp;is not a thing?]</p>

<p>Chopra: Vashishtha said, infinite words come and go in the vast expanse of nothingness, which is consciousness...I believe this nothingness is not an empty void. It’s the womb of creation. [What this means is anybody’s guess.]</p>

<p>If you’re confused by these remarks, you’re not alone. Hawking’s erstwhile colleague, Roger Penrose, said, “Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense.”&nbsp;Physicist John Wheeler (who coined the term “black hole”) said, “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.”&nbsp;Richard Feynman—cited frequently in Hawking’s book—famously <a href="http://phys.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/quantum-mechanical-quotes/">quipped</a>, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>[Suicide #1]</p>

<p>I think <em>I</em> can safely say, then, that anybody who makes dogmatic assertions based on their interpretation of quantum mechanics is simply wishing on a star, even an esteemed mathematician like Stephen Hawking.</p>

<p>There’s another reason no one needs to fear the quantum physics trump card. Philosopher William Lane Craig points out that, though the equations of quantum mechanics seem sound, there are nearly a dozen different interpretations of how the abstract math plays out in the real world, and all have equal claims to legitimacy.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Even so, the basic assertions of <em>The Grand Design</em> deserve a response. When Larry King asked Stephen Hawking to state the most important point in the book, Hawking answered, “That science can explain the universe, and that we don’t need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing or why the laws of nature are what they are.”</p>

<p>In particular, Hawking and Mlodinow claim:</p>

<p>1.Philosophy is dead.</p>

<p>2.The laws of physics explain—and therefore determine—everything.</p>

<p>3.Miracles are impossible.</p>

<p>4.There is no free will.</p>

<p>5.Objective reality does not exist.</p>

<p>6.God is not necessary to explain the existence or the order of the universe.</p>

<p>As you will soon see, Hawking’s arguments fail completely. He stumbles badly out of the starting gate—his foundational claims are doubly <a href="http://www.jpmoreland.com/2010/09/22/scientism-makes-scientists-laughable/">self-refuting</a>—and his contention that the universe doesn’t need God comes to nothing.</p>

<h2>Philosophy R.I.P.</h2>

<p>When I was eight years old, I ran away from home. Unhappy with parental restrictions, I thought I could fend for myself. While my mother wrung her hands and wept, my father calmly granted my request for freedom. He emptied my piggy bank into my pocket, shook my hand, and wished me well. I soon learned (in about two hours) that liberty came with a price, one too dear for a youngster to pay. I needed my parents.</p>

<p>On the opening page of his book, Steven Hawking the scientist tries to run away from home. “Philosophy,”&nbsp;he writes, “is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>[Suicide #2]</p>

<p>What Hawking doesn’t realize is that science cannot live on its own. It needs its parent, philosophy. The metaphor is apt because philosophy as a discipline not only gave birth to science; it also guides and guards the scientist so he does not get lost along the way.</p>

<p>Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What science is, how it operates, and what boundaries constrain it are each features of philosophy, not of science itself. For example, in chapter three Hawking lists the virtues of a good scientific model.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> A good model...</p>

<p>1.Is elegant.</p>

<p>2.Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements.</p>

<p>3.Agrees with and explains all existing observations.</p>

<p>4.Makes detailed predictions capable of falsifying the model.</p>

<p>The list is a good one. The tally, however, is not the product of science, but of philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science. The scientist who dismisses philosophy does not thereby rid himself of its task. He merely condemns himself to do the philosopher’s job poorly.</p>

<p>Stephen Hawking proves as much by spending the first 63 pages—one third of his book—wrestling with philosophical questions (the title of his first chapter is “The Mystery of Being”) before he even begins to address the science proper. He pontificates on free will and determinism, reality and illusion, right and wrong, reason and logic—but he does so artlessly and, as we’ll see, hazardously.</p>

<p>Albert Einstein once quipped, “The problem with us scientists is that we are very poor philosophers.”&nbsp;Stephen Hawking proves him right. Had he taken philosophy more seriously, he might not have stumbled so quickly.</p>

<p>In his second chapter, “The Rule of Law,”&nbsp;Stephen Hawking argues a point about physics that, if true, dooms the rest of his work to utter insignificance.</p>

<h2>Physics Is Everything</h2>

<p>I once witnessed a magnificent spectacle created by falling dominoes. Legions of little blocks standing in formation morphed into a stunning work of art when the creator of the massive puzzle gave the first domino a flick. As one by one each domino fell against another in succession, a marvelous panorama unfolded before my eyes.</p>

<p>The picture that appeared was not the result of random events. It was determined beforehand by the specific order of the dominoes and the constraints of the laws of physics. Repeat the exact set-up, repeat the exact result.</p>

<p>Purely physical systems behave like that sea of toppling dominoes. Physical objects “collide”&nbsp;with each other throughout the universe in very precise ways based on their initial conditions and governed by uniform natural law. This is what allows science to operate in the first place. The deterministic nature of physical systems<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> makes experimental repeatability possible.</p>

<p>Generally, science acknowledges two kinds of causes. The first is the kind of cause determining the configuration of the collapsing dominoes—<em>event</em> causation. The second (the finger flick) is the kind of cause that initiated the cascade to begin with—<em>agent</em> causation (a human agent, in this case).</p>

<p>Hawking and Mlodinow characterize the first kind of cause as “scientific determinism”&nbsp;(SD). Here’s how they describe it: “Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Quite right. These two sentences sit side by side for a reason. By stipulating that natural law “fully determines”&nbsp;every event in natural history, the authors aim to squeeze God permanently out of the equation. Simply put, physics is everything. “The scientific account is complete,”&nbsp;Hawking told Larry King. “Theology is unnecessary.”</p>

<p>For Hawking and Mlodinow, though, event causation governs <em>everything</em>—even human choices. Determinism is absolute. There are no exceptions, even human ones. Everything, including human nature, must submit to the sovereignty of physics:</p>

<p>Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, then scientific determinism <em>must</em> hold for people as well...<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Do people have free will?...Though we <em>feel</em> that we can choose...biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are <em>as determined as the orbits of the planets</em>...<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Our physical brain, following the known laws of science...determines our actions, and <em>not some agency that exists outside those laws</em>.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>So it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that <em>free will is just an illusion</em><sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>It’s hard to believe brilliant men like Hawking and Mlodinow do not see how destructive this move is to their own case, but I think you will see it readily.</p>

<p>Let me put the question this way: Did the laws of physics determine the order of the words on the pages of <em>The Grand Design</em>? Or did Professors Hawking and Mlodinow make that call? Did they <em>ponder</em> the evidence for their theories, <em>consider</em> the implications of the facts, <em>posit</em> conclusions, then <em>choose</em> the right words and <em>select</em> the precise order that would best <em>communicate</em> their views and <em>persuade</em> readers of the <em>rationality</em> of their own ideas?</p>

<p>Note that each of the emphasized words above denotes free acts of will made by conscious agents. Without genuine freedom, then pondering, considering, positing, choosing, selecting, communicating, persuading, and reasoning would all be impossible in the sense that we normally use those terms.</p>

<p>Therefore, in light of SD, the authors would have to opt for the first alternative—ultimately, the laws of physics wrote the book that bears their names no less than the laws of physics determined the arrangement of rocks resting on the surface of the planet Mars.</p>

<p>They have no other choice (no pun is intended here; I mean this literally). Remember, the only causation Hawking &amp; Mlodinow allow for is event causation—dominoes fatalistically falling—which is rigidly deterministic.</p>

<h2>The Big Squeeze</h2>

<p>If Hawking is right about SD, then it is impossible for him to know it. Knowledge is a combination of true belief based on adequate reason.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> But reason plays no role in deterministic systems. Hawking’s convictions would not be conclusions, but rather the inevitable results of natural law compelling the molecules of his brain to cause his body to dictate the words that appear on the pages of <em>The Grand Design</em>.</p>

<p>[Suicide #3]</p>

<p>By the authors’&nbsp;own admission, SD is central to the argument in their book (“This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism”).<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> But SD makes arguments themselves impossible because the operation of reason requires free will. Consequently, everything that follows the assertion of SD (including the notion that “miracles or an active role for God”&nbsp;are impossible) tumbles down like a house of cards.</p>

<p>If you follow this point, you won’t need to read any more of this article—or any more of Hawking’s book. There is no reason to turn another page, because nothing that Hawking argues could possibly be known. Hawking could never know if his “M-theory”&nbsp;of the universe were true if his conviction is produced by the laws of physics instead of by the dictates of reason.</p>

<p>By squeezing out free will and genuine human agency in his attempt to squeeze out God, Stephen Hawking squeezes himself out of the picture as well. He disqualifies himself as author, scientist, man of reason (and also humanitarian, kind co-worker, loving husband, etc., but that is a different matter).<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>The only way out is to surrender SD. Hawking can acknowledge the general uniformity of natural law, but admit the obvious—that agents (like himself) are not subject to its dictates. Rather, they can intervene to change the course of natural events. They can start the dominoes, stop the dominoes, or redirect the dominoes <em>at will</em>.</p>

<p>Clearly, agency is real, and it operates by a different dynamic than the natural order does. Arguments are not subject to the laws of nature any more than the laws of reason can alter the mass of a molecule.</p>

<p>And if human agents are not bound by physics, then why would a divine agent—who arguably authored the laws to begin with—be bound by them? More specifically, how does Hawking know miracles are impossible? <em>He gives no reason</em>. He simply declares it to be so (by asserting SD), and then belittles the alternative.</p>

<p>Leonard Mlodinow told Larry King, “There’s never been in any science experiment...any indication that everything in the universe does not follow physical laws.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> But science experiments <em>themselves</em>—having been designed by human agents—are not the product of physical laws, but rather the will of the scientist.</p>

<p>[Suicide #4]</p>

<p>If Hawking and Mlodinow are right about SD, they are wrong about everything in their book, because knowledge is impossible in the rigidly determined world they affirm. Science itself is undermined by scientific determinism. However, if they are wrong about SD, then they cannot arbitrarily dismiss God as a possible player in the cosmic arena.</p>

<p>The logical implications of scientific determinism cause Hawking’s “grand design”&nbsp;to implode. His theories are doubly dead, however, because they commit suicide in yet another way.</p>

<h2>Inside the Goldfish Bowl</h2>

<p>In “What Is Reality?”&nbsp;chapter three of <em>The Grand Design</em>, Hawking and Mlodinow ponder the predicament of the goldfish.</p>

<p>The world appears different to a goldfish looking <em>out</em> from the <em>inside</em> of its bowl, than it does to us looking <em>in</em> from the <em>outside</em>. The “lens”&nbsp;of the glass has a distorting affect, bending the light and altering the images that appear on the other side. But which side is distorted, the authors ask, the fish’s or ours?</p>

<p>How do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish’s picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>Since “there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality,”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup> the answer they give is that there is no way to know. The best we can do, the authors suggest, is simply to formulate a view—a model—that seems to work from our perspective, and leave it at that. Hawking calls this approach “model-dependent realism.”</p>

<p>This language here is misleading, though. In discussions about the ultimate nature of reality, the term “realism”&nbsp;generally means that the external world is real and that it exists, more or less, the way we perceive it to be. Even when there are distorting elements (like goldfish bowls), our perceptive and cognitive abilities allow us to make appropriate adjustments.</p>

<p>However, realism is precisely what Hawking and Mlodinow deny. “How do we know we are not just characters in a computer-generated soap opera?,”&nbsp;they wonder.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup> No model of reality “can be said to be more real than the other.”<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>

<p>“Our perception,”&nbsp;they point out, “is not direct, but rather shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains.”<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup> And this distorting influence is impossible for us to escape. All that can be claimed of any scientific theory is that it accounts for the facts better than others, nothing more. It could never be declared true in the ordinary sense of the word.</p>

<p>Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s hypothesis is a costly one, however. Note, first, that this is a radical departure from the canons of conventional science, and Hawking knows it: “Classical science is based on the belief that there exists a real external world whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them.”<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup> Without the ability to accurately assess the world, though, what becomes of the magisterium of science?</p>

<p>One also wonders what to make of the inviolability of Hawking’s scientific determinism if he is right about the implications of goldfish bowls. It seems even SD would have to be demoted to the status of distorted perception. Since scientific determinism “is the basis for all modern science,”<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup> that noble discipline is thus assaulted a second time.</p>

<p>Regardless, a much more damaging concern surfaces when we ask the following question: What are we to make of the point of chapter three itself, Hawking’s non-realism? It seems we have two possible choices. We can accept it as true, or we can reject it as false. Clearly, Hawking would have us side with him. But, oddly, he has not left that option open to us—even theoretically—because the minute we <em>agree</em> with him, we <em>prove him false</em>. Here’s why.</p>

<p>[Suicide #5]</p>

<p>If Hawking is right that all perceptions are distorted by the lens of the interpretive structure of our brains, then his own theory would be a result of those distorted (and, therefore, unreliable) perceptions. Perhaps, on the other hand, the professor's theory was the result of a moment of perceptual clarity in which he saw the world as it really was. But if those moments are available to Dr. Hawking, why are they denied to the rest of us?</p>

<p>As it turns out, Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s view is sabotaged in the same way all such postmodern views are: It self-destructs. They claim there are no accurate representations of reality. Then they ground their conviction on “facts”&nbsp;about perception, brain activity, and interpretive structures they take to be true, undistorted, and accurate to reality. Therefore, <em>The Grand Design</em> is refuted a second time, even before getting to the science proper.</p>

<h2>A Theory of Everything</h2>

<p>For someone like Stephen Hawking searching for a satisfying “theory of everything,”&nbsp;<em>The Grand Design</em> turns out to be a quantum leap of self-defeating incoherence that explains almost nothing.</p>

<p>By asserting scientific determinism, Hawking paints himself into a fatalistic corner where it is impossible for him to know anything at all. By opting for the anti-realism of model-dependent “realism,”&nbsp;he immediately falsifies the SD he has just asserted, defeats his own anti-realist speculations, and undermines everything else that follows. Hawking sabotages his own views three times, and each wound is fatal.</p>

<p>Any sound theory of everything needs to make sense of everything that needs explaining. It needs to account for the existence and order of the universe. It must make room for event and agent causation, and the consciousness that accompanies the ability to freely choose. It must make sense of the laws of logic, the basic reliability of our sensory abilities, and the unique human obligation of morality.</p>

<p>And it must speak to the deepest needs of our souls, because they also are a part of “everything”&nbsp;that needs to be explained.</p>

<p>There is a theory that will do it all—the view of reality held by Jesus of Nazareth, a view now called “Christian theism.”&nbsp;His basic understanding of reality resonates with our deepest intuitions about the way the world actually is.</p>

<p>We live in a universe created with a word by an intelligent, powerful, eternal Spirit. The existence of the world is due to His will. The magnificent design of creation is due to His wisdom.</p>

<p>Human beings are made in His image as moral creatures fashioned for a divine purpose. We are able to know which side of the goldfish bowl we're on because He's equipped our minds with a perceptual ability that connects us to the real world, making a discipline like science possible in the first place.</p>

<p>If Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are really looking for answers, then Christian theism explains everything that needs explaining: existence, specified complexity (information), the uniformity of natural law, genuine acts of freedom, human dignity and purpose, acts of virtue and vice, rationality, true moral guilt, and ultimate meaning.</p>

<p>It has enough sophistication and explanatory power to satisfy the yearnings of the greatest minds of history—Augustine, Aquinas, <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/scholarsandscientists/galileo.html">Galileo</a>, Newton, <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html">Kepler</a>, to name but a few—yet enough simplicity in the foundational notions to be grasped by a child.</p>

<p>It also provides the most important answer of all, the solution to the human condition—forgiveness leading to that for which we all deeply hunger, the fullness of existence found only in an eternal friendship with God.</p>

<p>And no quantum leap is necessary to believe. Only a simple step of trust that is consistent with all the facts.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Dwight Garner, “Many Kinds of Universes, and None Require God,”&nbsp;<em>The New York Times</em>, 9/7/10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">“Larry King Live,”&nbsp;9/10/10, <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/10/lkl.01.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/10/lkl.01.html</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">These quotes can be found at <a href="http://phys.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/quantum-mechanical-quotes/">http://phys.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/quantum-mechanical-quotes/</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Interview with William Lane Craig, 9/19/10, available at: <a href="http://www.str.org/w/william-lane-craig-on-stephen-hawking-s-new-book-september-19-2010-?inheritRedirect=true">https://www.str.org/w/william-lane-craig-on-stephen-hawking-s-new-book-september-19-2010-?inheritRedirect=true</a>.&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, <em>The Grand Design</em> (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 5. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em>Ibid</em>, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">At least on the supra-atomic level. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Hawking Mlodinow, 30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9"><em>Ibid</em>, 30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10"><em>Ibid</em>, 31-32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11"><em>Ibid</em>, 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12"><em>Ibid</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">This is the classic philosophical definition of knowledge: justified true belief (JTB). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Hawking and Mlodinow, 34. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Moral virtues also require human freedom. SD makes morality unintelligible. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">“Larry King Live,”&nbsp;9/10/10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Hawking and Mlodinow, 39. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18"><em>Ibid</em>, 42. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19"><em>Ibid</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20"><em>Ibid</em>, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21"><em>Ibid</em>, 46. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22"><em>Ibid</em>, 43. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23"><em>Ibid</em>, 30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23"> ↩</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%2Fthe-grand-design-a-quantum-leap" 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-grand-design-a-quantum-leap" 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-grand-design-a-quantum-leap" 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 Holy Spirit's Job
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/17/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-holy-spirit-s-job
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In John 16:8-11, Jesus explains to the disciples how they will benefit when He leaves and sends the Holy Spirit into the world:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning <em>sin and righteousness and judgment</em>; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged [emphasis mine].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the Holy Spirit will:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Reveal to people the seriousness of their sinful rebellion against God.</li>
	<li>Enable people to grasp the blinding righteousness and holiness of God (since Jesus is not here to show us in person what the word "righteousness" truly means).</li>
	<li>Reveal to people the certainty of their coming judgment.&nbsp;</li>
</ol>

<p>As I mentioned in <a href="/w/christianity-is-vile-to-atheists">yesterday's post</a>, without understanding the depth of our own sin and the height of God's righteousness (along with the judgment that naturally follows from the vast disparity between the two), much of God's actions in the Bible, particularly what He accomplished through the cross, is incomprehensible.</p>

<p>However, the only way the words we speak about these core concepts of sin, righteousness, and judgment will be meaningful to the listener is if the Holy Spirit convicts him in these three areas.</p>

<p>This is why we need to constantly remind ourselves of our dependence on the Holy Spirit in all our apologetic and evangelistic endeavors…and then pray accordingly!</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-holy-spirit-s-job" 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-holy-spirit-s-job" 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-holy-spirit-s-job" 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 God an Exalted Man?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/24/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-an-exalted-man-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I was meeting with Mormon missionaries, it was their view of God that was particularly grieving to me. I wanted them to know the God who is, was, and always would be God, who is not of the same species we are, who isn’t limited by a physical body, and who was always perfect, never sinned, and isn’t getting better (because such a thing wouldn’t be possible).</p>

<p>But in this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyH61ybnPBE&amp;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">video</a> by <a href="http://mrm.org/about" target="_blank">Aaron Shafovaloff</a>, some Mormons explain why the very same LDS ideas about God that horrify me are actually <em>encouraging</em> to them. How can this be? The answer goes to the heart of the difference between the Mormon and Christian gospels.</p>

<p>For those of us whose main, ultimate purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever - a goal which can only be achieved by throwing ourselves into His mercy and grace because of our lowly sinfulness, we rejoice in a perfect and holy non-human God to trust in and worship. But for those Mormons whose main purpose is to <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng" target="_blank">progress to godhood</a> through a series of requirements, this kind of God is the ultimate discouragement.</p>

<p>They are horrified by the thought that God is, and always has been, a completely different kind of being from us in form, eternality, holiness, and perfection because that puts the possibility of our becoming like Him (their primary goal) completely out of reach. But if we are of the same species as God, if He were once a sinner just like us, then they know that godhood <em>is</em> attainable, so they’re encouraged to not give up their striving. As one person in the video puts it, “That’s really what the [LDS] teachings are - just try to be better the next day than you were the day before.”</p>

<p>So while Christians are trusting only in God to cross the unimaginable distance between us by paying for our sins, Mormons are working to pay God back what they owe Him (as this LDS <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng" target="_blank">parable</a> explains). You can see how an understanding of the vast difference between God and human beings will either cause us to rejoice or despair, depending on our goal.</p>

<p>If you’re interested in understanding the theological differences between LDS and Christian beliefs more clearly, James White’s book, <a href="http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm" target="_blank"><em>Letters to a Mormon Elder</em></a>, can be read for free online. Here, also, is a list of <a href="http://carm.org/verses-witnessing-to-mormons" target="_blank">Bible verses</a> from CARM that can help you pinpoint where we differ (HT: <a href="http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/06/weekly-apologetics-bonus-links-0617.html" target="_blank">Apologetics315</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%2Fis-god-an-exalted-man-" 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-god-an-exalted-man-" 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-god-an-exalted-man-" 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 to Test for Intelligent Design
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-test-for-intelligent-design
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute writes an interesting <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html" target="_blank">article</a> in response to a scientist’s statement that “the Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of God or any other Intelligent Designer.”</p>

<p>Luskin points out that, on the contrary, we <em>can</em> understand when actions are being taken by intelligent designers (such as human beings), and from that, make testable predictions.</p>

<p>He first identifies four ways in which designers act:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Intelligent agents think with an “end goal”&nbsp;in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function...</li>
	<li>Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems...</li>
	<li>Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes)...</li>
	<li>Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function)...</li>
</ul>

<p>Then Luskin follows up with four predictions that can be made from these observations of designers:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).</li>
	<li>Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.</li>
	<li>Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.</li>
	<li>Much so-called “junk DNA”&nbsp;will turn out to perform valuable functions.</li>
</ul>

<p>He concludes by comparing the predictions to the evidence and explaining the ways in which a hypothesis of design, far from being a “science-stopper,”&nbsp;has led to an increase in scientific knowledge.</p>

<p>I think the clearest example of how all of this works is the “junk DNA”&nbsp;issue. If one expects to find bits of purposeless DNA left over from random evolution, is that not a “science-stopper”? Wouldn’t one be likely to ignore those bits of DNA because nothing of value could be learned from random mistakes?</p>

<p>But if, on the other hand, one predicts that because DNA was designed, then one can discover what each part of DNA is meant to accomplish, would that not prompt further research and discovery of a kind that would have been suppressed by a random evolutionary view? And, in fact, recent research into so-called “junk DNA”&nbsp;has been yielding <a href="https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2011/03/09/two-discoveries-one-conclusion-best-evidence-for-biological-evolution-undermined" target="_blank">results,</a> as ID predicts.</p>

<p>(Incidentally, I’m only using the “science-stopper”&nbsp;language because this is the accusation evolutionists make of ID, and I think this is an example of a double-standard on their part. I actually don’t think that “science-stopper”&nbsp;is necessarily a valid criticism. If one comes to a correct conclusion, it’s not a “science-stopper”&nbsp;to admit that the answer has been found and then move on to the next question. So if there were indeed junk DNA, then it would make sense to leave it alone and move on to the next question. However, this is a clear example where a Darwinian worldview has slowed down true scientific discoveries by making the wrong predictions about what we should expect to find. And so in this case, to say “random forces did it”&nbsp;is to repress the finding of true scientific conclusions.)</p>

<p>I encourage you to read the whole <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html" target="_blank">article</a> as a brief, yet clear summary of the claims of intelligent design theory.</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-to-test-for-intelligent-design" 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-to-test-for-intelligent-design" 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-to-test-for-intelligent-design" 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: After the Resurrection
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/25/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/after-the-resurrection
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is a good day to read <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Hebrews 7–10</a>. What does it mean to us that Christ has risen from the dead and “taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”?</p>

<p>When God gave instructions to Moses for building the tabernacle, His intention was for Moses to create a “copy and shadow” of the true tabernacle—the true home of God in heaven where atonement for us needed to be made. For centuries, the people of Israel illustrated to the world what would be accomplished with Christ. Daily, the priests would offer sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of the people. Then once a year, the high priest would enter the very heart of the temple, the Holy of Holies, into the presence of God, taking with him the blood of the sacrifice, to make peace between God and the people of Israel.</p>

<p>“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption”&nbsp;(Hebrews 9:11–12).</p>

<p>We need a priest to stand between us and our Judge, to remove our guilt and open the way for us. The priests of the past were many, but not sufficient; not only because the sacrifices of goats and calves were not sufficient, but because each priest himself was not sufficient. Each would die, requiring us to appoint another.</p>

<p>But here is what it means to have Christ alive and acting as our high priest, our human representative before the Father:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:24–25).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Only a live priest can enter the temple and offer the blood of the sacrifice to the Father. Only a live priest can continue to make intercession for us, guaranteeing that our salvation is forever. It is all finished because Christ rose from the dead.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fafter-the-resurrection" 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%2Fafter-the-resurrection" 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%2Fafter-the-resurrection" 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 God Whisper? Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the <a href="/w/does-god-whisper-part-1">last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em></a>, I raised a question that may have startled some readers. I asked if the current emphasis on “hearing”&nbsp;the voice of God is biblically sound.</p>

<p>I say “startled”&nbsp;because for some people this is like asking, “Does Jesus love me?”&nbsp;or “Is God good?”&nbsp;What could be more obvious, biblically?</p>

<p>What may seem self-evident at first glance, though, doesn’t always turn out to be sound on closer analysis, and I have come to believe—contrary to my initial impulse—that hearing the voice of God is in that category. In these three issues of <em>Solid Ground</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> I am offering you my reasons why.</p>

<p>Of course, my question is not about whether there can be profound intimacy with God, or supernatural interventions by Him, or dramatic movements of the Spirit, or deep emotional experiences, or Spirit-directed insight into Scripture, or even whether God can or <em>does</em> speak in the modern era. I’m convinced each of these is true.</p>

<p>Rather, does the Bible teach that, as a matter of course, every believer can expect his or her own <em>private</em> revelations, two-way <em>personalized</em> communications, and <em>custom-tailored</em> guidance from God? Is this a skill that can be learned? Was this modeled by the Savior, the apostles, and the early church? Does Scripture teach we can expect the same interaction with God as Moses, Samuel, and even Jesus, or were their experiences unique?</p>

<p>Since hearing from God is for many Christians central to relationship with God, they <em>assume</em> it as part of the package when reading the Bible. A casual reading of certain phrases, then (like “led by the Spirit”&nbsp;and “My sheep hear My voice”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup>), is enough to justify their convictions. My goal is to take a closer look, “examining the Scriptures...to see whether these things are so”&nbsp;(Acts 17:11).</p>

<p>I want to be very transparent about my approach. I am going to a handful of passages that are commonly understood to support this teaching, and one by one attempting to show they provide no such support. If I’ve made a reasonable case and it turns out the standard texts don’t teach or imply this view, then the view itself should be in question.</p>

<p>This is not simply an idle exercise in exegesis, though.</p>

<h2>Dual Dangers</h2>

<p>I have two chief concerns. First, many Christians actually feel spiritually sub-standard and defeated because for them the heavens have been silent. This can be debilitating, and it’s profoundly unfair to them if their only shortcoming is entertaining a false expectation of what a relationship with God entails.</p>

<p>The second danger is more troubling to me. To claim to have received direct revelation of some sort from God is a weighty matter. It’s a claim Old Testament prophets staked their lives on, literally (“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak...that prophet shall die.”&nbsp;[Deut. 18:20]).<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Yet conversations between Christians are often littered with casual references to one’s latest revelations without any sense of the gravity of the assertion, or any sense of responsibility to justify the claim.</p>

<p>Even Jesus Himself didn’t presume to speak for God without compelling evidence. Instead, He regularly appealed to corroborating witnesses: John the Baptist, prophecy, miracles, and Scripture (see John 5:30-39, 10:25, 37-38; 14:10-11). If this was the standard for Jesus (and Paul, 2 Cor. 12:12), doesn’t the ordinary believer owe some accounting?</p>

<p>Further, when God communicates to us, whatever He says has complete authority. A private revelation may have a different scope of <em>application</em> than the Bible (Scripture is meant for the whole church, where individual revelations are for the individual). It has no less <em>authority</em>, though, since the private message presumably comes from the same God who inspired the text.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> No true word of God can have any less say-so than another.</p>

<p>Can you see the inherent dangers here? It certainly doesn’t occur to most people, but at bare minimum is there any concern that many might be taking God’s name in vain?</p>

<p>Much worse, if this idea is not sound and Christians have been encouraged to interpret certain impressions or circumstantial events as hints from God, then a host of well-meaning believers have actually been speaking “presumptuously”&nbsp;for God. They then act on the deciphered message as if it were divine decree.</p>

<p>Of course, neither of these dangers prove that the notion of hearing God’s voice is biblically wrong-headed. Scripture alone must answer that question. It does underscore the liabilities the church faces, though, if the conventional wisdom is flawed.</p>

<p>I know that proponents of this view emphasize that any alleged revelation must be tested by Scripture. Agreed, but the qualification misses my point. The method <em>itself</em> must be tested by Scripture. That is my task here.</p>

<p>Part of the rationale for the idea that each Christian can develop a “conversational”&nbsp;relationship with God is it seems to be the actual experience of so many in Scripture—Jesus, the early church, even a boy named Samuel. Is that the case?</p>

<h2>The Imitation of Christ?</h2>

<p>What of Jesus? Jesus said He did the things the Father <em>told</em> Him to do. If Jesus regularly received direct revelation and guidance from the Father, shouldn’t we expect the same?</p>

<p>This is a fair challenge. After all, Jesus is our model. Paul said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 11:1, cf. 1 Thess. 1:6). One popular writer put it this way: “When I want to learn how to know and do the will of God, I always look to Jesus. I can find no better model than Him.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> He then cites Jesus’&nbsp;statement in John 5:17, 19-20:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My Father has been working until now, and I have been working...Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do, for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Father showed Jesus. Jesus is our model. Therefore, we should expect the Father to show us in like manner. That’s the rationale.</p>

<p>There is no question that Jesus is a model to us. But is Jesus our model in <em>everything</em>? Is there reason to believe some characteristics of Jesus’&nbsp;relationship with the Father might be unique? I think the answer is yes.</p>

<p>Jesus not only was the perfect man and humble servant, but also the Messiah and incarnate Son of God. Clearly, we should imitate Jesus’&nbsp;human perfections. But aren’t prerogatives of divinity or messianic office in a different category?</p>

<p>Let’s look at the passage more closely. Something important is missing from the citation (note the ellipses). The omission of verses 18, a portion of 19, and verses 21, 22, and 23 is unfortunate. Each is vital to our understanding and seriously qualifies the application of this passage, as this more complete citation of John 5:17-23 shows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>(17) But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”</p>

<p>(18) For <em>this cause</em> therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father<em>, making Himself equal with God</em>.</p>

<p>(19) Jesus <em>therefore</em> answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”</p>

<p>(20) <em>For</em> the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing, and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel.</p>

<p>(21) <em>For</em> just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.</p>

<p>(22) <em>For</em> not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, (23) in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note, first of all, verse 18, the overlooked verse. The Jews, understanding Jesus’&nbsp;comments to be a clear claim to deity, seek to kill Him. The word “therefore”&nbsp;in verse 19 indicates that what follows is a response to the Jews meant to buttress Jesus’&nbsp;singular claim in verse 17.</p>

<p>Note also the three phrases in parallel construction: “For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all things...”, “For just as the Father raises the dead...”, and “For not even the Father judges anyone...”</p>

<p>These verses form a complete literary unit. If the Father showing Jesus “all things that He Himself is doing”&nbsp;is an example for us to model, then what of the phrases joined with it that immediately follow? Are we also to imitate Christ by giving life to whom we wish, judging the world on the Father’s behalf, and demanding that all people honor us as they honor the Father?</p>

<p>Clearly not. In context, these verses identify a trio of singular prerogatives of the Son of God. He is unique and therefore has unique obligations, unique abilities, and a unique relationship with the Father.</p>

<p>Verses 26-27 should clear up any question on this score: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself, and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, <em>because He is the Son of Man</em>.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> The phrase “Son of Man”&nbsp;is a Messianic title from Daniel 7:13 that Jesus used often. It is <em>because</em> Jesus is the Divine, Messianic King of Daniel’s vision that He operates in this unique way in relationship with the Father. Jesus has a singular role.</p>

<p>In Deuteronomy 18:18, God told Moses to look for a prophet in the future who God would speak through in an unparalleled way: “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”&nbsp;Jesus is that prophet. His experience of revelation from the Father, then, is special, not something for us to emulate.</p>

<p>This explains why Jesus never directs His disciples to follow His example in John 5:17-23. No subsequent writers—Peter, John, Paul, Luke—even hint at it. We are not to imitate those things pertaining to Jesus’&nbsp;divinity or His Messianic office.</p>

<p>This same principle applies to Jesus’&nbsp;comments in John 8:26, 28: “I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true, and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world...When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that <em>I am He</em>, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.”</p>

<p>Remember, John 8 is one of the great chapters on the deity of Christ. The Jews ask, “Who are you?”&nbsp;(v. 25). Jesus eventually answers: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am”&nbsp;(v. 56). Jesus is arguing that He is utterly exceptional. He is from above, not from below, and not of this world (v. 23). He is the only Savior (v. 24). He lives in perfect obedience to the Father (v. 29). He is a free man—a son—not a slave (v. 35). He has proceeded from the Father (v. 42). He is the great “I Am”&nbsp;(v. 58).</p>

<p>Some people in the Bible have a unique role. These include Moses (Num. 12:2-9), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:19-20), Paul (2 Cor. 10:8), and (as we have seen) Jesus. Because special revelations were granted them does not mean they are available to us.</p>

<p>Imitate them in servanthood (John 13:13-15), in faith (Heb. 13:7), in godliness and joy in tribulation (1 Thess. 1:6), in selflessness (1 Cor 10:33-11:1), and in faith and patience (Heb. 6:12). But do not imitate them in the privileges of their singular offices.</p>

<p>The life of Jesus does not support the notion that every Christian can expect to receive revelation as a standard feature of his relationship with God.</p>

<p>But what about the experience of the early church?</p>

<h2>God Speaks in Acts</h2>

<p>In Acts we have a focused look at a relatively short period of history (30 years) recording radical manifestations of supernatural activity. Acts is frequently appealed to as evidence for the view that private, individual revelation is an ordinary means of guidance and a standard feature of the fruitful Christian life. But what do we actually find?</p>

<p>I went through Acts verse by verse looking for concrete examples of God giving special directives of any sort. I have listed every one of them below in chronological order. Here’s what I found.</p>

<p>An angel rescues the apostles from prison and tells them to preach the Gospel (5:19-20). An angel sends Philip to the Gaza road (8:26). The Spirit directs Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch (8:29). While traveling on the Damascus road, Saul hears the audible voice of Jesus sending him to Damascus (9:4-6). In a vision, the Lord instructs Ananias to visit Saul (9:10-16). In another vision, an angel tells Cornelius to send for Peter (10:3-6). The Spirit, in connection with a vision, tells Peter to visit Cornelius (10:19-20). An angel orders Peter to follow him out of prison (12:7-8). The Holy Spirit sends Saul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (13:2). The Spirit forbids Paul to speak the word in Asia (16:6-7). Paul is directed through a vision to Macedonia (16:9-10). Jesus appears to Paul in a vision and tells him to preach the Gospel in Corinth (18:9-10). Paul is told through prophecy not to enter Jerusalem (21:4). Jesus tells Paul in a vision to leave Jerusalem (22:18, 21).</p>

<p>Note the means of these revelations. The majority (six) entail visions. Three times an angel is the messenger. Four times the Spirit speaks. One is a prophecy. One other is the voice of Jesus.</p>

<p>There are five other examples of supernatural revelations that are predictive in nature, but do not dictate any direction—they give no assignments. In fact, in one case (Agabus’&nbsp;prophecy of imminent famine) the Christians determine <em>on their own</em> to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren in Judea. These examples can be found in Acts 11:27-30, 20:23, 21:11, 23:11, and 27:22-26.</p>

<p>At first glance the list of interventions seems formidable, but the initial impression is misleading. This actually is a very small amount of activity considering the three-decade time span of Acts. God's special revelations to the leaders of the early church are limited to only 14 from the time of Pentecost to the end of the account,<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> and even these are grouped in fewer units.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Two are jailbreaks. Two pertain to Saul’s dramatic conversion, two to Cornelius’&nbsp;conversion, and two to the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion. Two are about Paul’s stay in Jerusalem (“Don’t enter”&nbsp;and “Get out”). The remaining four are about Paul’s missionary journeys (the initial commission, direction away from Asia, direction to Macedonia, told to preach boldly in Corinth).</p>

<p>Notice a couple more significant facts. First, there is no indication in the entire record that God communicated through some inner “sensing.”&nbsp;Completely absent from the text are phrases like, “I feel led...”,&nbsp;“I think God is telling me...”,&nbsp;“I feel God is calling me...”,&nbsp;“I believe it’s God’s will that...”,&nbsp;“I’ve received lots of confirmation...”,&nbsp;“I’m sensing the Lord’s direction...”,&nbsp;or “I have a peace about it...”</p>

<p>The kind of language often used to describe hearing God’s voice is completely absent from this biblical account. There is no record of knowledge of God’s direction based on internal promptings—<em>not a single one</em>. In Acts, the rare times God gives special directives He communicates in <em>clear</em>, <em>supernatural</em> ways. More than half the time He used a vision or an angel.</p>

<p>Second, there is no evidence that any of these directives were sought. There is no indication of any Christians, including Apostles, “waiting”&nbsp;for God to guide them. In the New Testament we find no pleading with God or laboring in prayer for God to reveal His will or give guidance. The revelations in Acts are surprise intrusions in every case.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>But there is another consideration.</p>

<h2>No Divine Directions</h2>

<p>For balance we must also note other important decisions in Acts clearly <em>not</em> directed by God. There are many times when the disciples make decisions marking significant events in the life of the early church that are the kind many think require a word from the Lord. They entail decisions about the how, when, where, why, and who of ministry. Yet there is no evidence of intervention from God, and no indication the disciples even sought it. They simply weighed their options in light of circumstances, then chose a judicious course of action consistent with prior, general commands of the Lord.</p>

<p>Notable examples include Philip’s ministry in Samaria (8:5), resolving the complaint about the Hellenistic widows (6:1-6), and Barnabas and Saul establishing a teaching ministry for a year in Antioch (11:26). Elders are appointed in the new churches (14:23). The Jerusalem council resolves the problem of the Judaizers (15:7-29).<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Paul embarks on his second and third missionary journeys (15:36, 18:23). Paul sets up shop as a tent maker and starts a ministry in Corinth (18:3). Paul establishes a discipleship training program for two years at the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). Paul has a healing ministry on the island of Malta for three months (Acts 28:9-11).</p>

<p>These decisions seem odd in light of conventional wisdom on hearing from God since none of these important endeavors was directed specifically by Him. Rather, each appears to be the result of a unilateral decision by the disciples using wisdom to respond to the circumstances at hand.</p>

<p>And these are just the tip of the iceberg. <em>Altogether I found 70 such instances in the book of Acts alone, contrasted with the 14 occasions of specialized direction during that same time.</em><sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>Even more can be found in the epistles. Paul chastises the Corinthians for not working out their own legal differences (1 Cor. 6:3-6). He does not counsel them to seek God’s decision. Instead he asks, “Is there not among you <em>one wise man</em> who will be able to decide between his brethren?”</p>

<p>In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives the most thorough instruction in the Bible on the issue of marriage. He details pros and cons of single life over married life. He solemnly notes the moral obligations of both. He then leaves the decision in the hands of the believer. There is no hint in this passage that any Christian must “hear from the Lord”&nbsp;even on the weighty matter of marriage.</p>

<p>Peter gives explicit instruction about the use of spiritual gifts in ministry (1 Peter 4:10-11). He does not say to wait for one’s calling—nor does any other passage of Scripture, for that matter. Instead, given that each believer has a spiritual gift, Peter enjoins him to employ it in works of service as a good steward, doing all to God’s glory.</p>

<p>So what should we conclude from the record of the early church in Acts and other passages in the New Testament? There is no support here for the idea of hearing from God to live optimally as a Christian. The concept is not taught there, and the pattern is not modeled.</p>

<p>In the <a href="/w/does-god-whisper-part-3">next <em>Solid Ground</em></a>, I’ll explore the claim that hearing the voice of God is a skill that can be learned (as Samuel allegedly learned from Eli). I’ll also examine the habit of looking for private messages from God by cobbling together the “hints”&nbsp;He allegedly drops regarding His will, and the question of how to know when thoughts or ideas are “from the Lord.”</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This is the second installment. The first is available in enhanced digital form at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Both of these phrases were covered in detail in the last issue (May-June 2011) of <em>Solid Ground<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><em>All Scripture references are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em> unless otherwise noted.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:4"><em>I have not heard any proponent of this view put it this directly, but this is the unmistakable implication of their claim.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:5"><em>Henry Blackaby and Claude King, <em>Experiencing God</em> (Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman, 1994), 65.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em>Jesus’&nbsp;use of the phrase “son of man”&nbsp;may not always be a reference to Daniel’s prophecy. In this case, however, the conclusion is unavoidable. In this statement in John, Jesus is grounding His authority to render judgment not in His humanity, but in His role as Divine Messiah-king.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:7"><em>I did not include the casting of lots in Acts 1:15-26 because to me this is not a clear example of God guiding. The initiative was on the disciples side and they cast lots. Some think this was a misguided effort and that Paul was Judas’&nbsp;replacement. The text doesn’t indicate. Before the final straws were drawn, though, <em>objective</em> criteria had to be met (Acts 1:21-22). Anyhow, casting lots doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s guidance game-plan these days.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:8"><em>Of course, one could argue there were many times God intervened during this period, but Luke failed to record them in Acts. This is possible, but it’s speculative. I think it’s safer to base our conclusions on what the Holy Spirit actually revealed, rather than on conjecture about what might have happened.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:9"><em>One possible exception is Acts 13:2 where the leaders “were ministering to the Lord and fasting”&nbsp;when the Spirit commissioned Saul and Barnabas for their first missionary journey. One might infer they were seeking guidance, but the text does not say this. Since no other passages indicate this pattern, there’s no reason to read this into the text.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:10"><em>Here the conclusion of the leaders was characterized as something that “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church”&nbsp;(22) and later as something that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”&nbsp;(28). Apparently, the leadership took the collective decision-making process of the council to be divinely <em>ordained</em>, not divinely <em>revealed</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></li>
	<li id="fn:11"><em>The full list of 70 examples can be found at str.org under the title “Divine Direction in Acts.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a> </em></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-god-whisper-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%2Fdoes-god-whisper-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%2Fdoes-god-whisper-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: Marriage in Polygamy Is Still One Man, One Woman
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/23/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/marriage-in-polygamy-is-still-one-man-one-woman
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sometimes people cite polygamy as evidence that the definition of marriage has changed over time, proving it to be malleable according to the culture.</p>

<p>But even in the case of polygamy, has there really been a change in the definition of marriage?</p>

<p>While I could see someone today wanting to define marriage as one man and multiple women, I don’t think that’s how people viewed it in the past. That is, they didn’t see their situation as one big marriage where everybody was married to everybody else. Rather, marriage was still simply one man and one woman. It’s just that the man was allowed to have <em>more than one marriage</em>.</p>

<p>We haven’t changed the definition of marriage, we’ve only limited the number of concurrent marriages a person can have.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmarriage-in-polygamy-is-still-one-man-one-woman" 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%2Fmarriage-in-polygamy-is-still-one-man-one-woman" 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%2Fmarriage-in-polygamy-is-still-one-man-one-woman" 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 Our Suffering Glorifies God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/25/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-our-suffering-glorifies-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been reading Richard Wurmbrand’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tortured-Christ-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0340863684/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1311626182&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank">Tortured for Christ</a></em>, a book about the sufferings of Christians under the Communists, particularly Wurmbrand’s own suffering in Romania. This book puts some flesh and bones on what we read about suffering in 1 Peter, enabling us to see with our own “eyes”&nbsp;the reality of the unique role suffering plays in our purpose as Christians.</p>

<p>In 1 Peter 2:9-10 we read:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God calls and saves a people for Himself <em>for the purpose of “proclaiming His excellencies”</em>—the pinnacle of those excellencies being His mercy and grace that changed us, His enemies, into His people. And in 1 Peter, we find two ways that suffering accomplishes this purpose. The first is in 1:6-7:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Y]ou 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>The truth about Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, about our adoption as God’s children, and our future enjoyment of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit forever is something far more precious than gold. And every time a Christian endures suffering and holds on to this truth instead of giving up in unbelief, cynicism, or bitterness, he is revealing God’s glory to the world by saying the height of God’s value is even greater than the depth of pain in suffering. In the case of Wurmbrand and his fellow prisoners, this is saying something indeed.</p>

<p>But there’s yet another way suffering accomplishes God’s purpose for us. Peter twice couples our suffering with a description of Christ’s suffering. First in 2:21-24:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.</p>

<p>For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And again in 3:17-18:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When we suffer unjustly and respond as Christ did, we serve as a picture of Christ to our persecutors and to the world, proclaiming His glory and revealing Him to those who don’t yet know Him.</p>

<p>Wurmbrand and his fellow Christian prisoners would suffer through their beatings, refusing to deny Christ, and then turn and pray in love for those tormentors whose sin was responsible for the cruel destruction of their bodies. By this living illustration of the beauty of Christ’s character, work, and value, some of the guards saw Jesus for the first time and became His followers.</p>

<p>The suffering of Christians, inevitable and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 4:12-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">expected</a>, uniquely accomplishes both of these goods in the service of our ultimate purpose of glorifying God and His grace.</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-our-suffering-glorifies-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%2Fhow-our-suffering-glorifies-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%2Fhow-our-suffering-glorifies-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: Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/16/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/christianity-is-vile-to-atheists
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In John Loftus’s book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Became-Atheist-Preacher-Christianity/dp/1591025923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1249971382&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"><em>Why I Became an Atheist</em></a>, he quotes “ex-believer,”&nbsp;one of his fellow bloggers, who gives the clearest, most accurate illustration I’ve seen to describe the mindset of outspoken atheists toward God and Christianity. I’m going to quote it here because I think this is the most important thing to keep in mind about atheists when discussing God with them, but I do forewarn you that it’s quite disturbing to hear our great God spoken of in this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For a long time, I was an ardent admirer of Dr. John Piper. I remember a sermon of Dr. Piper’s in which he described God as a flowing fountain of delight...But what about those of us who have left the fountain with a horrible taste in our mouths? We came to the fountain and drank as deeply as we could and, for a while, could not get enough of it...But, then, something happened. The fountain became foul to us...We opened the Bible and, instead of finding wisdom, we found violence and the justification of immoral acts. We found anti-intellectualism and backward thinking. We found oppression...</p>

<p>We tried to hold on to the fountain, but something had changed. <em>It wasn’t the fountain; it was our taste for it</em>. We realized that the fountain wasn’t a being; it was a religion. It was just dogma. It is like we had been drinking from it with our eyes closed and noses plugged. Somehow, though, we opened our eyes and unplugged our noses and discovered that we had been enjoying filth. The fountain was a fountain of blood and other foul things. We realized that we had spent most of our lives consuming a vile concoction...We wanted to help [other Christians] open their eyes and see what we saw...We described the filth to them, but even when they accepted that the fountain contained blood and other “foul”&nbsp;things, they insisted that those things were really “good”&nbsp;[Emphasis mine].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have a very difficult time understanding how someone who has known and interacted with God as a Person could later deny His existence, and I can comprehend even less how anyone could go from loving to hating Him. But that aside, exbeliever has insightfully pinpointed something very important—<em>at the core, the difference between us is a matter of the way God tastes to us, not the intellectual question of His existence</em>. I’ve found this to be <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/06/should-god-make-his-existence-known-to-atheists.html" target="_blank">the case</a> over and over as I’ve read and listened to the outspoken atheists of our time (Hitchens, Harris, etc.). The conversation turns inevitably and repeatedly to the horrific nature of the Christian God. In debates, intellectual questions about existence consistently take a backseat to this objection, and <em>every</em> aspect of the debate absorbs its flavor.</p>

<p>What does this mean for us as we speak to these atheists? In the end, no person’s taste for God or the Gospel will change unless the Holy Spirit changes his ability to taste. But the Holy Spirit moves people when we explain and glorify the beauty of God and the Gospel, so we need to make a more concerted effort to, first, in the midst of every topic of our apologetics, keep the arguments close to the idea that we’re ultimately conversing about a <em>Person</em>—a real Person whom we love, Who is distinct from us, and Who has a will and purposes; and second, we need to focus on understanding, explaining, and honoring His character and actions. I’ve come to believe that this is where we need to begin, even before arguments for His existence. This is where we need to concentrate our speaking and writing.</p>

<p>Further, within this core issue of God’s character, I believe there is a truth even more deeply central to the divide between Christians and atheists—God’s surpassing holiness. I’m convinced that the atheists’&nbsp;inability to comprehend God’s holiness is the particular turning point from which they have gone completely wrong. If the Holy Spirit were to reveal a glimpse of the majestic righteousness and holiness of God (and, by comparison, our sinfulness) to these atheists, the answers to 90% of their questions would fall swiftly into place. Since the Holy Spirit often uses our words as the means by which He reveals such things, we need to be prepared to speak on this subject.</p>

<p>To that end, if you haven���t read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1249870393&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"><em>The Holiness of God</em></a> by R.C. Sproul, I recommend you begin there. Next, you must read the Bible all the way through. Over and over. And over. You must know God from every angle that He has revealed to us, and you need to wrestle with what you find there until the perfect pieces fit together clearly enough for you to help others put their own pieces together. If you don’t feel the goodness and beauty of God in your very bones, now is the time to seek it out.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristianity-is-vile-to-atheists" 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%2Fchristianity-is-vile-to-atheists" 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%2Fchristianity-is-vile-to-atheists" 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 Do Fetal Reductions Bother Pro-Choicers?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/19/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-do-fetal-reductions-bother-pro-choicers-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I made a quick comment in <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/right-fashion-our-lives-how-we-want#.W6lwwRNKijQ" target="_blank">yesterday’s post</a> about how reductions trouble pro-choicers not because they’re morally different from abortions, but because it’s easier to see them for what they really are. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2301322/" target="_blank">This piece</a> in Slate by William Saletan explains why:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For some, the issue seems to be a <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/08/10/elective-selective-reduction" target="_blank">consumer mentality in assisted reproduction</a>. For others, it’s the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.</p>

<p>Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you’ll see the developing human referred to as a <a href="http://jezebel.com/5805190/steven-tylers-teenage-girlfriend-tells-her-side-of-the-abortion-story" target="_blank">fetus</a> or <a href="http://jezebel.com/5804964/abortion-rises-among-low+income-women-falls-in-other-groups" target="_blank">pregnancy</a>. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help “<a href="http://jezebel.com/5777917/a-new-simpler-test-for-downs-syndrome-on-the-way" target="_blank">women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down’s Syndrome</a>.”&nbsp;A TV character wonders whether she’s “<a href="http://jezebel.com/5783194/radiation-in-japan-may-put-unborn-children-at-risk" target="_blank">capable of carrying a child to term</a>.”&nbsp;Nuclear radiation in Japan “<a href="http://jezebel.com/5783194/radiation-in-japan-may-put-unborn-children-at-risk" target="_blank">may put unborn children at risk</a>.”</p>

<p>This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are “<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/113959/" target="_blank">activated eggs</a>.”&nbsp;A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don’t want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a “<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/pdf/PLAW-108publ212.pdf" target="_blank">child in utero</a>”&nbsp;during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed “the unborn child’s mother,”&nbsp;but no such penalty applies to “<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2097927/" target="_blank">an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained</a>.”</p>

<p>Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can’t pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You’re killing the same creature to which you’re dedicating your life.</p>

<p>[All links are from original article.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can try to hide what abortion is from yourself by manipulating language as much as you want (for example, by using the term “pregnancy”&nbsp;to refer to your child—a term that references only <em>you</em>, succeeding in completely eliminating the final bit of otherness that remained in the word “fetus”), but all the language in the world can’t hide the truth when you see your pregnancy’s twin sister.</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-do-fetal-reductions-bother-pro-choicers-" 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-do-fetal-reductions-bother-pro-choicers-" 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-do-fetal-reductions-bother-pro-choicers-" 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: Try before You Buy?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/try-before-you-buy-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Pre-marital sex isn’t God’s design for human sexuality. And it’s just not wise.</em></p>

<p>If you want a guaranteed nomination for oddball of the year, announce to your friends or co-workers that you think sex is only for marriage. Most view such archaic notions as eccentric and even bizarre. Virgins are made to feel like nerds. If you haven’t “gotten lucky”&nbsp;by 18, it’s probably because you’re a social reject.</p>

<p>In spite of social pressure, a growing number of brave singles are making the promise to wait. Still others who’ve been sexually active in the past are committing to what might be called a “second virginity.”&nbsp;Regardless of their history, they’re making commitments to start over, living as “virgins”&nbsp;until they make lifelong commitments in marriage.</p>

<p>The reason is not because they’ve got crooked teeth, bad complexions, or don’t bathe. Rather, it’s because they believe God has the best insight on building strong relationships and durable marriages.</p>

<p>This is not the conventional wisdom of non-Christians, however. To many it just makes sense to test the sexual waters before agreeing to settle down with one person. Those who are courting, according to this view, should find out if they’re sexually compatible. Further, it’s more realistic. Peer pressure on singles is intense. “Just say no”&nbsp;may work with drugs, but not with sex.</p>

<p>Is it wise to test-drive a potential mate in bed to check for sexual compatibility? Is chastity unrealistic given the realities of modern life and the pressures adolescents and adults face?</p>

<p>I think not. This notion reflects mistaken ideas on the nature of human sexuality, creates serious practical problems, and runs aground of God’s wisdom and commands.</p>

<h2>Sex More than Mechanics</h2>

<p>The first problem with “try before you buy”&nbsp;is it reduces sex to physical mechanics. The title of a well-known book, <em>Sex Begins in the Kitchen</em>, makes a great point: a critical part of our sexual fulfillment has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom, a truth women understand better than men.</p>

<p>Simply put, the power of sex and the effectiveness of a good sex life are not to be found merely in mechanics, but are primarily—though not entirely—relational. A good relationship can be improved by better mechanics, but good technique can’t build a sound partnership.</p>

<p>Ironically, “good”&nbsp;sex can actually be a danger sign. Some of the most unhealthy relationships are accompanied by tremendous sexual intensity. The cycle of conflict then reconciliation characteristic of unstable unions can really launch the libido. That’s why making up is so sweet.</p>

<p>Later in life, though, this emotional seesaw gets old. The eroticism dissipates, but the fighting and distancing remain. The very pattern that stimulated passion ends up ruining the marriage. Conversely, qualities that make for a healthy marriage—respect, self-control, kindness, charity, sensitivity, patience—do not lend themselves to sexual intensity at the outset. In the long run, however, these virtues stabilize the relationship and contribute to a satisfying sex life.</p>

<p>Is your sweetheart patient, sensitive, self-sacrificial, understanding, kind, concerned about your particular needs? Those qualities make the real difference in the long run, and you can discover them without jumping into the sack together to test the machinery.</p>

<h2>Love vs. Pleasure</h2>

<p>The “try before you buy”&nbsp;view misrepresents the nature of sexuality a second way: It diminishes lovemaking to physical pleasure. Sex is not just for procreation and recreation. It’s also for identification: two become one.</p>

<p>One of the most powerful aspects of physical intimacy is the bonding that results from surrender, vulnerability, and physical and emotional transparency. These elements create a deep identification, a collapse of the ego boundaries creating a profound union.</p>

<p>This is not a skill that’s developed through short-term sexual adventures. It’s a result of oneness built over time in the protective environment of stability and commitment.</p>

<p>Some people do have unhealthy inhibitions, but I’m not convinced that testing the sexual waters is going to surface them. Some “problems”&nbsp;are merely the product of naiveté, inexperience, and simple modesty. They could easily be overcome with kindness, patience, and a little time, but they can be magnified in the performance environment of a sexual test run.</p>

<p>In fact, that’s part of the problem with this view. How comfortable would anyone feel jumping into bed to have their sexual competence tested? Will this environment bring out your best performance?</p>

<p>No, sexuality is developed in its deepest and most satisfying way in an atmosphere of safety and commitment where neither person is concerned their performance is going to disqualify them.</p>

<p>Further, sexual tastes are malleable. They change with time. After all, what do two young people experimenting with sex know about what they want? That’s the beauty of God’s plan. He puts two people together who are committed for life who know little about what they like. They begin growing and experimenting, developing their sexual tastes together so that each can become the other’s sexual ideal.</p>

<h2>Sex vs. Intimacy</h2>

<p>Sex is powerful and can easily get out of control if given the reins. If sex is on the agenda, it quickly goes from being the dessert to being the main course. Men and women both know this from experience. Men know it viscerally, in their gut; they go for the gold the first chance they get. Women know it as a vague but growing sensation of being used.</p>

<p>Soon every date ends up in the sack or rolling around in the back seat. Instead of channeling energy into discovering each other’s unique differences, couples spend it probing each other’s body, robbing the relationship of its depth.</p>

<p>When sexual exploration becomes part of the acquaintance process, it quickly becomes the first part, rather than the last part, and then often the only part, rather than one part of many. Often the result is the illusion of intimacy when there is no true safety, the false impression of closeness between strangers.</p>

<p>If sex is not an option before marriage, then all of a couple’s energies are directed toward developing more soulish or interior dimensions of their relationship, allowing them to build a stable foundation for a healthy future sex life to rest upon.</p>

<h2>Passion and Judgment</h2>

<p>There’s another problem. Sex distorts judgment. Just as a blazing torch can twist a solid piece of steel, the heat of passion can bend a relationship all out of shape, warping a person’s focus and twisting good judgment.</p>

<p>When a couple thinks of marriage, they need to be able to assess the strength of their love and commitment. Even under the best of circumstances this can be difficult, but sexual involvement complicates the issue. In <em>Finding the Love of Your Life</em>, psychologist Neil Clark Warren warns:</p>

<p>If we continue telling single persons that sexual intimacy is healthy at whatever stage of their relationship, they will continue getting married for all the wrong reasons. Once they have made this fundamental error, their marriage—and ultimately their family—will evolve into a struggle with no winners.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>How do you know, for example, that the closeness and intimacy you feel are a result of strong partner-skills? If your libido jump-starts the relationship, how do you know if the two of you are good in life together or just temporarily good in bed? That question is a lot easier to answer if you’re not sexually involved.</p>

<p>When the foundation for a life commitment is a couple’s shared personal depth, then sexual favors in marriage become the gilded edge. It’s a type of “relationship glue”&nbsp;designed by God to bind the good stuff together when the going gets tough, which inevitably happens even in the best marriages.</p>

<p>The glue works in unhealthy couplings, too. It’s no secret that many lousy relationships survive on sex drive alone long after they should have been abandoned on their own merits.</p>

<h2>Sex Is Dangerous</h2>

<p>Finally, sex is physically dangerous, now more than ever. Sexually active young people face the risk of a parade of sexually transmitted diseases—syphilis, chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea—that have been increasing at alarming rates annually. Then there’s the human immunodeficiency virus, the deadly HIV, which makes other sexually transmitted diseases look like diaper rash.</p>

<p>There’s also the risk of pregnancy. The experience of becoming a parent should be one of the most wonderful events in life. Instead, the beautiful phrase, “I’m going to have a baby,”&nbsp;is often transformed into a lament. Once a proclamation of joy, it now signals tragedy and remorse.</p>

<p>Even those who are deeply committed pro-lifers waver when they’re the ones facing an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion starts looking like a reasonable alternative. Reports show that abortions among Christians are surprisingly common given their professed beliefs.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>The woman who secretly disposes of her child in a moment of weakness shoulders the burden of that wrong the rest of her life. Those courageous women who carry their children to term face a host of overwhelming difficulties. Education plans are postponed or abandoned altogether. Career hopes are dashed. The financial burden can be staggering, especially for young adults.</p>

<p>Often the mother finds herself deserted, facing all these problems alone. She nurses her own heartache in solitude, overcome by the responsibility of caring for another human being with little or no help from others.</p>

<p>Their children are often robbed of a stable home anchored by two parents, as God intended. Frequently, there’s hardly a parent in the home at all. Little boys and girls are raised by daycare centers because mom must work to support the family by herself.</p>

<p>Unplanned pregnancies are not always this bleak, but they’re always much more difficult than anyone imagines in advance. Frequently, there’s a heavy strain on the extended family who has to share parenting chores. There’s little extra money and no extra time. Add to that the difficulty of courting when you’re a single parent, and it’s easy for life to seem hopeless.</p>

<p>In fact, a woman’s life will never be the same, and the clock cannot be turned back. The private act of sensuality that “isn’t hurting anybody”&nbsp;becomes a public concern that robs everyone of God’s best, especially the children. Unfortunately, many become convinced of the wisdom of abstinence long after it’s too late.</p>

<h2>The Scriptural Bottom Line</h2>

<p>So far we’ve talked about practical concerns regarding premarital sex. But if you’re a Christian, you know God has a lot to say about sex. The core of any relationship is trust, and the most obvious evidence of trust is obedience. Those who trust God obey Him.</p>

<p>Since every act of disobedience is a denial of trust, it whittles away at the heart of our dependence on God. When that happens, we compromise the most vital relationship we have on earth. Sexual immorality rapidly erodes our closeness to God at a time when we need Him most.</p>

<p>Both the Old and New Testaments make clear that God intended sex for—and limits it to—male-female relationships within the confines and protection of life-long commitments. The Scripture has no record of affirmative, positive sexual directives—or even sexual role models—outside marriage, but it knows many prohibitions.</p>

<p>The idea of unrestrained sexual freedom for consenting adults is foreign to the text. There are six sexual activities prohibited in the Bible: homosexuality, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, and bestiality. Each prohibition involves having sex with someone other than one’s spouse. Inside marriage sex is undefiled; outside marriage it’s forbidden. God gives sexual freedom only to husbands and wives—not to friends or co-workers, not to casual dates, not to long-time sweethearts who are in love.</p>

<p>Solomon uses vivid language in his counsel. He tells us not to pour the pure waters of our sexuality into the gutter (Proverbs 5:16-20). By contrast, he says, “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the <em>wife</em> of your youth,”&nbsp;not with the love of a stranger.</p>

<p>The Apostle Paul adds his own thoughts in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6:</p>

<p>For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.</p>

<p>This is the most important problem with the view that you must sexually test one another before you get married. The counsel is a violation of the God’s commands. If you’re a Christian, that option is not open to you. If you use the Bible as the rule of conduct in one area of life, then the Bible applies with equal moral force to other areas and you are obliged to obey.</p>

<p>Sexual chastity is not just the “ideal.”&nbsp;We don’t choose morality on a sliding scale from worse to better. When we depart from the biblical command, we are not choosing something that’s merely short of the best, but something that’s sinful. Sexual purity is not simply God’s ideal; it’s God’s command. If we fall short of the command, we are not missing the best. We are disobeying. It’s wrong to have premarital sex.</p>

<h2>Rx for Safety</h2>

<p>Sex is powerful. It’s so powerful we must manage it with care. The best protection I know of is being accountable to a third party for your sexual behavior. This may seem like strong medicine, but it’s a compelling incentive to do what’s right.</p>

<p>Here’s the reason we need this. When we exceed our limits, retreat is very difficult because the law of diminishing returns sets in. What thrilled us last week is ho-hum today, so we have to go further next time to get the same sexual wallop. It changes the whole equation, though, when a third person enters the picture</p>

<p>Here’s how it works. First, enlist the aid of someone who will take this issue seriously—a parent, a conscientious friend, or a pastor. Next, set precise, well-defined limits you both agree on. Finally, schedule regular check-ups and be honest when you’ve crossed your boundaries.</p>

<h2>Following the Beat of a Different Drummer</h2>

<p>Virginity and sexual chastity are nothing to be ashamed of. They’re not unnatural, and some wonderful benefits accrue for those willing to “just say no”&nbsp;and delay sexual gratification.</p>

<p>The “try before you buy”&nbsp;mentality, on the other hand, shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of human sexuality. It can be emotionally destructive and physically dangerous. Even more important, it’s a violation of God’s wisdom and disobedience to His commands.</p>

<p>“Try before you buy”&nbsp;may feel good, but it’s a dead end in the long haul. Those who live their lives in commitment to Jesus Christ regardless of what the contrary pressures may be reap the rewards.</p>

<p>I once owned a cleverly worded t-shirt that said, “Practice safe sex. Get married and stay faithful.”&nbsp;This simple biblical truth offers more peace of mind than a closet full of condoms and more wisdom than any “safe sex”&nbsp;curriculum.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Neil Clark Warren, <em>Finding the Love of Your Life</em>, (Denver: Focus on the Family Publishers, 1992), 85. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">According to a 2008 poll of the Guttmacher Institute, 20% of all abortions were for women who identified themselves as born-again Christians (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf). When you count those who identified as either Protestants or Catholics, the number shoots up to 65%. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</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%2Ftry-before-you-buy-" 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%2Ftry-before-you-buy-" 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%2Ftry-before-you-buy-" 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: Answer Every Defense for Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/30/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/answer-every-defense-for-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It may seem like there are a myriad of defenses for abortion, but they fall into three categories. Here’s a simple way to visualize how to respond to them. Since there are only three kinds of defenses <em>for</em> abortion, there are only three kinds of responses <em>to</em> them.</p>

<p>Every defense for abortion either:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Assumes the unborn is not a human being.</li>
	<li>Accepts the unborn is a human being, but denies it’s a person.</li>
	<li>Accepts the unborn is human being and a person, but argues that a woman’s bodily rights/autonomy trump the child’s rights.</li>
</ol>

<p>The diagram below flowcharts these positions and offers a type of response to each. In other words, if you learn the three kinds of responses, then you’ll be prepared to respond to <em>any</em> defense for abortion. In my experience, 100% of the arguments I hear on the street fall into one of these three categories.</p>

<p>[Click on the image below to enlarge]</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d2ba69e20133f4ba6599970b-pi"><img alt="Abortion flowchart" border="0" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d83451d2ba69e20133f4ba6599970b image-full" src="http://str.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d2ba69e20133f4ba6599970b-800wi" title="Abortion flowchart"></a></p>

<p>While attending a recent bioethics class at Biola University, I was asked to explain this flowchart. The video of my explanation is below (I didn’t know I was going to present this to the class, otherwise I would have dressed more “professionally.”&nbsp;But don’t get me wrong, I’m all about promoting the Lakers.).</p>

<p>Here’s my off-the-cuff video explanation for this flowchart.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="lRoTkUQ9hPU" 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/lRoTkUQ9hPU?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%2Fanswer-every-defense-for-abortion" 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%2Fanswer-every-defense-for-abortion" 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%2Fanswer-every-defense-for-abortion" 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: Moral Blind Spots
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/04/2011
source: https://www.str.org/w/moral-blind-spots
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Washington Post has an interesting <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092404113.html" target="_blank">article</a> in its archives: “What will future generations condemn us for?” The author, Kwame Anthony Appiah, notes that throughout history, societies have had moral blind spots:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Looking back at such horrors [such as slavery and lynching], it is easy to ask: What were people thinking? Yet, the chances are that our own descendants will ask the same question, with the same incomprehension, about some of our practices today. Is there a way to guess which ones?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Appiah offers a list of characteristics of past blind spots to help us spot our present ones:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>First, people have already heard the arguments against the practice. The case against slavery didn’t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity, for instance; it had been around for centuries.</p>

<p>Second, defenders of the custom tend not to offer moral counterarguments but instead invoke tradition, human nature or necessity. (As in, “We’ve always had slaves, and how could we grow cotton without them?”)</p>

<p>And third, supporters engage in what one might call strategic ignorance, avoiding truths that might force them to face the evils in which they’re complicit.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These are interesting observations, and they seem to be true, but I think Appiah misses the key element of these past atrocities: they involved a denial of intrinsic human value in a particular group of human beings.</p>

<p>Why is it that Prohibition inspired so much fervor, only to die out, while our horror at slavery continues to grow? The answer is that unlike Prohibition, slavery was a crime against the dignity of a group of human beings. This is the factor that, oddly enough, explains both our current condemnation of slavery <em>and</em> its former acceptance. Because for some reason, crimes against human dignity seem to be at the same time the most atrocious offenses of a society (as recognized by future generations) <em>and</em> the offenses most difficult for the people of the time to spot.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is because people have much to gain from exploiting and/or disposing of others, but in order to do so, our intuition of intrinsic human value must be actively suppressed. (Or it could be our intuition extends only to people who look like us, and universal value must be either learned or reasoned to from knowledge of our own value.) Once a society convinces itself that one particular group of human beings is not as valuable as everyone else, not fully human for whatever reason, its conscience is freed to seek the gain it desires, so it has a powerful drive to justify itself. And unfortunately, as in the case of slavery, once the arguments separating one group of people from the rest of valuable humanity are commonly accepted, it’s very difficult for anyone to see past them.</p>

<p>So if we are trying to discover our blind spots, it seems to me we should be most suspicious of our culture ignoring arguments that human dignity is being violated in some way, particularly if listening to those arguments would inconvenience us.</p>

<p>By now you probably have a major moral blind spot in mind for our culture. See if it ends up in the list Appiah compiles using his criteria:</p>

<p>1. Our prison system<br>
2. Industrial meat production<br>
3. The institutionalized and isolated elderly<br>
4. The environment</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmoral-blind-spots" 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%2Fmoral-blind-spots" 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%2Fmoral-blind-spots" 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: Acts Points to a Physical Resurrection
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/12/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/acts-points-to-a-physical-resurrection
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are a couple passages in Acts that speak strongly against the idea that the disciples believed in only a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, and not a physical one. (These are by no means the only reasons to think Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection was physical, but I rarely hear these passages pointed out in connection with the subject, and they’re worth noting.)</p>

<p>The first is the words of Peter’s evangelistic sermon in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:22-36&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Acts 2:22-36</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Y]ou nailed [Jesus] to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him, “...You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In case they missed the fact that Jesus’&nbsp;body did not decay, Peter continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet...he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Peter argues that David couldn’t have been speaking of himself when he wrote those words of Scripture <em>because David’s body decayed in a tomb</em>. He then contrasts David’s death with Jesus’&nbsp;death and physical resurrection to show that the words of the Psalm are describing Jesus, and therefore Jesus is the Messiah they’ve been waiting for.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:34-38&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Acts 13:34-37</a>, the words of Paul according to Luke, is also explicit:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As for the fact that [God] raised [Jesus] up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.”&nbsp;Therefore He also says in another Psalm, “You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”&nbsp;For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There’s no mistaking that Paul is contrasting a body decaying in a tomb after death with a body that, because it was raised to life after death, experienced no decay. These are very physical arguments that Paul is using to prove his claim that the blessings God promised are given through Christ.</p>

<p>The charge is sometimes made that Paul knew nothing of a physical resurrection, but instead, the idea that Jesus was physically resurrected was invented later by non-eyewitness Gospel writers. This objection is intended to show that the earliest Christian tradition was of a spiritual resurrection of Jesus.</p>

<p>However, Acts was written by Luke, and this has two implications:</p>

<p>First, Luke informs his readers that he expects his words to be interpreted as <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:1-4&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">history</a>. That is, his intention was to record the words and actions actually said and done by the disciples:</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...so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(To answer the question of whether or not such an investigation would have been possible for Luke, see this brief <a href="/w/a-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels" target="_blank">argument</a> for the early dating of Luke/Acts.)</p>

<p>Second, Luke worked closely with Paul, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2016:9-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">joining</a> him in his missionary <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%204:9-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">journeys</a>, and quite possibly became a Christian as a result of Paul’s ministry. Because of this, it’s highly likely that their views on this topic would have agreed.</p>

<p>So keeping in mind that Luke placed the words of the disciples quoted in Acts in the genre of history (claiming he was attempting to accurately write what the disciples preached), and that he was closely connected to Paul (and so probably had the same view of the resurrection), and that Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem shared the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:1-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">same gospel</a> (indicating the physical view was shared by them, as well), these two passages point strongly to the disciples’&nbsp;early belief in a physical resurrection.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Facts-points-to-a-physical-resurrection" 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%2Facts-points-to-a-physical-resurrection" 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%2Facts-points-to-a-physical-resurrection" 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: Here's Why Unborn Human Beings Are as Valuable as Adult Human Beings
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/22/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/here-s-why-unborn-human-beings-are-as-valuable-as-adult-human-beings
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Abortion-choice advocates often disqualify unborn humans from being as valuable as born humans. But it turns out there are only four differences between an unborn and a born human. None of those differences is morally relevant, and therefore they don't disqualify the unborn from being valuable and protected.</p>

<p>This video explains what those four differences are. It was taken last week when I took a three day bioethics class at <a href="http://www.biola.edu" target="_blank">Biola University</a>. <a href="http://www.prolifetraining.com" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a>, who worked for us at <a href="http://www.str.org" target="_blank">Stand to Reason</a>, taught on abortion. Here he was teaching on the S.L.E.D. test. If you want to master the pro-life position, this is one concept you can't do without. I teach on this <em>every</em> time I speak on abortion.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="OAMYrpelBYU" 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/OAMYrpelBYU?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%2Fhere-s-why-unborn-human-beings-are-as-valuable-as-adult-human-beings" 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%2Fhere-s-why-unborn-human-beings-are-as-valuable-as-adult-human-beings" 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%2Fhere-s-why-unborn-human-beings-are-as-valuable-as-adult-human-beings" 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 Secret”: A Fatal Attraction
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/-the-secret-a-fatal-attraction
content:
            <div> 
		<h2>Oprah’s Got a Secret</h2>

<p>Oprah Winfrey is the “pastor”&nbsp;of the largest church in the country. “The Church of O,”&nbsp;<em>Christianity Today</em> noted, has a congregation of 22 million vigorous, faithful, evangelistic members, making Oprah Winfrey “one of the most influential spiritual leaders in America.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Oprah’s theology is based on a secret. That secret is in a book: <em>The Secret</em>, by Rhonda Byrne.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Oprah and Byrne think their secret is consistent with Christianity, as do tens of thousands of their followers. Many of them consider themselves Christians.</p>

<p><em>The Secret</em>, though, has no kinship with Christianity. It is something completely different. It trades on Christian language and biblical proof-texts, but uses them to construct a view of reality that is totally foreign to the worldview of Jesus. In fact, the secret of <em>The Secret</em> is that it is not the deep wisdom of the universe, but the oldest lie in the universe.</p>

<h2>What Is “The Secret”?</h2>

<p>“The Secret”&nbsp;introduced in the book by Rhonda Byrne and 24 other “teachers”—and aggressively promoted by Oprah—is what Byrne calls the “Law of Attraction.”&nbsp;According to the authors, the universe responds to each of us according to an inviolate natural law that works like a magnet in reverse. (7) With magnets, opposites attract. According to this secret law of the universe, though, “like attracts like”&nbsp;(25, 157).</p>

<p>Think good thoughts and good things will happen because you attract them to yourself. Like a genie who always says, “Your wish is my command”&nbsp;(46, 59), or a catalog you flip through and point to the person, product, or experience you want (48, 101), the Law of Attraction discharges on your every desire.</p>

<p>Think bad things, though, and bad things find you just as easily. If you are poor, it’s your fault because you “are blocking money from coming to [you] with [your] thoughts”&nbsp;(99). If you are in a car accident, you have no one to blame but yourself because you attracted it (27-28). For good or for ill, the Law of Attraction is at work creating your reality from the thoughts and images you give it to work with.</p>

<p>The Secret endows its user with virtual omnipotence: “There isn’t a single thing you cannot do with this knowledge,”&nbsp;Byrne writes. “It doesn’t matter who you are or where you are, The Secret can give you whatever you want”&nbsp;(xi).</p>

<p>According to this book, the greatest thinkers and the finest creative minds in history have known The Secret, from Plato to Lincoln, from Galileo and Newton to Shakespeare and Beethoven, from Carnegie to Emerson, Einstein, and Edison. You alone, it seems, have been left behind.</p>

<p>And this, Byrne claims, is the same secret known and practiced by all great religious masters—including Jesus—and taught by all religions—including Christianity. Indeed, Byrne writes, “The creative process used in The Secret...was taken from the New Testament in the Bible”&nbsp;(47)—with verses cited in support (54). Even Mother Theresa knew, understood, and practiced The Secret (143). Therefore, The Secret is consistent with Christianity.</p>

<p>But is it? To answer this question, we need to answer two other questions. First, what is the worldview of Byrne’s book, <em>The Secret</em>? Second, what is the worldview of Christianity? Armed with that information, we can make a side-by-side comparison. To help with the assessment, I want to give you a simple tool that I’ve found invaluable for this task.</p>

<h2>The Worldview of The Secret</h2>

<p>Worldviews are like maps of the reality. They tell us the lay of the land, so to speak, what the world is like. Every worldview “map”&nbsp;has four elements that help us see what the structure of reality looks like according to that view.</p>

<p>“Creation”&nbsp;tells us how things began, the source of our origins, and what ultimate reality is like. “Fall”&nbsp;identifies the problem, describing what has gone wrong with creation. “Redemption”&nbsp;gives us the solution, the way to fix the problem. “Restoration”&nbsp;describes what the world would look like once the repair is in place.</p>

<p>Let’s use this worldview tool to help understand how <em>The Secret</em> maps reality. What is the worldview of <em>The Secret</em>? Here we are immediately faced with an ambiguity.</p>

<p>At first blush, Byrne et al, seem to say that the universe is God and we manipulate Him (it?) with the Law of Attraction to get what we want. Note: “You are the master of your life, and the Universe is answering your every command”&nbsp;(146). “The Universe offers all things to all people through the Law of Attraction”&nbsp;(150). “Trust the Universe”&nbsp;(57). “Allow the Universe to do it for you”&nbsp;(51).</p>

<p>Other times Byrne seems to say each of us is sovereign over our own reality, using The Secret to create our own universe: “The Secret means that we are creators of our universe”&nbsp;(113). “You know that nothing comes into existence from the outside, and everything first comes from thinking and feeling it on the inside. Your mind is the creative power of all things”&nbsp;(148).</p>

<p>So, is the universe God, or are we God? The mystery is solved when the authors of <em>The Secret</em> describe their view of ultimate reality. As it turns out, both are true:</p>

<p>All that exists is the One Universal Mind, and there is nowhere that the One Mind is not. It exists in everything. The One Mind is all intelligence, all wisdom, and all perfection, and it is everything and everywhere at the same time. If everything is the One Universal Mind, and the whole of it exists everywhere, then it is all in You! [sic] (160-161)</p>

<p>So whichever way you look at it, the result is still the same. We are One. We are all connected. And we are all part of the One Energy Field, or the One Supreme Mind, or the One Consciousness, or the One Creative Force. Call it what you want, but we are all One&nbsp;(162).</p>

<p>This worldview is an ancient one. It is called “monism”&nbsp;(“one”-ism). There is a single reality, and that reality is a perfect, undivided unity: “Divine Mind is the one and only reality”&nbsp;(161). Therefore, God is everything and everything is God. Indeed, <em>you are God</em>:</p>

<p>You are God manifested in human form, made to perfection&nbsp;(164).</p>

<p>You are God in a physical body. You are spirit in the flesh. You are Eternal Life expressing itself as you. You are a cosmic being. You are all power. You are all wisdom. You are all intelligence. You are perfection. You are magnificence. You are the creator, and you are creating the creation of You on this planet&nbsp;(164).</p>

<p>The idea that God is everything is called “pantheism”&nbsp;(literally, “everything-God-ism”). The worldview of <em>The Secret</em>, then, is pantheistic monism. It is nothing more than an Americanized, romanticized, prosperity-driven version of an ancient religion called Hinduism. Here is the map:</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Creation</strong> (ultimate origins and ultimate reality): God. Period. God is, and God is all there is. God is an undivided unity. The particulars are illusions. Ultimately, you and I don’t exist at all as distinct individuals. Brahman is atman and atman is Brahman: pantheistic monism.</li>
	<li><strong>Fall</strong> (the problem): We forgot we are God.</li>
	<li><strong>Redemption</strong> (the solution): We remember we are God and that we are the masters of the universe.</li>
	<li><strong>Restoration</strong> (how things get repaired or resolved): We exercise our divinity, creating our reality using The Secret.</li>
</ul>

<p>I hope it’s beginning to dawn on you that this is a problem. Hinduism and Christianity are completely different religions. They are competing, not compatible, worldviews. How do I know? By comparing their worldview maps.</p>

<h2>The Worldview of Jesus</h2>

<p>Jesus saw the world very differently from Oprah, Byrne and their ilk. The worldview of Christianity can be outlined with five words: God, man, Jesus, cross, and resurrection. These five concepts interconnect with the four basic elements of worldviews in this way:</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Creation</strong>: <em>God</em> created the world and is therefore the rightful sovereign over all.</li>
	<li><strong>Fall</strong>: <em>Man</em> rebelled against his sovereign, becoming guilty of sedition and sin.</li>
	<li><strong>Redemption</strong>: God became a man in <em>Jesus,</em> died on a <em>cross,</em> and rose from the dead to make payment possible for the guilt of man’s rebellion.</li>
	<li><strong>Restoration</strong>: In the final <em>resurrection</em> of all men at the end of history, those who received God’s pardon will enjoy the perfect life in friendship with Him that He intended at the first. Those who continue in rebellion will be banished to a place of misery, darkness, and ruin forever.</li>
</ul>

<p>So now, a short quiz. In the worldview of Jesus, who is the creator and sustainer of the universe? God. Who is the Lord, the master of the universe? God. Who is all powerful? God. Therefore, who is the center of the universe? God.</p>

<p>By contrast, in <em>The Secret</em> who is the creator and sustainer of the universe? You (your “creative power”&nbsp;is the Law of Attraction). Who is the Lord, the master of the universe? You. Who is all powerful? You. Therefore, who is the center of the universe? You.</p>

<p>Lest there be any doubt, notice Byrne’s celebration of our divinity at the close of <em>The Secret</em>.</p>

<p>The earth turns on its orbit for You. The oceans ebb and flow for you. The birds sing for You. The sun rises and it sets for You. The stars come out for You. Every beautiful thing you see, every wondrous thing you experience, is all there, for You. Take a look around. None of it can exist, without You. No matter who you thought you were, now you know the Truth of Who You Really Are [sic]. You are the master of the Universe. You are the heir to the Kingdom. You are the perfection of Life. And now you know The Secret&nbsp;(183).</p>

<p>Can you see the contrast between the worldview of <em>The Secret</em> and the worldview of Jesus? Everything the Bible says God is, Rhonda Byrne says you are. The Bible and Christianity are not saying the same thing as <em>The Secret</em>, but just the opposite. Does this sound like compatibility? Notice that when you have a clear fix on the truth, seeing the lie is pretty easy.</p>

<h2>The Oldest Lie</h2>

<p>So let me ask a final question. In Genesis 3, what was the specific temptation facing our human parents, the carrot Satan offered Eve that caused the original breach between God and man? Here it is: “You surely will not die. For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and <em>you will be like God</em>...”&nbsp;(Gen. 3:4-5).</p>

<p>Rhonda Byrne (and Oprah, et al) are offering to those who employ The Secret the very thing the serpent offered Eve: Their eyes will be opened and they shall be as God (or, more accurately, they’ll realize they already <em>are</em> God). Byrne is peddling the oldest lie in the world, with the same materialistic payoff Satan offered Jesus:</p>

<p>And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours”&nbsp;(Luke 4:5-7).</p>

<p>Just “bow down”&nbsp;to The Secret and everything shall be yours, no strings attached. And no moral restrictions spoiling the party, either. Byrne concludes, “Now that you have learned the knowledge of The Secret, what you do with it is up to you. <em>Whatever you choose is right.</em> The power is all yours”&nbsp;(184)&nbsp;[emphasis added].</p>

<p>This same lie comes in many guises. It rears it’s head in most New Age beliefs, certain Eastern and “metaphysical”&nbsp;religions, and in Mormonism. Even atheistic humanism is a variation, putting man at the top of the heap as master of his own fate and captain of his own soul.</p>

<h2>Why Does the Secret Seem to Work?</h2>

<p>Generally, no spiritual lie is pure falsehood, but rather a clever example of truth twisted. There is always some legitimacy in even the darkest deceptions. That’s what makes them so appealing. It’s also what makes them so nefarious. The Secret is no exception.</p>

<p>The smidgen of truth found in <em>The Secret</em> is this: If you mentally focus on some end, you are more likely to accomplish that end. Note Byrne:</p>

<p>The reason visualization is so powerful is because as you create pictures in your mind of seeing yourself with what it is you want, you are generating thoughts and feelings of having it now. Visualization is simply powerfully focused thought in pictures, and it causes equally powerful feelings&nbsp;(81).</p>

<p>Byrne is right on this. Thoughts <em>can</em> cause feelings. Words <em>can</em> translate into action. Visualization <em>can</em> influence behavior. Athletes know this, and a host of positive mental attitude (PMA) advocates have successfully put this into practice. Words, reflections, and imaginations <em>do</em> affect reality, but <em>not for the reason Byrne says</em>:</p>

<p>When you are visualizing, you are emitting that powerful frequency out into the universe. The Law of Attraction will take hold of that powerful signal and return those pictures back to you, just as you saw them in your mind&nbsp;(81).</p>

<p>This is nonsense. Images are inert. They have no power in themselves to beckon things into being. Visualizing doesn’t send out any vibes that the Law of Attraction can “take hold of.”&nbsp;There is a better explanation for why the Law of Attraction sometimes seems to bear fruit.</p>

<p>Humans are teleological beings. This means we are designed by God to pursue certain ends, certain purposes. We are also designed to create <em>our own</em> ends—our own goals—and God has given us mental tools that help us pursue our goals to completion. He has formed our souls such that vivid thoughts, precise words, and clear images help focus our wills to accomplish the ends we desire.</p>

<p>This is why Scripture warns us to be careful what we fix our minds on:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, <em>dwell on these things”</em>&nbsp;(Phil. 4:8).</li>
	<li>“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed <em>by the renewing your mind”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 12:1-2).</li>
	<li>“Therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. <em>Set your mind on the things above</em>, not on the things that are on earth”&nbsp;(Col. 3:1-2).</li>
</ul>

<p>We must also guard our speech:</p>

<p>Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear&nbsp;(Eph. 4:29).</p>

<p>David’s prayer captures both ideas: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, oh Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer”&nbsp;(Ps 19:14).</p>

<p>Incidentally, “As a man thinks in his heart, so he is”&nbsp;(Proverbs 23:7) is <em>not</em> one of those verses. This passage is frequently distorted by people both inside and outside the church. Both groups would do well to follow the rule “never read a Bible verse”&nbsp;and read the full context of this proverb (23:6-8):</p>

<p>Do not eat the bread of a selfish man, or desire his delicacies, for as <em>he</em> [the selfish man] thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, “Eat and drink!”&nbsp;but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the morsel you have eaten, and waste your compliments.</p>

<p>This passage is a warning. It speaks not of <em>any</em> man, but of a particular kind of man—a selfish, deceitful, double-dealing person. It warns of the dangers of duplicitous people, not the virtues of positive thinking. Note Proverbs 26:24-25, which gives the same warning about duplicity:</p>

<p>He who hates disguises it with his lips, but he lays up deceit in his heart. When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart.</p>

<h2>The Fatal Attraction</h2>

<p><em>The Secret</em> is a lie because what it teaches is false. It’s appealing because it takes something true (the ability to use thought and language to focus our wills to accomplish important goals) and twists it into something poisonous by grounding it in a lie: You are God.</p>

<p>You are <em>not</em> God. You are <em>not</em> the creator of the universe. You are <em>not</em> the center of reality. The Earth does <em>not</em> turn on its orbit for you. The oceans do <em>not</em> ebb and flow for you. The birds do <em>not</em> sing for you. The sun does <em>not</em> rise and set for you. The stars do <em>not</em> come out for You.</p>

<p>Rather, <em>God</em> is the creator of the universe. <em>God</em> is the center of reality. We are His rebellious subjects. We are under His judgment. And unless we surrender, we are destined for an eternity of suffering and anguish that will never end, this at the hand of the real Master of the universe.</p>

<p>Oprah Winfrey’s and Rhonda Byrne’s so-called secret “Law of Attraction”&nbsp;is a fatal attraction. No power of positive thinking will rescue anyone from the power of the Lord Jesus when He “will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus”&nbsp;(2 Thess. 1:7-8).</p>

<p>The truth is no secret. It is being proclaimed from the rooftops by Jesus’&nbsp;faithful followers. There is rescue for rebels, forgiveness and eternal friendship with God for those who lay down their arms and appeal for peace on God’s terms.</p>

<p>And the only “law of attraction”&nbsp;in operation is the one that flows from the cross: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself”&nbsp;(John 12:32).</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">LaTonya Taylor, “The Church of O,”&nbsp;<em>Christianity Today</em>, April 1, 2002 (<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html</a>). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Rhonda Byrne, <em>The Secret</em> (New York: Atria Books, 2006). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</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%2F-the-secret-a-fatal-attraction" 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%2F-the-secret-a-fatal-attraction" 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%2F-the-secret-a-fatal-attraction" 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: Silly Putty Bible Study
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/silly-putty-bible-study
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>To many Christians, the Bible is like putty. Just add the Spirit and it can be molded into almost anything at all.</em></p>

<p>21st Century kids have cell phones, DVD players, and X-boxes. When I was a kid we had simpler delights. One was a handful of malleable goo that could be pulled, twisted, or distorted into any shape imaginable. It was called Silly Putty®.</p>

<p>Sadly, many Christians use their Bibles like Silly Putty®. Just add the Spirit and the Bible becomes putty in their hands, able to be molded into almost anything at all. Rather than approaching the Scripture as a treasure of truth for all Christians, some Evangelicals have the dangerous habit of searching the text for a personal “promise”&nbsp;or “word”&nbsp;of guidance from the Spirit that is <em>unrelated to the text’s original meaning</em>.</p>

<p>Often, the results turn out to be silly. Other times, they are dangerous. Regardless of the outcome, this practice is always a bad habit. Here’s how it often looks.</p>

<h2>The Holy Spirit Give-Away</h2>

<p>Instead of studying to find the objective meaning of a passage and then making personal application of that scriptural truth to their lives, many Christians read the Bible looking for verses or isolated phrases the Spirit “impresses”&nbsp;on them with personal messages that are foreign to the context.</p>

<p>For example, a Christian woman who has been praying for her family’s conversion stumbles upon Acts 16 during her quiet time. Her eyes settle on Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer who asked, “What must I do to be saved?”&nbsp;“Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved,”&nbsp;Paul answered, then added “you and your household”&nbsp;(v. 29-31).</p>

<p>Encouraged by these words, the woman begins to claim the “promise”&nbsp;that <em>her own</em> household will be saved, with the justification that “The Holy Spirit gave me this verse.”</p>

<p>Why would she use that particular wording to describe what she experienced? Because in the normal, natural understanding of that passage, the verse wasn’t “hers”&nbsp;to begin with.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Rather, she believes that, under the Spirit’s influence, there was a mystical transformation that took place causing the meanings of the words to change just for her, conveying a private message not intended <em>by</em> the original author (Luke, in this case) and not intended <em>for</em> anyone else. It was a private message from God just for her <em>incorporating</em> the words of the biblical text, but not previously <em>in</em> those words.</p>

<p>Notice, her confidence is not based on the objective meaning of the passage, but on the unique subjective meaning given to her by the Spirit in the moment. I���or any other Christian, for that matter—could not claim that verse for myself unless the Holy Spirit “gave”&nbsp;the verse to me, as well.</p>

<p>Experiences like these are powerful because they seem intensely personal. But there’s a problem: Acts 16:31 is not her promise. It’s the Philippian jailer’s promise, if a promise at all.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Using the passage as she has done is an abuse of God’s Word. It’s also deeply relativistic.</p>

<p>Relativism is the defining characteristic of the age, and has influenced the church in subtle yet profound ways. When an objective claim (a verse) communicates completely different meanings (“truths”) to different subjects (people), that’s relativism. Since truth is not in the objective meaning of the words, but in the personal, subjective experience of the reader—in this case, an experience allegedly caused by the Holy Spirit—a personal prompting can be “true for me, but not for you.”&nbsp;Since there are different experiences for different people, there are different “truths”&nbsp;for each.</p>

<p>Let me speak plainly: <em>There is no biblical justification for finding private, personal messages in texts originally intended by God to mean something else.</em> This approach is the wrong way to read the Bible. One reason I know this is because of what the Bible teaches about itself.</p>

<h2>The Bible on Bible Study</h2>

<p><em>First, the Bible teaches that the written words of Scripture are inspired.</em></p>

<p>“All scripture [<em>graphe,</em> Gr.—the “writing”] is inspired by God”&nbsp;( 2 Timothy 3:16). The wording here is important. Paul says that the <em>writing itself</em> is “God breathed,”&nbsp;not the thoughts, impressions, or private messages that occur to us when we read the writing.</p>

<p>God told Moses to speak to Pharaoh the specific <em>words</em> of God: “I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to <em>say”</em>&nbsp;(Exodus 4:12). “Let them hear My <em>words</em>,”&nbsp;God said later at Horeb, “so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth”&nbsp;(Deuteronomy 4:10). These are the “living <em>words”</em>&nbsp;that Stephen said have been passed on to us (Acts 7:38).</p>

<p>God told Jeremiah, “Write in a book all the <em>words</em> I have spoken to you”&nbsp;(Jeremiah 30:2). He said to Isaiah, “My <em>words</em> which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring”&nbsp;(Isaiah 59:21).</p>

<p>God has always been concerned with the words, because precise words are necessary to convey precise meaning. That’s why Paul confidently refers to God’s revelation not as words of human wisdom, but as “<em>words</em>...taught by the Spirit”&nbsp;(1 Corinthians 2:13).</p>

<p><em>Second, the Bible teaches it is important to accurately understand these inspired words of Scripture.</em></p>

<p>Note Jesus in Luke 10:25-28:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”&nbsp;And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?”&nbsp;And he answered and said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”&nbsp;And He said to him, “You have answered correctly.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus did not ask, “What does the Spirit say to you on this issue?”&nbsp;He asked, “What is <em>written</em>? How does it <em>read</em>?”&nbsp;Then He waited to see if the lawyer got it right.</p>

<p>There is a correct and incorrect way to read the Bible. Paul tells Timothy to handle the Word accurately to avoid bringing shame on himself (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus scolded the Pharisees for not understanding the Scripture properly. He then made an argument for the resurrection that hinged on the tense of a word: “I <em>am</em> the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living”&nbsp;(Matthew 22:29-32).</p>

<p><em>Third, the Bible teaches that private interpretations do not yield the accurate meaning.</em></p>

<p>Peter is clear on this point. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God&nbsp;(2 Peter 1:20-21).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because there is a divine author behind prophecy, the Apostle argues, there is a particular truth—a determinate meaning—that God intends to convey. Individual, personalized interpretations that distort this meaning only bring danger (note the reference to false prophets and false teachers in the next verse).</p>

<p>The same reasoning applies to all Scripture, not just to words of prophets, because the same rationale applies—the same Divine author stands behind the entire Bible.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> The meaning God originally intended through the inspired writers is the same meaning for anyone reading the verse today.</p>

<p>Simply put, “a text cannot mean what it never meant.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Whenever God speaks, He has a particular truth in mind that fanciful interpretations obscure. We are not free to extract our own personalized revelations from Scripture. The Holy Spirit did not mean one thing when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, for example, and then something entirely different when we read it 2000 years later. There are no private messages in the Bible.</p>

<p><em>Fourth, the Bible teaches we are to be diligent in study to get the accurate meaning.</em></p>

<p>The “good hand of the Lord”&nbsp;was upon Ezra specifically because Ezra “had set his heart to <em>study</em> the law of the Lord”&nbsp;(Ezra 7:9-10). The New Testament Bereans were called noble precisely because they went back to the words of the text, “<em>examining</em> the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so”&nbsp;(Acts 17:11).<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>In Paul’s last words before his death he admonished Timothy to “be <em>diligent</em> to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 2:15).</p>

<p>Paul warned of a time when the church “will not endure sound doctrine,”&nbsp;but instead will turn to “myths”&nbsp;that “tickle”&nbsp;the ears (2 Timothy 4:3). Truth is the antidote, he said, preached faithfully and accurately. Success in this depends on diligent work, not on “hearing”&nbsp;from the Spirit.</p>

<p><em>Fifth, the Bible teaches we must guard the accurate meaning from being distorted, twisted, or maligned.</em></p>

<p>This is clear from a number of passages. Jude writes (1:3):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you <em>contend</em> earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul assured the Corinthians that he was “not walking in craftiness or <em>adulterating</em> the word of God”&nbsp;(2 Corinthians 4:2). By contrast, Peter warned that the “untaught and unstable”&nbsp;<em>distort</em> Paul’s words, “to their own destruction,”&nbsp;he adds (2 Peter 3:16).</p>

<p>Anticipating his imminent martyrdom, Paul told Timothy, “Retain the <em>standard of sound words</em> which you have heard from me...<em>Guard...the treasure</em> which has been entrusted to you”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 1:13-14).</p>

<p>Do you realize you cannot distort something unless it has a specific, correct meaning that is able to be twisted? You cannot retain the standard of sound words unless the <em>words</em> are the standard for accuracy. You cannot contend for the same sound doctrine for everyone that protects us from myths—a “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”—if each individual Christian can receive his own personal message from the text.</p>

<p><em>Finally, the Bible never teaches the subjective, individualized interpretation approach.</em></p>

<p>Where does Scripture advance the idea that the Holy Spirit changes the meanings of the words of the text for individual readers? Where does the Bible teach that private messages lurk between lines wanting only the Holy Spirit’s touch to bring them to life? Where does God’s Word suggest the relativistic, take-the-verse-out-of-context-for-my-own-private-use approach? It’s not there.</p>

<p>If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be God because He chose to communicate through language, not around it. God will not twist, distort, or redefine His own Word for our private consumption.</p>

<p>“We cannot make [the Bible] mean anything that pleases us, and then give the Holy Spirit ’credit’&nbsp;for it,”&nbsp;Fee and Stuart wrote. “The Holy Spirit cannot be called in to contradict Himself, and He is the one who inspired the original intent.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>The Bible speaks clearly on this question. The written words of Scripture are God-breathed, chosen specifically by the Holy Spirit for their precision. There is a correct way to read them and an incorrect way. Private interpretations do not yield accurate meanings. Instead, diligent study and careful examination of the text deliver to us unadulterated truth, a treasure we are to guard and protect from shameful distortion and abuse.</p>

<h2>The OT in the NT</h2>

<p>How is it, then, that Old Testament verses cited by New Testament writers sometimes seem so far removed from their original context? This is a fair question to which there are a couple of explanations, depending on the citation. Most hinge on our core principle: Meaning is always based on the author’s intent.</p>

<p>Since the principle author of Scripture is God, He may have intended more than what the Old Testament authors were aware of and may clarify His original meaning in subsequent writings.</p>

<p>God may have intended multiple meanings or multiple levels of meaning, or an immediate literal sense and an additional spiritual sense, or possibly a double fulfillment (e.g., prophecy and apocalyptic literature). The New Testament writers have insight into these meanings that we do not because they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They had a direct connection, in a sense, to the Author’s intent.</p>

<p>There are other possibilities. Sometimes when a writer notes that the Scripture has been “fulfilled,”&nbsp;he may mean that a type has been fulfilled—a divinely inspired pattern or symbol—and not specific verses themselves. God’s history sometimes repeats itself (e.g., Jeremiah 31:15 vs. Matthew 2:17-18).</p>

<p>A later author may not be <em>finding</em> new meaning in a text, but <em>giving</em> new meaning to it. For us, then, the question is what did Matthew mean in his <em>use</em> of Hosea (for example), not what Hosea originally meant.</p>

<p>In no case, however, are New Testament authors relativizing the text for their own private use. Rather, they are revealing formerly hidden <em>objective</em> meanings in the text that might have been implicit but are now made explicit for application to the whole Christian community. This is critical since I have been arguing that God does not take verses out of context <em>as a means of conveying private messages to individual readers</em>.</p>

<h2>No Power in Words</h2>

<p>Christians err in thinking the words of Scripture are somehow vested with power. Just speak the words—“claim the verse”—and power is released to serve us. This is not so. God’s Word is alive, but in a very specific sense (see Hebrews 4:12-13). His words do not have a life of their own. That is an occult view of language, not a biblical one. There is only power in God, in whose mind the words originate.</p>

<p>Therefore, the words are only alive as they serve God’s original intent. They only have power when used as God purposed. There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use. We cannot claim divine authority for a verse when we are using it in a way God did not intend. This is not Christianity. It is superstition.</p>

<p>Anyone teaching the Bible out of context, therefore, is not teaching the Bible at all, regardless of how much they “baptize”&nbsp;their inventions with Holy Spirit language. A reflection on a Bible passage in a morning quiet time, a devotional reading, or a Sunday sermon may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. But if it’s not the message of the text—God’s message—it lacks power even when it’s quoted “chapter and verse.”</p>

<p>There is a legitimate activity of the Holy Spirit making unique, personal <em>application</em> in our lives. But this is based on the <em>objective</em> meaning of a passage. The Spirit does not give new information not already resident in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning, at least in principle. The Spirit “illuminates”—sheds light on—the Word, helping us to see what is already there in words the Spirit Himself inspired through the initial writers (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). He then aids us in personal application.</p>

<p>Whether claiming promises during difficult times or citing verses to substantiate a view, make sure the texts you use to prove your point actually mean what you think they mean. Always be on the alert when reading books or listening to sermons. Are the authors or speakers simply quoting verses to buttress their points, or are they interpreting the Scripture carefully by looking at the details of the text?</p>

<p>Misconstruing a passage neutralizes the Word of God. It robs Scripture of its authority and influence. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place—to get God’s truth and apply it to our lives—is thwarted when we ignore the context.</p>

<p>Simply “claiming”&nbsp;a verse doesn’t make it our own. Only when we are properly informed by God’s Word the way it was written—in its context—can we be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it is working together according to the Spirit’s design.</p>

<p>The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Used properly, it parries deception and pierces the heart. It protects us from error. A sword made of putty, though, has no power. It pierces nothing. It offers no protection. And it has no place in the arsenal of a Christian.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>First, don’t look for private messages in the Bible. They’re not there. Do not “claim”&nbsp;verses that are not intended for you or your circumstances.</li>
	<li>When others say “God gave me this verse”&nbsp;(or “God gave me this verse <em>for you”</em>), check to see if the context is being abused. If you suspect so, raise a question: “I’m curious. How exactly did you get that meaning/promise/application from this verse?”</li>
	<li>Always direct the discussion back to the meanings of the words, sentences, and paragraphs as understood in their original context. Like the Bereans, examine the text.</li>
	<li>When someone says “You’re putting God in a box,”&nbsp;tell them, “It’s never a mistake to try to use God’s Word the way He intends.”&nbsp;You’re actually taking Him <em>out</em> of the box of private interpretation, subjectivism, superstition, and error.</li>
	<li>Purchase a book to help you with your own biblical interpretation skills, then study it and begin to apply it immediately.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">She would never say, for example, “The Holy Spirit gave me the fourth commandment.”&nbsp;It’s already hers. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">It’s not clear to me that Paul was making a promise even to the jailer other than that if his family believed, they too would be saved. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">This is also the reason we do not “practice”&nbsp;at prophecy. It is not an act of human will, so there’s no skill at prophesying that needs to be developed. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, <em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Of course, the Silly Putty® method makes it impossible to imitate the virtuous Bereans. Since the meaning is not in the words, but in the mind of the reader, then “examining the Scriptures to see whether these things were so”&nbsp;will do them no good. No diligent study of the text will ever reveal what private message the Holy Spirit is giving to a reader. If it could, then the “Holy Spirit give-away”&nbsp;would not have been necessary in the first place. The words of the text alone would have been sufficient. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ibid., 26. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study" 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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study" 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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study" 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: Jesus, Recycled Redeemer?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-recycled-redeemer-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is Jesus of the Gospels simply recycled ancient myths?</em></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 fairytales 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 history.</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...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In John’s account we find two striking claims that bookend his record, the first found in Chapter 1 and the last in Chapter 20:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.</p>

<p>Many other [miraculous] signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Each of these ancient “biographies”&nbsp;of Jesus—along with the only other accounts that give any breadth of detail about the Nazarene (Matthew and Mark)—proceed in the same fashion.</p>

<p>First, the authors are clearly aware they are relating a remarkable story about a remarkable man who did remarkable things. Second, it is just as clear they were convinced the events in their accounts really happened. These were not sacred stories of netherworld gods and ethereal, supernatural heroes, but reports of actual historical events involving flesh and blood people with their feet firmly planted on <em>terra firma</em>.</p>

<p>The Gospel writers intended to report history, not mythology. Their accounts include the vivid detail of an observer who had witnessed the events personally, or a chronicler who had 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 claims.</p>

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

<h2>“Once Upon a Time...”</h2>

<p>The internet is littered with allegations that the historical records of the life of Jesus of Nazareth are examples of a kind of religious plagiarism, a mere rehashing of dying-and-rising-god fictions of ancient mythology, a recycling of common details found in dozens of mystery religions in the ancient world around the time of Christ.</p>

<p>Simply Google Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, or Isis and you will be buried in an avalanche of “evidence”&nbsp;linking the divine teacher from Galilee with a host of characters allegedly manufactured from the same mythic material. The most well-known attempt is a flashy “documentary”&nbsp;called <em>Zeitgeist—The Greatest Story Ever Sold</em> that has gone viral on the web.</p>

<p>According to “Zeitgeist,”&nbsp;ancient hieroglyphics tell us this about the anthropomorphized Egyptian sun God, Horus:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis, Mary. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east which, in turn, three kings followed to locate and adore the new-born savior. At the age of 12 he was a prodigal child teacher. At the age of 30 was baptized by a figure known as Adep, and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples who he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as “The Truth,”&nbsp;“The Light,”&nbsp;“God’s Anointed Son,”&nbsp;“The Good Shepherd,”&nbsp;“The Lamb of God,”&nbsp;and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for three days, and thus resurrected.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“Many other gods,”&nbsp;“Zeitgeist”&nbsp;claims, “are found to have the same mythological structure”:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Attis (1200 B.C.)—Born of a virgin on December 25th, was crucified, was dead for three days and resurrected</li>
	<li>Krishna (900 B.C.)—Born of a virgin with a star in the east to signal his birth, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected</li>
	<li>Dionysus (500 B.C.)—Born of a virgin on December 25, performed miracles like turning water into wine, was referred to as “the King of Kings”&nbsp;and “god’s only begotten son,”&nbsp;died, and was resurrected</li>
	<li>Mithras (1200 B.C.)—Born of a virgin on December 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was dead for three days and resurrected, was known as “the Truth”&nbsp;and “The Life,”&nbsp;and was worshiped on Sunday</li>
</ul>

<p>Osiris, the husband of Isis in the Egyptian pantheon, is another popular contender for a dying and resurrected god. The broad claim, simply put in the words of Sir Leigh Teabing in Dan Brown’s <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>, is, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”</p>

<p>This is a taxing topic because of the sheer volume of alleged comparisons advanced by skeptics. The process is complicated by the many variations of these ancients myths generated in their retelling.</p>

<p>Books like Ronald Nash’s scholarly <em>The Gospel and the Greeks</em> or Lee Strobel’s popular work <em>The Case for the Real Jesus</em> spend time answering the particulars. In the interest of space, I want to advance a general response to this broad challenge to the reliability of the canonical accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;life.</p>

<p>In general, the dispute entails a factual claim—certain mythical accounts that predate the Gospels contain elements matching the details of Jesus’&nbsp;life—and a logical/literary claim—the existence of the older accounts proves that the account of Jesus is myth as well, being cobbled together with bits and pieces of these old stories.</p>

<p>There are at least three significant problems with this argument that should be enough to silence it forever. The first two speak to the factual claims. The last—and most decisive—addresses the logical assertion.</p>

<h2>Failed “Facts”</h2>

<p>First, the fact is that the “facts”&nbsp;listed above are almost all false, nearly to the point of embarrassment. Here are a few examples:</p>

<ul>
	<li>There is no record Osiris rose bodily from the dead. Instead, he became a god of the netherworld. As one put it, Osiris is not a dying god, but a dead god, always depicted as a deceased, mummified king. He may be “alive”&nbsp;in the spirit realm, but this would be true of anyone passing into the next life who’s physical body lies decaying in a tomb. Indeed, Egyptian religion had no concept of resurrection, only of immortality beyond the grave. These are two entirely different concepts.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></li>
	<li>Horus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Osiris and Isis (not Mary). Horus never dies, so he could have no resurrection, though in his union with Rah, the sun God, one could say he “dies”&nbsp;every night and is “resurrected”&nbsp;every morning. Clearly, though, this is no help to the copycat messiah crowd.</li>
	<li>Neither the Bible nor Christianity claim Jesus was born on December 25th, so any parallels with ancient myths are completely inconsequential. The date was chosen by emperor Aurelian in the third century.</li>
	<li>Mithras was not born of a virgin, but emerged from a rock, and there is no textual evidence of his death, so there could be no resurrection.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Mithras was a god, not a teacher, so he had no disciples.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></li>
	<li>There is no evidence of an account of a bodily resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></li>
	<li>There is no evidence for a virgin birth of Dionysus.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></li>
	<li>Krishna was his mother’s eighth son, so his virgin birth is unlikely. <sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></li>
</ul>

<p>The dating of many of the dying-and-resurrecting-god myths is the second obstacle. Here’s the problem. It is axiomatic that the recycled version must appear in history <em>after</em> the one it allegedly came from, not before. However, many mythical accounts of dying and rising gods actually postdate the time of Christ:</p>

<ul>
	<li>There is no evidence of the influence of Mithraism in the Roman Empire until the end of the first century A.D.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></li>
	<li>The sacrifice of a bull by some Mithraists allegedly mimicking the substitutionary atonement of Christ first shows up in the second century A.D. <sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></li>
	<li>The four texts that cite the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to fourth centuries A.D.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></li>
	<li>The account of the miraculous birth of Zoroaster dates to the ninth century A.D.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></li>
</ul>

<p>The most academically exhaustive work, a ponderous study entitled <em>The Riddle of Resurrection</em> by Tryggve Mettinger, concludes that even though some myths of dying and rising gods may predate the Christian era, the claims made regarding Jesus of Nazareth are distinct from them in three critical ways.</p>

<p>First, Jesus was a flesh and blood human whose resurrection happened in history at a precise topographical location on earth. Second, the mythical “resurrected”&nbsp;deities were invariably tied to the seasons of the agricultural cycle, “dying”&nbsp;and “rising”&nbsp;repeatedly every calendar year, while Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection was a one-time event unrelated to seasonal changes. Third, Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. There is no evidence of such an atonement in any other accounts.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>Mettinger sums up the evidence this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There is, as far as I am aware, no <em>prima facie</em> evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>A Skunk in the Woodpile</h2>

<p>In his work, <em>The Gospel and the Greeks</em>, Ronald Nash offers a handful of suggestions to protect the novice from being misled by dubious factual claims.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>Check the evidence in the primary sources.</strong> Don’t settle for a website citing a website that cites a website. Web postings often run in a circle, with each site quoting others without ever citing a primary source document (an original rendering of the ancient myth itself). Try to get as close to the original source as you can to reduce the chance that “facts”&nbsp;got distorted in the retelling. Make sure your evidence comes from an established authority in the field who has access to the original material.</p>

<p><strong>Check the dates.</strong> Be sure the original records (not the original myth) predate the accounts that allegedly borrowed from them. Even ancient tales get amended over time.</p>

<p><strong>Determine if the parallels are really parallel and significant.</strong> Similarities are frequently overstated or oversimplified. Many are inconsequential, like the claim ancient gods were born on December 25th. Some accounts trade on the kinship of phrases like “birth of the sun”&nbsp;vs. “birth of the son.”&nbsp;This word play only works, though, when rendered in English, a language that developed millennia after these events.</p>

<p><strong>Beware of Christian language and terms being read back into the ancient account.</strong> Some refer to the death of Osiris as his “passion,”&nbsp;employing Christian terminology to imply a similarity that doesn’t exist. Any death can be called a passion, even when the passions themselves are wildly dissimilar. Also, no one should be impressed when Egyptian sun gods are called “The Light.”</p>

<p>As it turns out regarding the factual claims, once the primary sources of the ancient myths are consulted, a host of alleged similarities turn out to be fictions. The parallels remaining are usually far too general to be significant. Further, the dating of many of the ancient records completely undermines the argument because the stories appear too late in history to have any influence on the Gospels.</p>

<p>But that’s not the worst of it. Even if the characterizations of the myths were accurate—that Mithras was born of a virgin, and Osiris was resurrected from the dead, and Horus had a dozen disciples, and Dionysus turned water into wine, and Attis was crucified—there is something else fundamentally wrong with the <em>Zeitgeist</em> challenge. Even if the facts were accurate, it proves nothing. Here’s why.</p>

<h2>A Titanic Coincidence</h2>

<p>In 1898, Morgan Robertson published a novel entitled <em>Futility</em>. The story was a fictional account of a transatlantic voyage of the cruise ship <em>Titan</em> traveling between England and New York. The largest vessel afloat displacing 45,000 tons, the <em>Titan</em> was considered virtually unsinkable. Yet in the middle of the night in April, with three massive propellers driving the ship forward at the excessive speed of 25 knots, it collided with an iceberg and sunk. Since the number of lifeboats was the minimum the law required (though twice that was needed for its 3,000 capacity), more than half of its passengers perished.</p>

<p>Fourteen years later in April, the world��s largest luxury liner with a displacement of 45,000 tons—the indestructible <em>Titanic</em>—departed from England on a transatlantic voyage to New York. In the middle of the night, the <em>Titanic’s</em> triple screws drove the ship at the excessive speed of nearly 25 knots into an iceberg and sunk. Since the <em>Titanic</em> was fitted with less than half the number of lifeboats needed for its 3,000 capacity (the minimum the law required), more than half of its passengers were lost.</p>

<p>This real-life coincidence makes a crucial point. Regardless of the similarity between two accounts of different events, the second cannot be summarily dismissed as an invention simply because the first turns out to be fiction. Whether or not the details of the <em>Titanic’s</em> disaster are accurate is determined by its own body of evidence, unrelated to the fictional story of the ill-fated <em>Titan</em> that came before.</p>

<p>This is a critical procedural point, one best described by C.S. Lewis:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.”...Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself...If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain...how I came to be so bad at arithmetic...but only <em>after</em> you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely mathematical grounds...In other words, you must show <em>that</em> a man is wrong before you start explaining <em>why</em> he is wrong<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> [Emphasis in the original].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Lewis’s insight applies to our challenge. Remember the claim in question: Ancient myths explain the origin of the Jesus myth. The second false account was inspired by the first ones. Do you see the misstep? The New Testament account is <em>presumed</em> false; then the ancient accounts are invoked to explain the fiction. The argument of <em>Zeitgeist</em> turns out to be circular, assuming what it intends to prove.</p>

<p>Imagine introducing yourself to a stranger and sharing bits of autobiography only to be labeled a liar and an impostor. His evidence? In the past three months, 12 other phonies tried to pawn off the same story on him. When you offer identification, he ignores it. He’s already assumed you’re a fraud like the rest, no matter what <em>bona fides</em> you produce.</p>

<p>In addition to being offended, you’d probably be mystified. Clearly, he can’t prove you are lying about your identity by citing others who lied about theirs. No impostor of the past could logically foreclose on the possibility that you might be the genuine article. That must be decided on separate grounds. To paraphrase Lewis, one has to show <em>that</em> a person is lying before it makes any sense to speculate on <em>where</em> the lie came from.</p>

<p>In the same way, one first has to show <em>that</em> Jesus is a fiction before he starts explaining <em>how</em> the fiction came to be. Even if someone produced a thousand parallels with Jesus from the writings of antiquity, that alone would not prove He was just another phony. If the similarities were remarkable, it might raise eyebrows (“Not another one”) and invite a closer look. But it would do nothing on its own to disqualify Christ. Only shortcomings with the specific historical evidence for Jesus can do that.</p>

<p>The <em>Zeitgeist</em> approach is an evasion, not an argument. It is not good enough to assume Jesus is a myth and then speculate on the genesis of the error. The primary source historical documents about Him—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—must be dealt with first, not dismissed with misleading talk about alleged literary relationships with ancient dying and resurrecting gods.</p>

<h2>Jesus, Man of History</h2>

<p>Professional historians do not believe the New Testament account is merely a retelling of an ancient myth. Though not endorsing every detail of the Gospel records (most academics reject the supernatural elements for philosophic reasons), scholars both liberal and conservative overwhelming agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of history.</p>

<p>Will Durant, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, co-authored with his wife the most successful work of history in history, the 11 volume <em>The Story of Civilization</em>. In “Caesar and Christ,”&nbsp;in spite of the “many suspicious resemblances to the legends of pagan gods,”&nbsp;Durant concludes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. 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:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The challenge in <em>Zeitgeist</em> is why we should consider the stories of Mithras, Horus, Attis, and the other pagan mystery saviors as fables, yet treat as factual a similar story told of a Jewish carpenter.</p>

<p>The answer is simple: There is no good evidence for the authenticity of any ancient mythological characters and their deeds, but there is an abundance of such evidence for Jesus. And if the historical documentation for the man from Nazareth is compelling, then it doesn’t matter how many ancient myths share similarities.</p>

<p>The Apostle Paul readily acknowledged that if Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection was a myth and the witnesses were trading in lies, then Christians were a pitiful lot (1 Corinthians 15:19). And fools too, I might add, because it cost many of them their lives.</p>

<p>Nothing in the <em>Zeitgeist</em> recycled redeemer theory, however, suggests Christians have misplaced their confidence. The skeptics’&nbsp;facts are unreliable and their thinking is unsound, so their challenge is doubly dead.</p>

<p>According to their own testimony, 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”&nbsp;(2 Peter 1:16). They were testifying not to myths, but to “sober truth”&nbsp;about events that had “not been done in a corner”&nbsp;(Acts 26:25-26):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also&nbsp;(1 John 1:1-3).</p>
</blockquote>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Lee Strobel, <em>The Case for the Real Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2007), 163, 177-8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ronald Nash, <em>The Gospel and the Greeks—Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?,</em> 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&amp;R Publishing, 2003), 134, 137. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Strobel, 172. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Nash, 129. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Strobel, 180. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ibid., 182. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Nash, 138. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Strobel, 172. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid., 177. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid., 182. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Tryggve Mettinger, <em>The Riddle of Resurrection—“Dying and Rising Gods”&nbsp;in the Ancient Near East</em> (Stockholm: Almqvist &amp; Wiksell International: 2001), 221. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Nash, 249-51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">C.S. Lewis, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 272-3. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">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:15"> ↩</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%2Fjesus-recycled-redeemer-" 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%2Fjesus-recycled-redeemer-" 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%2Fjesus-recycled-redeemer-" 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: Abortion and the Malleable Conscience
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/20/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-and-the-malleable-conscience
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An article posted on <a href="http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-trimester-abortion-provision.html" target="_blank">The Abortioneers</a> [see the cached page <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20091009090039/http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-trimester-abortion-provision.html" target="_blank">here</a> while you can], a pro-choice blog, is an interesting, inside look at the inner conflict often experienced by second trimester abortion providers, who&nbsp;use&nbsp;"large forceps with destructive teeth to remove the fetus, generally in parts."</p>

<p>Since many abortion providers undergo "serious emotional reactions" after aborting a second trimester fetus and thereafter choose to limit their own services to the first trimester, the author of the article, Lisa Harris, is trying to promote more open discussion by providers about the&nbsp;"physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances (including disturbing dreams), effects on interpersonal relationships and moral anguish" that they experience.&nbsp; Her hope is that when these reactions&nbsp;are squarely faced, a way of viewing them and dealing with them will be developed that will make it easier for abortion providers to continue with their work, creating a stronger pro-choice movement.</p>

<p>Harris describes her own&nbsp;experience when aborting an 18-week-old fetus while she was also 18 weeks pregnant:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual.... I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">Harris acknowledges that while the moral status of a fetus is under debate, "it is disingenuous to argue that removing a fetus from a uterus is no different from removing a fibroid." She also fully recognizes the strangely contradictory approaches doctors take toward fetuses of the exact same age:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>As a third-year resident I spent many days in our hospital abortion clinic. The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks pregnant. I performed an uncomplicated D&amp;E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual that abortion providers perform – required as a clinical safety measure to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a complication – but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands), even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23–24 weeks. As her exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus – but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Harris distrusts her intuitive reaction to not only the abortions, but to the contradictions, and she goes on to remind us that though it struck her at the moment as bizarre, the reality&nbsp;was that the "difference between the [two fetuses] was, crucially, its location inside or outside of the woman's body, and most importantly, her hopes and wishes for that fetus/baby."</p>

<p>It is utterly amazing to me that a person could see some of these things so clearly, could be informed so strongly by her own moral intuition, could grasp the contradictions, and yet could have a response that seeks to find a way to <em>overcome</em> the "visual and visceral ways in which first and second trimester abortions are different," rather than to reflect logically on what these things might mean and ask the question, How on earth could one person's "hopes and wishes" magically transform "unspeakable violence" against <em>another</em> person into something acceptable that one ought to work hard to encourage?&nbsp;</p>

<p>The human ability to reshape the conscience through argument, even in the face of such dramatic, "visceral" reactions to the contrary should give us pause.&nbsp; My guess is that unless you have carefully trained yourself otherwise, merely reading the descriptions above was sickening.&nbsp; But what if you, like the author, were wrongly convinced that something far more morally significant was at stake--something that you believed would suffer if you gave in to your moral intuitions and rational questioning of contradictions?&nbsp; And further, what if the pressures of your respected colleagues and the culture consistently spoke against your own conscience?&nbsp; Could you not also be capable of convincing yourself of anything?</p>

<p>On our own we are lost, at the mercy of our greatest desires and false beliefs, swayed (often unknowingly) into improperly ordering competing moral goods in a way that best advantages our own interests.&nbsp; But, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."&nbsp;&nbsp;Lisa Harris's&nbsp;story should remind us of our desperate need for God to properly inform and shape our consciences as we purposefully and consistently seek a more thorough knowledge of His character, power, and Word, immersing ourselves in His wisdom.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>[UPDATE: The post has been removed from The Abortioneers.&nbsp; Information about the article by Lisa Harris, "Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the Silence and Changing the Discourse," can be found <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350256#" target="_blank">here</a>.]</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/10/abortion-and-the-malleable-conscience.html#comments" target="_blank">COMMENTS</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%2Fabortion-and-the-malleable-conscience" 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%2Fabortion-and-the-malleable-conscience" 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%2Fabortion-and-the-malleable-conscience" 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 Does Exodus 21:22 Say about Abortion?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The Torah’s teaching about accidental “miscarriage”&nbsp;has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is the passage pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.</em></p>

<p>Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of scriptural references specifically to abortion, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.</p>

<p>Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. God’s personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God “knows”&nbsp;us even before we were conceived.</p>

<p>One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I’ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant—even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I’m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.</p>

<h2>Dead or Alive?</h2>

<p>The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:</p>

<p>And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is “life for life.”&nbsp;In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.</p>

<p>Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view “the <em>lex talionis</em> [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>At issue is the phrase translated “she has a miscarriage.”&nbsp;There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word “miscarriage”&nbsp;implies the death of the child. <em>Webster’s New World Dictionary</em> defines miscarriage as, “The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.</p>

<p>Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage”&nbsp;is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.</p>

<p>Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. There’s a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Let’s look at it.</p>

<h2><em>Yeled</em> and <em>Yasa</em></h2>

<p>A word’s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word’s <em>range of meaning</em>—its possible definitions—inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its <em>specific meaning</em> within that range by the immediate context.</p>

<p>The relevant phrase in the passage, “...she has a miscarriage...,”&nbsp;reads <em>w˚yase û yeladêhâ</em> in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun—<em>yeled</em>—and a verb—<em>yasa</em>—and literally means “the child comes forth.”&nbsp;The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.</p>

<p>The Hebrew noun translated “child”&nbsp;in this passage is <em>yeled</em><sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> (<em>yeladim</em> in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> It comes from the primary root word <em>yalad</em>,<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.”&nbsp;In the NASB <em>yalad</em> is translated “childbirth”&nbsp;ten times, some form of “gave birth”&nbsp;over 50 times, and either “bore,”&nbsp;“born,”&nbsp;or “borne”&nbsp;180 times.</p>

<p>The verb <em>yasa</em><sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> is a primary, primitive root that means “to go or come out.”&nbsp;It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB—“escape,”&nbsp;“exported,”&nbsp;“go forth,”&nbsp;“proceed,”&nbsp;“take out,”&nbsp;to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. The word is translated with some form of “coming out”&nbsp;(e.g., “comes out,”&nbsp;“came out,”&nbsp;etc.) 103 times, and some form of “going”&nbsp;445 times.</p>

<p>What’s most interesting is to see how frequently <em>yasa</em> (translated with the English words in bold) refers to the emergence of a living thing:</p>

<p>Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ’Let the earth <strong>bring forth</strong> <em>living</em> creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”</p>

<p>Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “<strong>Bring out</strong> with you every <em>living</em> thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth...”</p>

<p>Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall <strong>come forth from</strong> your own body...”</p>

<p>Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first <strong>came forth</strong> red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother <strong>came forth</strong> with his hand holding on to Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob.”</p>

<p>1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be <strong>born</strong> to you, he shall build the house for My name.”</p>

<p>Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were <strong>born</strong> I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”</p>

<p>2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who <strong>shall issue from</strong> you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”</p>

<p>As you can see, it’s common for <em>yasa</em> to describe the “coming forth”&nbsp;of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time <em>yasa</em> is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he <strong>comes from</strong> his mother’s womb!”</p>

<p>Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word <em>yasa</em>, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (“whose flesh is half eaten away”), and doesn’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.</p>

<p>Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage”&nbsp;in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?</p>

<h2>Clues from the Context</h2>

<p>This inductive analysis shows us something important: <em>Nothing about the word</em> yasa <em>implies the death of the child</em>. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.</p>

<p>This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth”&nbsp;is dead? The answer is: Nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a dead baby and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.</p>

<p>This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word “further”&nbsp;in the NASB is not in the original):</p>

<p>And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life...</p>

<p>The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the <em>lex talionis</em> [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Gleason Archer, former Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:</p>

<p>There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (<em>nepes</em>) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<h2>Two Rejoinders</h2>

<p>Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?</p>

<p>Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. Arguably, the fine represents reimbursement for the cost of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.</p>

<p>Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn’t mean the slave is sub-human.</p>

<p>Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that’s what the writer had in mind: <em>nepel</em> and <em>sakal</em>. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.</p>

<p>The noun <em>nepel</em><sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> means “miscarriage”&nbsp;or “abortion,”&nbsp;and is used three times:</p>

<p>Job 3:16 “Or like a <strong>miscarriage</strong> which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.”</p>

<p>Eccl. 6:3-4 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ’Better the <strong>miscarriage</strong> than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.’”</p>

<p>Psalms 58:8 “Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the <strong>miscarriages</strong> of a woman which never see the sun.”</p>

<p>The verb <em>sakal</em><sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> means “to be bereaved”&nbsp;and is used four times, including one time when it’s actually translated “abort”:</p>

<p>Genesis 31:38 “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not <strong>miscarried</strong>, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.”</p>

<p>Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one <strong>miscarrying</strong> or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”</p>

<p>Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord—What wilt Thou give? Give them a <strong>miscarrying</strong> womb and dry breasts.”</p>

<p>Job 21:10 “His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not <strong>abort</strong>.”</p>

<p>Here is the crucial point: Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he did not use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.</p>

<p><em>Yasa</em> doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of <em>yeled</em> with <em>yasa</em> suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.”&nbsp;Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is stillborn. It simply means the child comes out.</p>

<h2>Three Questions</h2>

<p>When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.</p>

<p>First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage”&nbsp;entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. <em>Yasa</em> doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.”&nbsp;The word itself never suggests death.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?</p>

<p>Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The monetary fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).</p>

<p>Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? The obvious explanation is that Moses did not mean to communicate that a miscarriage had taken place. The word “miscarriage”&nbsp;is a noun. <em>Yasa</em> is a verb. The Hebrew word merely conveys the action, not the result. When Moses’&nbsp;words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.</p>

<p>Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child—and this text does refer to the unborn as a child—is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable—even powerful—argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child <em>so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury</em>, he shall surely be fined...”&nbsp;etc. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Millard Erickson, <em>Christian Theology</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 555. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><em>Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition</em> (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Strong’s Index word #3206. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Definitions come from the <em>New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance</em>. For further documentation, see the <em>Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament,</em> by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Strong’s Index word #3205. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Strong’s Index word #3318. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">The New International Version is on target in rendering this passage, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Millard Erickson, <em>Christian Theology</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 556. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Gleason Archer, <em>Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 248. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Strong’s Index word #5309. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Strong’s Index word #7921. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Again, in the Numbers passage the <em>context</em> indicates the death, not the word <em>yasa</em> itself. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</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-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion-" 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-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion-" 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-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion-" 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: Prepping for Engagement
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/prepping-for-engagement
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“More Sweat, Less Blood”—that’s the title of the final chapter in my recent book, <em>Tactics</em>. I took the idea from a Marine Corps training motto: The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle.</p>

<p>In the work I do with Stand to Reason, this aphorism has become a staple for me. It was constantly on my mind recently as I prepped for a high-profile encounter with one of America’s most lucid and popular atheists, Michael Shermer, founder and editor of <em>Skeptic</em> magazine. For three hours on a December afternoon last year, Michael and I squared off on Hugh Hewitt’s national radio program on theism vs. atheism.</p>

<p>Since preparation—“more sweat”—is so critical to performance—“less blood”—I thought you might like an inside look at exactly <em>how</em> I prepared for this encounter, both strategically and tactically.</p>

<p>First, a qualifier, though. You may find it surprising to know that I do not relish engagements like these. In fact, there is a certain sense in which I fear them. I lack no confidence in the truth of my convictions as a Christian. Rather, I am aware that having the truth on my side is simply not enough to ensure success.</p>

<p>Michael Shermer is a bright, articulate, provocative, highly-educated, well-read, thoughtful challenger. He is also an amicable debater, for the most part. Even though I think his ideas are clearly false, I could not take him lightly. Michael can be very convincing, in print and in person.</p>

<p>In a very real sense, then, Michael Shermer and his colleagues can be dangerous. Eternal issues are at stake and our adversaries are skilled. Consequently, I do not underestimate them. I respect their abilities and I respect their ideas.</p>

<p>Christians are not always this prudent, however. Armed with the courage of their convictions and confidence in the Holy Spirit, some believers wade into the conflict going head to head with talented academics in public without taking their opponents’&nbsp;skills or ideas seriously, only to have their heads handed to them with the world watching.</p>

<p>The fear of that happening to me in front of a national audience drove me to my knees and to my prep. I wanted to acquit myself well for the sake of the Lord and for the sake of the Kingdom, but I also didn’t want to look like a fool in front of millions of listeners.</p>

<p>So, I read Shermer’s books and listened to his interviews and debates. I noted patterns in the way he argued or presented his ideas. I jotted down one-liners he’d used to try to stonewall or silence Christians in the past. I was alert for opportunities—chinks in his armor, breaches in his arguments—and recorded them.</p>

<p>As I did, a strange thing happened. The more familiar I became with Michael Shermer the atheist, the thinker, the writer, the human being, the less nervous I felt. The more I read his words and listened to his voice—the closer I moved toward him as a person, in other words—the easier it was to debate him.</p>

<p>This is a lesson we constantly need to be reminded of. The more we know, the less we fear. The more personal we get with an opponent, the less ominous he appears. That is one of the psychological payoffs of good preparation.</p>

<p>But I also needed a concrete plan, both strategically and tactically. And I needed it in print.</p>

<h2>Strategic Planning</h2>

<p>Strategy involves the big picture: launching, positioning, and deploying. I needed to put a larger plan in place so I wouldn’t get disoriented in the details of the debate. In this case, I wrote everything down, reviewed it often, and brought it with me to the studio to use as a crib sheet, if necessary.</p>

<p>I always have a plan, even with shorter, less auspicious encounters. Having a plan calms the nerves. It also keeps the audience from getting lost.</p>

<p>My first concern: Start strong. This is a goal I pursue with every single public presentation I make. That’s why I think carefully about the very first words out of my mouth. First impressions count, for two reasons.</p>

<p>To begin with, my listeners need to feel I’m a solid player, that I know what I’m doing, and that I probably won’t make them flinch by falling on my face. Second, it’s important that I also feel good about my launch. I want to get out of the blocks cleanly, find my feet, and enter the race with energy. It helps my confidence.</p>

<p>Since the beginning and ending are so important in an exchange like this, I worked out exactly what I wanted to say and practiced until I was very familiar with the substance, if not the exact words.</p>

<p>Based on how Hugh had conducted previous interviews (I’d listened), I knew he would ask each of us to give a short biographical sketch at the outset. I crafted mine carefully, including only those details I thought would commend me and my ideas best to the listeners. I actually typed it in outline form and used it during my opening segment (you can get away with this on radio if you’re a good reader).</p>

<p>I also wanted to frame the discussion in a very particular way. In my mind, Shermer and I were not fighting about facts, but rather offering competing accounts of reality. So before I launched into my personal biography, I said this:</p>

<p>Hugh, I approach this discussion today not as a philosopher or as a theologian—though I have advanced degrees in both fields—but as a man trying to make sense of his world. Which view—atheism or Christianity—does the best job explaining reality as we discover it to be? That’s the question.</p>

<p>I “bookended”&nbsp;the interview with this concept by ending on the same point. In my final 60-second salvo, I revisited the worldview question:</p>

<p>Hugh, the atheistic worldview is too austere. It doesn’t answer enough questions, and its explanations seem counterintuitive at almost every turn: the universe comes from nothing; life comes from non-life; consciousness comes from matter; morality comes from molecules. These are all wildly counter-intuitive. By contrast, the Christian worldview makes much more sense: a Big Bang needs a big “Banger,”&nbsp;design needs a designer, moral law needs a moral lawgiver. Christianity, not atheism, fits reality. It resonates with our deepest intuitions about the way the world actually is.</p>

<p>My strategic plan included two other elements. The first was a style component. I wanted to exemplify the virtues of a good ambassador. I also knew that, based on the pattern of Hugh’s past interviews, I’d be given time to develop my thoughts. So I posted these points on my outline:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Strong and confident</li>
	<li>Genial, collegial, and fair</li>
	<li>Keep talking</li>
</ul>

<p>The second component was based on content, key points central to my case that I wanted to make well. Under the heading “Big Issues”&nbsp;I wrote:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Two definitions of science (methodology vs. materialistic philosophy)</li>
	<li>Moral objectivism vs. moral subjectivism (relativism)—the grounding problem</li>
	<li>Waving the wand of evolution—the devil is in the details</li>
	<li>Smuggling objective morality into a subjective system</li>
	<li>Equivocation in “Evolution explains morality”—Darwinian evolution vs. cultural evolution</li>
</ul>

<p>Finally, I wrote out my overall goal for the debate: Show that Christianity is a reasonable, rational worldview that resonates with our deepest intuitions about reality.</p>

<p>My general strategy, then, was to start strong, position the discussion in a way that made my case easier to defend, and then focus on key issues that highlighted the weaknesses of atheism and the strengths of Christianity, showing that my view was more plausible. These broad concerns were easy to keep track of on the first page of my notes.</p>

<p>In addition to a strategic plan, though, I also needed a tactical blueprint.</p>

<h2>Tactical Concerns</h2>

<p>Here is why tactical prep is so important. It’s hard to be quick on your feet when you’re under fire. It’s much easier to come up with clever quips or apt illustrations when the pressure is off. I took advantage of that fact by planning my tactical moves in advance.</p>

<p>Based on Shermer’s previous interviews, writings, and debates, I had a good idea of specific moves he was likely to make. I structured my notes as responses to those challenges. I then organized them in sections with headings to make navigation easier if I had to refer to them during the broadcast. My headings were: General, Arguments for God, Jesus, Intelligent Design, Mind/Body Problem, Evolution, and Morality.</p>

<p>Most of what I prepped for had to do with morality and science. There was a reason for this. Grounding morality is one of the atheist’s thorniest problems. Science, most atheists think, is ours. I wanted both an offense and a defense.</p>

<p>Here are some examples of what I came up with. Notice they are to the point and as punchy as I could make them, using compelling illustrations when I could. Some are a little longer because there were different ways to respond to the same question.</p>

<p>“Intelligent Design is not falsifiable.”</p>

<p>Do you tell that to all the people who buy your books expecting to find compelling evidence falsifying ID? If you really believed Intelligent Design was not falsifiable, you’d have nothing to write about.</p>

<p><strong>“God is a science stopper.”</strong></p>

<p>This is a bold statement since, as a matter of historical fact, God was the science <em>starter</em> for virtually everyone involved in laying the initial foundation for the disciplines of science.</p>

<p>Also, the God hypothesis has no bearing on the day-to-day details of science. Therefore, answering the question about ultimate origins isn’t going to bring science to a screeching halt. Put another way, a person can follow a recipe for baking bread quite easily without giving a thought to the cook who invented the recipe to begin with.</p>

<p><strong>“Who created God?”</strong></p>

<p>This is a curious question. Michael Shermer the atheist doesn’t think God was created. I don’t think God was created. No one in this discussion thinks God was created. So why ask, “Who created God?”</p>

<p>Further, the question is irrelevant to the issue of ID. You don’t need to know the manufacturer of a shoe in order to know that a shoe made the prints. You don’t need to know who made God to know that someone like God made the universe. They’re unrelated questions.</p>

<p>Nothing about the case for ID requires a creator or designer for God. So the question cannot undermine my argument. Atheists know this. So why do they keep bringing this up? It’s a rhetorical move to distract attention away from evidence for design.</p>

<p><strong>“I believe in science.”</strong></p>

<p>I believe in science, too. I have great respect for science doing what it is capable of doing: telling us about the nature of the physical world. Science is not the problem. The materialistic philosophy currently <em>imposed</em> on science is the problem. There is nothing about the regularities of nature themselves that suggests they can’t be superseded by the maker of nature Himself.</p>

<p><strong>“If there were no God, would you still be good?”</strong></p>

<p>I’ll answer your question if you answer mine: Would you still have to be faithful to your wife if you weren’t married and never had been? Clearly, the question doesn’t even apply. The same is true for your question.</p>

<p>If there is no transcendent standard for morality, then “good”&nbsp;means either following my own individual or cultural morality, or responding to my evolutionary impulses. Could I do <em>those</em> things if there were no God? Could I do what <em>you</em> call good? Sure.</p>

<p>If I’m the one making up the rules, though, I’d probably make some adjustments. What I’d call “good”&nbsp;would be a lot more convenient than what God says is right. That’s hardly a problem, though, since without God morality would be relative anyway.</p>

<p>It certainly wouldn’t be an inferior morality, as your question implies. How could it be substandard on an evolutionary view of things? You’re following your genes, and I’m following mine. Who’s to judge which is “better”?</p>

<p><strong>“ID is nothing more than God of the gaps.”</strong></p>

<p>Notice first, the challenge is a tacit admission there is a problem—a gap—that the materialistic approach has not been able to deal with. So what do atheists propose? They suggest sticking materialism in the gap and then adding time. But what is their justification for doing this? A blind commitment to materialism. This is nothing more than science of the gaps.</p>

<p>Proponents of ID are not just sticking G-O-D in the gap. They are inferring a transcendent intelligence because the evidence itself points forcibly to it. The data is specific, precise, and measurable, and needs to be addressed, not dismissed.</p>

<p>So both sides have a way to fill the gap. One places facts and reason in the gap. The other plugs the hole with wishful thinking about the future. Which side is guilty working from ignorance here?</p>

<p><strong>“Evolution can explain morality.”</strong></p>

<p>Tell me, how do you get from “survival of the fittest”&nbsp;to “love your enemy”&nbsp;by means of Darwinian evolution?</p>

<p>So your objection to rape is that it violates our evolutionary programming? How could that make rape wrong?</p>

<p>Evolution is a completely materialistic system. No rearrangement of matter is going to cause an immaterial moral obligation to pop into existence, regardless of how much time you have. Evolution gets you relativism, nothing more. Atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse is clear on this: “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory.”</p>

<p>“Good”&nbsp;in evolutionary terms simply means “pro-adaptive.”&nbsp;“Bad”&nbsp;would have to mean “mal-adaptive.”&nbsp;We can only know what is maladaptive when it goes extinct. That’s the definition of maladaptive, after all. So why is there still so much bad in the world today? If Darwinism governs morality, evil, being mal-adaptive, should have gone extinct eons ago. Ironically, the evolutionist is the one saddled with the problem of evil.</p>

<h2>Hitting the Beach</h2>

<p>General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War, once noted, “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”</p>

<p>His point: You never know what surprises you’ll face once an engagement begins. But this is no excuse for neglecting to set a course to begin with, or failing to be ready for what you think you might encounter along the way.</p>

<p>I’d done my planning. I had a general strategy that focused my direction, and individual responses to particular issues I was certain would come up. As the debate got closer, I read and reread my notes. I added new details and reflected on my arguments. I prayed. I took every opportunity—even in casual discussions with others—to rehearse my points to settle them in my mind. The more I talked them out, the more embedded they became.</p>

<p>By the end of the first radio segment I was already thankful for my preparation. I had a good start and I knew where I was going. By the end of the three hours, I hadn’t followed my plan exactly. Some things never came up, and there were a few surprises I had to adapt to. But I never stumbled and I never lost my stride.</p>

<p>Michael Shermer proved to be a bright man, a worthy opponent, and genial debater. In this battle, though, I didn’t bleed much because I had paid my dues in sweat before I hit the front lines.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fprepping-for-engagement" 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%2Fprepping-for-engagement" 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%2Fprepping-for-engagement" 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 Is Not Wishing
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/faith-is-not-wishing-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I don’t like the word “faith.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>It’s not that faith isn’t valuable.&nbsp; True biblical faith is essential for salvation.&nbsp; But faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians.</p>

<p>Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief” unnecessary or irrelevant.&nbsp; That kind of knowledge undermines genuine faith and offends God.</p>

<p>The reasoning goes something like this.&nbsp; We all know God wants us to have faith.&nbsp; In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6).&nbsp; However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true?&nbsp; Faith, then, is opposed to knowledge.&nbsp; Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.</p>

<p>On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you.&nbsp; Faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness.&nbsp; When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.</p>

<p>This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking.&nbsp; We can hope, but we can never know.</p>

<p>But this will never work.&nbsp; Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.”&nbsp; If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The “I just take Christianity on (blind) faith” attitude can’t be the right approach.&nbsp; It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to <em>make</em> a defense for the hope that is in us.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also, the biblical word for faith, <em>pistis</em>, doesn’t mean wishing.&nbsp; It means active trust.&nbsp; And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured.&nbsp; It must be earned.&nbsp; You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true.</p>

<p>In fact, I suggest you completely ban the phrase “leap of faith” from your vocabulary.&nbsp; Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps.&nbsp; Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust.&nbsp; The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing.&nbsp; It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The following biblical examples make my point.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Blood, Boils, Frogs and Flies</strong></p>

<p>Israel’s exodus from Egypt was depicted in a clever animated film called “The Prince of Egypt.”&nbsp; After seeing the movie, my wife and I spent time reading the original account in the Hebrew Scriptures.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Though I’d read this passage a number of times, something jumped out at me then that I hadn’t seen before, a phrase God kept repeating over and over in the account.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The material relevant to my point starts in Exodus 3.&nbsp; Reading the encounter with God at the burning bush, we realize Moses is reluctant to be God’s deliverer.&nbsp; And it’s understandable.&nbsp; Why would Pharaoh, the most powerful leader in the world, submit to a renegade Jew?&nbsp; Why would two million Hebrew slaves follow a murderer and a defector?&nbsp;</p>

<p>“What if they won’t believe me, or listen to me?” Moses demurred.&nbsp; “What if they say, ‘The Lord hasn’t appeared to you’?”</p>

<p>What God <em>didn’t</em> say in response is as important as what He <em>did</em> say.&nbsp; He didn’t say, “Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to take this on blind faith.&nbsp; Tell the Hebrews the same thing.&nbsp; They’ve got to have faith.”</p>

<p>Instead God asked, “What’s that in your hand?”</p>

<p>“A staff,” Moses answered.</p>

<p>“Throw it on the ground.”</p>

<p>So he threw it down, and it became a serpent.</p>

<p>“Stretch out your hand,” the Lord said.&nbsp; “Grab it by the tail.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Reluctantly, Moses did as he was told.&nbsp; When he grabbed the snake, it became a staff again.</p>

<p>“Do this,” God said, “and then they’ll believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, has appeared to you.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>More signs followed that got the people’s attention:&nbsp; the river of blood; frogs covering the land; the gnats, flies, and locusts; the boils and pestilence; the hail; the darkness; and finally the angel of death.&nbsp; All for one purpose:&nbsp; “That they might <em>know</em> there is a God in Israel.” Not simply “believe,” “hope,” or “wish.”&nbsp; <em>Know</em>.&nbsp; This is no idle comment, but a message that is central to the account.&nbsp; In fact, the phrase is repeated no less than ten times throughout the account.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>

<p>What was the result?&nbsp; “And when Israel <em>saw</em> the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they <em>believed</em> in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exodus 14:31).</p>

<p>Note the pattern: a powerful <em>evidence</em> (miracles, in this case), giving the people <em>knowledge</em> of God, in Whom they then placed their active trust (faith).&nbsp; Knowledge –some level of certainty—went before belief in each of these cases.&nbsp;</p>

<p>God didn’t ask the Hebrews, or even Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking.&nbsp; He demonstrated His power, giving them good reason to believe, resulting in obedience.&nbsp; First, the Hebrews were given good reason to know.&nbsp; This then grounded their investment of faith (active trust) in God.&nbsp; Pharaoh got the picture, too, but his response was not humble surrender leading to salvation.&nbsp; Instead, it was submission under compulsion.&nbsp; In both cases, though, each was compelled to act based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s power.</p>

<p>In the animated feature, “The Prince of Egypt,” Miriam breaks into a song of praise following Israel’s deliverance.&nbsp; The song is entitled “When You Believe,” and includes these words: “There can be miracles, when you believe…. Who knows what miracles you can achieve, when you believe…Just believe…Gotta believe….”</p>

<p>Is that the way it happened, that the people achieved miracles <em>because of </em>their belief?&nbsp; No, reality was just the opposite.&nbsp; In the original account, miracles didn’t <em>follow</em> belief; they <em>preceded</em> it.&nbsp; Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Taking the Easy Way Out?</strong></p>

<p>Fast forward to the New Testament and you’ll find the same pattern in the life of Christ. &nbsp;In Mark 2, we encounter Jesus speaking to a group gathered in a home in Capernaum.&nbsp; A crowd blocks the front door, keeping a paralytic—being carried by his four friends—from gaining an audience with the Healer.&nbsp; The only way in is from above, so they dig through the earthen roof and lower the deformed man down on a pallet.</p>

<p>Jesus is impressed.&nbsp; Seeing their faith He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”&nbsp; His words offend the scribes, though, who grumble among themselves at such an audacious claim.&nbsp; “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” they whisper.</p>

<p>Jesus, aware of their complaint, puts a question to them.&nbsp; “Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Arise, take up your pallet and walk’?”</p>

<p>How would you respond?&nbsp; If you were in Jesus’ position, would it be easier for you to claim to forgive sins or to claim to heal paralysis?&nbsp; Clearly, it’s always easier to boast about something no one can check up on than it is to claim to have supernatural powers and run the risk you’ll fail the test.</p>

<p>Jesus knew it looked like He was taking the easy way out, until His next remark:&nbsp; “But in order that you may <em>know</em> that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He then turned to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”&nbsp; Then, in the sight of everyone, the paralytic got up and got out.</p>

<p>Jesus gives us the same lesson we find in Exodus.&nbsp; He proves something that can’t be seen—the forgiveness of sins—with evidence that can be seen—a dramatic supernatural healing.&nbsp; Jesus heals “in order that you may know.”&nbsp; Once again, the concrete <em>evidence</em> allows the doubters to <em>know</em> the truth so they can then <em>trust</em> in the forgiveness Christ could give.&nbsp; Once again, there is no conflict between knowledge and faith.&nbsp; Rather, the first is the basis for the second.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>The Apostle Peter</strong></p>

<p>The book of Acts and Peter’s dramatic sermon on Pentecost gives us another vivid example of the evidence/knowledge/faith equation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The crowd is both amazed and bewildered at the manifestations of the Spirit they see with their own eyes.&nbsp; Peter takes his stand before the throng and explains that it isn’t intoxication they witness, but prophecy being fulfilled in their midst by the hand of God.&nbsp;</p>

<p>He recounts that Jesus—one attested to by miracles, signs, and wonders—had been murdered at the hands of godless men.&nbsp; Death couldn’t hold Him in the grave, though.&nbsp; He had risen.&nbsp; Not only did King David himself foretell such a thing; Peter and the rest of the disciples had witnessed the risen Christ themselves.&nbsp; The Holy Spirit, the gift promised by the Father, was now being poured out in a way that Peter’s entire audience could “see and hear.”</p>

<p>He then closes with a statement tailor-made for all those who think that certainty somehow diminishes genuine faith:&nbsp; “Therefore let all the house of Israel <em>know for certain</em> that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a>&nbsp;</p>

<p>When the crowd beholds the evidence—the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy, the witnesses of the resurrection, the powerful manifestations of the Spirit in their midst—the people are pierced to the heart.&nbsp; They are <em>convinced</em> of their error, they <em>know</em> the truth, and thousands <em>believe</em>, putting their <em>trust</em> in the Savior.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Hear, See, Handle, Believe</strong></p>

<p>John, the Beloved Disciple, brings it all together for us in 1 John.&nbsp; He opens his letter with the evidence of his own eyewitness encounter with Christ.&nbsp; Notice how many senses he appeals to:</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">What was from the beginning, what we have <em>heard</em>, what we have <em>seen</em> with our eyes, what we <em>beheld</em> and our hands <em>handled</em> concerning the Word of Life—and the life was <em>manifested</em>, and we have <em>seen</em> and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was <em>manifested</em> to us—what we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim to you also…</p>

<p>Then he closes his letter like this:</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.&nbsp; He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.&nbsp; These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may <em>know</em> that you have eternal life.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a></p>

<p>To John, faith wasn’t a blind leap.&nbsp; It wasn’t wishing on a star.&nbsp; It was grounded in evidence that led to knowledge.&nbsp; And when the evidence is so overwhelming—as it was for the earliest follows of Jesus (and many since then)—the knowledge is certain.</p>

<p>The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles:&nbsp; Biblical faith isn’t wishing, it’s confidence.&nbsp; It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality.&nbsp; It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true—not just “true for me,” but actually, fully, and completely true.</p>

<p>Spiritual growth involves increasing our knowledge <em>and</em> our certainty of God.&nbsp; So there are two things here:&nbsp; first knowledge, and second confidence in what we know.&nbsp;</p>

<p>How do we increase confidence?&nbsp; Wish harder?&nbsp; Hope against hope?&nbsp; Stop our ears to the sounds of the critics without, and ignore the doubts of the agnostic within?&nbsp; This will never work, because confidence cannot be fabricated.&nbsp; It must be earned.&nbsp; As you gather substantiating evidence, your confidence grows automatically and your faith is deepened.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Faith is not about wishing, but about confidence, and the facts make the difference.&nbsp; You get a hold of the facts, you study, you learn—even a little—and you’ll realize you’re not just wishing on a star about eternal things.&nbsp; You’ll realize Christianity is really true.</p>

<p>And that changes everything.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> 1 Peter 3:15.</p>
</div>

<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Cf., Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14, 9:29, 10:2, 14:4, and 14:18.</p>
</div>

<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Acts 2:36, the New American Standard Version (and throughout).</p>
</div>

<div id="ftn4">
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> 1 John 5:11-13.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing-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%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing-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%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing-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>
            
          


