# articles

title: Yes, You Have a Worldview
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/yes-you-have-a-worldview
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In my <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/if-naturalistic-evolution-true-people-are-not-equal#.WUx6VhMrJR1">ongoing attempt</a> to convince atheists that <em>everyone</em> has a worldview (something I’ve been surprised to hear them <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7766367970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7766367970b" target="_blank">object to</a>), here’s an <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-worldview/" target="_blank">explanation</a> of what we mean by “worldview”&nbsp;from James Anderson, author of <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Your-Worldview-Interactive-Questions/dp/143353892X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1498185043&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What’s Your Worldview?</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What is a worldview? As the word itself suggests, a worldview is an overall view of the world. It’s not a physical view of the world, but rather a philosophical view, an all-encompassing perspective on everything that exists and matters to us.</p>

<p>A person’s worldview represents his most fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the universe he inhabits. It reflects how he would answer all the “big questions”&nbsp;of human existence: fundamental questions about who and what we are, where we came from, why we’re here, where (if anywhere) we’re headed, the meaning and purpose of life, the nature of the afterlife, and what counts as a good life here and now. Few people think through these issues in any depth, and fewer still have firm answers to such questions, but a person’s worldview will at least incline him toward certain kinds of answers and away from others...</p>

<p>[W]orldviews play a central and defining role in our lives. They shape what we believe and what we’re willing to believe, how we interpret our experiences, how we behave in response to those experiences, and how we relate to others. Our thoughts and our actions are conditioned by our worldviews.</p>

<p>Worldviews operate at both the individual level and the societal level. Rarely will two people have exactly the same worldview, but they may share the same basic type of worldview. Moreover, within any society, certain worldview types will be represented more prominently than others, and will therefore exert greater influence on the culture of that society.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-worldview/" 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%2Fyes-you-have-a-worldview" 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%2Fyes-you-have-a-worldview" 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%2Fyes-you-have-a-worldview" 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: Argue at the Worldview Level
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/argue-at-the-worldview-level
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Russell Moore reminds us of what’s behind the cultural divide over transgender issues in “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/transgender-revolution-and-rubble-of-empty-promises#When:2017-06-06T05:00:00+00:00" target="_blank">The Transgender Revolution and the Rubble of Empty Promises</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Ultimately, the transgender question is about more than just sex. It’s about what it means to be human. Poet Wendell Berry responded to techno-utopian scientism with the observation that civilization must decide whether we see persons as creatures or as machines. If we are <em>creatures</em>, then we have purpose and meaning, but also limits. But if we see ourselves—and the world around us—as <em>machines</em>, then we believe the Faustian myth of our own limitless power to recreate ourselves.</p>

<p>This, it seems to me, is the question at the heart of the transgender controversy. Are we created, as both the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus put it, “male and female”&nbsp;from the beginning, or are these categories arbitrary and self-willed? Do our bodies, and our sexes, represent something of who we were designed to be—and thus impose limits on our ability to recreate ourselves?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s tempting to focus our arguments entirely on worldview <em>symptoms</em> rather than the worldviews themselves. After all, controversial topics like transgender issues, marriage, and abortion are immediate issues our culture is dealing with. But if we don’t address the worldview causes at the root of all these issues, new symptoms will just continue to pop up faster than we can address them. We need to be patient and take a long-term view; let’s be intentional about moving the arguments <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/why-we-need-to-go-back-to-basics-and-make-a-case-for-our-worldview#.WUxkWxMrJR0">back to the worldview level</a> (read more about how to do that <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/conversations-cultural-issues-get-root-worldview#.WUxleBMrJR0">here</a> and <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.WUx20RMrJR1">here</a>). What does it mean to be human? What are we? Where did we come from?</p>

<p>As it happens, if we seek to make disciples of Christ by arguing for the truth of Christianity, we will <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-true-story-of-christian-missionaries#.WUxsXRMrJR0">dramatically affect the future</a>—not only in the most important way (by bringing people to Christ), but also through the eventual rise of countless other <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/values-fight-poverty#.WUxv6RMrJR0">worldview symptoms</a> as people’s worldviews begin to conform to the reality of God’s world. This is not to say we should never argue about the symptoms themselves; those arguments need to continue in the public square. It’s merely to encourage you to bring your discussions with family and friends back to the worldview level as much as possible. The real and lasting change to our culture will ultimately happen over the long term, one person at a time, as they come to know and follow Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fargue-at-the-worldview-level" 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%2Fargue-at-the-worldview-level" 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%2Fargue-at-the-worldview-level" 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 Points to the Gospel
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/marriage-points-to-the-gospel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This is a beautiful little video about marriage and the Gospel.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="213720278" 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/213720278?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2017/04/21/this-is-about-that/" target="_blank">Justin Taylor</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%2Fmarriage-points-to-the-gospel" 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-points-to-the-gospel" 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-points-to-the-gospel" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Gospel without Final Judgment Is Not the Gospel
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-gospel-without-final-judgment-is-not-the-gospel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There is a tendency in our presentation of the Gospel to stick with what makes people <em>feel</em> good. God loves you. He gave His life for you. He wants to be in a relationship with you. These are wholly true. But they are <em>not</em> the whole Gospel.</p>

<p>There is a part of the Gospel that many shy away from. We don’t like to talk about it. Even many churches avoid the subject. But when it��s left out, it leaves people without a complete understanding of the Gospel.</p>

<p>I’m referring to <em>final judgment</em>.</p>

<p>We would rather talk about God’s love, grace, and mercy. Of course, these are <em>essential</em> to the Gospel message. But they aren’t <em>sufficient</em>. Something is missing. It’s not enough to tell people they can be saved. We are commanded to tell them what they are saved from.</p>

<h2>The Gospel Message Includes Judgment</h2>

<p>When the apostle Paul stood before Felix, procurator of Judea, he had the opportunity to speak “about faith in Christ Jesus.”&nbsp;Fortunately, Luke tells us specifically what that looked like:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control <em>and the coming judgment</em>, Felix was alarmed and said, “Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you”&nbsp;(Acts 24:24-25).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please don’t miss the significance of this text. Paul is summoned to speak before a great government official. This is his opportunity to carefully communicate the Gospel. And, as part of the Gospel, he includes “the coming judgment.”</p>

<p>Furthermore, take note of Felix’s reaction to Paul’s message. He was <em>alarmed.</em> He was <em>afraid</em>. In fact, Felix tells him to go away. He cannot bear to hear anymore.</p>

<p>Some of us might think that Paul should have softened his message. Do we really want to frighten people with our message? Obviously, Paul was more concerned with accurately communicating the Gospel than compromising the Gospel to make people feel good.</p>

<p>Lest you think that this was a one-time occurrence, consider Paul’s words to the Church in Rome. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve read these words and missed a key phrase. Paul writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, <em>according to my gospel</em>, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here, Paul is even more explicit. He tells us that God’s coming judgment through Jesus is “according to my Gospel.”&nbsp;Final judgment is part of the Gospel. It’s not a peripheral issue. It’s not an add-on. No, it’s fundamental to the Gospel.</p>

<p>Moreover, this is not unique with Paul. In his sermon to Cornelius and his family, Peter says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And <em>he commanded us</em> to preach to the people and to testify that <em>he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead</em>. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. (Acts 10:39b-43)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, the Gospel is preached. Peter proclaims the death and resurrection of Jesus. He preaches the forgiveness of sins for everyone who believes in him. But Peter doesn’t stop there. In fact, Jesus wouldn’t let him stop there. Read those words in verse 42 over again. Peter tells us that Jesus <em>commanded</em> the disciples to testify about the coming judgment. Specifically, Jesus orders His followers to tell people that He is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.</p>

<h2>God’s Love and Judgment are Presented Together</h2>

<p>If we are to remain faithful to Christ and His teaching, then there must be room in our message for the wrath of God that comes at the final judgment. True enough, God is kind and loving. But He is <em>also</em> just and holy. Presenting one without the other isn’t the Gospel. Both of these truths must be held together if we are to communicate the glorious Gospel revealed in Scripture.</p>

<p>A careful reading of the New Testament demonstrates this approach. God’s love and justice aren’t at odds with each other. In fact, they are often presented next to each other. For example, Paul writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. (Romans 2:4-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Within the same breath, Paul speaks of God’s kindness and His righteous judgment that comes on the day of wrath. Or, again, John writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life...Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:16, 36)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We must push back against the drift towards a seeker-sensitive Gospel. As faithful followers of Jesus, we don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing which parts of the Gospel we will communicate.</p>

<p>Always remember, the Gospel is <em>denied</em> if it is changed or compromised. These aren’t my words. Paul boldly states, “As we have said before, so now I say it again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed”&nbsp;(Galatians 1:9).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-gospel-without-final-judgment-is-not-the-gospel" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-gospel-without-final-judgment-is-not-the-gospel" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-gospel-without-final-judgment-is-not-the-gospel" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Universe from Nothing?
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-universe-from-nothing-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Could the universe have come from nothing? To most people, the question sounds absurd. From nothing, nothing comes. But some contemporary scientists have argued that something can come from nothing.</p>

<p>For example, in his book <em>A Universe from Nothing,</em> cosmologist Lawrence Krauss writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing”&nbsp;as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe. But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy, for surely “nothing”&nbsp;is every bit as physical as “something,”&nbsp;especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.”&nbsp;It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you’re scratching your head right now, you’re not alone. Clearly, Krauss is using the term <em>nothing</em> to mean something.</p>

<p>Likewise, cosmologist Stephen Hawking echoes this understanding in his book <em>The Grand Design.</em> He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At this point, we need to ask a <em>clarifying</em> question: <em>What do you mean by nothing?</em> This is a version of the first Columbo question from Greg Koukl’s book <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316" target="_blank">Tactics</a></em>.</p>

<p>There is an equivocation on the word <em>nothing</em>. To illustrate, consider the John Deere company slogan, “<em>Nothing runs like a Deere.”</em>&nbsp;This could be taken two ways. The machinery manufacturer could be saying that <em>no thing</em> runs like a Deere. That is, there is no machinery that can run like a Deere. Obviously, this is their intended meaning.</p>

<p>However, this slogan could be misrepresented to mean that there is something called “nothing”&nbsp;that runs like a Deere. This treats something as if it’s nothing when it’s really something. And this is exactly what Krauss and Hawking are doing.</p>

<p>This was brought home to me in a scathing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html" target="_blank">review</a> of Krauss’s book in <em>The New York Times</em>. David Albert is an atheist professor of philosophy at Columbia University with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In his book review, he writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings - if you look at them aright - amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Krauss and Hawking have <em>not</em> explained how you can get a universe from nothing. Rather, they take something - quantum field vacuum states - call it nothing and then confidently declare that you can get something from nothing. Yet, all they have done is explain how to get something from <em>something</em>. This is precisely why Albert concludes his review by boldly asserting, “As far as I can see, Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="Q9vlN8YjBvE" 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/Q9vlN8YjBvE?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%2Fa-universe-from-nothing-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-universe-from-nothing-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-universe-from-nothing-" 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: Slate’s Dishonest Article on When Life Begins
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/slate-s-dishonest-article-on-when-life-begins
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Slate</em> posted an <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html" target="_blank">article</a> the other week about bills that ban abortions after an embryo’s heartbeat is detected. It was a dishonest article that distorted the science and placed too great an emphasis on fringe religious belief.</p>

<p>The author argued that “Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins.”&nbsp;Really? I suppose “many”&nbsp;scientists could be dozens or even hundreds, but there are probably thousands that are confident that humans begin their existence when sperm and egg meet. Standard embryology and college-level textbooks teach that that life begins at conception. Even stalwart abortion-choice advocates like David Boonin and Peter Singer agree individual human life begins at conception. They still believe abortion should be legal, but it’s not because they think the current scientific or medical research is uncertain when life begins.</p>

<p><em>Slate</em> devoted most of its effort citing a slew of religions and their position on when life begins. The article’s researcher managed to find an abortion-choice advocate from every religious system. Apparently, they found Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews who all express uncertainty about this question. They even dug up a Bible verse, Exodus 21:22, which allegedly shows that Scripture doesn’t acknowledge the unborn to be equal to a born human (you can read STR’s take on that verse in <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/what-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion" target="_blank">this Solid Ground</a>). According to <em>Slate</em>, though, these various religious devotees think life begins over time, “not in a single moment but in a series of moments, none necessarily more important than the next.”&nbsp;I’m not sure what that means, actually. How do you begin to exist over time or a series of moments? You either exist or you don’t. Nevertheless, that answer satisfied the author.</p>

<p>According to the <em>Slate</em> article, the only religious adherent who thinks life begins at a precise moment is the “Christian Right.”&nbsp;Although the author didn’t overtly claim that in the text of the article, the wording is found in the URL for the article. Also, when you scroll down the article, there is a heading that remains at the top of the webpage that says, “When does life begin? Outside the Christian Right, the answer is ’over time.’”</p>

<p>I understand the article is about opposing bills that ban abortion once a heartbeat is detected, but I was surprised how far they went to suggest that both scientists and religious devotees agree that life begins over time. And while I’d support legislation that bans abortion at the point a heartbeat is heard, it’s not because I think life begins when we detect one. I know life begins at conception. Not only does my religious belief system acknowledge that, but the science of embryology decisively supports that view.</p>

<p>Read the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html" target="_blank">article</a> yourself, and then you can listen to my short <a href="http://issuesetc.org/2017/04/05/0952-responding-to-a-slate-column-on-when-life-begins-alan-shlemon-4517/" target="_blank">interview</a> with Issues, Etc. about <em>Slate’s</em> take on when life begins.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fslate-s-dishonest-article-on-when-life-begins" 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%2Fslate-s-dishonest-article-on-when-life-begins" 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%2Fslate-s-dishonest-article-on-when-life-begins" 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: “If My People, Who Are Called by My Name, Will Humble Themselves and Pray…”
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 05/03/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/-if-my-people-who-are-called-by-my-name-will-humble-themselves-and-pray-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Second Chronicles 7:14 is one of the most misinterpreted and mis-claimed verses in the Bible. But instead of just shutting someone down with a “you-took-that-verse-out-of-context”&nbsp;approach, you can help people discover and correct their own inadequate hermeneutic by gently walking them through four basic steps of proper biblical interpretation. Here are the steps applied to this passage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>STEP #1 - Help them identify the genre of the biblical passage. Second Chronicles primarily falls under the genre of historical narrative. More specifically, it can be categorized as “middle level”&nbsp;narrative, providing a documentary history of God’s people, Israel. With any narrative, it is vital to interpret the parts in light of the whole, and thus we must interpret 2 Chronicles in light of God’s covenant history with the nation of Israel.</p>

<p>STEP #2 - Help them with observations about the context of the passage. This could include literary, grammatical, historical, and cultural contexts. Since 2 Chronicles is historical narrative, we must locate this pericope in the larger narrative. First Chronicles begins with Israel’s genealogies and moves through the reign of Israel’s first two kings. Second Chronicles picks up with the reign of King Solomon and traces the Southern Kingdom through to the Babylonian exile.</p>

<p>In chapters 2-5, Solomon begins preparations for the construction of the temple and eventually completes its building. At the end of chapter 5, God fills the temple with His glory. In chapter 6, Solomon dedicates the temple, and at the beginning of chapter 7, Yahweh again responds with His glory, bringing us to our passage.</p>

<p>STEP #3 - In light of the first two steps, interpret the meaning of the passage. As we examine the “who, what, where, and when”&nbsp;of this passage, it becomes clear this is <em>not</em> a general formula for revival that many modern Christians take it to be. Who is God speaking to? He is speaking to Solomon: “Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him...”&nbsp;(v. 12). However, God clearly has the nation of Israel in view, as He refers to “My people”&nbsp;in verse 14.</p>

<p>When does God deliver His message, and to where is He referring? Verse 11 tells us Solomon has finished the “house of the Lord,”&nbsp;the new temple. It is after the construction of the temple and Solomon’s dedication that God chooses to speak to him. In the verse immediately following, God states He had “chosen <em>this place</em> for Myself as a house of sacrifice”&nbsp;(v. 12, emphasis mine). “This place”&nbsp;is the temple in Jerusalem. In light of who God is speaking to and when and where He is referring, the reference to “this land”&nbsp;in verse 14 is clearly the promised land of Israel. Therefore, when God says He will heal the land, Israel’s land is in view, not the land of the United States!</p>

<p>Furthermore, this alleged promise to Christians is typically taken to be one of spiritual healing or revival. However, when God promises to “heal their land,”&nbsp;the context suggests physical restoration, not spiritual restoration. Notice the physical references of verse 13: “If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people...”&nbsp;God would bring physical blessing for Israel’s obedience (Deut. 28:2-14) and physical cursing for disobedience (Deut. 28:15-68).</p>

<p>The structure of Solomon’s prayer and God’s response are reflective of the Mosaic covenant outlined in Deuteronomy 28. If Israel will “turn from their wicked ways,”&nbsp;blessing will ensue. If the Israelites “turn away and forsake [God’s] statues and [His] commandments,”&nbsp;the curses of the covenant will be enacted. Indeed, the conditions of the covenant are played out in the history of Israel. The disobedience of the Southern Kingdom results in their exile to Babylon in 586 B.C., and the Assyrians conquer the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.</p>

<p>STEP #4 - Help them apply the meaning of the passage to their life. Rather than discover an application to “my personal life”&nbsp;from this passage, <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/how-can-i-know-which-bible-promises-apply-me#.WQoAoFMrJR0">we discover the nature and character of God</a>. Contrary to the common misconception that the God of the Old Testament is an angry vindictive deity, we see a God who is patient, long-suffering, and gracious. Yahweh would have been justified in bringing destruction to Israel much earlier in their history, as they continually forsook Him. Instead, He patiently bears with their disobedience and forgives their wicked ways. He was faithful, even when Israel was faithless. This is the same God who now offers us redemption and reconciliation in the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-if-my-people-who-are-called-by-my-name-will-humble-themselves-and-pray-" 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-if-my-people-who-are-called-by-my-name-will-humble-themselves-and-pray-" 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-if-my-people-who-are-called-by-my-name-will-humble-themselves-and-pray-" 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: For the Student Who Wants to Be a Christian Apologist
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/16/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/for-the-student-who-wants-to-be-a-christian-apologist
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I received an email from a high school student who was interested in becoming a Christian apologist but didn’t know where to start. Below are the links I compiled for him. (A few of my suggestions apply specifically to his age group, but most are not age dependent.)</p>

<p>Greg has given advice to aspiring apologists a few times on the podcast—most recently, <a href="/w/greg-celebrates-str-s-24th-anniversary" target="_blank">here</a> (listen at 00:43), and we have posts covering various aspects of this topic:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/bloom-where-you-re-planted" target="_blank">Bloom Where You’re Planted</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-" target="_blank">You Want to Be a Good Apologist?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/strengthen-the-basics-in-2015" target="_blank">Strengthen the Basics</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/tips-for-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible" target="_blank">Tips for Memorizing a Book of the Bible</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-plan-to-begin-a-year-of-learning" target="_blank">A Plan to Begin a Year of Learning</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/advice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker" target="_blank">Advice on Becoming an Apologetics Speaker</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/crossexamined-instructor-academy-2017" target="_blank">CrossExamined Instructor Academy</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/five-apologetics-questions-you-need-to-think-through" target="_blank">Five Apologetics Questions You Need to Think Through</a></li>
	<li><a href="/ambassadors-creed" target="_blank">Ambassador Model and Ambassador’s Creed</a></li>
</ul>

<p>In addition, we highly recommend you get some in-depth training in worldview and apologetics, and if you’re a high school student, there are some great options open to you! Here are a few programs we recommend:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.summit.org/programs/student-conferences/" target="_blank">Summit Student Conferences</a> (two weeks)</li>
	<li><a href="http://impact360institute.org/propel" target="_blank">Impact 360 Propel</a> (one week)</li>
	<li><a href="http://impact360institute.org/immersion" target="_blank">Impact 360 Immersion</a> (two weeks)</li>
	<li><a href="http://impact360institute.org/gap-year" target="_blank">Impact 360 Gap Year</a> (nine months)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biola.edu/apologetics/certificate" target="_blank">Biola’s Online Certificate Program in Christian Apologetics</a> (not specifically for high school students, but open to them)</li>
</ul>

<p>Keep learning and growing! Whatever you do, stay in close fellowship with Christians in your church, guard your character, rest in the Gospel, and keep your eyes on Jesus:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/do-you-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-" target="_blank">Do You Convey a Sense of the Reality, Centrality, and Desirability of Jesus with Your Apologetics?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/only-one-thing-will-keep-you-going" target="_blank">Only One Thing Will Keep You Going</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/what-you-ll-need-most-to-continue-to-engage-atheists" target="_blank">What You’ll Need Most to Continue to Engage Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace" target="_blank">Be a Parable of God’s Grace</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/use-your-knowledge-to-serve-others-not-judge-them" target="_blank">Use Your Knowledge to Serve Others, Not Judge Them</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/how-much-would-you-pay-for-integrity-" target="_blank">How Much Would You Pay for Integrity?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-warning-to-apologists-about-sin" target="_blank">A Warning to Apologists about Sin</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned" target="_blank">Free to Say We’ve Sinned</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/humility-is-needed-to-see-jesus" target="_blank">Humility Is Needed to See Jesus</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Most importantly, think, think, think about the Gospel. Saturate yourself with it. Let it shape you and your ministry:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Look-Live-Behold-Soul-Thrilling-Sin-Destroying/dp/0764212516/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1494878319&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=look+and+live" target="_blank">Look and Live: Behold the Soul-Thrilling, Sin-Destroying Glory of Christ</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Deeps-Reveling-Excellencies-Jesus/dp/1433526409/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1494878362&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Gospel Deeps: Reveling in the Excellencies of Jesus</a></li>
</ul>

<p>A final note: The two biggest mistakes I see being made by people who aspire to be in the apologetics world are these: neglecting theology (particularly regarding Christ and the Gospel) and neglecting fellowship in a local church. If you want to protect your soul, persevere in your work, and keep Jesus central in all your teaching, then pursue theology and face-to-face fellowship intentionally and tenaciously.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffor-the-student-who-wants-to-be-a-christian-apologist" 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%2Ffor-the-student-who-wants-to-be-a-christian-apologist" 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%2Ffor-the-student-who-wants-to-be-a-christian-apologist" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Value of Disappointment
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-value-of-disappointment
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Zach Barnhart’s “<a href="http://ftc.co/resource-library/1/2752" target="_blank">God Loves Us Enough to Disappoint Us</a>”&nbsp;is a good meditation for Good Friday. The disciples of Jesus also suffered great disappointment the day Jesus, the center of all their hopes, died on the cross, but we know how that turned out in the end.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I have been disappointed by how my job search in ministry has gone thus far. And that disappointment is perhaps one of God’s greatest blessings to me in this entire process.</p>

<p>God loves us enough to disappoint us. What I mean is, God often wants to give us something greater than we can see. He often wants to teach us through our trials, instead of making our life trial-free. He wants to bring us to the end of ourselves, so that we will stop trying to earn our righteousness. He wants to undo us, that He might bind us together...</p>

<p>What if God, in my season of waiting, is trying to show me that I am not powerful enough to do this on my own? What if He is inviting me to a deeper trust in Him, a better understanding of patience, and a real commitment to a long obedience in the same direction? What if this season drives me into the spiritual disciplines with greater hope to know and listen to God?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you are living with disappointment today, take heart! God has promised He is working all things together to make you like Christ (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A28-29&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Rom. 8:28-29</a>). And if you are conformed to His death now in your disappointment, you will also be conformed to His resurrected life in the end (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+3%3A8-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Phil. 3:8-11</a>). For now, let your losses do their good work of moving you to seek the God “who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+4%3A17&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Rom. 4:17</a>).</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://www.challies.com/a-la-carte/a-la-carte-april-7-4" target="_blank">Tim Challies</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-value-of-disappointment" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-value-of-disappointment" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-value-of-disappointment" 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 the Gospel Central?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-gospel-central-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some people enjoy controversy. I don’t. I know that might sound strange given the topics I publicly address: Islam, homosexuality, abortion, evolution, and many others. People ask me, “Why do you spend so much time talking about these side issues and not the Gospel?”&nbsp;It’s a fair question.</p>

<p>The reality is that I address those controversial topics <em>because</em> I care about the Gospel. I train Christians how to understand and address these subjects for a simple reason: They are obstacles to the Gospel. Many non-believers hold views about Islam, evolution, homosexuality, and other hot topics that they believe disqualify Christianity from consideration. I’m not saying every non-believer thinks that, but I’m often confronted with many who do. That’s why I want to train Christians to know how to move these obstacles to the Gospel out of the way so non-believers can more easily accept the claims of Christ.</p>

<p>The great Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen was concerned about this very thing. Nearly 100 years ago, he warned, “False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which...prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”&nbsp;If we allow our culture to believe false ideas that are contrary to the Gospel, then it will make our missional efforts more difficult.</p>

<p>Holding to false ideas about Islam, homosexuality, evolution, etc. causes people to think Christianity is a delusion and Christians are out to lunch. The false ideas become barriers to the Gospel. Apologetics helps believers to know how to remove them from the non-believer’s path to Christ, but it’s not an end in itself. It’s a means to an end. The end is the Gospel, but apologetics can help clear the path that holds people back from accepting it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-gospel-central-" 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-the-gospel-central-" 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-the-gospel-central-" 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: Perhaps the Biggest Threat to Our Kids’ Faith
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/19/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/perhaps-the-biggest-threat-to-our-kids-faith
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Certainly, the host of intellectual challenges our young people face are a threat to their faith. But how often does the typical evangelical kid face the arguments of an atheist or a skeptic? Don’t misread me. Of course we must equip our kids with good apologetics and the ability to deal with skeptical challenges because our youth will encounter them. However, how often will our kids face the challenges of technology? Every. Single. Day. Technology is omnipresent in a student’s world. Whether it’s the <a href="http://www.youthministrymedia.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1fbc22dce3ce8b997840590a7f1d5d03.jpg?inf_contact_key=34d5900327e59645608570a77b26ccf0efee13d6e5dc0045c07a361a1c2dd53e" target="_blank">internet</a>, <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/632632/what-social-media-likes-teens-brains" target="_blank">social media</a>, or their <a href="https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Teens-Ownership-of-Smartphones-Has-Surged/1014161" target="_blank">smartphones</a>, students are daily bombarded with the pressures and provocations of technology. And those challenges can be just as powerful as the challenges of the atheist or skeptic.</p>

<p>Technology:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Makes students passive and apathetic.</li>
	<li>Creates distracted young minds.</li>
	<li>Decreases their desire and ability to read.</li>
	<li>Decreases attention spans and the ability to think and concentrate.</li>
	<li>Creates addiction to the screen. (Indeed, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/health/teenagers-drugs-smartphones.html?_r=0" target="_blank">some research suggests</a> teens are replacing their drug addiction with smart phone addiction. Teens are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-johnson/teens-addicted-to-social-_b_9696378.html" target="_blank">addicted to social media</a>, as well.)</li>
	<li>Rewires a student’s brain.</li>
	<li>Inculcates the values of pop culture.</li>
	<li>Allows unfettered access to pornography.</li>
</ol>

<p>Ultimately, the impact of technology has tremendous potential to slowly but surely erode and undermine the faith of the next generation. So what are parents, pastors, Christian educators and youth workers to do? Put in some hard work to understand this technological revolution and be intentional to combat its harmful and corrosive effects on our youth. In addition, find ways to harness technology for good. Here are five suggestions to equip yourself so that you can equip your kids:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Preorder the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Culture-Generation-Navigate/dp/1434711013" target="_blank"><em>A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World</em></a>. John Stonestreet and I spend part of the book tackling technology and show how it shapes our kids, as well as offer practical steps parents and youth leaders can take to help guide their students through this challenge.</li>
	<li>Buy and read Kathy Koch’s excellent book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Screens-Teens-Connecting-Wireless-World/dp/0802412696/" target="_blank">Screens and Teens: Connecting With Our Kids in a Wireless World</a></em>. Kathy helps parents understand the lies that technology feeds our kids and offers helpful practices parents can put into place in their family life.</li>
	<li>Subscribe to the <a href="https://axis.org/ct/" target="_blank">The Culture Translator</a> weekly emails from <a href="https://axis.org" target="_blank">AXIS</a> and “gain weekly insight into how pop culture, technology, and media are influencing your students.”</li>
	<li>Set aside some time to read this interview on “<a href="https://tonyreinke.com/2017/01/07/smartphones-and-how-they-change-us-an-interview-with-alastair-roberts/" target="_blank">Smartphones and How They Change Us.</a>”&nbsp;It offers some of the most penetrating insight into the impact of technology on our souls that I have read.</li>
	<li>Purchase and watch John Stonestreet’s talk “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=6&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiWp8i3majTAhWJiFQKHR38CLQQFgg-MAU&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.summit.org%2Fresources%2Farticles%2Famusing-ourselves-to-death%2F&amp;usg=AFQjCNFr-xZIhU-QiFkBD6USwIPBxCFFeQ" target="_blank">Amusing Ourselves to Death</a>”&nbsp;from Summit Ministries. John’s talk is excellent.</li>
</ol>

<p>Choose one or two and start immediately. The faith of the next generation may depend on it.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Cost Muslims Pay for Missing Jesus
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-cost-muslims-pay-for-missing-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Got Jesus? Muslims think they do. They believe He’s a prophet, was born of a virgin, given divine revelation, and could raise the dead to life. Despite His lofty status, Muslims still hold a deficient and distorted view of Jesus. It’s a tragic case of mistaken identity with dire consequences. Here are three ways Muslims mistake the true Jesus.</p>

<p><strong>Muslims miss Jesus’&nbsp;relationship</strong>. Muslims believe Allah is a transcendent God, meaning he is separate and distinct from his creation. This makes Allah a foreign and distant being, completely out of reach from humanity. Muslims, consequently, don’t pursue a relationship with God. They merely obey God.</p>

<p>Although Christians also believe God is transcendent, Scripture teaches He is immanent. This means God enters into His creation, interacts with His created beings, and develops a relationship with them. Jesus is a prime example of God’s immanence. By taking on human nature, God became like us in order to relate to us (and, of course, die for us). Jesus also models this intimacy when He teaches us to call to God in prayer with, “Abba, Father.”&nbsp;We can approach the God of the universe with the same relational closeness as a child coming to his father.</p>

<p>This intimate and familial relationship that Christians enjoy with God, though, is precisely what’s missing with Muslims who serve Allah. Jesus is the Son of God and the One through whom we have a personal relationship with God. Because Muslims reject the idea that Jesus is the only mediator between us and God, they’re robbed of their only means to know and relate to Him.</p>

<p><strong>Muslims miss Jesus’&nbsp;peace</strong>. Most Muslims believe Islam is a religion of peace. Although I think they sincerely desire to live peaceful lives (and most do), authoritative sources in Islam justify violent jihad in some cases. Not only is this teaching found in the Qur’an, but it’s modeled by Mohammed, the paradigm example of Muslim living. He authorized the use of force, led major military campaigns, and ordered the assassination of non-combatants. Furthermore, there is the historical precedent of violent conquest during the first 100 years of Islamic expansion across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.</p>

<p>By contrast, Christianity had <em>no army</em> during the first 300 years of expansion. Despite intense persecution, including the killing of its adherents, Christianity rapidly spread across the map. Christians didn’t engage in military conquest because Christ neither authorized nor modeled such behavior. He was - and is - the paradigm example for every believer. Jesus lived such a peaceful life that many people today believe He was a pacifist. He never retaliated towards those who sought to harm Him, even after multiple assassination attempts. When soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword to protect Christ from being captured. Jesus, however, reprimanded him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.”&nbsp;He even reminded Peter that He could ask the Father to summon 12 legions of angels if He really intended to use violence to achieve His purpose (Matt. 26:53).</p>

<p>Even Jesus’&nbsp;final directive to His followers, “The Great Commission,”&nbsp;is a command to make disciples of all nations. Notice, this is a <em>persuasive</em> enterprise, not a <em>military</em> one. If Muslims want to follow a religious system that prescribes peace, they should model their lives after Jesus, the Prince of Peace.</p>

<p><strong>Muslims miss Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection</strong>. The Qur’an, Islam’s highest authority, teaches that Christ was not killed (Surah 4:157). Without His death, there is no resurrection. Without a death and resurrection, there is no atonement for sin. Without atonement for sin, no one can be absolved of their guilt. They remain objects of God’s wrath.</p>

<p>By denying Christ’s death and resurrection, Muslims lose their chance to be at peace with God. Jesus offers all people an opportunity to take Him up on His offer. He willingly substitutes His life to be punished on our behalf so we can be free from God’s wrath. By denying Christ’s work on the cross, Muslims forfeit the only means of achieving peace with God.</p>

<p>There’s no doubt that Muslims have thwarted peace around the world at times, but it’s only because they’ve missed the true Jesus: His relationship, His peace, and the power of His resurrection. Only the Gospel can secure for Muslims what Islam never can - an eternal relationship of peace with the resurrected and living Lord.</p>

<p>Although Muslims miss Jesus in these three ways, Christians also sometimes miss an aspect of Jesus: His perspective. Christians who treat Muslims like the <em>enemy</em> are missing the fact that Muslims are actually <em>hostages of the enemy</em>. Satan is our true enemy. He erects strongholds to hold people captive (2 Cor. 10:3-5). To Christ, Muslims are image-bearers of God, intrinsically valuable, and deserve dignity, respect, and the opportunity to respond to the Gospel. We should see them through His eyes.</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-cost-muslims-pay-for-missing-jesus" 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-cost-muslims-pay-for-missing-jesus" 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-cost-muslims-pay-for-missing-jesus" 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: Case Study: Deconversion
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/case-study-deconversion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some skills are easier caught than taught.</p>

<p>In my <a href="/w/four-things-you-can-do-when-someone-challenges-your-faith-february-mentoring-letter-2017">February Mentoring Letter</a> to you, I taught you how to deal with apparently daunting charges raised against Christianity by breaking the process down into steps. This move simplifies the process, allowing you to focus on one thing at a time and deal with different parts of an issue piece by piece.</p>

<p>Sometimes, though, offering an actual case study of a specific set of complaints against your convictions is a good way to learn how the process works. That’s why I decided to walk you through the process using a rhetorically aggressive challenge to Christianity that I came across recently. The effort may help you by providing some answers to the specific points of the challenge, but it may also help you to absorb the process of how this is done—again, the “caught versus taught”&nbsp;concept.</p>

<p>I say “rhetorically aggressive”&nbsp;because I do not think the issues themselves are especially substantive. However, to a casual reader they may <em>appear</em> that way since they’re embedded in a “deconversion”&nbsp;story—an account of a Christian who became an atheist. Stories like these have a unique dynamic since they come from someone who had once been in fellowship, yet still found Christianity wanting for some reason.</p>

<h2>A Deconversion Story</h2>

<p>Deconversion stories are daunting. This one is especially so since it purports to tell us not just why a former Christian changed his mind, but why people like him will never be converted again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. That sort of thing.</p>

<p>The story I have in mind is summed up in the article, “Why the Gospel Doesn’t Work on Deconverts,”&nbsp;written by Neil Carter. You can read it for yourself at patheos.com. <sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Your first time through might make you uncomfortable, though. Carter is articulate and the challenge sounds compelling. That’s where our system comes in.</p>

<p>If you recall, I told you to first clarify the claim, what I called “the big idea.”&nbsp;Get a fix on exactly what’s being charged or asserted. What’s the specific point the challenge is meant to persuade you of? Second, list the reasons the person thinks his charge against your view is legitimate. This is the “because”&nbsp;factor. Your friend is right and you are wrong <em>because</em> of something. What is that? Finally, do an assessment taking one point at a time asking if the reasons support the big idea.</p>

<p>That’s the system. Pretty straightforward.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Carter uses Tim Keller’s best-selling defense of Christianity, <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD025"><em>The Reason for God</em></a>, as a foil to organize his misgivings. My main concern here is not to defend Keller—he’s perfectly capable of that himself—but to assess Carter’s argument.</p>

<p>Now to the big idea. What does Carter want you to be convinced of—or at least be considering—once you have finished reading his story? He actually states it twice, nicely bookending his article fore and aft with the same sentiment.</p>

<p>In the first paragraph Carter says that even though he and other deconverts “gave our hearts and our lives entirely over to Jesus, yet in the end we still found [the evangelical] belief system lacking.”&nbsp;In his last line he concludes, “We left because we discovered it was the belief system itself that was broken, not we ourselves.”</p>

<p>That’s the big idea. Now to our second step. What are the reasons Carter thinks Christianity is “lacking”? In what ways is it “broken”?</p>

<p>First, Carter says, he tried Christianity and it didn’t work—“Been there; done that,”&nbsp;as he puts it. Second, since “everything you do is wrong”&nbsp;the game is subtly rigged with antiquated ideas of sin and guilt to condemn everyone, invalidating even the most moral among us. Third, the appeal to “have faith”&nbsp;in the midst of doubt is anti-intellectual and entails question-begging regarding the Bible’s inspiration. Finally, the advice to “join a church”&nbsp;is an invitation to hang with people who often <em>act</em> like scum because they’re constantly being told “they <em>are</em> scum”&nbsp;(point two). [emphasis mine]</p>

<p>According to Carter, then, Christianity is “lacking”&nbsp;or “broken”&nbsp;<em>because</em> of these concerns. Of course, I’m sure Carter has much more to say about his discontent with Christianity than what he’s written in this article, but I want to simply take this as a stand-alone piece since that’s how many will read it.</p>

<h2>Negative Noise</h2>

<p>Before I dive in, let me give you a general tip for navigating discussions like this. Discipline yourself to ignore the negative noise.</p>

<p>In parleys about emotionally charged issues, especially spiritual ones, it’s not unusual for disparaging, derisive, or sarcastic language to creep into the conversation. In Carter’s case, phrases like “the belief system they are trying to sell us,”&nbsp;and “even on our deathbeds we would have to simply trust that we weren’t sold a bill of goods”&nbsp;are part of the rhetorical gamesmanship meant to subtly color the discussion.</p>

<p>Don’t take it personally and don’t be distracted by that kind of chatter. Whether you’re reading an article or having a conversation, try to tune out the negative noise. In the long run, the rhetorical “spin”&nbsp;doesn’t count in the assessment. Sidestep anything that sounds snarky or snide. Let it go and focus on the substance.</p>

<h2>“Been There; Done That”?</h2>

<p>The mere existence of people like Neil Carter is unnerving for Christians, “like flies in the ointment of evangelical theology,”&nbsp;he says. Describing how “sold out”&nbsp;for Jesus that deconverts once were he writes, “We held back nothing and committed every fiber of our being to loving and serving Jesus. We did everything exactly the way we were supposed to.”</p>

<p>There is particular power to testimonies of a changed mind. Atheist Michael Shermer, founder of <em>Skeptic</em> magazine, has his own Christian deconversion story he opens with when he debates Christians. Bart Ehrman, the bestselling author and aggressive critic of Christianity, followed a similar path. But so does atheist-turned-Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel. These testimonies cut both ways.</p>

<p>So, what do we say to people who try Christianity and then walk away saying it simply does not work for them? That’s a hard question to answer.</p>

<p>Human psychology is complex. People disagree on spiritual things for a wide variety of rationales, many that have nothing to do with reason at all. Something persuasive to one will not convince another. It’s hard for anyone—including the person himself—to sift through all the relevant factors. A whole range of rational and psychological factors are in play.</p>

<p>Sometimes people find Christianity wanting because of unmet expectations. A popular slogan during the Jesus Movement was, “Jesus is the answer,”&nbsp;which sounded fine until one wit asked, “What is the question?”&nbsp;In a similar way, whenever anyone asks, “Does Jesus work?”&nbsp;I say, “That depends. What do you expect Him to do?”</p>

<p>Jesus “works”&nbsp;for some things, but not for others. He does all He was intended to do, but He promises nothing more. Jesus will save you if you trust Him for it, but there is no promise He will save your marriage, or your children, or your business. If you count on that, you may be disappointed.</p>

<p>Some people are disenchanted with Christianity not because they expected too much of <em>Jesus</em>, but because they expected too much of <em>themselves</em>. They thought salvation depended on them in some sense. Instead of trusting God’s grace, they trusted their own goodness. But that will always sink their ship.</p>

<p>Here is what I want you to think about with deconversion stories in either direction (Christian to atheist or atheist to Christian). The issue to focus on is not how really convinced someone was in the past and how genuinely unconvinced they are now. The issue, rather, is the <em>reasons</em> that they think justify the change.</p>

<p>Instead of being distracted—and possibly discouraged—by the strength of someone’s <em>emotions</em> regarding his old beliefs, we need to focus on the strength of his <em>reasons</em> for rejecting those beliefs. In the final analysis, that’s all that matters, so let’s see how Carter’s reasons fare.</p>

<h2>“Everything You Do Is Wrong”?</h2>

<p>Carter writes, “Reformed folks [Calvinists, like Keller] enjoy reminding us of how faithfully they love things that ceased being cool centuries ago.”&nbsp;He calls it a kind of “chronological snobbery”&nbsp;in reverse where we inappropriately import cultural values of the past—like human depravity and the need for repentance—into the present. “The Christian faith is at bottom an anti-humanistic faith,”&nbsp;he writes, since it teaches that “people are fundamentally broken and...need saving from themselves.”</p>

<p>But it’s worse. The game is subtly “rigged”&nbsp;so no one can win on their own. We must repent not only of the bad stuff, but also of the good stuff we do attempting to save ourselves. This “invalidate[s] the moral fortitude of everyone alive...You can get all of the answers right and still fail the test.”</p>

<p>Two thoughts here.</p>

<p>One, it is not chronological snobbery in reverse to say something that was universally true 2000 years ago is still universally true today. The idea of something being outdated may work in the fashion industry or in technology, but it has no bearing on the issue of moral or spiritual truth. A notion may turn out to be false, but not simply because it has gone out of fashion.</p>

<p>Two, the real question is whether or not man is and always has been fallen—sinful and guilty, needing repentance and forgiveness. Yes, you can get all the answers right and still fail the test because getting the answers right is not the test. Salvation is not based on scoring high on a theological pop quiz or following all the rules, but rather on humbly beating your breast with the tax collector of Jesus’&nbsp;parable saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner”&nbsp;(Lk. 18:13).</p>

<p>Carter makes much about pastors making us feel guilty. It’s not the pastor’s aim, though, to make us feel lower than we are, but rather to help us take stock of what most of us already know is true—that something is morally wrong at our core. Indeed, if we were not deeply aware of our own need of forgiveness, it’s hard to imagine how the offer would be appealing to begin with. Offering water to a person who’s not thirsty is a waste of time. Yes, maybe some of our guilty feelings are fabricated. But <em>all</em> of them? No, pastors are not manufacturing guilt; they are pointing out blame that is already there, fault that we already know is ours.</p>

<p>As for the game being rigged, all systems of law require full compliance. No amount of moral fortitude atones for moral failure. There is no law in any legal system that one can break with impunity without being held responsible for the violation. And obeying most of the others doesn’t make up for the broken ones. Carter might disagree we are under such a law, fair enough. But it’s not trickery. It’s not rigging the game.</p>

<p>This alleged liability at the core of Christian religion, then, is the claim that, as Jesus pointed out, sinners need to be rescued (Lk. 6:31-32) since no one is good save God alone (Lk. 18:19). The question we’re faced with here is fairly simple: Was Jesus right? Are we guilty or not?</p>

<p>We certainly <em>feel</em> guilty about a lot of things—if we’re morally healthy (only psychopaths never feel guilty). True moral guilt is not <em>based on</em> feelings, of course. You can do bad without feeling bad (like those psychopaths). But do we have good reason to believe we <em>are</em> guilty, feelings aside?</p>

<p>Chesterton famously observed that original sin is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> One might ask why the atheists’&nbsp;complaint about evil is so pervasive if humans are not in the habit of doing evil. Our belief in human depravity is not anti-humanistic, but properly realistic.</p>

<h2>“Try Not to Think So Much”?</h2>

<p>Carter writes, “There is nothing morally inferior about demanding that things make sense, or requiring that claims be supported by external evidence”—this in response to Keller’s appeal not to wait for every doubt to be vanquished before making an intelligent decision for Christ.</p>

<p>Regarding Carter’s basic point, I agree entirely. It’s proper to ask for good reasons. His application here is a bit surprising, though, considering his article is a response to Keller’s book. In <em>The Reason for God</em> Keller argues—as others have<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup>—that the basic storyline of Christianity actually <em>does</em> make sense, on the main, and he provides abundant reasons for thinking so.</p>

<p>Are there unanswered questions? Of course. However, Keller’s point is that we are justified trusting God for what we do <em>not</em> know precisely because of the things we have good reason to believe we <em>do</em> know. There is nothing anti-intellectual about this. Atheism itself is famous for its own inexplicable and wildly counter-intuitive outliers—everything came from nothing, life came from non-life, consciousness came from matter, etc.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Nevertheless, Carter claims, “This is almost certainly why the apostle Paul made it clear that the Christian message will always appear as foolishness to some—he knew good and well that what he claimed was absurd. He simply believed it anyway.”</p>

<p>This is simply an unfair reading of Paul. Yes, Paul warned his readers that, in Carter’s words, “They’re going to think it’s baloney, folks.”&nbsp;True enough. Paul readily acknowledged that Christianity would appear absurd to <em>some</em>.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Paul <em>himself</em> did not think it absurd, though, mere nonsense simply to be believed regardless of the facts. Instead, he consistently made appeal to the evidence, famously stating that if Christians were deluded at critical points, like the resurrection, then “we are of all men most to be pitied”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 15:19). These are not words you’d expect from a man advocating leaps of blind faith.</p>

<p>There is more evidence of Christian thoughtlessness, though, Carter says. It has to do with the way believers (Keller, in this case) appeal to the Bible. He raises two complaints.</p>

<p>In response to Keller’s point that in the absence of “watertight arguments”&nbsp;we can still trust a “watertight person,”&nbsp;Carter says:</p>

<p>If we haven’t yet been given sufficient reason to believe that the story of Jesus is based in reality, what good would it do to encourage us to trust that Jesus wouldn’t lead us astray? How would we even know what Jesus says in the first place if not for the book that we’ve just finished telling you we haven’t been convinced tells the truth?</p>

<p>Here, I think, Carter has a point. If he has considered the substantial historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth and still concludes that the story is not “based in reality,”&nbsp;then we’re at a standstill on that point. As I said earlier, different people respond in very different ways to the very same evidence, and there’s not much we can do about that.</p>

<p>Carter’s second complaint, though, is misguided. He says it’s circular to appeal to Jesus for evidence of the Bible’s divine origin since one must quote the Bible to do so, thus presuming what must be proven.</p>

<p>After quoting Keller—“I take the whole Bible to be reliable...because I believe in Jesus and that was his view of the Bible”—Carter responds, “How do you know that Jesus subscribed to the infallibility of the Bible? Because the Bible says he did? Forgive me, but the circularity of this evokes genuine laughter.”</p>

<p>Laugh if you like, but it is not necessarily circular to believe the full inspiration of the Bible because Jesus in the Bible said it was inspired. There are actually two ways to make this point. Here is the circular one: The Bible is inspired by God because the Bible says so, and if God is the author of the Bible then He would not lie. Notice that this version presumes as evidence for its conclusion the very thing it needs to prove, thus making it circular. I know of no one who argues this way, however, certainly not Keller.</p>

<p>The second way is to approach the Gospels just like one would any other primary-source historical record of antiquity: as accounts of a person’s life—Jesus, in this case—written by mere mortals. If the history is shown to be sound, then we can have confidence of Jesus’&nbsp;views about a host of things without making any presumption about divine inspiration.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Simply put, there is no need to assume the infallibility of the Bible in order to be reasonably confident the Gospel authors accurately recorded what Jesus taught—including His views about the rest of the Bible. Using this approach, it is not circular to appeal <em>from</em> the Bible to determine Jesus’&nbsp;views <em>about</em> the Bible.</p>

<h2>“Join a Church”?</h2>

<p>Finally, Carter thinks Keller’s advice to “join a church”&nbsp;is not at all helpful since recent scandals—along with personal experience—reveal “how routinely Christian community falls short.”&nbsp;Carter thinks “this is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy...If you keep telling people they are scum, they will conclude they aren’t capable of any better.”</p>

<p>This complaint completely mystifies me. It appears that Carter believes people are not fundamentally broken (his second point), but only act that way in churches because they are constantly told they are (his fourth point). This makes no sense. People who <em>aren’t</em> really bad, start <em>behaving</em> really bad, because they think they <em>are</em> really bad, because they’ve been <em>told</em> they’re really bad?</p>

<p>I don’t know what church Carter went to that routinely taught him he was scum, but in 43 years of church-going all over the country I have never heard such a thing. Sinners in need of repentance? Yes. Despicable, worthless filth? No. Jesus doesn’t die for scum. The price He paid was precious because that which He purchased was precious.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> If anything, the church in America leans much more towards approbation and love than towards denigration and law.</p>

<p>Ironically, Carter admits to finding the same evils outside the church as well (“human problems...plague every other religion and subculture on the planet, my own tribe included”), so I fail to see how this is a mark against Christianity. People are broken inside the church, and people are broken outside the church. On this I agree, but that sounds a lot like old-fashioned human depravity to me, despite Carter’s denials.</p>

<p>Has Carter shown that Christianity is “lacking,”&nbsp;“broken”&nbsp;in some vital sense? Ultimately you have to decide for yourself, but now you have a tool to help you do so. All it takes is three steps to make a fair assessment: Clarify the claim, list the reasons, then assess. Not that tricky.</p>

<p><a href="/greg-koukl">Find out where STR speakers will be teaching.</a></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Patheos.com, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/11/23/why-the-gospel-doesnt-work-on-deconverts/. [link] <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">It might be a good exercise for you to read Carter’s article and do your own assessment first before seeing how I evaluate it. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">G.K. Chesterton, <em>Orthodoxy</em>, chap. 2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">See, for example, Gregory Koukl’s <em>The Story of Reality</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Keller explores the serious liabilities of an atheistic, materialistic view of reality in his excellent book, <em>Making Sense of God</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See 1 Cor. 1:18-25. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">For a thorough treatment of this issue, see J. Warner Wallace’s superb <em>Cold-Case Christianity</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">1 Pet. 1:18-19. <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%2Fcase-study-deconversion" 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%2Fcase-study-deconversion" 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%2Fcase-study-deconversion" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Realistic Look at Suffering
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-realistic-look-at-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve written a lot <a href="/search?q=suffering&amp;userName=amy%20k.%20hall&amp;category=35243">about suffering</a> on this blog. It’s dangerous for Christians to ignore this topic while things are going their way. We’re all going to <a href="/w/christians-you-will-suffer">face suffering</a>, and if we’re not ready for it - if we haven’t carefully considered the theology involved, if we’re expecting God <a href="/w/don-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain">to protect us from all pain</a> - we will be shaken.</p>

<p>But even if you’ve accepted the fact that you will endure some suffering, and you know that God has many good purposes for it, you may yet have some unrealistic expectations, which is why I appreciated Charlene Nelson’s realistic portrayal of the experience of suffering in “<a href="http://cometochrist.ca/suffering-is-not-magic-and-mountaintops/" target="_blank">Suffering Is Not Magic and Mountaintops</a>.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christians, myself included, talk a lot about the deep things they have learned through suffering, but sometimes our talk might leave people with a sanitized view, like suffering draws a tidy straight line towards Jesus and holiness, and those who walk the path are always glowing. During the most challenging year of my life, when I felt anything but glowing, my number one question was: Why doesn’t it feel like God is bringing anything good out of this?</p>

<p>I was reading my bible, praying, singing hymns, and seeking to please God in the middle of suffering, probably more than at any other time, but <em>rarely</em> did I feel like I was actually growing. And <em>rarely</em> did I feel super-close to God. I felt my sin more desperately and painfully. I felt my need for God to sustain me at a far deeper level than other times. But I was <em>still</em> broken in my heart, and neither the physical or emotional pain I felt would leave me often. Sometimes I felt like God must not see me or really understand how shattered and lost I felt, because if He did, wouldn’t He see that He needed to remove His stroke from me?</p>

<p>There were a few “mountain top”&nbsp;moments, but mostly clinging to the edge of the cliff. Mostly pleading for water in the desert. Mostly seeking a way out of the wilderness...</p>

<p>So many times, I have said (in my doubt) “<em>God is not making me better spiritually. He isn’t making me stronger. He is tearing me apart, and I don’t understand why</em>.”</p>

<p>I really struggled with that for a time. I couldn’t see or feel that God was doing any amazing kind of work in me. It wasn’t until recently, over a year later, that I got to have the experience of realizing that God indeed <em>had</em> done good work in me, and that previous days of trouble had not been in vain.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please read the rest of her <a href="http://cometochrist.ca/suffering-is-not-magic-and-mountaintops/" target="_blank">post</a> for more. She encourages all of us to be open about our struggles and to allow others to be honest with us about theirs:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[S]uffering people need to know they can be safe to struggle alongside other believers, and not have to pretend they are on a mountaintop perpetually. They can say: “This is hard, and right now I am barely getting by.”&nbsp;We need to get comfortable with that.</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%2Fa-realistic-look-at-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%2Fa-realistic-look-at-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%2Fa-realistic-look-at-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: Is It Pagan to Believe God’s Wrath Needs to Be Appeased?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/10/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-pagan-to-believe-god-s-wrath-needs-to-be-appeased-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The idea of an angry god needing to be appeased by a human sacrifice conjures up all kinds of images. Speaking of the various atonement theories, pastor Brian Zahnd <a href="https://brianzahnd.com/2014/04/dying-sins-work/" target="_blank">writes</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I find most of them inadequate; others I find repellent. Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is <em>not</em> the Abba of Jesus!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The “abhorrent”&nbsp;theory that Zahnd is referring to goes by the name <em>penal substitutionary atonement (PSA)</em>. This is the idea that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserve as the punishment for our sins. On this view, the sacrificial death of Christ <em>appeased</em> God’s wrath.</p>

<p>For Zahnd, this theory of the atonement amounts to something akin to an angry pagan god who requires a kill before he will turn back his wrath. It is asserted, far from being an accurate description of God, this depiction actually impugns His character.</p>

<p>So here’s the question<em>, is God an angry deity who needs to be appeased?</em> That is, <em>does Scripture provide any examples of God’s righteous anger being placated in the context of making atonement for the people?</em></p>

<p>Whenever we have questions about the character of God, it’s necessary to go straight to the Bible. After all, only God can tell us what God is like. Oftentimes, our feelings about God are unhelpful guides. And when emotions are allowed to override Scripture, we end up making a god in our own image.</p>

<p>I think those who hold to Zahnd’s view are going to have a very difficult time dealing with some clear texts of Scripture. Specifically, I’d like to look at Numbers 25. Here, I believe, is a clear example of God’s righteous anger being placated when a violent atonement is made for the Israelites. What’s incredible about this account is that it is precisely what some say cannot exist. That is, their view of God and atonement says this is pagan, not biblical. And, yet, there it is, in the Bible.</p>

<p>In Number 25, we read about the blatant idolatry of the Israelites. Israel is currently living in Shittim and has begun engaging in sexual immorality with Moabite women and worshipping their gods. As a result, the author of Numbers writes, “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel”&nbsp;(v.3).</p>

<p>Consequently, Moses is commanded by God to “take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel”&nbsp;(v.4).</p>

<p>Before moving forward, it’s important to make a distinction between the anger of a perfect God and the anger of a sinful man. God is absolutely righteous; we are not. God is perfectly holy and just; we are not. Therefore, it’s not surprising that God’s anger is always justified whereas human anger is rarely justified.</p>

<p>After killing all of the leaders who had “yoked themselves to Baal of Peor,”&nbsp;the story takes another grisly twist. One of the Israelite men named Zimri <em>continues</em> to engage in sexual immorality with a Midianite woman named Kozbi. In response, Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, the priest, follows the Israelite back to his tent and drives a spear through Zimri and Kozbi.</p>

<p>What’s significant about this story is what follows <em>immediately</em> after describing these violent details. It says, “Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped”&nbsp;(v.8).</p>

<p>Don’t miss this. God’s wrath was being poured out on the Israelites because of their disobedience. He did this by bringing a terrible plague upon them. All told, twenty-four thousand people died from the plague (v.9). However, immediately following the killing of these two individuals, God turns back His wrath from the people and ends the plague. This is <em>not</em> speculation. This is what the text says.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, <em>has turned back My wrath from the people of Israel,</em> in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in My jealousy. Therefore say, ’Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God <em>and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>God’s wrath - the plague - was stopped when Phinehas made atonement for the people. How did Phinehas make atonement for the Israelites? What did he do? The text is clear: Phinehas <em>killed</em> Zimri and Kozbi. That is, in response to the killing of Zimri and Kozbi, God turned back His righteous wrath. This is <em>not</em> a pagan god being described here. No, this is the immutable God of the Bible. There is no getting around this. This <em>is</em> the Abba of Jesus.</p>

<p>Does this one text mean that penal substitutionary atonement is true? No. Much more would need to be said, and that’s not the purpose of this blog post. What this text does show - at minimum - is that a biblical understanding of atonement may include appeasing the righteous wrath of God.</p>

<p>Number 25 is a case in point. Within this troubling account, we see a vivid example of retributive punishment being carried out against certain individuals. And, through the inspired words of the Old Testament, we’re told that this violent execution satisfied God’s righteous wrath and served to <em>make atonement</em> for the people.</p>

<p>I think we see something <em>similar</em> - not identical - in the cross of Christ. The death of Christ makes atonement for those who put their trust in Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God”&nbsp;(Rom. 5:9). The blood of Christ <em>propitiates</em> the wrath of God. And Paul says that this shows God’s righteousness.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:26)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God is the justifier because God was in Christ paying for the sins of the world. Here we see the supreme demonstration of the love and mercy of God. But God is <em>also</em> just. Here we see God’s perfect holiness and justice on display when the sins of the people are justly punished in Christ on the cross. God cannot simply ignore sin. If He did, He would be <em>unjust</em>. So the cross of Christ is where God’s wrath <em>and</em> mercy meet. At Calvary, God both punishes and pays for sin.</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-it-pagan-to-believe-god-s-wrath-needs-to-be-appeased-" 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-it-pagan-to-believe-god-s-wrath-needs-to-be-appeased-" 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-it-pagan-to-believe-god-s-wrath-needs-to-be-appeased-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: You Might Be a Gardener
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-might-be-a-gardener
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I think we need to rethink how we understand evangelism. When most people think of evangelism, they think of leading a person to Christ. Get them to pray a prayer, make a commitment, close the deal. You get the idea.</p>

<p>Jesus called this <em>harvesting</em>.</p>

<p>But there is <em>more</em> to evangelism than merely leading a person of Christ. To some, that might not sound right. But this, I think, only illustrates my point. Evangelism has become a synonym for harvesting. Consequently, the greater the harvest, the greater the evangelist. And, if you find that you aren’t constantly reaping a harvest of new converts, then the implication is you aren’t a good evangelist.</p>

<p>I want to share something with you that has revolutionized my thinking on this issue. I used to beat myself up about not being a better harvester. Compared to some evangelists, I am an outright failure. How is it that some Christians seem to be leading people to Christ all the time while others struggle without seeing any fruit?</p>

<p>I think the answer lies in <em>knowing the season</em> and <em>knowing your role</em>.</p>

<p><strong>One Field with Two Different Seasons</strong></p>

<p>Before there can be a <em>harvest</em>, there is always a season of <em>gardening</em>. There is tilling, planting, watering, and weeding. This takes hard work. But when the time is right, and the fruit is ripe, the fruit falls from the tree. Harvesting is the easy part when the fruit is ready. But it takes a lot of sweat to get to <em>that</em> point. Every season of harvesting is preceded by a season of gardening.</p>

<p>After years of speaking with people who do not share my convictions, I have come to realize that <em>I’m a gardener.</em>*</p>

<p>If you’ve done any gardening with unbelievers, you know that it takes a lot of effort. It’s labor intensive. Rather than physical labor, this involves <em>intellectual</em> and <em>spiritual</em> labor. For example, I��ve had countless conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses who have knocked on my door. Some of these discussions have lasted more than <a href="/w/being-tactical-with-jehovah-s-witnesses">two hours</a>. I’ve come to learn that an effective conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses takes time spent in careful Bible study. It involves defending the Christian faith against attacks from multiple fronts. It takes hours praying that God would open their eyes to the truth. It involves sacrificing part of your weekend to make yourself available. It’s labor, and it’s exhausting.</p>

<p>It may surprise you to learn that&nbsp;in all of those conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ve <em>never</em> led any of them to Christ. That is, none of them have trusted in Jesus Christ—God the Son—as their Savior and Lord while sitting in my living room. Does that mean I’ve failed as an evangelist? I don’t think so. Here’s why.</p>

<p><strong>One Team with Two Different Roles</strong></p>

<p>Evangelism is a <em>team effort</em>. It takes harvesters and gardeners. In fact, Jesus uses this same agricultural illustration when speaking to His disciples. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.&nbsp;(John 4:36–38)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please hear Jesus’ words afresh. There are reapers and sowers, harvesters and gardeners. And the gardeners play a significant role in leading people to the Savior of the world. Jesus tells His disciples that they are harvesting where they did not garden. <em>Other people</em> did the gardening—what He calls the labor. So it’s a <em>team</em> effort. Gardeners and harvesters work together for an <em>ultimate</em> goal. One team with two different roles. This is why the “sower and reaper may <em>rejoice together</em>” (John 4:36b).</p>

<p>Speaking with unbelievers about spiritual things can be frustrating at times. I think this is because we don’t usually see the immediate fruit of our labor. <em>All that we see is the labor.</em> After frequent fruitless spiritual conversations with a Muslim co-worker, or repeated debates with an unbelieving brother-in-law that appear to have no effect, we might be tempted to ask, What’s the point?</p>

<p>Don’t be discouraged when your labor gets hard and you don’t see the harvest. You might be a gardener, and it could be that you are in a season of gardening. Instead, be encouraged that God may be using your efforts—along with the efforts of others—to bring in a harvest that you may never see.</p>

<p>Always remember, it’s our job to be faithful witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8) and then leave the results to God. Paul writes, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6).</p>

<p>________________________</p>

<p>*As a gardener I have a modest goal in any particular conversation with an unbeliever. I want to put a stone in their shoe. I do this with the game plan outlined in Greg Koukl’s&nbsp;<em><a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316" id="" rel="" target="_blank" title="">Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</a>.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-might-be-a-gardener" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-might-be-a-gardener" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-might-be-a-gardener" 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 God Works through Your Weakness
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/18/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-god-works-through-your-weakness
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Aaron Denlinger has some helpful things to say about “<a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/05/affliction-evangelism.php" target="_blank">Affliction Evangelism</a>”&nbsp;in response to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+4%3A7-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:7-12</a>. When we suffer as a result of evangelism, we proclaim the power and value of God and His Gospel:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christians suffer, first of all, because God delights to triumph in weakness. “We have this treasure in jars of clay,”&nbsp;Paul writes, “to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.”&nbsp;The treasure that Christians possess and seek to share with the world is the Gospel and its fruits. But their efforts to share that treasure with the world generally reap trouble. Life as a clay jar ain’t pretty (see 2 Cor. 4:8-9). It’s not surprising, of course, that efforts to share the Gospel with others result in unpleasantness. The Gospel is an affront to those who would deny any absolute moral standard because they wish to live their lives without accountability or consequence. It’s even more of an affront to those who would acknowledge an absolute moral standard, but insist upon their own ability to meet that standard. The Gospel, in other words, is offensive...</p>

<p>God triumphed over sin, death, and hell through apparent weakness - an apparently deluded man hanging on a cross, Rome’s most despicable instrument of capital punishment. God brings sinners through faith into a share in Christ’s kingdom through equally apparent weakness - persecuted, perplexed, and suffering Christians, feebly testifying to the treasure that they possess and trying to share it with others. Jars of clay. Significantly for our theme, the weakness of the means (i.e., us) that God has chosen to advance his kingdom ensures that all glory and praise for the same will be returned to him in the final analysis...</p>

<p>But there is a further logic to suffering outlined in these verses, which is this: Suffering turns our lives into sermons. Suffering may or may not show us what we’re made of (as the saying goes), but it will definitely show us and others where our hope, where our identity, and where our confidence lay. The suffering Christian, in other words, becomes a form of Gospel proclamation to the world.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of his <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/05/affliction-evangelism.php" target="_blank">post</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-god-works-through-your-weakness" 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-god-works-through-your-weakness" 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-god-works-through-your-weakness" 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 Could Jesus Be God if He Didn’t Know the Time of His Return?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/23/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-could-jesus-be-god-if-he-didn-t-know-the-time-of-his-return-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve recently written <em>The Ambassador’s Guide to Jehovah’s Witnesses</em>. In part three of the book, I respond to the <em>top seven</em> objections to the deity of Christ. Probably the most common challenge I hear has to with something Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite Mark 13:32 as proof that Jesus cannot be God. Speaking of the Second Coming, Jesus says, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, <em>nor the Son</em>, but only the Father.”&nbsp;If Jesus is God, then He is omniscient. But this text says the Son is <em>not</em> omniscient. After all, it identifies something the Son doesn’t know. Therefore, Jesus can’t be God.</p>

<p>I think this is a legitimate challenge to our view that requires a thoughtful response. I think this is explained by the <em>incarnation of Jesus</em>. When the Second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh, He also took on certain <em>limitations</em>. This was the only way to fulfill His role as a human being. By limitations, I mean that there was a voluntary restricting - or veiling - of His divine attributes. He <em>did not</em> give up His divine attributes. If He did, then He would cease to be God. Rather, He willingly chose not to use them.</p>

<p>This isn’t mere speculation. Paul describes the mystery of the incarnation in his letter to the Philippians:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:6-8)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This <em>emptying</em> is best understood as a voluntary limiting - or veiling - of the divine attributes. The clearest example of this is when Jesus limits His glory. If Jesus is God, shouldn’t He be glowing all the time? But He isn’t. Therefore, He must not be God. Well, not so fast!</p>

<p>When He is transfigured before Peter, James and John, we read that “His face shone like the Sun, and His clothes became white as light”&nbsp;(Matt. 17:1-2). Here we get a tiny glimpse of the same glory Jesus had “before the world existed”&nbsp;(John 17:5). Of course, walking around Jerusalem glowing all the time would have impeded His ministry. So Jesus freely veils His glory.</p>

<p>I think this can be said of His other divine attributes, like omniscience. Of course, we can only go so far in trying to understand the mystery of the incarnation. But I think this response is adequate to meet the challenge.</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-could-jesus-be-god-if-he-didn-t-know-the-time-of-his-return-" 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-could-jesus-be-god-if-he-didn-t-know-the-time-of-his-return-" 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-could-jesus-be-god-if-he-didn-t-know-the-time-of-his-return-" 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 Ongoing Struggle against the Culture to Defend Intrinsic Human Value
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/12/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-ongoing-struggle-against-the-culture-to-defend-intrinsic-human-value
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We human beings have an astonishing ability to deceive ourselves about the value of <em>other</em> human beings when that deception is convenient for us. And when enough people in a culture agree to turn a blind eye to said deception for the sake of that coveted convenience, the result is normal, everyday, culture-wide <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/intrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught#.WRUc-BMrJR0">atrocities</a> committed by <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil#.WRUc3BMrJR0">normal, everyday people</a>.</p>

<p>Christians fight against this today when it comes to our culture’s dehumanization and killing of human beings in the womb. In the Roman era, Christians worked to end the practice of infant exposure. Larry Hurtado describes this practice in <em><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Destroyer-gods-Early-Christian-Distinctiveness/dp/1481304747/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1494555826&amp;sr=1-1-spell" target="_blank">Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]t was...a time when people legally and without qualms, it appears, engaged in some practices that, hopefully, we would regard as abhorrent today. Consider, as one particularly striking example, the practice of discarding unwanted babies and the reasons they were discarded. This practice, often referred to in scholarly studies as “infant exposure,”&nbsp;typically involved casting the unwanted newborn baby on a trash-heap site or some abandoned place, the infant left to die or be collected by someone, usually to be reared for slavery. Although today it will be difficult to consider the practice without revulsion, in the Roman period it was apparently not a source of great moral outrage, at least not widely.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It should disturb you that such a thing was “not a source of great moral outrage”&nbsp;because it means we cannot trust our culture’s sense of moral outrage to tell us the truth. If you, pro-choicer, have come to trust in the moral acceptability of abortion based on the fact that it is widely accepted today, this should give you chills.</p>

<p>The reasons for infant exposure sound familiar, as well:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Scholars have explored the various reasons why infant exposure was so widely practiced. One proposal is that, in some cases, it may have been prompted by poverty. Perhaps some parents, living in straightened circumstances, may have felt that they could not afford another child. Perhaps in other instances parents may simply have preferred to focus their limited resources on providing more fully for a small number of children...</p>

<p>[O]ne of the reasons that infant exposure was practiced so widely was probably that, in contrast to the contraception and abortion techniques of that time, it allowed parents such as Hilarion to choose the sex of the children whom they wanted to rear...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Are you repulsed? Poverty, limited resources, and sex selection are not good reasons for killing your offspring. It’s funny how clear that seems to us when we’re considering a situation 2,000 years ago, and how cloudy it suddenly gets when it’s our own resources and desires on the line.</p>

<p>Lest you think these Romans were not normal people:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As an illustration, let us note an oft-cited letter from a man named Hilarion, who was probably serving in the Roman army, to his wife, Alis, written in 1 BC. His letter reflects the apparent frequency of, and casual attitude toward, infant abandonment. Moreover, the letter shows that it was practiced by people who otherwise seem to have had recognizably humane feelings.</p>

<p>After greeting his wife and other relatives with her at their home, Hilarion begs her to “take care of the little one,”&nbsp;their child, promising to send money as soon as he is paid. Then, referring to Alis expecting another child very soon, he writes, “if it is a boy, let it be, if it is a girl, cast it out.”&nbsp;But then after this rather blunt order, he continues by expressing his unaltered tender affection for Alis: “How can I forget you? I beg you then not to be anxious.”&nbsp;Obviously, the man was not a monster and was capable of tender feelings. Nor was he unusual for the time in his attitude about infant exposure. That is precisely the point to note: the practice of discarding infants shortly after birth, and before they had been accepted by the father as family members, was so much a feature of the culture of the Roman period that many otherwise caring people seem to have felt little reluctance about it. This contrasts with Roman-era attitudes toward killing or discarding children after they had been accepted into their families. That was condemned.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is what is scary - and completely unsurprising - about all this: These people weren’t monsters who were fundamentally different from us. We’re the same. There is an inborn capability to sin in all of us, and when the culture as a whole doesn’t exert pressure against this tendency, it will come out wherever it’s allowed to break through. In the Roman era, ordinary people routinely killed babies by leaving them on trash heaps. Today, ordinary people routinely kill babies in the womb by <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/abortion-methods-and-abortion-procedures-used-to-kill-unborn-babies/" target="_blank">tearing off their limbs</a> one by one. There are attempts at justification, of course - they’re not really human until they’re accepted by the father as a family member, they’re not really human <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/medical-equipment-determines-human-value#.WRUdShMrJR0">until they’re viable</a>, etc. On one side of the arbitrary line of dehumanization - a line conveniently placed to allow us to dispose of the unwanted “not really human beings”&nbsp;- there’s moral outrage. On the other side, merely shrugs.</p>

<p>Nothing much has changed.</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-ongoing-struggle-against-the-culture-to-defend-intrinsic-human-value" 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-ongoing-struggle-against-the-culture-to-defend-intrinsic-human-value" 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-ongoing-struggle-against-the-culture-to-defend-intrinsic-human-value" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Warning to Apologists about Sin
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-warning-to-apologists-about-sin
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Piper says something provocative in a <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/god-seeks-people-to-worship-him-in-spirit-and-truth" target="_blank">sermon</a> about <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+4%3A7-26&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">the woman at the well</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now watch the universal reflex of a person trying to avoid conviction. She has to admit in verse 19 that Jesus has extraordinary insight (“You’re a prophet!”), but instead of dealing with her guilt, she tries to suck Jesus into an academic controversy...A trapped animal will chew his own leg off. A trapped sinner will mangle his own mind and rip up the rules of logic and discourse...[T]hat kind of double-talk and evasive, verbal footwork is very common. And texts like this incline me to think that wherever I hear it, someone is hiding something. If your conscience is clean, reason can hold sway; if it’s not, you will be instinctively irrational.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I came across this idea before in a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atheist-Immorality-Leads-Unbelief/dp/0802476112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1492126047&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+making+of+an+atheist" target="_blank">book</a> by James Spiegel, and from what I’ve observed, I think it’s true - a real danger we all need to guard against.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A]nother way that virtuous living helps cognition and, in turn, theistic belief is by preventing motives for willful disbelief. A vicious or immoral person has a motive to reject vital truths that condemn his or her lifestyle. So the less vice in one’s life, the fewer ulterior motives one will have to disbelieve such truths, whether they concern ethics or the reality of God. Put another way, one’s sinful commitments cause cognitive interference by the will, so the more virtuous person will be less susceptible to such interference. All of these considerations confirm E. Michael Jones’s insight [in <em>Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior</em>] that “the intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ve seen Christians fall into sinful patterns and, as a result, begin to distort their biblical interpretations in an unconscious attempt to wrap their theology around their sin. They’ve harmed their very ability to reason.</p>

<p>It terrifies me.</p>

<p>This is another reason for us to flee at the first sign of temptation. Protect your ability to reason and see God clearly! As apologists, this is absolutely crucial. Spiegel makes some suggestions:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The study of Scripture and singing of hymns directly impact our cognitive processes, of course. But fasting, sacrifice, and other practices of self-denial build self-control, which enables a person to better resist all sorts of temptations. This translates into a reduction of sin in one’s life, and for the reasons just explained, this will bring cognitive benefits, including insights into theological truth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can think clearly when we’re not in sin because we have nothing to fear. We don’t need to protect ourselves from the truth if we have nothing to hide or explain away; and the good news is, because of the Gospel, even when we <em>do</em> sin, we need not either hide it or explain it away. The fact that “there is now <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">no condemnation</a> for those who are in Christ Jesus”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned#.WPAD01MrJR0">removes all fear</a> and need to hide. God’s grace provides the space for us to <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/humility-needed-see-jesus#.WPAEOFMrJR1">humble ourselves</a> and be open about our sin before God and others. That is freedom! Live in that freedom by fighting your sin and confessing it before God when necessary, and you will protect your rationality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-to-apologists-about-sin" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-to-apologists-about-sin" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-to-apologists-about-sin" 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 Objective Beauty Fuels a Culture
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-objective-beauty-fuels-a-culture
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Mark Reynolds spoke at Acton recently on “<a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/94701-94701.html" target="_blank">Beauty and the Destruction of the Individual</a>,”&nbsp;explaining how a proper belief in the existence of objective beauty fuels a culture.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I believe that the beginning of cultural decay provably comes when a culture decides that objective reality is a matter of subjectivity - my opinion, what I <em>feel</em> is true...</p>

<p>You can learn to love something, see its beauty, if you know the beauty is there...</p>

<p>You cannot pay a person to clean up after a [dying] man the way my grandmother cleaned up after my grandfather. But she’ll do it for free - in freedom, without government support or aid - for the beauty she saw in that old man. Not beauty that was subjective and merely a matter of the heart, but beauty that was real, and objective, and true. And she had, over the course of her Christian life, because she was <em>not</em> taught that beauty was subjective, submitted her notions of what was beautiful, and good, and true to her own Christian faith. And so as her husband aged, she came to see the more subtle beauty that exists in an older man and did not love him less; she loved him more...</p>

<p>When we believe in objectivity, we are free from the beholders...If subjectivity is the only reality when it comes to beauty, and a girl goes to school and everyone says, “You’re fat and unattractive,”&nbsp;and she picks up magazine after magazine, and there’s not one woman of color in it, not one woman with her body shape, not one woman her mother’s age, then beauty being “in the eye of the beholder”&nbsp;is not liberating; it is the ultimate tyranny because the only reality is what those guys in high school say in judgment about you...The reality becomes, ultimately, what a few people tell us...</p>

<p>If we believe beauty is objective, it is singularly liberating because suddenly, the things that matter most are free...We can begin to appreciate God’s handiwork, none of which costs money, all of which leads to love as we see things correctly; and love motivates us to do great things and fills us with joy...</p>

<p>Culture will only die when people have to be paid to do what love did voluntarily.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Dr. Reynolds makes the case that this voluntary love will die as we lose our belief in objective beauty. Watch the whole lecture below.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="61kVY3OuePw" 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/61kVY3OuePw?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%2Fhow-objective-beauty-fuels-a-culture" 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-objective-beauty-fuels-a-culture" 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-objective-beauty-fuels-a-culture" 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 Case for Christ Movie
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/18/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-case-for-christ-movie
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I saw <em>The Case for Christ</em> last weekend with my wife and girls, and I have to say, they did it right. It was pitch perfect. No false moves, nothing embarrassing, perfectly cast, meticulously acted, skillfully written, and the dialogue was completely believable and authentic, even the most challenging scenes (where did they get those actors!). Plus it was a masterful characterization of the evidence without being overwhelming. I’m amazed at how much punch there was in such compact dialogues when the experts delivered their evidence. The drama kept me engaged the entire time and moved me to tears a number of times. The movie even managed to get through the conversion moment without being smarmy! That’s first-rate writing.</p>

<p>Believe me, I never use any of those accolades lightly, especially when it comes to “faith”&nbsp;films. I’m usually pretty happy if no damage has been done. <em>The Case for Christ</em> goes far beyond that. It’s simply the best film of this kind I have ever seen.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="rhe8KhSxWGo" 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/rhe8KhSxWGo?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%2Fthe-case-for-christ-movie" 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-case-for-christ-movie" 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-case-for-christ-movie" 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: Must a Muslim Also Present When a Christian Teaches on Islam?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/12/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/must-a-muslim-also-present-when-a-christian-teaches-on-islam-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve taught on Islam for over a decade and am often asked a couple of question by non-Christians: “Was a Muslim invited to your event to provide a counterpoint to your presentation? Did you allow them to attend, present, and clarify what you taught?”&nbsp;People seem to think it’s not fair if a Muslim is not present. Here are my quick thoughts about these questions.</p>

<p>Frist, I agree there are a few reasons to invite a Muslim to an event where Islam is being discussed. For example, it makes sense if there is a debate, panel, or open discussion so that there can be an exchange of ideas. I’ve also invited Muslims to simply present their view and allow Christians to ask them questions. It often adds an interesting and exciting element, but it’s not <em>mandatory</em> that I, or the event host, always invite one.</p>

<p>Second, in many of my talks to Christian audiences, the purpose is to have an in-house discussion about Islam and present strategies to reach out to Muslims with the Truth. In these cases, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to have a Muslim present. It might even be detrimental to the purpose of the training as they would be constantly interjecting (or at least wanting to).</p>

<p>Third, many times I’ve been told that a Muslim will correct my mistakes about Islam. This, though, assumes that my teaching has errors and a Muslim will always be correct. I’ll admit I’ve sometimes made mistakes when teaching. When I’ve discovered a mistake, however, I’ve corrected it. I’ve even made mistakes when teaching on Christianity! The fact that I’m not a Muslim, though, doesn’t mean I’ll <em>necessarily</em> give incorrect information about Islam.</p>

<p>Fourth, does anyone demand Muslims follow the same rule? Are Christians invited to attend, present, and clarify every time an Imam speaks about Christianity at a mosque in Saudi Arabia? It’s highly improbable. I’m not bothered by that, though. They are free to invite or never invite a Christian to their mosque.</p>

<p>There are a lot of events where Muslims are invited to participate. It’s not mandatory, though. Christians can have in-house discussions about a whole host of topics, people groups, and religions without inviting a representative from that group to speak. Sometimes we’re even justified in excluding those people for the sake of a private discussion. It all depends on the type of event, the purpose of the presentation, the audience demographic, and possibly several other factors.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmust-a-muslim-also-present-when-a-christian-teaches-on-islam-" 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%2Fmust-a-muslim-also-present-when-a-christian-teaches-on-islam-" 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%2Fmust-a-muslim-also-present-when-a-christian-teaches-on-islam-" 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: Tips for Memorizing a Book of the Bible
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/tips-for-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On <a href="/w/how-to-view-the-opposition-you-ll-encounter" target="_blank">today’s podcast</a>, I gave tips for memorizing a book of the Bible. Yes, it’s possible, even if you’re not a memorization genius! Start with one of the shorter books - Jude, Philippians, 2 Timothy, etc. - or pick a set of chapters in your favorite book (preferably, start from the beginning). When you’re finished, that book will become part of you; you’ll know it more deeply than you thought was possible. It will change you, and God will bring it out of you to bless others at the most surprising times.</p>

<p>Here’s a summary of the tips I gave on the <a href="/w/how-to-view-the-opposition-you-ll-encounter" target="_blank">podcast</a>:</p>

<p>1. Make a photocopy of the passage you’re memorizing from the Bible you usually read. Keep it with you, and use it for your memorization work. Referencing the photocopy (as opposed to a digital or handwritten copy) will help you remember where passages are on the page of your Bible, even after you eventually forget the exact wording of those passages.</p>

<p>2. Add two verses a day, and throughout the day keep reviewing what you’ve memorized so far. If you can connect your review process to a daily trigger (like getting into your car), this will help you develop the habit. (Driving alone is a great time to review!) When you’re starting out, resist trying to add more than two verses a day. Stay slow and steady. Don’t overwhelm yourself.</p>

<p>3.<strong> </strong>Go for a walk to help you memorize more quickly. I’ve discovered that, for whatever reason, walking increases my ability to memorize. Rather than memorize two verses a day, you might find that it works better for you to go for a long walk once a week with your photocopy and memorize several verses at once. Then the rest of the week, you can focus on simply reviewing everything you’ve learned so far.</p>

<p>4. Say the passage out loud as you’re memorizing and reviewing (yes, even if you’re on a walk). Hearing the words will help you memorize. If you come to a sentence you’re having trouble with, try saying the words over and over in an interesting way (rhythmically or in song) to help you nail down the words by the way they sound and feel.</p>

<p>5.<strong> </strong>Don’t just say the words; put yourself inside the book. Speak the words as they would have been spoken by the writer to his readers. Instruct with him. Rejoice with him. Plead with him. Marvel at Jesus with him. To connect with what’s being said in this way, you’ll need to figure out exactly what’s being said and why, and this will increase the depth of your meditation on this book and, as a result, your ability to memorize it.</p>

<p>6. Read through the entire book once a day. In order to memorize well, you need to truly understand what you’re memorizing. By reading through the entire book, you’ll be getting a sense of what the particular verses you’re working on mean within the context of the entire flow of the book’s argument. You’ll also be reviewing your past work, and you’ll catch if you’ve been missing a word or two.</p>

<p>7. Switch to another book if you find your memorization is becoming a chore you avoid. If you’ve been working on the same book for months, and you’re losing motivation, don’t force it! Start with something fresh that will motivate you again. You can always come back to the previous book in the future and pick up where you left off. Sometimes when I’m working on a book, I’ll finish the whole thing; sometimes I move on. The important thing is to keep the habit going.</p>

<p>Need more inspiration? Try these posts:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/the-rewards-of-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible">The Rewards of Memorizing a Book of the Bible</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/memorizing-the-bible-changes-you">Memorizing the Bible Changes You</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/you-really-can-memorize-whole-books-of-the-bible">You Really Can Memorize Whole Books of the Bible</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

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


title: Can Churches Discipline for the Sin of Homosexuality?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-churches-discipline-for-the-sin-of-homosexuality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jesus tells us to treat an unrepentant sinner like a tax collector. Paul tells us to kick them out of the church. Are these just archaic cultural norms that no church should follow today, especially with the sin of homosexuality? I was amazed to discover a church that recently followed this New Testament teaching.</p>

<p>“Watermark church dismissed me for being gay,”&nbsp;the headline read. The story was about a man who wrote a letter to the church that disciplined him. When I read that headline at a news site, my heart sank because I feared this was an over-zealous church that reflexively and unfairly kicked out a man who sought to follow Jesus but struggled with same-sex attraction.</p>

<p>He began his letter: “Today I celebrate a very interesting anniversary with you. It was exactly one year ago when you told me that I was no longer worthy to serve, be in a community group, and be a member of your church.”&nbsp;He went on to describe his battle against homosexuality and how he prayed his same-sex attraction would change. After his desires persisted, he claimed the church turned their back on him.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether the church behaved correctly or not, it’s sad to see a man with a spiritual yearning feel betrayed by a church and abandoned by God. Sexual transgression, even that of homosexual behavior, is <em>not</em> unpardonable. The Kingdom of God is available to anyone willing to repent of their sin and turn to God for redemption.</p>

<p>Being willing to repent of your sin, though, is the critical part, especially in this story. Theologian Millard Erickson defines repentance as, “Godly sorrow for one’s sin together with a resolution to turn from it.”&nbsp;God gives grace to anyone who acknowledges their sin as sin and turns to follow Jesus instead of their own desires. For those who don’t acknowledge their sin, the body of Christ is commanded to address them.</p>

<p>Jesus lays out a step-by-step protocol for churches to follow in Matthew 18:15-17. Step 1: Confront the sinner in private. If he acknowledges his sin and repents of it, you can rejoice. Step 2: If he doesn’t listen to you, take another believer (or two) to call out his sin. Step 3: Take the matter before the church if he refuses to repent. Step 4: Treat the sinner like a gentile or tax collector, which means dismissing them from church.</p>

<p>The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, insists that the Corinthian believers dismiss an unrepentant sinner. This immoral brother was aware of God’s commands but thumbed his nose at God’s law by continuing to engage in sexual sin with his stepmother. It’s probable that believers had followed steps 1-3, but now Paul was calling the Corinthian church to follow through on step 4 because the man remained unrepentant.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that all believers still sin. Many, however, are repentant. They acknowledge their sin, turn from their rebellious action, confess to God, and receive forgiveness. Jesus’&nbsp;protocol in Matthew 18 is for those who are <em>un</em>repentant.</p>

<p>In the case of the man at Watermark church, I discovered more of the details when I read the church’s “dismissal”&nbsp;letter that the news site published. “This is a difficult letter to write,”&nbsp;the elders began. They stated they genuinely loved him, affirmed his “many gifts,”&nbsp;his “heart of kindness,”&nbsp;and expressed their desire that he experience “the abundant life that is found in Jesus Christ alone.”&nbsp;You could sense their heartfelt love for him.</p>

<p>Then they gave an account of how the church had, over several years, “gently and repeatedly brought these [sinful] patterns”&nbsp;to his attention. For a time, the man was repentant. He was aware of his sinful desires but refused to satisfy them (as we are all called to do with our sinful desires). Eventually, however, he began to satisfy his same-sex desires through a sexual relationship with another man. He became unrepentant.</p>

<p>The elders cited the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18 and the biblical precedent of 1 Corinthians 5 as justification for their decision to remove him from the body and treat him as they would “anyone who is living out of fellowship with God.”&nbsp;You may fault their decision. If you do, you must also fault the Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures that teach this principle.</p>

<p>Church discipline, though, isn’t merely about kicking people out. It’s about calling them to repentance so they return to fellowship with the body of believers. That’s exactly what the elders did: “We lovingly, but firmly, call you back to repentance...We plead with you to run to the Lord and allow the Spirit of God to begin to transform your heart in a mighty way (Titus 3:3-7).”&nbsp;Finally, they offered him an opportunity to meet with a church staff member who also experiences same-sex attraction but finds freedom, healing, and victory in Christ. Assuming the details of this news story are true, the elders behaved properly and lovingly.</p>

<p>The only question that comes to mind is whether this church applies the same approach to <em>all unrepentant sin</em> or just the sin of homosexuality. Yes, we need to exercise church discipline on people who satisfy same-sex desires, but also on those who unrepentantly satisfy opposite-sex desires outside the context of biblical marriage. Indeed, anyone engaged in ongoing, unrepentant sin must be lovingly, but firmly admonished.</p>

<p>Church discipline isn’t a remnant of the first-century church. It’s a New Covenant principle that can and should be applied today, assuming it’s consistently practiced with all sin.</p>
</div>

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


title: How Natural Theology Helps Strengthen the Authority of the Bible
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/10/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-natural-theology-helps-strengthen-the-authority-of-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Let us consider the claim the Bible is inspired, that it constitutes a particular instance of divine revelation. Certainly all worldviews cannot generate such a claim. For example, this claim does not fit in an atheistic worldview. Some version of theism is necessary. This seemingly obvious observation surfaces an important step in a top-down approach to establishing the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. As philosopher Richard Swinburne notes, “With all claims about particular occurrences which are to be expected on one world-view but not on another, it is crucial to take into account the other evidence for that worldview”&nbsp;(in his book <em>Revelation</em>, page 69). Therefore, before one argues for the Bible’s inspiration or inerrancy, we ought to look to the project of natural theology to provide good grounds for the existence of God and an account of his nature.</p>

<p>Of course, we have good reason to think God exists. The work of theistic philosophers over the last 30 years has significantly strengthened the arguments for God’s existence. A survey of and argumentation for theism is beyond the scope of this post, but I will briefly highlight three particular arguments. In recent years, the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence have come to prominence. Taken together, they offer strong evidence for God but not for just any god. In addition to His existence, these arguments offer evidence of His nature.</p>

<p>At minimum, the cosmological argument gives us reason to think God is a powerful being because He can create universes <em>ex nihilo</em>. His intelligence is exceedingly great in order to arrange all the constituent parts of the universe. Teleological arguments advance the case further. Anthropic insights commend God as being amenable to his creatures, as we discover cosmological constants that ensure our universe is hospitable to life.</p>

<p>The moral argument is especially helpful, offering insight into the social nature of God. Implicit in the moral argument is the social nature of moral obligations. The instantiation of moral obligations is internally related to personhood. Moral obligations only obtain between persons. Furthermore, the social nature of moral obligations makes sense of another feature of morality, incumbency. The incumbency of moral obligations demands something from us and binds us to something. They have an external force that presses in on us, compelling us to act or refrain from acting in certain ways. But moral obligations only obtain when there are at minimum two persons involved. Furthermore, a moral obligation has incumbency only when the corresponding command is issued by an <em>appropriate</em> authority.</p>

<p>Talk of persons, intelligence, commands, and authority puts us in the neighborhood of divine revelation. Why? Because no text has authority divorced from its author. Otherwise, one is left with locutionary acts (a linguistic statement) having no illocutionary force (the purpose or intent of the statement) whatsoever. A top-down approach that starts with natural theology provides the proper context in which to consider inspiration and inerrancy. A bottom-up approach starts with the phenomena of scripture and <em>then</em> moves to those issues. Liabilities abound with this approach, not least of which is the difficulty of getting past human authors to the divine author. However, by starting with natural theology, we start with the author of divine revelation, rather than the revelation itself. The authority of the Bible is grounded in the authority of the triune God. Thus, bibliology is not our starting point, theology proper is.</p>

<p>Here is the payoff of this approach. By bringing authority “down from above,”&nbsp;we provide certain <em>a priori</em> beliefs that greatly strengthen our justification for the fact of divine revelation and, ultimately, its nature and character. Indeed, our arguments for God’s existence and inferences about his nature lead to well-justified revelatory expectations.</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-natural-theology-helps-strengthen-the-authority-of-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-natural-theology-helps-strengthen-the-authority-of-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-natural-theology-helps-strengthen-the-authority-of-the-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Take Walt Russell’s Class on Hermeneutics for Free
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/take-walt-russell-s-class-on-hermeneutics-for-free
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Walt Russell’s class on hermeneutics (principles of biblical interpretation) was the most valuable class I took in all my time in the apologetics program at Biola. Nothing is more foundational for a Christian than being able to read and understand the Bible, and your skills in this area will affect everything you do as an apologist. So I was thrilled to learn (thanks, <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveVanKeulen" target="_blank">Steve Van Keulen</a>!) that Dr. Russell’s hermeneutics class is <a href="http://open.biola.edu/collections/csap-527-hermeneutics-bible-study-methods-russell">available for free online</a>. We’re talking videos from an entire semester of his Hermeneutics and Bible Study Methods class!</p>

<p>This is a great opportunity for you to get some people from your church together to read Dr. Russell’s book, <em><a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK171" target="_blank">Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul</a></em>, and watch the videos. Enjoy!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-walt-russell-s-class-on-hermeneutics-for-free" 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%2Ftake-walt-russell-s-class-on-hermeneutics-for-free" 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%2Ftake-walt-russell-s-class-on-hermeneutics-for-free" 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: Thinking Carefully (and Theologically) about Our Smartphones
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/thinking-carefully-and-theologically-about-our-smartphones
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The apologetics community could serve the church well not only by doing good work in the philosophy of religion and helping Christians defend the faith, but by helping believers think carefully about all spheres of life. There’s plenty of good work being done on arguments for God’s existence, the historical evidence for the resurrection, etc., etc. (and it needs to continue!), but the church needs more help thinking theologically about current trends, social issues, and a host of other topics. Indeed, for many people these issues are perceived to be more relevant, affecting so much of their daily lives. It’s where they live (or at least, think they live). One topic in particular that must be addressed more often is technology, especially for an emerging generation of digital natives.</p>

<p>Some of the best thinking that I’ve seen on this is an interview with Christian thinker Alastair Roberts entitled ���<a href="https://tonyreinke.com/2017/01/07/smartphones-and-how-they-change-us-an-interview-with-alastair-roberts/" target="_blank">Smartphones and How They Change Us.</a>”&nbsp;It’s a substantial article (about 9,000 words), but I encourage you to take the time to read and reflect on it. It’s some of the most penetrating analysis I’ve read on this particular topic. Let me highlight some of the important questions Roberts asks us to reflect on:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Is social media (and technology) making it difficult for me to give the activities and persons in my life the full and undivided attention and self-presence that they require and deserve?</li>
	<li>Is my use of technology and social media squeezing out my inner life, encroaching upon time that would otherwise be given to private contemplation and reflection? Do I use it as a way to distract myself from unsettling truths and realities that can slowly come into focus in moments of silence and solitude?</li>
	<li>Is my use of technology and social media mediating my relationship with and understanding of myself in unhealthy ways?</li>
	<li>Is my use of technology consuming time that I used to or could potentially devote to worthier activities? Do I use my smartphone to ’kill time’&nbsp;that I could otherwise fill with prayer, reading, writing, edifying conversation, face-to-face interactions, etc.?</li>
</ul>

<p>These questions (he includes other important questions, as well) and his reflections help surface the ways in which technology is shaping us and our kids deeply, often unbeknownst to us. Again, I urge you to make time to read this interview. Technology is an area where the church has much more intellectual work to do, for our own sake and for the sake of our kids.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-and-theologically-about-our-smartphones" 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%2Fthinking-carefully-and-theologically-about-our-smartphones" 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%2Fthinking-carefully-and-theologically-about-our-smartphones" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Another Planned Parenthood Video
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/30/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/another-planned-parenthood-video
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Normal people are <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil#.WNxThBIrJR0">capable of great evil</a>. That’s all I could think as I watched this latest video exposing Planned Parenthood. (You can read about the first 10 videos <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Watch the new video below or read Timothy Brahm’s “<a href="http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/five-takeaways-from-the-new-undercover-video-from-center-for-medical-progress/" target="_blank">Five Takeaways from the New Undercover Video from Center for Medical Progress</a>.”</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the undercover journalists who recorded the video are being <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/29/california-wants-to-imprison-pro-lifers-for-committing-journalism/" target="_blank">charged with 15 felonies</a>. We live in a twisted, fallen world.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="aeINzcwb3qU" 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/aeINzcwb3qU?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%2Fanother-planned-parenthood-video" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-planned-parenthood-video" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-planned-parenthood-video" 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 Did Christianity Affect Our View of Slavery?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/05/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-did-christianity-affect-our-view-of-slavery-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Did Christianity really undermine slavery? If so, why did it exist for so long in Western Civilization? Tim Keller touched on this topic in an <a href="https://mereorthodoxy.com/mere-fidelity-tim-keller-making-sense-god/" target="_blank">interview</a> on Mere Fidelity about his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-God-Invitation-Skeptical/dp/0525954155/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491440070&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=making+sense+of+god" target="_blank">Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Richard Bauckham] makes the case that Christianity is a non-totalizing metanarrative. That is, it’s a moral absolute, but it doesn’t lead to totalitarianism like other metanarratives do because of its nature. And he makes the case that it undermines injustice, it’s Jesus Christ going to the cross. He gives all the reasons why the Christian metanarrative should undermine oppression and undermine injustice, and therefore be a basis for doing justice but not one that turns you into an oppressor yourself...</p>

<p>The real pushback that sometimes makes my own heart sick is, “Hey, if that’s really the case...how in the world do you explain church history?”...Most of church history does not seem to bear that out...</p>

<p>Richard’s idea that...it’s a metanarrative that undermines oppression without making you an oppressor, I’d have to say in a minority of cases, you really can see it working...</p>

<p>Kyle Harper...he’s a classics professor - I’m not even sure if he’s a believer - but he’s written about slavery, and he says that it was Gregory of Nyssa, I think, who was the very first person in the fourth century to say, on the basis of the image of God, all slavery is wrong.</p>

<p>And so Kyle Harper says, on the one hand, let’s face it, the early church, to a great degree, sort of made its peace with slavery, but on the other hand, he says there’s no place in the history of the world where anybody actually said what Gregory of Nyssa said. He says there’s no place in antiquity where somebody just said slavery is completely wrong. It was just unprecedented, and it came from somebody who reflected on the image of God and the cross, and that’s where the original idea in all of world history came, he thinks, from the Bible...</p>

<p>And when I read things like that, I say, yeah, there is a genius in there - Bauckham is right - in spite of the fact that, in general, the church has not seen the genius of it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I found a brief video of Kyle Harper on this topic that’s worth watching.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="tjJIkJpcVLc" 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/tjJIkJpcVLc?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>Human beings are sinful, and we don’t change easily. As I’ve <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/what-about-inquisition#.WOWWXhIrJR0" target="_blank">argued in the past</a>, just as it’s taken centuries to apply the facts of the physical world to technology, so it has taken time for us to work through the ideas found in the Bible and apply them to our society:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible. And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we’ve had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies. This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal - with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn’t yet occurred to them...</p>

<p>It’s no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data. That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West. But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature. Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies’&nbsp;slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science. The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of what I had to say about this <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/what-about-inquisition#.WOWQ2RIrJR0" target="_blank">here</a>, and you can read more about the issue of slavery in the Bible <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/did-god-condone-slavery#.WOWVaBIrJR0" 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%2Fhow-did-christianity-affect-our-view-of-slavery-" 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-did-christianity-affect-our-view-of-slavery-" 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-did-christianity-affect-our-view-of-slavery-" 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: Tell Somebody about Jesus
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/tell-somebody-about-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Well, this is <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/the-key-to-a-lifetime-of-happiness" target="_blank">good news</a> from John Piper for all of you apologists!</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My father was the happiest man I’ve ever known. And I asked one time, “Daddy, what would you say is the key to a lifetime of happiness?”&nbsp;And he didn’t even hesitate—he said, “Tell somebody about Jesus.”&nbsp;That’s not what I expected!</p>

<p>And you know that his answer is true. You know it, from those few times when you’re able to receive and overflow, receive and overflow. That’s what you’re made for.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Watch the rest below.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="HAfpwuN8Y48" 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/HAfpwuN8Y48?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%2Ftell-somebody-about-jesus" 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%2Ftell-somebody-about-jesus" 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%2Ftell-somebody-about-jesus" 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 Christianity Changed the World
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-christianity-changed-the-world
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://impact360institute.org/" target="_blank">Impact 360</a> has a new video responding (briefly) to the question “What good is Christianity?”&nbsp;For more on the difference Christianity has made, here are a few posts:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-true-story-of-christian-missionaries#.WObQdhIrJR0">The True Story of Christian Missionaries</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/how-christianity-created-science-and-why-atheism-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have#.WObP2hIrJR0">How Christianity Created Science (and Why Atheism Wouldn’t Have)</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/this-is-the-kind-of-culture-christianity-creates#.WObRHBIrJR0">This Is the Kind of Culture Christianity Creates</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/values-fight-poverty#.WObQQRIrJR0">Values Fight Poverty</a></li>
</ul>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="ndFYFQ63LQc" 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/ndFYFQ63LQc?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%2Fhow-christianity-changed-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-christianity-changed-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-christianity-changed-the-world" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should the Apocrypha Be in the Bible?
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/17/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-the-apocrypha-be-in-the-bible-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of the signs of a good local church is a pastor who does not shy away from the tough questions. Recently, my pastor has been going through a series titled “<a href="https://cedarview.org/resources/sermons/the-book" target="_blank">The Book: How We Got It and How to Get the Most out of It</a>.”</p>

<p>In this series, he spent a couple of weeks looking at <em>why</em> the Protestant Christian Bible contains the books it does and not others. I was particularly fascinated by an argument that I hadn’t heard before concerning why my Bible doesn’t include the apocryphal books.</p>

<p>My Bible contains sixty-six books: <em>thirty-nine</em> in the Old Testament and <em>twenty-seven</em> in the New Testament. The thirty-nine books in my Old Testament are equivalent to the <em>twenty-four</em> books of the Jewish Scriptures called the Tanakh. You’re probably thinking, “How can thirty-nine equal twenty-four?”&nbsp;Well, the Jewish Scriptures combine certain books into one. For example, First Samuel and Second Samuel are combined into one book, not two. In fact, all of the minor prophets - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi - are placed into one book.</p>

<p>As a result, the twenty-four books of the Jewish Scriptures contain the same <em>content</em> as the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. However, the <em>order</em> of the books is different. The Old Testament begins with Genesis and ends with Malachi, whereas the Tanakh begins with Genesis and ends with Chronicles. Remember this because it will be important in a minute.</p>

<p>My Roman Catholic friends include about <em>thirteen</em> additional books to their Bible. These were written between the Old Testament and the New Testament periods. This is referred to as the <em>intertestamental period</em>. These additional books are called the <em>Apocrypha</em>. These books include First and Second Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Addition to the Book of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah, Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh, and First and Second Maccabees.</p>

<p>Should the Bible include the Apocrypha? Here is where I think Jesus can help. Specifically, I believe Jesus’&nbsp;words lead us to the conclusion that the Apocrypha is not Scripture.</p>

<p>During one of His heated discussions with the Pharisees and the lawyers, Jesus says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’&nbsp;so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.”&nbsp;Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. (Luke 11:49-51)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>First, notice that Jesus mentions the blood of <em>all</em> the prophets. He’s not talking about <em>some</em> of the prophets. He’s talking about the blood of all the prophets since that foundation of the world. Next, Jesus limits who He includes with “all the prophets.”&nbsp;He gives us some <em>bookends</em> for identifying these prophets. In verse 50, Jesus says, “...<em>from</em> the blood of Abel <em>to</em> the blood of Zechariah.”</p>

<p>Abel is the very <em>first</em> prophet to die for his faith. The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis - the <em>first</em> book of the Jewish Scriptures. Jesus also cites the death of Zechariah as the <em>last</em> prophet to die. However, this isn’t right. Zechariah isn’t the last prophet to die. Chronologically speaking, Uriah - the son of Shemaiah - is the <em>last</em> prophet killed. You can read about his death in Jeremiah 26:20-23.</p>

<p>So why does Jesus list Zechariah as the last prophet to die? The reason is crucial to why we shouldn’t accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Jesus chose Abel first and Zachariah last because they were the first and last prophets martyred <em>in the Jewish Scriptures</em>. The Jews of Jesus’&nbsp;day would have known that Zechariah’s death is recorded in Chronicles - the <em>last</em> book of the Jewish Scriptures. It reads,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then the Spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ’Why do you break the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”&nbsp;But they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord. (2 Chronicles 24:20-21)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, Jesus <em>limits</em>&nbsp;“all the prophets”&nbsp;to the Jewish Scriptures - from Genesis to Chronicles. It was the prophets contained in the Jewish Scriptures, and no others, who were responsible for communicating God’s word until the time of Christ. The author of Hebrews writes, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world”&nbsp;(Hebrews 1:1-2).</p>

<p>Before the time of Jesus, God spoke <em>by the prophets</em>. But Jesus tells us that the prophets are contained within the twenty-four books of the Jewish Scriptures - the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Where does that leave the Apocrypha, which came <em>after</em> all the prophets but <em>before</em> Jesus? I think the only rational conclusion is that Jesus - along with the apostles - did not view this collection of books as Scripture.</p>
</div>

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


title: Never Read a Qur’anic Verse
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/never-read-a-qur-anic-verse
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You don’t expect to hear the words of the Qur’an while watching the Oscars, but that’s what happened this year. Raed Al Saleh received an Oscar for his documentary short, <em>The White Helmets</em>, but couldn’t attend the ceremony. He provided a statement that was read and it included <em>part</em> of Surah 5:32, a verse from the Qur’an. The relevant part of the statement was this: “Our organization is guided by a verse in the Qur’an: To save one life is to save all of humanity.”</p>

<p>This wasn’t the first time someone cited that verse. It’s like the John 3:16 of the Qur’an. President Obama, months after being inaugurated in 2009, spoke to the Muslim people from Cairo, Egypt and said, “The Holy Qur’an teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”&nbsp;People love this passage because they interpret it to mean that Allah prohibits Muslims from killing innocent people. In fact, killing one person is as grievous as killing the whole human race. Conversely, if you save one person, then you are credited with saving all of humanity.</p>

<p>As we say at Stand to Reason, though, “<a href="http://www.str.org/articles/never-read-a-bible-verse#.WMcGWhIrJR0">Never read a Bible verse</a>.”&nbsp;Always read the whole paragraph, chapter, or more. Never try to understand the meaning of a passage without considering the context. This should apply to Islamic texts as well. Never read a Qur’anic verse. In the case of Surah 5:32, the context is critical. Here are verses 32 and 33 (Yusuf Ali translation) that are written after Cain kills his brother Abel:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.</li>
	<li>The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter...</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Two things you’ll notice when you read the passage in context. First, the passage is addressed to Jews, not Muslims (Allah ordains for “the Children of Israel”). The verse’s implication on killing, therefore, applies to Jews. Muslims <em>are</em> addressed in the next verse, but what they’re told is different than what Jews are told. Verse 33 commands Muslims to ensure that the penalty for transgressors is “execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land.”&nbsp;That’s very different from what people are led to believe about Muslims when the passage is read out of context, as it was at the Oscars. By the way, I’m <em>not</em> claiming that most Muslims obey this passage or are violent. That’s a different question altogether. In fact, I’ve stated in my public speaking and writing that most Muslims are peaceful people. The point here is about what Islam teaches, not what Muslims do.</p>

<p>Second, the words of Surah 5:32, which are allegedly the divine words of Allah, sound very similar to ancient Jewish writing in the Talmud (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). This source contains a commentary on Genesis 4:10, a verse about Cain killing Abel. The Talmudic author writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ’the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’&nbsp;and he says, ’it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’&nbsp;Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, I’m not sure I agree with the rabbi’s commentary on that verse. I think he’s mistaken. What’s interesting, though, is the author of the Qur’an picks up the rabbi’s last two sentences and passes them off as divine writ, the words of Allah. That means either Allah inspired a Jew to write bad commentary on Genesis 4:10 (and then told Mohammed the same thing 400 years later) or Surah 5:32 does not include the words of Allah, but was copied from a third-century rabbi.</p>

<p>Either way, citing a part of Surah 5:32 at the Oscars provides a good lesson in context <em>and</em> source criticism. Next time a religious text is read, hopefully the person will pay attention to the words before and after the cited text. If they do, they deserve an Oscar.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnever-read-a-qur-anic-verse" 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%2Fnever-read-a-qur-anic-verse" 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%2Fnever-read-a-qur-anic-verse" 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: J.P. Moreland Responds to “What Caused God?”
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/23/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/j-p-moreland-responds-to-what-caused-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In this brief video, J.P. Moreland responds to the objection “What caused God?”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The problem is that the question “What caused God?”&nbsp;is what philosophers call a category fallacy...[It’s] like the question “How many inches long is the note C?”&nbsp;or “What is the smell of the color red?”&nbsp;Those are category fallacies...</p>

<p>You can only ask that question [“Who or what made X?”] of Xs that are by definition makeable things. So I could ask, “What made the planet Earth?”&nbsp;because the earth is something that could be made...</p>

<p>Now, given that the very concept of God is an uncreatable Creator of everything, the question “Who made God?”&nbsp;turns out, then, to be this question: “Who was it that made something which by definition is unmakeable?”...That’s an incoherent question.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Dr. Moreland then goes on to explain why this isn’t an arbitrary definition of God. Watch the rest below. (For more on this topic, see “<a href="http://www.str.org/articles/who-created-god#.WK-QGRIrJR0" target="_blank">Who Created God?</a>”)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="_yOLUzuHVEo" 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/_yOLUzuHVEo?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://twitter.com/between2worlds/status/832724613742211078" target="_blank">Justin Taylor</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%2Fj-p-moreland-responds-to-what-caused-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%2Fj-p-moreland-responds-to-what-caused-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%2Fj-p-moreland-responds-to-what-caused-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: Always Ask What They Mean by “God”
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/29/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/always-ask-what-they-mean-by-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When people tell me they don’t believe God exists, I have a specific question for them: <em>What do you mean by “God”?</em> That is, I want to know what the God they’re denying is like.</p>

<p>If we want to deny the existence of unicorns, we need to have a concept of what a unicorn is like in our minds. When we speak of <em>what something is</em>, we are talking about its <em>essence</em> or <em>nature</em>. For instance, a unicorn is a horse-like animal with a single large horn projecting from its forehead. This is what it means to be a unicorn - its nature. Once we understand what a unicorn is, we are able to talk about whether or not unicorns actually exist.</p>

<p>So, essence is <em>what</em> it is, and existence is <em>that</em> it is. And you need to know the former <em>before</em> you can talk about the latter. Therefore, before we can begin to discuss the question of God’s existence, we must have a conception of God in our mind. We should have some idea of what He is like - God’s essence.</p>

<p>It is my experience that many people don’t believe in God <em>because</em> they have the wrong conception of God. In fact, the god that they don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either. Their conception of God is really a <em>caricature</em> of God. As a result, they end up rejecting a straw man.</p>

<p>This was brought home to me in Richard Dawkins’s bestseller, <em>The God Delusion.</em> Dawkins writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I have found it an amusing strategy when asked whether I am an atheist to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This statement shows that Dawkins - one of the most famous atheists of the world - does not really understand the biblical conception of God, which he spends much of his book writing against. The God of the Bible is nothing like the so-called gods that Dawkins lists. Yet, he seems to lump them all together as if Thor, or Mithras, or the Spaghetti Monster are in the same category.</p>

<p>Dawkins seems to think that since English speakers use the same three-letter word to describe Thor and Yahweh, they can be grouped and dismissed together. But the nature of Thor and the nature of the God of the Bible are very different. In fact, grouping them together borders on a category mistake.</p>

<p>Even a cursory understanding of theology is enough to demonstrate that the traditional concept of God is nothing like the so-called gods listed above. For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present. Now contrast this with the gods that Dawkins lists. These are all created, finite, temporal, and contingent. They are not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.</p>

<p>Furthermore, there is another problem with Dawkins’s strategy that must be addressed. It completely ignores the fact that there are <em>good reasons</em> to believe in a transcendent, personal, creator God even if there aren’t good reasons to believe in these other finite beings. In fact, philosopher Alvin Plantinga gives <a href="https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/plantinga-alvin-22two-dozen-or-so-theistic-arguments221.pdf" target="_blank">two dozen (or so) reasons</a> to believe in such a Divine Being.</p>

<p>Once we begin to grasp the nature of God, we are ready to investigate whether or not <em>that</em> God exists. My concern is that many skip the investigation because of a misconception about God they started with. If you don’t know <em>what</em> you are looking for, you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t find it.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="QNnIqS3_Y3Q" 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/QNnIqS3_Y3Q?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%2Falways-ask-what-they-mean-by-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%2Falways-ask-what-they-mean-by-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%2Falways-ask-what-they-mean-by-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: How Much Would You Pay for Integrity?
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/31/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-much-would-you-pay-for-integrity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Life presents us with all sorts of ways to cut corners - you see a mistake in your favor on a bank statement, you get home from the store and discover an item wasn’t paid for, a friend asks if you want in on a very profitable deal that isn’t <em>exactly</em> above board, your customer offers to pay you in cash, you see an easy way to avoid paying for the goods or services you want, and on and on.</p>

<p>Sometimes the temptation is to avoid the hassle of correcting an error in our favor, and sometimes the amount of money we will gain if we just do (or don’t do) this or that small thing seems like a gain that’s worth “bending the rules”&nbsp;a bit.</p>

<p>Whenever I’m tempted by something like this, I ask myself the question, “If you lost your integrity, how much would you pay to get it back?”&nbsp;My answer is always that if I lost my good name, I would pay <em>any</em> amount to get it back. And if I would pay an exorbitant amount, I would certainly pay a measly $5 or make a trip back to a store and pay the amount of that unpaid-for item. To regain my integrity, I would pay <em>at least</em> the amount I would wrongly gain were I to give in to that temptation. And if I would pay that money to get my integrity <em>back</em>, why not pay that same amount of money now to <em>keep</em> it in the first place?</p>

<p>Guard your integrity! Never give it up for the sake of convenience or any amount of material gain. Proverbs has wise words for us on this matter:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A good name is to be desired more than great wealth,</p>

<p>Favor is better than silver or gold. (Prov. 22:1)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And even if no one would ever know about your sin, why trouble your conscience? Proverbs describes the peace of a clear conscience:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Keep sound wisdom and discretion,</p>

<p>So they will be life to your soul</p>

<p>And adornment to your neck.</p>

<p>Then you will walk in your way securely</p>

<p>And your foot will not stumble.</p>

<p>When you lie down, you will not be afraid;</p>

<p>When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet. (Prov. 3:21b-24)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And even beyond the motivation of the peacefulness of a clear conscience, there is beauty. Wisdom - the ability to apply the knowledge of what’s right to your life - is beautiful. Who can resist this description?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>How blessed is the man who finds wisdom</p>

<p>And the man who gains understanding.</p>

<p>For her profit is better than the profit of silver</p>

<p>And her gain better than fine gold.</p>

<p>She is more precious than jewels;</p>

<p>And nothing you desire compares with her.</p>

<p>Long life is in her right hand;</p>

<p>In her left hand are riches and honor.</p>

<p>Her ways are pleasant ways</p>

<p>And all her paths are peace.</p>

<p>She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her,</p>

<p>And happy are all who hold her fast. (Prov. 3:13-18)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Who can read <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Proverbs 3</a> without longing for the beauty that’s described there? We have so much more to gain by following God and acting in ways that “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+2%3A9-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">proclaim the excellencies</a>”&nbsp;of His character to the world than we do by grasping at any ill-gotten material gain, large or small. Nothing is worth giving up your integrity.</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-much-would-you-pay-for-integrity-" 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-much-would-you-pay-for-integrity-" 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-much-would-you-pay-for-integrity-" 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 We Justified in Holding Beliefs Based on Testimony?
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/04/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-we-justified-in-holding-beliefs-based-on-testimony-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An important, even indispensable, source of belief is testimony. It’s undeniable that we come to many, if not most, of our beliefs through testimony. Alvin Plantinga highlights its importance: “Testimony is the source of an enormously large proportion of our most important beliefs...[it] makes possible intellectual achievement and culture; <em>testimony is the very foundation of civilization</em> [emphasis added]”&nbsp;(Alvin Plantinga, <em>Warrant and Proper Function</em>, p. 77). Indeed, this seems to be the case, and we find ourselves dependent upon testimony for most of what we know. Therefore, we should give careful thought to beliefs based on testimony.</p>

<p>So, are testimonially-grounded beliefs justified? If so, how is justification conferred upon them? It seems intuitive that the mere fact we acquire beliefs through testimony does not provide grounds for its justification. It is quite possible, indeed is actually the case in many instances, that the person attesting is simply mistaken in their account. In other cases, the attester may be lying and deliberately trying to deceive. Thus, it seems clear that some further grounds for justification is required for testimony.</p>

<p>What are those grounds? We have prima facie justification for our testimonial beliefs based on two principles, articulated clearly by Thomas Reid. He describes the first principle, the Principle of Veracity, this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The first of the principles is, a propensity to speak truth, and to use the signs of language so as to convey our real sentiments. This principle has a powerful operation, even in the greatest liars; for where they lie once, they speak truth a hundred times. Truth is always uppermost, and is the natural issue of the mind. (<em>Thomas Reid in Inquiry and Essays</em>, ed. R. Beanblossom and K. Lehrer, Ch. 6, Section XXIV, p. 94)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We are naturally disposed to speak truthfully to one another rather than to deceive. People tell the truth consistently because, by nature, they are truth-seekers and have a general desire for the truth (of course, in the context of soteriological discussions, this is not the case, as Romans 1:18-20 explains). Thus, we typically find ourselves in cognitive environments that are truth-conducive.</p>

<p>Reid states that a second “original principle,”&nbsp;the Principle of Credulity, is also an aspect of our human nature:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Another original principle implanted in us by the Supreme Being, is a disposition to confide in the veracity of others, and to believe what they tell us...It is unlimited in children, until they meet with instances of deceit and falsehood; and it retains a very considerable degree of strength through life...It is evident that, in the matter of testimony, the balance of human judgment is by nature inclined to the side of belief...(Ibid., p. 96)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to this principle, we have a natural disposition to trust what others attest to. When we ask someone what time it is and they tell us it is five o’clock, we just believe. Based on the Principle of Credulity, we are epistemically entitled to believe what we are told.</p>

<p>Of course, testimonial beliefs are defeasible. They may be defeated by knowledge of the attester’s lack of trustworthiness or his propensity to deceive. However, we are not required to establish the attester’s trustworthiness before we are justified in our testimonially-grounded beliefs. As Robert Audi asks, “And why indeed must [one] meet any more than a negative condition: not having any reason to doubt [an attester’s] credibility?”&nbsp;(Robert Audi, <em>Epistemology</em>, p. 138). Thus, in the absence of relevant defeaters, we are prima facie justified in our testimonial beliefs.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-justified-in-holding-beliefs-based-on-testimony-" 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-we-justified-in-holding-beliefs-based-on-testimony-" 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-we-justified-in-holding-beliefs-based-on-testimony-" 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 Singleness Can Testify to the Gospel of Grace
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/16/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-singleness-can-testify-to-the-gospel-of-grace
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If marriage is meant to be a parable of Christ and the church, then does that mean single, celibate people are wasting their sexuality by not using it to glorify God in this way? <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-celibacy-can-fulfill-your-sexuality" target="_blank">Sam Allberry</a> says no:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Are those of us who are celibate wasting our sexuality by not giving expression to our sexual desires?...</p>

<p>[S]ingleness, like marriage, has a <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/should-i-be-content-with-my-singleness" target="_blank">unique way of testifying</a> to the gospel of grace. Jesus said there will be no marriage in the new creation. In that respect we’ll be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). We will have the reality; we will no longer need the signpost.</p>

<p>By foregoing marriage now, singleness is a way of both anticipating this reality and testifying to its goodness. It’s a way of saying this future reality is so certain that we can live according to it now. If marriage shows us the shape of the gospel, singleness shows us its sufficiency. It’s a way of declaring to a world obsessed with sexual and romantic intimacy that these things are not ultimate, and that in Christ we possess what is.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I appreciate people like Sam Allberry who have been thinking deeply about a theology of singleness in recent years. The need to respond to questions about homosexuality and marriage that led to this kind of discussion has been a blessing to the church. Read the rest of his article <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-celibacy-can-fulfill-your-sexuality" 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%2Fhow-singleness-can-testify-to-the-gospel-of-grace" 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-singleness-can-testify-to-the-gospel-of-grace" 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-singleness-can-testify-to-the-gospel-of-grace" 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 Doctrine Alone Disqualifies Pro-Gay Theology
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/marriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I really appreciate a point that <a href="https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/" target="_blank">Preston Sprinkle</a> made when I <a href="/w/interview-preston-sprinkle-people-to-be-loved" target="_blank">interviewed</a> him on the Stand to Reason broadcast recently. Even if you set aside the (at least) five biblical texts that prohibit same-sex relations, you can still make a solid case against pro-gay theology by simply looking at Scripture’s teaching on marriage.</p>

<p>It turns out that 3,500 years of Judaic teaching and nearly 2,000 years of Christian teaching have univocally upheld that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The Genesis account of creation, where God establishes marriage as a heterosexual union (Gen. 1:27-28, 2:22-24), alone rules out the possibility of man-man or woman-woman marriage. Jesus even cited the Genesis definition and upheld this view during the New Testament era (Matt. 19:4-6). Since the closing of the canon, the Church uniformly taught that marriage was between a man and a woman.</p>

<p>Preston also made the point that there aren’t a ton of theological topics that the entire Church has agreed on for two thousand years. There have been different understandings of the Lord’s supper, baptism, eschatology, etc. When it comes to marriage, however, there is universal agreement on its definition as a heterosexual union. That’s amazing and significant.</p>

<p>Only during the last few decades - a mere 0.8% of Judeo-Christian history - have there been some Christians advancing pro-gay theology. <em>Not</em> coincidentally, this teaching comes after the sexual revolution and just when secular culture has begun celebrating homosexuality and pressuring everyone else to do so.</p>

<p>To be clear, I’m <em>not</em> arguing that because Judeo-Christian doctrine has a longstanding teaching on something, therefore that teaching is correct. My point, as Preston Sprinkle also made clear in our interview and in his <a href="https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2016/5/6/people-to-be-loved" target="_blank">book</a>, is that it��s hubris to think a 21st century American can simply upend 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian teaching on marriage with, “Well, I read the Bible and think it can be interpreted in a gay-affirming way.”&nbsp;I’m not saying Church tradition can’t be mistaken, but you better have an amazing, crystal-clear argument to warrant such a monumental reversal.</p>

<p>Plus, how is it that God could be so misleading and unclear? To suggest that 3,500 years of biblical teaching has been incorrect means that God is one of the worst communicators in the universe. You’d have to believe that although He intended to inspire the biblical authors - by the Holy Spirit - to write down a definition of marriage that could <em>include</em> same-sex couples, the writers ended up foiling His plan and penning a definition of marriage that <em>excludes</em> same-sex couples. Because the biblical witness on marriage was clear to them, every Jew, rabbi, church father, and early Christian thinker would interpret this teaching in only one way: marriage is between a man and a woman. This, of course, doesn’t even include the fact that every other time a Holy-Spirit-inspired author addresses homosexual relations, they mention it in a negative and prohibitive way. Scripture <em>never</em> affirms same-sex relations and <em>always</em> condemns homosexual behavior.</p>

<p>It’s hard to believe God would be so unclear about an institution, like marriage, that is so fundamental to the church and to all of society. It makes more sense that God knew what He inspired the authors to write, they wrote it, and for thousands of years the Church understood what He said. That’s where we are today, with the exception of a vocal few who want to amalgamate secular standards of sexuality into biblical ones.</p>

<p>It’s&nbsp;true our culture has changed and begun to affirm same-sex relations. That has prompted many believers to take a second look at Scripture to make sure we’ve gotten its definition of marriage correct. It’s fine if we check to make sure we’re not missing something or misinterpreting God’s word. When we do, though, we come to the same conclusion that Jesus came to in Matthew 19:4-6, that marriage is between a man and a woman. The biblical view might not win the approval of the world or be “on the right side of history,”&nbsp;but that’s not our concern. We’re not trying to win the approval of man, but of God (Gal. 1:10).</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-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmarriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmarriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Living Faithfully in Difficult Times
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 03/15/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/living-faithfully-in-difficult-times
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently listened to a <a href="http://www.gospelinlife.com/waiting-and-living-by-faith-6013" target="_blank">sermon</a> about how Christians can live faithfully in times of opposition, preached by Tim Keller several years ago at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. The lesson is drawn from the book of Habakkuk. It’s encouraging to reflect on the fact that God’s followers in biblical times lived in societies that opposed them and made it difficult to faithfully follow God. And all of us have times in our lives that are hard to live through. I know sometimes I need more courage for both kinds of difficult times, and I found the lessons Keller drew from Habakkuk 2:1-4 to be encouraging.</p>

<p>We need to develop skills to live faithfully in the circumstances of this world, and I thought there were some practical lessons in this sermon.</p>

<p>We are to live patiently, perspectively, obediently, God-centrically, and joyfully.</p>

<h2>Patiently</h2>

<p>God tells Habakkuk that he will wait for God to answer. But waiting in this context isn’t a passive thing; it’s active. Waiting biblically means deliberately humbling ourselves before God and being patient for His timing. It also means choosing sanctification because it’s often in waiting for God’s answer and deliverance that we actually grow in character, grow to be more like Jesus. God is committed to making us the people He wants us to be, and we can choose to be patient for His process of transformation. Waiting on the Lord means not giving up and trusting His good purposes in His time.</p>

<h2>Perspectively</h2>

<p>Habakkuk says he’ll station himself on the ramparts to wait and watch with expectation that God will answer. We cannot focus on our problems; we have to choose to shift our focus to God. We can meditate on His goodness, power, faithfulness, and steadfastness as things to encourage us. We can remind ourselves that God has already delivered us from the worst fate possible, the punishment for our sin. He personally made the sacrifice in Jesus to rescue us. That’s the extent of His commitment and love to us. Paul tells us in Romans 8 to keep an eternal perspective because that helps us to reckon present difficulties in the larger and redemptive perspective.</p>

<h2>Obediently</h2>

<p>Habakkuk says he will “stand his watch.”&nbsp;It’s a military phrase, and he will remain in his post and not give up. Even though we may struggle, we stand firmly with the power of the Holy Spirit to help us. We continue to do the things that connect us to God and the Body of Christ rather than wither on the vine. We pray, read the Bible, and fellowship. Even when we don’t feel like it, we do our duty.</p>

<h2>God-Centrically</h2>

<p>Keep your eyes on God—He’s the One you’re waiting for. Not His rewards or His answers, but God Himself. The most wonderful thing about being a Christian is that God gives Himself to us. We have a relationship with Him. Keep your eyes on Him and not the things we receive from Him, even when those are good things.</p>

<h2>Joyfully</h2>

<p>Our joy is in having God. He’s the treasure next to which everything else pales in comparison. Our joy comes from Him and not our circumstances. The Psalmist often reflects on this and focuses his soul on this truth to encourage himself. Jesus tells us in Luke 12:37 that we are waiting for Him and to be included in His feast is the greatest thing. And when we focus on what it cost Jesus to include us, it produces joy.</p>

<p>Keller concludes the sermon, “Here’s what I want to ask you. If you see Jesus Christ, the Lord of the universe, willing to lay aside all of his celestial being and joy and come down and wait on you by going to the cross and not giving up even in the garden of Gethsemane, even on the cross, even under the wrath of God, why can’t you wait for Him now? Why can’t you wait on Him now? See, if you see Him waiting on you in the past and waiting on you in the future, you’ll be able to wait on Him now.”</p>

<p>I encourage you to get <a href="http://www.gospelinlife.com/waiting-and-living-by-faith-6013" target="_blank">the sermon</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%2Fliving-faithfully-in-difficult-times" 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%2Fliving-faithfully-in-difficult-times" 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%2Fliving-faithfully-in-difficult-times" 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: Four Reasons a Dead Man Walked 2,000 Years Ago—Mentoring Letter April 2017
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/03/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/four-reasons-a-dead-man-walked-2-000-years-ago-mentoring-letter-april-2017
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians should be pitied. That’s right, people should feel sorry for us. At least, that’s what the apostle Paul thought if we are staking everything on the conviction that a dead man walked out of a tomb when, in fact, his corpse is still in the grave.</p>

<p>And he’s right. If the resurrection is just our make-believe-to-make-me-feel-happy kind of story, then we are a sorry bunch. False beliefs may make us feel good for the moment, but that kind of faith is worthless. (1 Cor. 15:19)</p>

<p>Fortunately for us, when we trust in the Christ of the empty tomb, we are not wishing on a star. We are standing on a solid foundation. The facts of history are clearly on our side. And here I am choosing my words carefully.</p>

<p>What would it take to show that a man actually rose from the dead? If he was dead at one point in time (and here I mean dead-as-a-doornail, stone cold dead), and then that same man was physically alive at some later point in time, I think that would do it. But can we show that with any confidence?</p>

<p>You may not know this, but in the last 50 years there has been a dramatic reversal in historical Jesus scholarship regarding the resurrection accounts. The vast majority of experts on the life of Jesus - including secular scholars who have no theological stake in the game - overwhelmingly agree to four facts of history.</p>

<p>First, they agree that Jesus died on a Roman cross and was buried in a tomb. Second, they agree that the tomb was empty three days later. Third, they agree that various individuals (and sometimes whole groups of people) experienced what they took to be the resurrected Jesus. Fourth, a skeptical non-believer - James, the brother of Jesus - and a vicious persecutor of Christians - Saul of Tarsus - did an immediate about-face based on what they claimed was an encounter with the risen Christ, and both suffered martyrdom rather than recant.</p>

<p>Note, none of these facts - a dead man, an empty tomb, claimed sightings, and changed minds - is supernatural in itself. Individually, they happen all the time. That’s why historians have no trouble agreeing on those particulars, especially since the evidence supports them. What historians don’t agree on is what best explains these four facts pertaining to Jesus. But there aren’t many options.</p>

<p>Jesus was dead. That’s pretty obvious. He suffered a brutal execution, was pronounced dead by a battle-seasoned Roman centurion (who had a spear driven into Jesus’&nbsp;chest just to make sure), was embalmed (Jn. 19:39-40) and laid in a cold crypt.</p>

<p>Three days later, the tomb was empty, a fact even Jesus’&nbsp;enemies did not dispute. They had no reason to. Produce the body and all this resurrection nonsense is silenced. The story would have never gotten off the ground. Where was the body?</p>

<p>Some charged the disciples stole the body, but this makes no sense. Why would a dozen men risk their lives for a myth they manufactured themselves? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. And many lost everything, including their lives.</p>

<p>And what of the sightings? The going theory is that the disciples were hallucinating. Really? First, this doesn’t explain the empty tomb. Second, how do multiple individuals and whole groups of people hallucinate the same thing at the same time many times over in a large variety of circumstances at multiple locations? Hallucinations are “in one’s head,”&nbsp;so to speak, like a dream. How do bunches of people share the same dream in exquisite detail <em>at the same time</em>? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>And what of James and Paul? They had absolutely no native interest in conjuring a resurrection story, nor was there any evidence they were in a mental state that motived them to see what wasn’t really there. This is why so many scholars reject this notion.</p>

<p>What explanation accounts for all four facts? As I’ve written elsewhere:</p>

<p>What would transform a group of shivering, shaking, terrified men who had abandoned Jesus - one even denying he knew Him - scattered, hiding from the authorities, doors locked, lights out? What could account for their transformation into bold advocates for the resurrection, standing up to authorities who threatened to scourge, imprison, and execute them for declaring a risen Christ?*</p>

<p>Only one answer will do, in Peter’s words, “This Jesus, God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses”&nbsp;(Acts 2:32). No, there is no reason to pity Christians. He who was once dead, is now alive. And that changes everything.</p>

<p>With Resurrection Sunday almost here, I want to send you a new DVD to help you see Jesus for who He is. In it, the STR speaking team - Tim Barnett, Alan Shlemon, Brett Kunkle, and me - present four TED-style talks to help you rethink Jesus and encounter Him as He intended.</p>

<p>I think you’ll be intrigued, entertained, and enlightened as you watch this special DVD, <em>Beyond the Clichés: Who Is Jesus and What Did He Really Do?</em> And I want you to have it in grateful thanks for your generous support this month.</p>

<p>&gt;Will you <a href="https://store.str.org/donate.asp">send a gift today</a> to equip more Christian ambassadors, like you, who know what they believe and why? Please be sure to request <em>Beyond the Clichés: Who Is Jesus and What Did He Really Do?</em> as you respond with your gift.</p>

<p>I’m thrilled and grateful to have you as a partner and friend.</p>

<p>With hope everlasting,</p>

<p>Gregory Koukl</p>

<p>*Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 151-2.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-reasons-a-dead-man-walked-2-000-years-ago-mentoring-letter-april-2017" 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%2Ffour-reasons-a-dead-man-walked-2-000-years-ago-mentoring-letter-april-2017" 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%2Ffour-reasons-a-dead-man-walked-2-000-years-ago-mentoring-letter-april-2017" 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: We Live in a Very Fortunate Universe
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life is fascinating to me. That’s why I was so excited to find <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1485392108&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+fortunate+universe" target="_blank">A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos</a>,</em> co-authored by astrophysicists Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes, under my Christmas tree. This book provides the most up-to-date scientific evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for life. But what is truly unique about this book is that it presents the data at a popular level so that the material is accessible to anyone interested in this topic.</p>

<p>As I read the book, I was awestruck by the finely-tuned constants and conditions that had to be <em>just right</em> to get a universe that would permit life. I’d like to give you a taste of some of this evidence. Specifically, I want to show you how the <em>masses</em> of three fundamental particles of the universe are set for life. If they were changed by the slightest amount, there could be no life anywhere in the universe. Unfortunately (at least for some), this requires you to understand a little particle physics.</p>

<p>Now stay with me. The reward at the end is worth it. Trust me. Here we go.</p>

<h2>Particle Physics 101</h2>

<p>Underlying all of the complexity of this universe—bees, computers, people, stars, and planets—is the <em>simplicity</em> of a few particles. At the most basic level, the world is built from a handful of building blocks. At one time, we believed that the smallest building blocks were <em>atoms</em>. However, today we know that atoms are made up of <em>sub</em>atomic particles: neutrons, protons, and electrons. Protons, which are positively charged, and neutrons, which have no charge, compose the <em>nucleus</em> of the atom. Negatively charged electrons orbit the nucleus.</p>

<p>Are you starting to remember your high school chemistry class yet? Some of you are probably still trying to forget it.</p>

<p>These <em>three</em> particles are responsible for building the 92 naturally occurring elements, as well as the unstable elements that have been created in the laboratory. Think <em>periodic table</em>. For example, a stable carbon atom is made of <em>six</em> protons, <em>six</em> neutrons, and <em>six</em> electrons.</p>

<p>But this isn’t the end of the story. While electrons seem to be fundamental, neutrons and protons can be broken into smaller bits. Particle accelerators are used to smash atoms apart. In the process, scientists have discovered that protons and neutrons are made of <em>quarks</em>. Specifically, they are made of a combination of <em>up quarks</em> and <em>down quarks</em>. Protons are composed of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons are composed of two down quarks and one up quark.</p>

<p>These three particles—the up quark, the down quark, and the electron—make up everything we see—molecules, mice, maple trees, and the Milky Way galaxy. And each of these particles has a distinct <em>mass</em>. The mass of an electron is approximately 9.1 x 10-31 kg. That is extremely small. Likewise, the mass of the up quark and the down quark are approximately 4.1 x 10-30 kg and 8.5 x 10-30 kg, respectively. (Physicists prefer to use the unit MeV/c2—Mega electron volts per speed of light squared—but let’s stick with units we are all familiar with).</p>

<h2>Changing the Masses</h2>

<p>These numbers may not look very special, but, as Lewis and Barnes demonstrate, they are finely tuned for the existence of life. Consider how the universe would be different if the masses of the up quark and down quark were slightly different. Barnes and Lewis write, “In fact, it is rather easy to arrange for a universe <em>to have no chemistry at all</em>. Grab a hold of the particle mass dials and let’s create a few universes.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>So what happens if we change the masses of the three fundamental particles—the down quark, the up quark, and the electron? Let’s see.</p>

<h2>Making a Hydrogen Universe</h2>

<p>Lewis and Barnes describe what would happen to the universe if the mass of the <em>down quark</em> was increased by a factor of 3. They write,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To create a hydrogen-only universe, we increase the mass of the down quark by at least a factor of 3. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we’d be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Can you even fathom this? Increase the mass by 3 times, and you construct a universe with nothing but hydrogen. No galaxies, no stars, no planets, just hydrogen atoms floating around a dark, cold, lifeless universe. But there is no reason why this mass could not have been 3 times larger, or 30 times larger, or 3000 times larger, or 300,000 times larger. You get the point. Yet, it has the right mass to get a universe that makes life possible.</p>

<h2>Making a Neutron Universe</h2>

<p>Lewis and Barnes describe a number of ways to create a universe that contains nothing but neutrons—no atoms or chemical reactions.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you think the hydrogen universe is rather featureless, let’s instead increase the mass of the up quark by a factor of 6. The result is that the proton falls apart. In a reversal of what we see in our universe, the proton, including protons buried in the apparent safety of the atomic nucleus, decay into neutrons, positrons and neutrinos...</p>

<p>What about the other particle of everyday stuff, the electron? Since the electron (and its antiparticle, the positron) is involved in the decay of neutron and protons, it too can sterilize a universe. For example, increase its mass by a factor of 2.5, and we’re in the neutron universe again.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>To help visualize how finely tuned these values are for life, consider a dartboard the size of West Virginia (approximately 630 trillion cm2). Now imagine I <em>blindfold</em> you and ask you to throw a dart at random towards this gigantic dartboard. Oh, and there is a catch. You have to hit the bull’s-eye (an area of about 1 cm2), or you’re dead. Your odds don’t look good.</p>

<p>It’s true that hitting any particular square centimeter is <em>equally probable</em>, but it is extremely <em>more probable</em> that you would hit one of the hundreds of trillions of squared centimeters that are <em>life-prohibiting</em> over the one squared centimeter that is <em>life-permitting</em>. In fact, if you hit the <em>life-permitting</em> bull’s-eye, most rational people would charge you with peeking—<em>designing</em> the outcome.</p>

<p>As you can see, the masses of the up quark, down quark, and electron are extremely fine-tuned for the existence of life. Not merely the existence of <em>human</em> life, <em>any</em> kind of life. These masses could have taken <em>any</em> number of values.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Yet, they fell within the extremely narrow range of values that permits the existence of life.</p>

<p>This evidence should move each one of us to ask, <em>what is the best explanation of this incredible fine-tuning?</em> These are just <em>three</em> of the many values that had to be set just right to permit a universe that would allow for the existence of life. The cumulative evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for life points persuasively to the mind of God. This universe is not merely a random, chance occurrence. No, fine-tuning points to a cosmic plan, and a cosmic plan points to a Cosmic Planner. The Apostle Paul was right: “For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:20).</p>

<p>It is truly an exciting time to be a Christian. The science of the fine-tuning is giving us a glimpse, like never before, of the divine Architect, who thoughtfully designed this universe to support life.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, <em>A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos</em> (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 48.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid., 50-51.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 51.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">The upper bound on the mass is the Planck Mass (1060).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&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%2Fwe-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe" 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%2Fwe-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe" 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%2Fwe-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe" 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: Things into Which Angels Long to Look
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/things-into-which-angels-long-to-look
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+1&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 Peter 1</a>, Peter talks about the Gospel that has saved us—“the grace that would come to you,”&nbsp;“the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow,”&nbsp;“the things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.”</p>

<p>It’s that last line that gives me goose bumps—“things into which angels long to look.”&nbsp;I know what it means to “long to look”&nbsp;into something. As a single woman, there’s a certain awe and wonder I experience when I see families that’s difficult to describe, and I’ve always thought that phrase captured what I felt better than anything else I’ve ever come across.</p>

<p>I’ve been able to relate to that phrase for quite some time, but last week when I read the passage again, I realized something that blew me away. I “long to look”&nbsp;into marriage and family, but marriage is <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/a-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless#.WKdGPRIrJR0" target="_blank">merely a temporary shadow</a> meant to point to the marriage between Christ and His church. The fulfillment of that shadow, the real and glorious thing that marriage can only hint at, is <em>mine</em>. I have it. I know the undeserved grace of Christ saving me through His sufferings. I am “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.”&nbsp;I am “protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”&nbsp;I have been “born again not of seed which is perishable”—that is, not through my weak and failing efforts—“but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.”&nbsp;Since God Himself has chosen me and protected me for the salvation He has “reserved”&nbsp;for me, and since it is He who “caused us to be born again,”&nbsp;all of these past, present, and future promises are <em>certain</em>. Astoundingly, all of this is mine, and the angels are looking at what I have with wonder, awed by my “imperishable and undefiled”&nbsp;marriage with Christ through His Gospel.</p>

<p>Perhaps you are single and have also experienced the longing I’ve described. Does this not amaze 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%2Fthings-into-which-angels-long-to-look" 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%2Fthings-into-which-angels-long-to-look" 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%2Fthings-into-which-angels-long-to-look" 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: If the Universe Is Fine-Tuned, Why Is It Mostly Inhospitable for Life?
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/02/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-why-is-it-mostly-inhospitable-for-life-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m continuing a series on responding to the most common challenges to the fine-tuning of the universe for life. You can read my response to the first challenge <a href="/w/fine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time" target="_blank">here</a>. This week I want to look at a challenge that is summarized beautifully in the comments sections of my last post.</p>

<p>Commenter Angry Grasshopper <a href="/w/fine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time" target="_blank">writes</a>,</p>

<p>Ah the Teleological Argument. Anyone who claims the universe is “finely tuned for the existence of life”&nbsp;has not thought enough about the &gt; 99.9999% of the universe where the existence of life is impossible. It’s kind of silly to call that finely tuned.</p>

<p>This response is confused for <em>three</em> reasons. First, this challenge fails to understand what scientists actually mean when they call a universe finely-tuned for life. When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are <em>life-permitting</em>. By life-permitting, they <em>do not</em> mean that life can exist wherever. By life-permitting<em>,</em> they <em>do not</em> mean that life can exist whenever. Furthermore, they do not even guarantee that life <em>will</em> exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will <em>permit</em> the existence of life. That’s it.</p>

<p>When scientists consider the landscape of <em>possible</em> universes, they have determined that they would be absolutely dominated by a wasteland of dead, boring, simple, lifeless universes. In my <a href="/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe">original article</a>, I looked at what would happen if we changed the masses of the fundamental particles that make up everything made of matter: the up quark, the down quark, and the electron. Even minor changes to these values destroy the possibility of chemistry. Life has no chance in a universe with no chemistry, no galaxies, no stars, and no planets.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a fine-tuned universe, like ours, allows for the possibility of life. The fact that there can be life <em>somewhere</em> in a universe is precisely because the fundamental physics is finely tuned. Without this fine-tuning, there would be no life, <em>anywhere</em>, period.</p>

<p>So, to complain about a finely tuned universe not having <em>more</em> locations for life misses the point completely. Ironically, the fact that they can even make their complaint is a testimony to the fact that they are in a fine-tuned universe that allows for their existence. Fine-tuning only tells us that there can be the possibility of life, not that life will be possible <em>everywhere.</em></p>

<p>Second, this response mistakenly compares particular hospitable locations within our universe (e.g. the Earth) with other inhospitable locations within our universe (e.g. the vacuum of space). However, the fine-tuning of the universe for life—properly understood—compares life-permitting universes, like ours, with <em>other</em> possible universes.</p>

<p>Astrophysicists Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis give a helpful illustration to expose this mistaken comparison:</p>

<p>Suppose that you are working behind the reception desk of a luxurious mountaintop resort. Bob, a wealthy client, is checking in.</p>

<p>YOU: You’ll be in room 401, sir. The Penthouse. It has wonderful views of the entire mountain range, and on a clear day you can see all the way to the ocean.</p>

<p>BOB: Oh, that’s no good. I don’t want to be able to see the ocean.</p>

<p>YOU: Why not?</p>

<p>BOB: Because I can’t swim.</p>

<p>Now, being well trained and polite, you book Bob into another room. But on a more sarcastic day, you might be tempted to ask why it would be a problem that, from his room, Bob can see somewhere—miles and miles away—that would be rather uncomfortable for him. How does that ruin the room?...Even if Bob has a morbid fear of drowning, that’s no reason to give the room a bad review on <em>ratethathotel.com.</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Third, many of the regions of the universe that are <em>inhospitable</em> for life are also crucial to a life-permitting universe. True, life cannot exist on the surface of the Sun because it’s nearly 10,000oF. However, the existence of stars is important for why there can be life to begin with. Sure, you don’t want to live next to a supernova—the explosion of a star—but without exploding stars we would have no heavy elements distributed throughout space, which makes life possible.</p>

<p>Or take the <em>vacuum of space</em>. We certainly cannot live in the vacuum of space, but the vacuum of space plays a significant part in making our Universe life-permitting and discoverable. For instance, if we filled our universe with breathable air, then gravity would dominate, and our universe would collapse <em>within 24 hours</em>. If we tried to adjust that expansion rate to keep the universe from collapsing, then the breathable air would become too rarified to breathe <em>within 24 hours</em>.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> In addition, air resistance would make the Earth spiral into the Sun, and energy from the Sun wouldn’t reach the Earth.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Even though the vacuum of space that makes up most of our universe is inhospitable to life, it still plays a significant role in our universe.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, <em>A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos</em> (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 247-248.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2\1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid., 248.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 251.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&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%2Fif-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-why-is-it-mostly-inhospitable-for-life-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-why-is-it-mostly-inhospitable-for-life-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-why-is-it-mostly-inhospitable-for-life-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Glitter Ash and the Spirit of the Age
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 02/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/glitter-ash-and-the-spirit-of-the-age
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This was a pretty shocking headline to read: “<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/15/glitter-ash-wednesday-hopes-sparkle-lgbt-christians-supporters/97938752/" target="_blank">’Glitter Ash Wednesday’&nbsp;Hopes to Sparkle for LGBT Christians, Supporters</a>.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Lighten up, Ash Wednesday.</p>

<p>A New York-based advocacy group called Parity is asking Christians who favor LGBT equality—“queer positive Christians,”&nbsp;in their parlance—to show support by wearing “glitter ash”&nbsp;on their foreheads to mark Ash Wednesday on March 1.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even though there have been massive shifts in our culture, it’s still a bit shocking that apparently nothing at all is sacred anymore. But this is another time we can step back and reflect from the Bible’s worldview rather than react to the specific issue.</p>

<p>What leads some to distort the ashes that are to remind us of our sin and need of a Redeemer as we enter Lent? Radical individualism. Since at least the 60s, our culture has preached that we are the centers of our own universe and our desires and satisfaction are holy, nothing else. Nothing should constrain us from pursuing our personal fulfillment as we see it. And let’s face it, while this is an obvious example of the spirit of the age, all of us are infected with individualism. Even those of us who hold a high view of Scripture and orthodox and historical teachings of the Bible view ourselves more as individuals than the Bible’s view of how we fit in the Body and in community under God.</p>

<p>We need to remember to explain to others who can’t conceive of why we would strive to be obedient to a very old, seemingly outdated book that an integral part of living as Christians is living under authority—God’s authority and His will as He’s revealed in the Bible. We aren’t free to live as we see fit or to update the Bible’s teachings. We are disciples who are following the One who created us for His purposes.</p>

<p>Os Guinness made the point in his recent book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Impossible-People-Christian-Struggle-Civilization/dp/0830844651/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1487894781&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=impossible+people" target="_blank">Impossible People</a></em> that the idea of religious conscience is a foreign idea in our culture now because the very concept requires the existence of Truth and a moral standard higher than our individual consciences that we must follow, even when it costs us something, including our personal fulfillment.</p>

<p>To be faithful disciples of Jesus, we have to examine ourselves for tendencies to act out of individualism because it comes so naturally to us. And we need to explain to others that we live under authority and we seek to obey, so we cannot compromise on the Bible’s teachings.</p>

<p>The “glitter ash”&nbsp;isn’t the problem. It’s a symptom of the problem that is common to all of humanity—the same thing we all need to repent of: our desire to do things our own way rather than God’s.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fglitter-ash-and-the-spirit-of-the-age" 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%2Fglitter-ash-and-the-spirit-of-the-age" 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%2Fglitter-ash-and-the-spirit-of-the-age" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Can the Church Support Christians with Same-Sex Attraction?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-the-church-support-christians-with-same-sex-attraction-
content:
            <div> 
		<h2>Greg Koukl Interviews Sam Allberry, Author of Is God Anti-Gay?</h2>

<p><a href="/w/interview-sam-allberry-how-the-church-can-support-christians-with-unwanted-same-sex-attraction" target="_blank">Listen to the interview Sept. 7, 2016</a></p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: The author we have on this hour we’ve had on before. His name is Sam Allberry and he has written the helpful book <em>Is God Anti-Gay</em>. Sam, I’m so glad to have you back on board today. Thanks for joining us from England.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: It’s a pleasure to be with you.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Your book is excellent. I hope there’s a lot of folks that purchased it as a result of our conversation in the past. It’s meant to deal generally with the question that’s posed with the title and other questions about homosexuality, the Bible and same sex attractions. We think it’s a really nice kind of a handbook. It’s a smaller size thing that’s a ready reference. That was our conversation last time around. There have been so many things that have been happening just in this broader area, not just with regards to the issue of homosexuality and gender, but with Christians and congregations who want to support Christians who are struggling with same sex attraction but don’t know how to deal with that in the context of their church because their church is not equipped, qualified, or doesn’t have the temperament or theology or whatever to be able to address this.</p>

<p>I wanted to bring you back on board because of your particular circumstances are somewhat unique on this issue and see what you have to say about the pastoral concerns of congregations addressing this in a compassionate and biblical way. I think to bring our listeners up to speed, can you tell us your own story? Briefly describe your situation just so they know where you’re coming from in our subsequent discussion.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, yeah. I became a Christian around the age of 18. Just really a few months before I came to Christ I had begun to say to myself, “I’m gay.”&nbsp;I was realizing that I was having sexual and romantic feelings for other men and wasn’t having the same kinds of feelings for women. At the same time as I was just recognizing that, I actually came to hear the good news of Jesus. I came to faith in Him. From the beginning of my Christian life, I’ve had to sort of think through this issue personally. Those sexual and romantic feelings, that’s a form of sexual temptation I’ve continued to experience as a Christian and obviously as a Christian form of experience I’ve sought to resist that temptation and to seek the Lord’s strength. It’s an issue I’ve had to think through as a pastor because it comes up so much, but I’ve had to think it through as a disciple because it has been a very relevant and personal issue in my own life.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: How long has that been now since you had this realization and became a Christian?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Just over 20 years.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: We all know we have our failings and that kind of thing, but you’ve been walking with the Lord faithfully in the midst of also experiencing and continuing to experience same sex attractions?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: That’s right. Obviously in those 20 years the world has changed as well. It’s not just that I’ve had to wrestle with that issue myself, but I’ve had to wrestle with it in the context of society’s own thinking about it changing dramatically also.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: How exactly did you, in a certain sense, come out regarding this issue in the church environment that you found yourself in? Did you keep it secret for a while, or how did that work?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yes, I kept the whole issue very, very secret for many years. I felt that as a Christian I wasn’t supposed to have these feelings, again 20 years ago it was a very different world and it was a very different Christian world, as well. These were not issues I was hearing being talked about much in churches, so I assumed there was something deeply and profoundly wrong with me that wasn’t deeply and profoundly wrong with other believers. I felt very ashamed of the issue, very reluctant to let anybody else know that. As I continued to sort of bat along in the Christian life it just got to the point where I realized I couldn’t handle this issue on my own. I needed other believers to know about it, pray for me, encourage me. I began to share with close Christian friends. I had no real intention at that point of going further than that. I had no intention of being a sort of public person on this issue. As far as I was concerned, it was personal, it was private, it wasn’t anyone else’s business.</p>

<p>As the years went on, and particularly as society changed and many within the evangelical Christian world were also beginning to shift in their theology, I saw an increasing need for some of us to speak to this issue from the inside of it.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Yeah, I agree with your point, by the way, that these are private things that don’t necessarily need to be shared with the larger public, though I think as you’ve found, being candid about your struggle with other Christian brothers was part of discipleship and growing, and helped you immensely, I presume. Was it difficult at first when you began to approach this issue?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I was certainly very nervous telling those first few friends initially, and needn’t have been because they were not remotely phased by the issue. They were wanting to help me. They were concerned for me, but they didn’t freak out or treat me any differently to how they had done before. It didn’t define how they saw me, and that helped me not to let the issue define how I saw myself.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: You know, this is such an important point here. I don’t know how long ago it was that you told this smaller group of Christian friends, but I think had you done this early on when you were 18 or 19, you would’ve gotten possibly a different reception. During an event this summer, I had someone come to me in private, and confessed this struggle they were having, as well. I know it was real important for me, or I think for the circumstance, to not show the least bit of discomfort.</p>

<p>I had very little discomfort in this conversation, but the important thing was for me to communicate to someone who I had every reason to believe was a brother in Christ that sense of community as a brother in the Body struggling with my own temptations that are different. I think providing that atmosphere was a tremendous help for him, even though we began to talk about things that he can do in a positive way to deal with it. That’s part of the reason that we’re talking about this today.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Having been on the other side of that conversation, that would’ve been a hugely encouraging way for you to have responded to him.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: This is important that you’re saying anybody else who is a heterosexual brother or sister in Christ, especially in the pastor role, if somebody comes to them and begins to talk about this, how precisely would you say they respond?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think the most important thing to do is to thank someone for being honest and open, and trusting you with something that is that personal. They may have been quite apprehensive about sharing, so just to acknowledge that. I think it’s important to find out where they’re at and how they’re doing with the issue. It can be useful just to ask a few more follow up questions, “How long have you been struggling with this and what has it been like? How are you finding things?”&nbsp;That will help you to get a sense of how mature their Christian thinking is about the issue, how much it’s debilitating or not, and therefore what they will most need by way of Christian encouragement.</p>

<p>Some people immediately need accountability help and that kind of thing. Others, it might not be so much accountability, they just need someone who understands for the long term. It might be loneliness is their big issue more than sexual temptation. It can vary from person to person certainly.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: One of the first questions that I asked in this conversation is I wanted to know what that person’s thought life and sexual activity had been like. Are you just feeling these attractions? Are you acting them out in any way with another person or are you acting them out in your mental life? I’ve been told by Alan Shlemon, one of our speakers here at STR, that if you have unwanted same-sex desires but you end up giving in mentally or are in actual participation with somebody, it has a way of making things a lot more difficult. Would you agree with that?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Oh, absolutely, yes. That’s the case with any sin; the more we feed it the stronger it gets. If we’re not fighting it in the mind, we’re actually giving it more and more power, more and more control over us.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Right, yeah. This applies to other areas of life, as well. I mean just heterosexual pornography and the like. I think that if there is something that is in the darkness lurking there, that if you bring it into the light, it takes a lot of the teeth out of it. If people might be struggling with temptation that they feel they just can’t master, it helps to bring it out of the darkness into the light with another believer. I found in my own life, when there are things like that and I’ve brought them into the light, that means I bring another brother into the circumstance and I express what is going on and what I’m doing, there’s an immediate accountability that is just built into that confession. I notice that when I bring that out of the darkness and into the light, it takes a whole lot of the energy out of the temptation and makes it much easier for me to deal with it.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely. I think that the Devil loves secrecy. Certainly for myself, and I’ve seen this as a pastor, we’re not designed to cope with issues like this on our own. We need each other. It’s so important to have other people we can talk things through with.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I just wonder how people view this, though. Now you’re a public figure. You’ve written a book on this issue. You have not just become candid with Christian friends about your own particular temptations. You’ve also become public about them because you’ve written a book, and you’ve become public as a pastor. Some people would think that there’s a contradiction of terms here between a person who is a pastor who has same-sex attractions. There are lots of pastors that are gay, but they affirm theology that distorts the Bible’s teaching on this. You are a pastor who believes what the Bible clearly teaches about this and continues to struggle with same-sex attraction. It isn’t like it’s a thing of the past. You’re still a pastor. Does that seem odd to some people?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think it does. It often does seem odd. I think one of the things that makes it seem less odd is to remember that this is a form of temptation that I’m seeking to be godly in how I respond to it and live the right way every moment of every day. It is the case that every single pastor in every single church will struggle with forms of temptation. Most will struggle with some form of sexual temptation because we all do. It’s not the presence of temptation that’s the issue, it’s how the person responds to it.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I completely agree with that. We read about that in James 1. One has said that there are three things that motivate every individual to do something wrong, and that is sex, money, or power. I think for men, our sexual natures are such that sex is just simply a stronger motivation, a stronger factor in living our lives than it is for women. I think this is part of the problem with male homosexuality, there’s a certain sense, it seems to me, that women and marriage have a way of domesticating men’s sexual passion. Women turn us into civilized people. When you have two men that are sexually connected, you don’t have that kind of restraint. I think this is one of the things that leads to so many other problems that homosexual men face with health and other issues, because of this powerful element that men have in our lives that seems to be more of an issue for men than it is for women. Does that make sense to you?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yes, I think it’s one of the areas where there is some difference in general between men and women. I think it was Billy Crystal once said women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place. There’s something about that that for a lot of women, it can be much more of a relational emotionally invested.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Right. I laugh because it is a funny quip. Just as an aside, I don’t think that there’s a Billy Crystal movie that I’ve ever seen that did not have some profound insight that was being played out or characterized in it. I don’t think there’s been a Billy Crystal movie for quite a while, but the old ones always were about something significant even though they had that lighter edge to them. That’s a great observation.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I want to go back to something that you said a little earlier when you were talking about your own struggle. You said you were having feelings that you weren’t supposed to have. I wasn’t supposed to have these feelings, is the way you put it, and I was ashamed of that. Now, I actually see these as two different kinds of things. The understanding that you’re not supposed to have it and then the shame that’s associated with it. I’m just wondering if you could comment on this. I’m sure that you would probably still agree with the first thing, these aren’t feelings that you should have because these are sinful kinds of attractions, just like we do have sinful impulses in a whole bunch of areas that are just evidence of our fallenness. There’s a moral quality to them.</p>

<p>I realize that if I have a temptation, I don’t feel ashamed of it because I understand that, in a certain sense, that’s a part of my makeup as a sinner. There is a sense, I think, that we can all be properly ashamed of any sinful desire we have. I’m not trying to diminish that point, but it does seem to me that there is an added degree of shame that is associated with same-sex attraction that is not associated with other sexual sins.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think that’s true. There are probably both good and bad reasons for that. I think one of the reasons that people with same sex attractions feel particular shame is because we recognize these are sexual feelings, these are forms of sexual desire that we know there is no godly way to express. When you are experiencing heterosexual lust, of course it’s something that needs to be resisted. It’s another form of temptation, but it’s a form of attraction that there is a context in which sexual attraction to someone of the opposite sex is a good thing and can be blessed by God and a means of serving Him even, within marriage. Whereas, obviously with homosexual feelings we can be very conscious that actually there’s no right place to put these feelings. I think that is one of the particular reasons why we feel shame. It’s not just, I’m attracted to someone I shouldn’t be attracted to, but I’m experiencing a kind of attraction that actually I wasn’t designed for.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: One of the things you did in the book <em>Is God Anti-Gay?</em>, and I appreciated this immensely, is you kind of approached it initially from a top-down perspective. What I mean is, instead of going after particular sins that needed to be corrected or we need to get a biblical view on, you started with really God’s purpose for sex to begin with. You started with the big picture. I sometimes think that gays in general think that God has got it out for them, that’s why there are prohibitions against their sin. When in fact, it’s not about homosexuality, it’s about God’s plan for sex. Anything that is outside of that plan is going to run into trouble with God, not just homosexuality. Can you talk about that just for a moment?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Sure. I think that the principle I try to work under is whenever the Bible gives us a prohibition, the question I want to ask is, what is the positive thing that prohibition protects? Whenever the Bible gives us a negative, there is always a bigger positive that that negative is an expression of. What the Bible says about homosexuality only really makes sense in the light of what the Bible says about marriage, and more than that, what the Bible says marriage means. We see in the Bible that we have a marriage at the beginning with Adam and Eve and we have a marriage at the end with Christ and His Church.</p>

<p>Throughout the Bible, the first marriage is used as a picture of the second marriage. It’s that vision for human marriage being a picture, being a foretaste, of the relationship between Christ and the Church that actually makes sense of why Christians have the definition of marriage that they do and why the Bible has the sexual ethics that it does.</p>

<p>Within that framework, we can see why the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, and why the Bible says sex is for such a marriage, and that being the only context in which God has designed sex to be a blessing. Homosexuality—and what the Bible says about homosexuality—is just one outworking of that vision for marriage that we see straight through the whole of the Bible.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I think of what Jesus said in Matthew 19, and the way I sum it up is one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, yes.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: When you think of it that way, it covers all the bases. It doesn’t leave just homosexuality on the outside so to speak, but also all the heterosexual sins like adultery and fornication, bestiality, all of the kinds of things that are prohibited in the Scripture are sexual behaviors that are outside of that one man, one woman, one flesh for one lifetime kind of relationship.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely. If I’m willing to give someone a quick thumbnail—this is what the Bible has as its sexual ethic—I will almost always go to Matthew 19 for that reason. It’s not what Paul says about homosexuality, it’s what Jesus says about marriage actually that is the foundation here; and what Paul then goes on to say about homosexuality is an outworking of that. I always want to bring people back to marriage because that’s the context in which everything else the Bible has to say about sex makes sense. It also shows that the Bible’s message is ultimately a positive one, and not lots of little negative ones.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: The old canard that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, even if you’re speaking with a low Christology—that is, Jesus merely the man as opposed to Jesus the incarnate Son of God who’s responsible for the entire Word—even with a low Christology, it’s not exactly true, is it?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: It’s not. It’s disingenuous because Jesus talked about sexual sin, and He spoke about sexual sin that would’ve left His original hearers in no doubt that would’ve included homosexual sexual sins when Jesus talks about—in Matthew 15 or Mark 7—about how sexual immorality is something that defiles us and makes us spiritually unclean. It’s very clear that the language He uses there—the Greek word we have in the Gospel is <em>porneia</em>, where we get the word “pornography”&nbsp;from—that was a catch-all term for any sexual activity outside of a man and woman marriage. Jesus didn’t name homosexuality, but He certainly included it in the language that He used talking about sexual sin in general.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: And would be included under His description of the right kind of relationship in marriage that God designed. He spoke of that in Matthew 19, as well.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, yeah.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl:</strong> This raises a question now that I’ve heard many times. I have my own rejoinder to it, but I’m curious what you would say, and that it’s simply unfair because those, as you pointed out earlier Sam, with same-sex attraction can never have their sexual desires fulfilled. Let’s just say they’re desires are fixed. I don’t think same-sex attraction is always an immutable circumstance, but sometimes it never changes even for a Christian. There’s lot of evidence that for some people at least same sex attraction is not immutable, it can change. This is one of the best kept secrets it seems on this issue, because nobody wants to admit that that can be the case, but certainly there are many examples. There are some individuals who continue for the rest of their life with same-sex attraction, which may be what you will end up struggling with, but there are still some people who change.</p>

<p>For those people whose attraction never changes, then it’s unfair for them because they can never not only have their sexual desires fulfilled, but they can never hope of having that kind of intimate lifelong partner, the unique kind of partnership that one has in marriage if he is to consider himself a faithful Christian. We know there’s obviously same-sex marriage now in both of our countries. If one is to consider himself a faithful Christian, this is what he’s got to face. That’s the complaint: This is unfair.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yes, I hear that a lot. I’m out and about giving talks on this issue. The most prominent objection at the moment is, How can you possibly tell someone that they have to live their life without sexual fulfillment? I think the first thing I want to say is plenty of heterosexual people also are in that situation. It’s not unique for those with same-sex attraction. You might say, Well, there’s always the possibility even if it’s remote for a heterosexual person, but I know many, many single heterosexual people who have to face decades of celibacy. It’s not just a homosexuality issue. I think the objection is assuming that sex is a right and that a life without sex cannot be full and cannot be complete.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Well that wouldn’t be just an assumption, nowadays people would consider that a fact. I mean, this says something about the nature of our culture, I think.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: It does. It shows very, very clearly that sex and sexual fulfillment have become one of the big idols of our day. When someone says to me about the Christian faith, Yes, yes, yes, yes, but when it comes to the sexual ethics, Absolutely not, no way, I kind of think, Well, why is that the sticking point? With all the other demands Jesus makes on us, it’s very revealing that that has become the issue over which people think, No, no, you cannot reasonably expect a person to live like this.</p>

<p>It’s I think a reflection of the fact that for many people, sex is part of the main thing that gives life meaning and a sense of completion. We know from the Bible that that’s not true. Jesus Himself was celibate. He was the most complete and fully human man who ever lived, and yet He didn’t have sex, so we cannot say sex is intrinsic to human fulfillment. I’d want to push hard against that, that kind of thinking about sex being so central.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: You know, I have to think about this for a moment because you made a very good point that sex is not intrinsic to human fulfillment. Well, in one sense it’s hard to argue. Jesus didn’t have sex, but He was a complete human being. On the other hand, it just seems to be such a central part of human relationships—two become one. They’re not two anymore, there’s something that is critical about being human that God made human beings gendered so that there are certain functions that human beings cannot perform on their own that are native to being human, reproduction for one of them.</p>

<p>I guess I’m just mulling this over in my mind. On the one hand, I want to agree with you, yes, it’s not critical or essential because Jesus didn’t have it, but it still seems pretty critical to a lot of people. I think for most people, it is a sacrifice that is a difficult burden to bear whatever their sexual attraction. This is where I think we live in a generation of, for lack of a more colorful word, wimps. That is, we can’t bear the thought that we are being told no about something we really want.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think you’re right. I think we’ve forgotten the cost of discipleship generally. I keep coming back to Mark 8:34 when Jesus says, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.”&nbsp;That’s radical. It’s costly, whoever we are.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Different people have different crosses. You have a different cross to bear than I do. There’s a book out on marriage called <em>Sacred Marriage</em>. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this book, but it’s an excellent book. The subtitle tells the story really—<em>Maybe God designed marriage not to make you happy, but to make you holy</em>. Part of the argument is that for some, their cross is their relationship that allows them to have their sexual desires fulfilled. Their cross is their marriage, and God uses that to conform them to the image of His Son. It just seems like no matter what circumstance we find ourselves in, if we’re faithful Christians there is going to be an ordeal that’s associated with it that God is part of because He’s using those things in our life that are most important to us in our sanctification.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely. The wonderful thing is we can trust Him. Whether He chooses to sanctify us through marriage or whether He chooses to sanctify us through singleness, we know that either way He’s going to do what is right and do what is good.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Yeah. Sometimes I think when we’re pressed on a hard issue like “This isn’t fair,”&nbsp;that we to try to rescue God from what looks like a bad characteristic of His. We’ll find some way to soften it and get around it. The fact is, and you just made the point, Sam, we put our hands to the plow and we do not look back. There are certain things we do and many things indeed that as followers of Christ we say “no”&nbsp;to even when the culture is screaming yes.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: That’s right. I’m always comforted knowing that God knows me far better than I know myself. He loves me far more than I even love myself, and He’s more committed to my joy than I am. I trust Him.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him,”&nbsp;is what Job said when his wife told him, Curse God and die. Those are two entirely different approaches to this.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: You mentioned right at the beginning that you began thinking when you were 18 years old, just around the time that you heard the Gospel and responded to it, that you were gay, which seems to suggest gay as a kind of identity. Is that the way you view it now or do you view it differently than that?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I view it very differently than that. I do remember very vividly. I was outside, waiting for a bus to take me home after school. I remember standing by the road and thinking, “I think I’m gay.”&nbsp;At the time that was the only vocabulary available to me to describe what I was beginning to recognize with my particular sexual feelings and romantic feelings and that kind of thing. Since becoming a Christian and learning a lot more about Christian identity and who we are in Christ, I don’t tend to use that language because, certainly for many people today, when you say “I’m gay”&nbsp;you’re often talking about something you regard as being a core identifier. When I describe it, I tend to use the language of same-sex attraction just because it’s descriptive of something that I feel. It’s not trying to say, This is who I am.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I like that, actually. We’ve adopted that at Stand to Reason because we’ve confronted the same thing. The culture’s tendency to make being gay an identity changes the whole discussion and it also tends to suggest that experiencing same sex attraction is something that’s immutable. That affects the discussion considerably. We’re not really talking about gay Christians here, we’re talking about disciples of Christ who struggle with same-sex attraction. That has a very different meaning to it.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely. Yes. Our culture has got to the point where your gender can be entirely fluid, but your sexual orientation, to use their language, is something that is utterly fixed.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I never made that connection. That is a great observation.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: If you want to change your gender, that’s absolutely fine, but if you want to change your sexual orientation or your pattern of sexual feelings that’s seen as being deeply harmful and unhealthy.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: If anything it seems is not fluid it’s one’s sex or gender because every single cell in your body is screaming out one thing and not another. That doesn’t prevent people from saying what sex you were assigned when you were born. When the doctor says it’s a boy or maybe when they have an ultrasound and it’s a girl, that was a gender assignment day the way people look at it now. Your gender is assigned but our sexual attraction, you’re stuck with that. That’s a very interesting observation.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Sam, you’re the perfect person to ask this last series of questions. This really is what has been coming up a lot more lately: How churches can meet the needs of Christians like yourself who experience same-sex attraction. What can churches do, or what should they be doing now? I’ll have some more particular questions too, but here’s a general one. What can they be doing now that they’re not doing to help a Christian who is struggling with same-sex attraction?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yes. I think there are a lot of wonderful things that the church can do. The church should be the very best place in the entire world to be someone who experiences same-sex attraction. That should be the best place to be because in the Bible what the church is is not just a group of people with a common hobby or a common interest, but actually in New Testament terms we’ve been bound together in Christ, and therefore we are family. Paul describes the church as the household of God, and therefore we are members of the same household.</p>

<p>One of the most important things a church can do to help on this issue and a great deal of other issues besides is to recover a sense of what it means to be family. Obviously the New Testament refers to fellow believers as brothers and sisters. It uses the category of close family. Paul says to Timothy, “Treat older men as fathers, older women as mothers,”&nbsp;not distant uncles or great aunts, but mothers and fathers. The church should be the place where any believer irrespective of whether they are same-sex attracted or not, or single or not, the church should be the place where they feel, I have a lot of family here. I always come back to Jesus promising in Mark 10 that anyone who leaves behind fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters for the sake of the Gospel will receive a hundredfold in this age. It really is so important for the church to be reflecting that in its own culture.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Yeah. That verse always mystified me when he said in this age and also in the age to come. What you’ve just suggested, that the family is the extended Body of Christ, which is massive. That’s a good insight that I’ve not had on that passage. Thank you for that.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: It should mean that whatever kind of relationship someone might’ve left behind in order to follow Christ, it should be the case that anyone who comes to Christ can say that they have had a net increase in intimacy and family just through being part of Christ’s church.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Specifically, what can a pastor say from the pulpit to his congregation? Nowadays any church of any size is going to have people in the audience that are likely to be struggling with this, or at least knowing someone who is struggling with same-sex attraction. Let’s just say the pastor is going to speak to the person who loves the Lord, and hates his struggle, but doesn’t know what to do. What is the pastor going to say just to the general assembly?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think it’s important for the pastor to say a number of things. I think it’s so important to say, If this is you and you are struggling with this particular form of temptation, it is very helpful for the pastor to say, You’re not on your own. You’re not the only Christian who is having to face this issue. You’re not on your own in the broader sense of all of us have our own equivalent that we are battling. That can be a huge comfort, I think. A lot of Christians feel as though they are a singularity if they’re struggling with this issue. Actually, that is not the case. We all face different forms of temptation. We all know that kind of battle in our hearts. It’s good for the pastor to say something along those lines.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: That you’re not alone, basically.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, yes, and therefore that there are people around you in the Body of Christ who can understand you, who can come alongside you, and who can encourage you. Actually, not necessarily people who are also same-sex attracted, but actually there’d be a lot of other Christians who would really be able to understand and empathize. I think it’s very, very important for any Christian struggling with this particular issue to have at least someone they can talk to about it. You might start with a pastor. You might start with a spiritual mentor, an older believer who you look up to and trust. It just makes the world of difference not to have to struggle with this on your own.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Something that a pastor can say is, We have people that would love to talk to you as a brother or a sister.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, so we have people who can do some of the heavy lifting of really getting under the skin of how this issue affects you and knowing how to help you in that. Then more broadly, going back to my earlier point, we have a whole community of people who would love to treat you as family. It’s one of the big fears for many Christians with same-sex attraction that is the prospect of long term singleness, and therefore the fear of being lonely.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I think that the fear is well founded though, because even if you have a pastor who has the spiritual maturity to understand things the way you just described them, you’re not going to always have a local body that shares that point of view. Are there instructions now for the pastor for the Body regarding this issue?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think so, yes. It’s an urgent issue actually for any pastor to be teaching their church how to think biblically about because it’s not an easy issue for a pastor to address from the pulpit in today’s climate with all the ways in which this is so highly charged. I always want to say to a pastor that if you’re not discipling your congregation on how they think about sexuality, you can be very sure that the world is.</p>

<p>We do need to help our congregations understand the biblical sexual ethic and how clear that is, how compelling that is, how beautiful that is. But then also we need to teach the congregation how to handle the fact that every single one of us fall short of that sexual ethic in one way or another, what it means to be sinful and to have disordered sexual desires, and therefore making the church a place that feels very safe for a Christian who is struggling with some form of sexual temptation to say, Actually I do know that I can share that here and that I will be understood, I will be heard, and I will be counseled, and I will be encouraged into godliness and holiness.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I wonder if it would be good if a pastor were to address this issue as an issue of pastoring and discipleship of his own congregation that not only is he addressing homosexuality, but he’s also saying the same thing about those of you are struggling with pornography. You’re probably going to get a larger number in any congregation nowadays struggling with pornography.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think that’s true. It just helps not to make homosexuality sound like a unique issue.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: This is where I think the shame issue shifts significantly, because you can have people with homosexual attraction that creates shame, but you have people involved in pornography that creates shame, but you’re going to have people in the church that are sleeping around and they don’t feel bad about it at all.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yeah.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: That’s just the way it is nowadays unfortunately because people have bought what the culture has said. Anyway, dealing with all of those sins, we teach God’s view about sexuality and we’re here to help you wherever you’re at on this issue, and we mean it. We’re going to be there.</p>

<p>This creates another difficulty. The difficulty has to do with their behaviors and their own commitments to discipleship. Some will say, If you don’t accept my behaviors, then you are not accepting me as a family member. But the church says, We are a family, but there are some guidelines about belonging that are critical. Can you say something about that?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Yes. I always want to come back to what does Jesus ask of his followers. When we come to Christ we are coming to Christ as our Savior, and we are coming to Christ as our Lord. We cannot say to Jesus, You can have all of these areas of my life except this one. This one is nonnegotiable, otherwise you’re not really coming to Jesus. Therefore, you can’t say to your fellow believers, You can encourage me in any kind of discipleship, you can encourage me to submit to any one of Jesus’&nbsp;teaching except this issue. That is not Christian discipleship.</p>

<p>Obeying God in lots and lots of areas and willfully, persistently, intentionally disobeying Him in one area isn’t canceled out by obeying Him in other areas. If someone says to their church family, If you don’t accept this aspect of my behavior, you’re not really accepting me, I think I want to challenge them about what their view of Jesus is. What is Jesus allowed to put His finger on, what is Jesus allowed to take, what is Jesus allowed to change? All we are trying to do as fellow believers is help each other live under what Jesus is saying.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I remember when I first became a Christian in 1973, right in the middle of the Jesus Movement, it was a huge change in the culture here in the States. I did not have a biblical sexual ethic as a single person at that time. It took me a couple of years to kind of get that under control. Then I went for like 25 years being obedient as a Christian in terms of sexual celibacy until I got married. There’s a sense in which I can sympathize when somebody says, You mean I can’t have sex? I say, Well I didn’t either. Sometimes there’s this kind of transition where you get your ducks in a row after becoming a Christian. But they’re in the process of learning to follow Jesus. I guess that’s a pastoral kind of thing people need to work out on an individual basis.</p>

<p>What about if a gay couple attends the church? Let’s just say you have a couple that comes in and they say, We’re just visiting here. It’s the first time here at your church and we’re gay. In fact, we’re married. How do you posture as a pastor to a person in that situation?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think if I was in that situation as a pastor I’d be delighted that they have come to church. I’d want them to know that I was delighted they have come to church. I’d want to welcome them in and say, It’s great to have you here. We’ve got people of all kinds of backgrounds among us. What we are about is the One who came from Heaven, lived on this earth, died for our sins and rose again to give us new life. That’s what we are about. We would love you to know something of Him. I think if a gay couple comes, I want to start with Jesus. I don’t want to start with homosexuality. To quote something my dear friend Rosaria Butterfield said once as she was giving her testimony. She realized it wasn’t lesbianism she needed to repent of, it was unbelief, and lesbianism was but one symptom of the deeper underlying unbelief.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: It’s great that you role model for us that you invite people to come in whoever will may come. It’s not homosexuality that’s the issue. If they weren’t gay, they’d be something else. They still would be sinners. The issue isn’t homosexuality per se. The issue is you and God and your rebellion and coming to Him with your bended knee and asking for forgiveness for every sin, whatever they are.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Amen to that.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: What a great note to end on. Sam, thank you so much for being part of our program today. I hope to see you sometime when I’m visiting there in the UK.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Come see us. It’s been a pleasure being with you.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: Thank you, sir, all the best. <a name="_RevRateUsLastPage"></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-can-the-church-support-christians-with-same-sex-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%2Fhow-can-the-church-support-christians-with-same-sex-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%2Fhow-can-the-church-support-christians-with-same-sex-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: CrossExamined Instructor Academy 2017
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/crossexamined-instructor-academy-2017
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We often receive messages from people who want advice on <a href="/w/advice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker" target="_blank">how to become an apologetics speaker</a>, and one recommendation we make is that they attend Frank Turek’s <a href="http://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/#toggle-id-2" target="_blank">CrossExamined Instructor Academy</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>CIA is an intense three-day program where you will learn how to present <em>I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist</em>—which involves four main topics: Truth, God, Miracles and the New Testament—and how to answer questions about those topics in a hostile environment. During those three days, in addition to hearing lectures and participating in discussions, you will be asked to present a portion of <em>I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist</em> and answer questions from several instructors including Frank Turek, Greg Koukl, Richard Howe, J.Warner Wallace, Brett Kunkle, Sean McDowell, Bobby Conway and others.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The unique thing about CIA is that you won’t just learn about topics you’d like to teach; you’ll also get instruction on <em>how to speak</em> from veteran speakers like those listed above—how to craft your message, how to recover if you stumble, how to respond to questions, how to dress, etc., etc. You’ll also have the chance to do a short presentation in front of one of the instructors, who will then give you detailed feedback, helping you improve your skills as a speaker. It’s a great opportunity!</p>

<p>This year, CIA will take place in Dallas on August 10–12, but it’s not too early to start thinking about it, because the application deadline is in June and there are reading and preparation requirements you’ll need to complete before you go.</p>

<p>For more information, see their <a href="http://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/#toggle-id-2" target="_blank">website</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%2Fcrossexamined-instructor-academy-2017" 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%2Fcrossexamined-instructor-academy-2017" 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%2Fcrossexamined-instructor-academy-2017" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Who Is Jesus?
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/03/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/who-is-jesus-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conferences</a> last year were focused on the person of Jesus, and the first plenary session was made up of four brief talks by the STR speakers covering Christology and the Gospel. They were fantastic, and taken together, they gave a clear and compelling picture of Christ. After this session at our Dallas conference, I spoke to a Muslim exchange student who was hearing and understanding these things for the first time. What a privilege to be there for that moment—to hear him ask profound theological questions about the Trinity and atonement and summarize what he just heard from our speakers accurately! I still get a little choked up thinking about it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>I felt amazed and honored to see someone hear the Gospel for the first time, but since then, I’ve started wondering just how many people out there in our own culture have literally no idea what Christianity says about Jesus. I’d be willing to bet every one of you out there is connected to at least one person like this. Are you ready to explain to them who Jesus is and what He’s done?</p>

<p>We’ve made those first four <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD059" target="_blank">talks from the reTHINK Conference</a> available for free (posted below) so you can watch and share.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Tim Barnett: The God</li>
	<li>Alan Shlemon: The Man</li>
	<li>Greg Koukl: The Rescue</li>
	<li>Brett Kunkle: The Way</li>
</ul>

<p>They’re also <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD059" target="_blank">available for purchase</a> (DVD or streaming video), along with the rest of the plenary sessions (and some breakouts), including J. Warner Wallace’s “Can We Trust What the Gospels Say About Jesus?” and Sean McDowell’s “Would Jesus Be Intolerant?” I encourage you to take a look at <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD059" target="_blank">the whole set</a>.</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/447948119?color=d89743&amp;title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/447941031?color=d89743&amp;title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/447956273?color=d89743&amp;title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/447942611?color=d89743&amp;title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-jesus-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-jesus-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-is-jesus-" 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 Unrighteous Will Not Inherit the Kingdom, but Will I?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-unrighteous-will-not-inherit-the-kingdom-but-will-i-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After I recently taught on “Homosexuality: Truth and Compassion”&nbsp;and cited 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 during my talk, someone submitted the following question: “Corinthians says the ’unrighteous’&nbsp;will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and Paul uses that verse to show ’fornicators,’&nbsp;’adulterers,’&nbsp;and the ’effeminate’&nbsp;will not inherit the Kingdom. But if I’m a sinner in other ways, does that mean I will not inherit the Kingdom of God?”</p>

<p>That’s a good question. First, let’s look at the passage.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul’s message is straightforward and can be broken down in two parts: bad news and good news. The first part is to warn us not to be deceived by thinking we will inherit the Kingdom of God if we engage in fornication, idolatry, effeminacy, or any of the other sinful behaviors listed (Paul’s “vice list”). That’s the bad news.</p>

<p>Paul’s second point is good news. “Such were some of you,”&nbsp;he writes. Although believers in Corinth once engaged in the sinful behaviors listed, they are different now. They have been “washed,”&nbsp;“sanctified,”&nbsp;and “justified.”&nbsp;In other words, they have been saved and made positionally righteous in God’s eyes (justified), have been cleansed of their sin (washed), and are being continually conformed into the likeness of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit (sanctified). Being justified means that you inherit the Kingdom of God, which is why this is good news.</p>

<p>The question I was asked at my event is one we all should ask: Will <em>I</em> inherit the Kingdom of God? After all, don’t we all sin and fall short (Rom. 3:23)? Aren’t we all, therefore, “unrighteous”&nbsp;like Paul says?</p>

<p>Yes, it’s true we all sin and will continue to do so, just like every other person on the planet. In fact, even the Corinthians Paul was writing to continued to sin after he wrote his epistle. How is it possible, then, they would have inherited the Kingdom of God, and how can we?</p>

<p>The answer depends on whether we are <em>repentant</em>. Being repentant means that we humbly acknowledge our sin, recognize God’s law, and attempt to live consistently with it (with the help of the Holy Spirit).</p>

<p>The people in Corinth were unrighteous and unsaved sinners (like everyone is before they are saved). Paul even noted their sins in his vice list. During that time, the Corinthians were unrepentant and, as a consequence, disqualified from the Kingdom. At a later time, many of them became repentant and put their trust in Christ and <em>His</em> righteousness, and so they were washed, sanctified, and justified (saved). As Paul writes in his second letter to the Corinthians, “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation...”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 7:10). Repentance leads to salvation.</p>

<p>The same is true for us. Before we repent of our sinful behavior, we are disqualified from the Kingdom. After we repent and are saved, we are able to enter the Kingdom of God. Even after the point we are saved, we still will sin. This, however, would not disqualify us from the Kingdom. The difference between the people who were engaged in Paul’s vice list and believers who sin is that the former are <em>unrepentant</em> while the latter are <em>repentant</em>.</p>

<p>This principle is also evident from the context of this passage. Several paragraphs before, Paul castigated a Corinthian in the church who was sleeping with his stepmother. (He also admonished his fellow believers for not doing anything about it.) Certainly, the man’s action was sinful, but it was because he was not repentant about his sin that caused Paul to encourage the church in Corinth to remove the sexual sinner from their fellowship. Had the man been repentant, removing him from the church would not have been necessary.</p>

<p>It’s true we all sin and will continue to do so throughout our life. That’s bad news, especially since God demands perfection from us. Those who will inherit the Kingdom of God, however, don’t remain in sin. They are repentant about their rebellion and put their faith (trust) in Christ. This decision results in a critical transaction: Christ’s righteousness is traded for our sin. We are made worthy to enter into the Kingdom of God.</p>

<p>It’s important to note that we don’t do any work to enter into the Kingdom. It’s a free gift from God that’s given when we repent and put our faith in Christ. We are no longer identified by our sin (e.g. fornicators, adulterers, etc.), but by the One who traded our sin away.</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-unrighteous-will-not-inherit-the-kingdom-but-will-i-" 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-unrighteous-will-not-inherit-the-kingdom-but-will-i-" 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-unrighteous-will-not-inherit-the-kingdom-but-will-i-" 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 Root of the Transgender Debate
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-root-of-the-transgender-debate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Russell Moore <a href="http://www.russellmoore.com/2017/02/23/transgender-debate-means-church/" target="_blank">explains</a> what’s at the root of the transgender debate:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Ultimately, the transgender question is about more than just sex. It’s about what it means to be human. Poet Wendell Berry responded to techno-utopian scientism with the observation that civilization must decide whether we see persons as creatures or as machines. If we are creatures, he argued, then we have purpose and meaning, but also limits. If we see ourselves, and the world around us, as a machine, then we believe the Faustian myth of our own limitless power to recreate ourselves.</p>

<p>This is, it seems to me, the question at the heart of the transgender controversy. Are we created, as both the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus put it, “male and female,”&nbsp;from the beginning or are these categories arbitrary and self-willed? Do our bodies, and our sexes, represent something of who we were designed to be, and thus impose limits on our ability to recreate ourselves?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/why-we-need-to-go-back-to-basics-and-make-a-case-for-our-worldview#.WLd6NhIrJR0">we’ve</a> said <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/it-s-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women#.WLd5BBIrJR0">before</a>, this all comes back to worldview, and Dr. Moore has some advice for us as the divide over worldview in our country grows greater:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If Christians see ourselves as people who are “losing”&nbsp;a culture rather than people who have been sent on a mission to a culture, we will be outraged and hopeless instead of compassionate and convictional. If we do not love our mission field, we will have nothing to say to it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of what Dr. Moore has to say on “<a href="http://www.russellmoore.com/2017/02/23/transgender-debate-means-church/" target="_blank">What the Transgender Debate Means for the Church</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-root-of-the-transgender-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-root-of-the-transgender-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-root-of-the-transgender-debate" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: False Dichotomy in “Is Genesis History?”
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/false-dichotomy-in-is-genesis-history-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I watched <a href="http://isgenesishistory.com/" target="_blank"><em>Is Genesis History?</em></a> this past Thursday in the movie theater with my family and several other families. This isn’t a review of the film, but I did want to raise a concern.</p>

<p>The film obviously addresses the question “Is Genesis history?”&nbsp;Does the first book of the Bible accurately describe what happened in the history of the earth and humanity? Did God create the universe like Genesis claims? Were Adam and Eve actual people or simply fictional figures? Did the flood happen or is it a myth?</p>

<p>It’s no surprise the film claims that Genesis is actual history: that God created the universe out of nothing, that God made Adam and Eve fully formed, and that the flood occurred.</p>

<p>Here’s my main gripe with the film, however. Even though my views are fully consistent with everything I wrote in the preceding paragraph, the film not only never addresses my view, it lumps it together with the neo-Darwinist evolutionary view. Why? Because a major theme of the film (if not the principle theme) is about time and how much of it you need to accomplish the work of creation.</p>

<p>The film, then, presents two camps. The first is the conventional paradigm that believes the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, neo-Darwinian evolution accounts for humanity, Adam and Eve are fictional characters, and the flood is a myth. The second is the historical-Genesis paradigm that believes the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, God made the universe and earth in six 24-hour days, God created Adam and Eve fully formed, and the flood is a historical event.</p>

<p>There was no mention, to my recollection (or to those who I spoke to afterwards), of genuine Christians who believe Genesis is historical, God created Adam and Eve fully formed, God judged humanity with a flood, but believe the earth is old. In fact, <em>because</em> I believe the earth is old, I’m lumped in with the conventional paradigm.</p>

<p>It’s interesting to note that even one of contributing scientists who was interviewed in the film, Paul Nelson, <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/new_film_is_gen103510.html" target="_blank">wrote publicly</a> about this very concern. He’s a young-earther but believes the film presents a false dichotomy in describing those two paradigms.</p>

<p>The only mention of other Christians with an alternative view was a brief explanation of those who hold to theistic evolution (which I reject). It’s as if there are only those who believe the earth is young or those who believe in evolution. The former believe Genesis is historical while the latter don’t.</p>

<p>I understand that Del Tackett and the contributors to the film are young-earth creationists. That’s fine. My concern is not with Christians making a case for their view as persuasively as possible. What’s unfortunate is neglecting to acknowledge our view exists, that it’s biblically supported, that it acknowledges that Genesis is history, and is held by a wide-range of notable Christians like William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Greg Koukl, Stephen Meyer, Alvin Plantinga, and many more.</p>

<p>I hesitated to even post this because I don’t like to be critical of the work of other Christians. My point is not to <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/have-grace-for-fellow-christians-on-the-age-of-the-earth#.WLTEDhIrJR0" target="_blank">further divide</a> those Christians who hold to the young-earth view and those who hold to an old-earth view. It’s fine for us to discuss the merits of each other’s views and even vigorously debate them. What I believe we need to do, though, is unite against a common foe: naturalism. It’s the naturalistic paradigm that reigns in universities and is an obstacle to many who might otherwise come to Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffalse-dichotomy-in-is-genesis-history-" 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%2Ffalse-dichotomy-in-is-genesis-history-" 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%2Ffalse-dichotomy-in-is-genesis-history-" 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 Factors to Take into Account if You’re Considering IVF
topic: Bioethics
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/moral-factors-to-take-into-account-if-you-re-considering-ivf
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I can only imagine the <a href="/w/premarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this" target="_blank">struggles</a> you might be facing as you try to conceive a child. Infertility is a reality for many and can be unimaginably painful. We need God’s grace to help us walk through such pain. In addition, we need God’s truth to help us navigate the possible road ahead. It’s true that modern technology has increased the number of reproductive technologies available to us, but we shouldn’t use them indiscriminately. As Christians, we need to think very carefully about the moral implications of these technologies, and there are several significant moral factors to take into account if you are seriously considering in vitro fertilization (IVF).</p>

<p>In IVF, a woman is given fertility drugs that enable her to produce more eggs than normal in a given cycle. The eggs are extracted from her body and fertilized by the man’s sperm in a test tube or Petri dish, thereby producing embryos. Those embryos are then transferred into the woman’s uterus.</p>

<p>First, you need to realize that IVF may produce additional embryos that will not be transferred to the woman. When you put sperm and egg together in a Petri dish, no one knows just how many embryos will actually be produced. Standard IVF practices call for the fertilization of all the eggs produced. Typically, they are transferred more than one at a time, and then leftover embryos are either disposed of or stored indefinitely.</p>

<p>The first option, disposing of the embryos, is the moral equivalent of taking the life of an innocent human being. The embryo is a living, distinct, human organism in the embryonic stage. Those three characteristics of the embryo demonstrate that it is a member of the human family. Thus, the embryo is valuable because of the kind of thing it is, namely an innocent human being. Certainly the embryo undergoes developmental changes after conception, but it experiences no substantial change or change in nature. The <em>human</em> embryo grows into a <em>human</em> fetus, which grows into a <em>human</em> infant, and so forth. Through each stage of development, it remains a valuable member of the human family. Therefore, the embryo is not a potential human, but a human with great potential, and disposing of it is not an option open to us.</p>

<p>The second option, storing the embryos indefinitely, also raises some concerns. Oftentimes, couples don’t realize their ambivalence toward their leftover embryos. Couples are probably ambivalent because they intuitively know that disposing of an embryo is not equivalent to the disposing of property that is owned. Their intuitions surface as they observe the continuity of personal identity between an embryo and a child they hold in their arms. As a result, many couples end up paying to store their leftover embryos indefinitely. And this is a problem.</p>

<p>When an embryo is created through IVF, an intrinsically valuable human life comes into existence. Thus, every human embryo brought into existence acquires the right to life and is owed the chance to mature into a fully developed human person. Therefore, storing them indefinitely would prevent them from having the opportunity to develop and would constitute a sin of omission. The only viable option for leftover embryos once they’ve been created is to adopt them out to other infertile couples.</p>

<p>As if that did not provide you with enough factors to consider, there is one more problem that may arise in IVF. Sometimes, implantation is very successful, resulting in multiple children. If the woman’s health is at risk, the doctor will recommend <a href="/w/more-than-just-a-reduction-" id="" rel="" target="_blank" title="">selective reduction</a>, which would selectively terminate the lives of one or more of the unborn children. In order to avoid this scenario, a couple can limit the number of embryos transferred to the amount of children a woman can safely carry or the amount of children the couple can handle at once.</p>

<p>If you consider IVF, please do so in light of the fact that the embryos created are part of your family from the beginning—they are your children from conception. Just because they are a small “<a href="/w/when-does-life-begin-" target="_blank">clump of cells</a>” at this level of human development, that does not disqualify them from the right to life and an opportunity to fully develop.</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-factors-to-take-into-account-if-you-re-considering-ivf" 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-factors-to-take-into-account-if-you-re-considering-ivf" 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-factors-to-take-into-account-if-you-re-considering-ivf" 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: Fine-Tuning is Unlikely, but Unlikely Things Happen All the Time
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/fine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently wrote an article about how <a href="/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe">we live in a very fortunate universe</a>. This is evident by the incomprehensible precision of the laws of physics for the possibility of life. The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe demand an explanation. I think the <em>best</em> explanation is a Designer.</p>

<p>In response to my article, I’ve encountered a number of challenges. These challenges do not disagree with the scientific evidence <em>itself</em>. Rather, they challenge the conclusion I’ve reached from the evidence. What I’d like to do over the next few weeks is offer a quick response to some of the most popular challenges.</p>

<p>The first challenge I want to look at goes like this: “Yes, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time.”</p>

<p>For a standard example of a highly unlikely event, look no further than your own existence. For you to exist, your mom and dad had to meet, fall in love, and have sex at just the right time. Not only that, but you are the result of a <em>particular</em> sperm—one in 300,000,000—and a <em>particular</em> egg—one in 2,000,000. We can multiply the improbability of your existence by looking at the likelihood of your grandparents meeting and conceiving your parents. You get the point. You are highly unlikely, but here you are.</p>

<p>In the same way, it is argued, the universe is highly unlikely, but here it is. Unlikely things happen, and we don’t need to appeal to a designer to explain it.</p>

<p>This response may have some rhetorical force, but it makes a fundamental mistake. To expose the error, let me give you another illustration. Imagine your best friend has been murdered and the lead suspect is on trial. In fact, DNA evidence puts the suspect at the scene with the murder weapon in hand. As a result, the defense attorney turns to the jury and says, “The DNA evidence makes it highly unlikely that my client is innocent. But, unlikely things happen all the time. For example, for you to exist, your mom and dad had to meet, fall in love, and have sex at just the right time...”</p>

<p>Would any jury accept this response? I think we would have to say, no.</p>

<p>But why wouldn’t they accept it? It is because there is a <em>better</em> explanation; namely, that the suspect really is the killer.</p>

<p>Let me give you one more illustration to help make my point. Imagine we sit down to play poker. Every time you deal, I get a random assortment of cards (e.g. King high, pair of eights, Jack high, pair of tens, Ace high). However, every time I deal, I get a royal flush (e.g. royal flush, royal flush, royal flush, royal flush, royal flush). The probability of getting a <em>single</em> royal flush is one in 649,739.</p>

<p>After the fifth royal flush, you insist that I’m cheating. That is, I’m <em>designing</em> the outcome. But what if I responded, “Yes, five consecutive royal flushes is highly unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time. In fact, for you to exist your mom and dad had to meet, fall in love, and have sex...”</p>

<p>There is an important distinction between the unlikelihood of you existing and the unlikelihood of dealing myself five royal flushes. It’s the availability of a better explanation. In the case where I deal myself five royal flushes, it is better explained by the fact that I am cheating rather than that it just happened by chance. In the same way, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is <em>better</em> explained by a cosmic Designer.</p>

<p>How do we really know that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe for life? It is the same way we know that I designed the outcome to get five royal flushes in a row. A royal flush is highly improbable, but it is just as improbable <em>as any other hand in poker</em>. What makes a royal flush so special is that <em>this</em> sequence of cards matches a pattern that corresponds to a winning hand in poker. Therefore, it’s the high improbability <em>plus</em> the specified pattern that tips us off to design. Let me say this again so it isn’t missed. It’s not merely the high improbability of an event that leads to a design inference. It’s the high improbability combined with an independently specified outcome that leads to the conclusion of design.</p>

<p>Consequently, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is not merely highly improbable. It’s highly improbable plus an <em>independently specified outcome</em>. It’s finely tuned <em>for the existence of life.</em> Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is <em>best</em> explained by a cosmic Designer.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time" 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%2Ffine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time" 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%2Ffine-tuning-is-unlikely-but-unlikely-things-happen-all-the-time" 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: Atheism’s Burden of Proof
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/atheism-s-burden-of-proof
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Atheists claim they have nothing to prove. They simply lack a belief in God, which means they don’t shoulder a burden of proof. After all, no one needs to prove why they don’t believe in Santa Claus. Only the person who posits that Santa Claus (or some other being) exists is responsible for giving evidence for their view. Atheists, allegedly, can sit back and watch Christians and other theists struggle to defend their belief.</p>

<p>While it’s true that atheists don’t have to prove the <em>absence</em> of God, they’re hardly off the hook when it comes to making sense of their position. If they don’t believe in God, their view entails at least three incredible assertions that require <em>a lot</em> of explaining.</p>

<p><strong>#1: They need to explain how the universe came into existence by itself.</strong> Without a personal agent (like God) causing the universe to begin to exist, the atheist must explain how all of space, time, and matter created itself. Keep in mind that “before”&nbsp;the universe existed, <em>nothing</em> existed. There was no space, no atoms, no time, no vacuum—literally nothing—before the universe began. If nothing exists, nothing can begin to exist. That is, you can’t create everything (or anything!) in the universe when there is nothing to create from and there is nothing or no one to do the creating. You can’t even say that the laws of physics created the universe because even those didn’t exist before the universe existed. So, while it’s true that the atheist doesn’t have to give evidence that God doesn’t exist, he still needs to explain how the <em>universe popped into existence by itself from nothing</em>.</p>

<p><strong>#2: They need to explain how free will can exist if humans are entirely physical objects.</strong> Humans can act freely only if they have an immaterial soul that is separate from their physical body. It’s your soul that thinks, unencumbered by the deterministic laws of physics and chemistry.</p>

<p>According to atheism, though, we have no soul. Humans are made of physical matter and nothing more. We are merely machines, albeit biological and complex ones. That means human behavior and decisions are governed by the forces of physics and chemistry. If that’s true, then human beings have no free will. Stephen Hawking, one of the most celebrated scientists and physicists of our time, agrees. He writes, “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”</p>

<p>Atheists, then, need to explain how free will can arise from a purely physical object. That’s an unenviable position to be in because we all know physical objects don’t have the ability to engage in free will acts, no matter how complex their arrangement of physical parts.</p>

<p>To avoid the burden of proving free will can arise from mere matter, some atheists concede that free will doesn’t exist. This concession, though, leads to further absurdity. First, it means that we don’t have free will, a claim that doesn’t resonate with our intuitions that we can make freely-willed choices. Second, it means that atheism—or any belief—is not rational. Deterministic forces act on all physical objects, even the neurons in our brain that allegedly make up our thoughts. Every thought, then, results from the collision of billions of atoms governed by physical forces. Our brains are deterministic boxes without the capacity of free will and reason to guide our thinking. Therefore, no thought—not even the idea of atheism—is rational. Third, we can’t hold people responsible for crimes. If human behavior is not freely chosen, but determined by mechanical forces, then we can’t hold people accountable for crimes. Can you hold a robot responsible for murder? No one can be guilty for an action he didn’t freely choose.</p>

<p><strong>#3: They need to explain where morals come from.</strong> According to theists, what’s right and wrong is known because there is a God who provides a standard of morality. Furthermore, morals can’t change because they are grounded in God’s unchanging character. They are not subject to us, but we are subject to them.</p>

<p>If atheism is true, though, there is no God to provide a standard of morality. Morals could still exist, but not as <em>objective</em> features of the universe. Rather, morals would depend on individuals, groups, or cultures. What’s right and wrong would be relative and open to change as people’s ideas evolve. Indeed, that’s what many atheists concede.</p>

<p>But there are at least three problems with that concession. First, if morality is relative to individuals, groups, or culture, then you can’t claim anything is ultimately wrong. All you can say is that <em>you</em> think it’s wrong. Second, if a culture begins to believe that rape is moral, then rape becomes moral. Since what’s right and wrong is relative, <em>any</em> behavior can potentially become accepted as “moral.”&nbsp;Third, you couldn’t claim what the Nazis did was wrong. After all, morals are relative to cultures. There is no objective morality that all cultures are subject to. Any moral system that can’t declare Nazi genocidal behavior to be immoral is an impotent moral system.</p>

<p>As you can see, atheists may not need to prove the absence of God, but their view entails that the universe popped into existence from nothing, that free will either emerges from a physical object or is an illusion, and that objective morals can exist apart from an unchanging Creator. That requires <em>a lot</em> of explaining.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fatheism-s-burden-of-proof" 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%2Fatheism-s-burden-of-proof" 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%2Fatheism-s-burden-of-proof" 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 Apology to the LGBT Community That Needs an Apology
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/02/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-apology-to-the-lgbt-community-that-needs-an-apology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week I was sent a video titled <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-tDOq7JS9k&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank"><em>Confessions of a Christian Nation—LGBTQ Discrimination</em></a>. The short, six-minute video features Brian McLaren, Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, and Bruxy Cavey taking turns apologizing for the mistreatment of the LGBT community by the Church.</p>

<p>I want to begin by echoing that I, too, am very sorry for the genuine mistreatment of those individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, especially by those who claim to be followers of Christ. If you have been cursed at, maligned, abused, unjustly discriminated against, or treated as subhuman, then I sincerely apologize. This is unacceptable, and there is no excuse for that kind of behavior. Period.</p>

<p>I want you to know that <em>every</em> member of the LGBT community is made in the image of God. Therefore, you are intrinsically valuable and should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.</p>

<p>I also want to apologize for those Christians who have given you the impression—by their words and actions—that God doesn’t love you. Let me say <em>unequivocally</em> that God loves you. In fact, He gave His life for you.</p>

<p>But this video <em>fails</em> to accomplish its intended goal. It’s an apology that <em>itself</em> needs to be apologized for. That is, in its attempt to apologize for the sins of the Church, it commits further sins that ultimately <em>hurt</em> those whom it’s trying to <em>heal</em>. So, in all sincerity, let me apologize for this failed apology.</p>

<p>I want to apologize for some Christians who <em>refuse</em> to speak difficult truth in the name of love and compassion. Compassion divorced from truth—even hard truth—is not compassion at all. Yes, love is patient and kind. True, love is not arrogant or rude. But, as Paul goes on to say, <em>love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth</em> (1 Cor. 13:6). Truth and love are inextricably linked.</p>

<p>Pastor and author Tim Keller writes, “Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.”&nbsp;If you have experienced the latter, I’m sorry. But I’m equally sorry if you’ve only experienced the former. Sentimentality might feel good. After all, everyone wants to be affirmed and supported. But this is equally dangerous, because it puts feelings <em>above</em> truth. No, truth <em>and</em> love must be presented together. I’m so sorry for any Christian who would mistakenly give you one without the other.</p>

<p>I’m deeply sorry for any Christian who proclaims another Gospel—not that there is another Gospel—that leaves us in our sin. This is <em>not</em> love. This is <em>not</em> compassion. Yes, God loves us just <em>as we are</em>. But He doesn’t want to leave us <em>where we are</em>. God wants us���all of us—to turn from our sin. The biblical writers call this <em>repentance</em>. God is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).</p>

<p>I’m sorry for Christians who make same-sex intercourse out to be the greatest sin, and I’m sorry for Christians who deny that it is a sin. <em>Both</em> are wrong and hurt you.</p>

<p>After confronting sexual sin in the church of Corinth, Paul gives a list of sins people commit that keep them out of the kingdom of God.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? <em>Do not be deceived:</em> neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. <em>And such were some of you.</em> But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The practice of homosexual behavior is not at the top of Paul’s list. It’s just one of the many sins on the list. But, please notice it is on the list. He warns us not to be <em>deceived</em>. It’s almost as if he anticipates a time when people who engage in these behaviors (e.g. drunkenness) may one day be deceived into thinking that these aren’t really sins at all. When in reality, these sins—and others—can actually keep people out of the kingdom of God.</p>

<p>I apologize for Christians who have given the impression that to love someone means you <em>cannot</em> also tell them what they are doing is wrong. If this were true, it would make God unloving.</p>

<p>One way God communicates His love for you and me is by telling us that many of the things we want to do, we mustn’t do. <em>Because</em> Jesus loved the woman caught in adultery, He told her to sin no more (John 8:11). <em>Because</em> Jesus loved the rich man, He told him to sell all that he had and to give it to the poor (Luke 18:22). <em>Because</em> Jesus loved the lost Jewish people, He said, “Unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins”&nbsp;(John 8:24). <em>Because</em> Jesus loved the church in Thyatira, He told them, “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols”&nbsp;(Rev. 2:20).</p>

<p>Moreover, when Paul discovered sexual immorality at the Church in Corinth, he didn’t ignore it. Rather, he “pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing”&nbsp;so that they “may be saved in the day of the Lord”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 5:3,5). Both Jesus and Paul modeled <em>genuine</em> love in the context of making a right judgment.</p>

<p>I apologize to the LGBT community for so-called Christians, who take the clear interpretation of Scripture and twist it to suit their own desires. In so doing, they completely mislead the LGBT community into thinking that God has no problem with same-sex behavior.</p>

<p>I’m sorry for any Bible teacher who—either out of ignorance, or fear, or worse—refuses to tell you that there is not a single passage in the Bible that speaks <em>positively</em> about same-sex intercourse. These teachers are not being loving. They are <em>hurting</em> you by keeping this from you, because they are keeping you from repentance. It is with genuine sorrow that I tell you that every time same-sex behavior is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned.</p>

<p>I apologize for Christians who use terms like “straight Christian,”&nbsp;“straight Church,”&nbsp;and “gay Christian.”&nbsp;This vocabulary is absolutely <em>foreign</em> to Scripture. The believer has been crucified with Christ. Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”&nbsp;(Gal. 2:20). A few verses later, Paul adds, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”&nbsp;(Gal. 3:24). This kind of language doesn’t build unity; it tears it down.</p>

<p>God doesn’t call you to be heterosexual, but He does call you—and me—to be holy (1 Pet. 1:16). So we are to strive to be holy, <em>but how do we do that?</em> Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me”&nbsp;(Luke 9:23). Anyone who wants to follow Christ must <em>deny</em> himself, not <em>affirm</em> himself. Following Christ means being obedient to His word, even when our natural desires and inclinations pull us in the opposite direction.</p>

<p>Finally, I apologize for Christians who have failed to clearly proclaim and live out the Gospel. Granted, we must be better at <em>showing</em> the love of God. But we must also be better at <em>articulating</em> that love of God. My prayer is that you experience <em>both</em>. John says, “We love <em>because</em> He first loved us”&nbsp;(1 John 4:19). But how did God first love us? Paul gives one of the clearest descriptions of this incredible love in his letter to the Romans:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom. 5:6-11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The good news of the Gospel only makes sense in light of the bad news. We are in active rebellion against God—enemies of God—and deserving of His righteous wrath. It was when we—you and I—were in that sinful state that God stepped in to rescue us. God shows His love for us by dying for us.</p>

<p>For <em>all</em> of this, I am truly sorry.</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-apology-to-the-lgbt-community-that-needs-an-apology" 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-apology-to-the-lgbt-community-that-needs-an-apology" 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-apology-to-the-lgbt-community-that-needs-an-apology" 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: To Give a Good Answer, Sometimes You Have to Change the Question
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 02/23/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/to-give-a-good-answer-sometimes-you-have-to-change-the-question
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our culture has moved so far from a biblical worldview that we can’t expect people we talk to about the Gospel to understand even where we’re coming from. It’s foreign. And strange. And odd. And sometimes when we talk about specific issues, like homosexuality, out of the context of the biblical worldview, it just doesn’t make sense to people. They have no background to understand the specifics because they don’t see how it fits.</p>

<p>As Christians representing God’s Word, we have to be able to explain the bigger picture. In the case of homosexuality, pornography, and sex outside of marriage, we need to explain what God’s plan is for human sexuality. The reason there are negatives in the Bible is to protect the positives. God says no to certain sexual behavior because He has a beautiful plan for sexuality He wants us to protect. The Bible isn’t prudish or down on sex, it’s actually very affirmative and positive for the design God created. Instead of always saying no to sexual issues our culture pushes, we need to be able to show the tremendous yes God says to sex.</p>

<p>Author Rosaria Butterfield has said that you can’t give a good answer to a bad question. When confronted with direct questions about what the Bible teaches about sex, you probably need to answer a somewhat different question to give a good answer. Instead of answering the question, “What does the Bible teach about being gay?”&nbsp;it might be more effective to help the asker actually understand the answer if you respond to the more relevant question, “What does the Bible teach is God’s design for sex?”&nbsp;In that context, the answer to the question he asked will make more sense.</p>

<p>Greg <a href="/w/interview-sam-allberry-how-the-church-can-support-christians-with-unwanted-same-sex-attraction">interviewed</a> author Sam Allberry last fall. Sam wrote the wonderful little book <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK382" target="_blank">Is God Anti-Gay?</a></em> In that interview, Sam made this point.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: I think that the principle I try to work under is whenever the Bible gives us a prohibition, the question I want to ask is, what is the positive thing that prohibition protects? Whenever the Bible gives us a negative, there is always a bigger positive that that negative is an expression of. What the Bible says about homosexuality only really makes sense in the light of what the Bible says about marriage, and more than that, what the Bible says marriage means. We see in the Bible that we have a marriage at the beginning with Adam and Eve and we have a marriage at the end with Christ and His Church.</p>

<p>Throughout the Bible, the first marriage is used as a picture of the second marriage. It’s that vision for human marriage being a picture, being a foretaste, of the relationship between Christ and the Church that actually makes sense of why Christians have the definition of marriage that they do and why the Bible has the sexual ethics that it does.</p>

<p>Within that framework, we can see why the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, and why the Bible says sex is for such a marriage, and that being the only context in which God has designed sex to be a blessing. Homosexuality—and what the Bible says about homosexuality—is just one outworking of that vision for marriage that we see straight through the whole of the Bible.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: I think of what Jesus said in Matthew 19, and the way I sum it up is one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely, yes.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: When you think of it that way, it covers all the bases. It doesn’t leave just homosexuality on the outside so to speak, but also all the heterosexual sins like adultery and fornication, bestiality, all of the kinds of things that are prohibited in the Scripture are sexual behaviors that are outside of that one man, one woman, one flesh for one lifetime kind of relationship.</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: Absolutely. If I’m willing to give someone a quick thumbnail—this is what the Bible has as its sexual ethic—I will almost always go to Matthew 19 for that reason. It’s not what Paul says about homosexuality, it’s what Jesus says about marriage actually that is the foundation here; and what Paul then goes on to say about homosexuality is an outworking of that. I always want to bring people back to marriage because that’s the context in which everything else the Bible has to say about sex makes sense. It also shows that the Bible’s message is ultimately a positive one, and not lots of little negative ones.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Koukl</strong>: The old canard that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, even if you’re speaking with a low Christology—that is, Jesus merely the man as opposed to Jesus the incarnate Son of God who’s responsible for the entire Word—even with a low Christology, it’s not exactly true, is it?</p>

<p><strong>Sam Allberry</strong>: It’s not. It’s disingenuous because Jesus talked about sexual sin, and He spoke about sexual sin that would’ve left His original hearers in no doubt that would’ve included homosexual sexual sins when Jesus talks about—in Matthew 15 or Mark 7—about how sexual immorality is something that defiles us and makes us spiritually unclean. It’s very clear that the language He uses there—the Greek word we have in the Gospel is <em>porneia</em>, where we get the word “pornography”&nbsp;from—that was a catch-all term for any sexual activity outside of a man and woman marriage. Jesus didn’t name homosexuality, but He certainly included it in the language that He used talking about sexual sin in general.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(You can read the full transcript <a href="/w/how-can-the-church-support-christians-with-same-sex-attraction-">here</a> or listen to the original interview <a href="/w/interview-sam-allberry-how-the-church-can-support-christians-with-unwanted-same-sex-attraction">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%2Fto-give-a-good-answer-sometimes-you-have-to-change-the-question" 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%2Fto-give-a-good-answer-sometimes-you-have-to-change-the-question" 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%2Fto-give-a-good-answer-sometimes-you-have-to-change-the-question" 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: Pensées - Short Thoughts on Various Topics Part 2
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/pensees-short-thoughts-on-various-topics-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In this issue of <em>Solid Ground</em> I continue with my collection of short vignettes I have collected over the years.</p>

<p>Sometimes useful reflections are the result of hard thinking and hours of wrestling with an idea. Most of the musings below, though, came in a flash of insight. When that happens, I jot the basic idea down on a notepad, napkin, or record it on my phone so I don’t lose it. Then I wait till later to hammer out the details.</p>

<p>It’s a basic rule that’s served me well over the years: Never let a productive thought or idea slip away. Since lightening rarely strikes twice in the same place, I may never think that thought again, so I better save it while I can. The palest ink is brighter than the best memory, the proverb goes.</p>

<p>You won’t always come up with the best answer or rejoinder in the middle of a conversation.&nbsp;You usually walk away, mull it over, replay the conversation in your mind, then think of what you should have said.&nbsp;Save that thought, and you’re ready the next time the topic comes up.</p>

<p><strong>Respecting the Revelation</strong></p>

<p>Some think getting a word from God is a substitute for careful Bible study. But it’s presumption to think the Holy Spirit will simply give you the right interpretation of a text.</p>

<p>Paul said, “All <em>Scripture</em> is God-breathed,” (2 Tim. 3:16)—the word is <em>graphe</em> in Greek. The <em>writings</em> are inspired and authoritative, not the <em>interpretation</em> we think the Holy Spirit is giving us. This is why the words should be our focus, not our feelings.</p>

<p>If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words <em>in their context</em>, it can’t be of God because God chose to communicate through language, not around it.</p>

<p>Yes, the Holy Spirit is our teacher, but that means He illuminates what’s already there. All teachers work from a body of information, clarifying it and passing it on. The Holy Spirit does not give new information not already in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning. There are no private messages in Scripture.&nbsp;</p>

<p>God took pains to give us an objective revelation in the words of the Bible to protect us from subjectivism. When Christians opt for an anointed “reading between the lines” instead of sound exegesis, it actually shows disrespect for the revelation the Holy Spirit inspired.</p>

<p><strong>Ever Hear of the Ten Commandments?</strong></p>

<p>Have you read the Ten Commandments recently? Take a quick personal moral inventory by asking yourself these questions: &nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>Have you ever given allegiance to anything else over God in your life?</li>
	<li>Have you ever used anything as an object of worship or veneration?</li>
	<li>Have you ever used God’s name in a vain or vulgar fashion?</li>
	<li>Have you worshipped God on a consistent basis?</li>
	<li>Have you disobeyed or dishonored your parents even once?</li>
	<li>Have you murdered anyone, or even had harsh thoughts about someone (see Matt. 5:22)?</li>
	<li>Have you had sex with someone other than your spouse, or even thought about it (see Matt. 5:28)?</li>
	<li>Have you taken something that wasn’t yours?</li>
	<li>Have you lied?</li>
	<li>Have you hungered after something that didn’t belong to you?</li>
</ul>

<p>Sound tough? It is. This is God’s Law. These are God’s requirements. Even in grammar school, 60% is a flunking grade, yet who among us has not violated each of these commandments many times, at least in spirit?</p>

<p>Reducing the Ten Commandments to only two doesn’t help, by the way. Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40). Yet even the best of us violate these “minimal” requirements daily.</p>

<p>In your conversations, use both the Law and the Gospel. God’s Law is the mirror that shows us our need for the Savior. In Paul’s words, each of us is “shut up under sin” (Gal. 3:22). Our mouths have been closed, and we all have become accountable to God (Rom. 3:19). Saved by our own goodness? The Law gives us no hope other than Jesus’ righteousness.</p>

<p><strong>Creating a Potential Life?</strong></p>

<p>A common way to dehumanize the unborn to justify abortion is to call an unborn child a “potential life.” But this is just a rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a “potential life.”</p>

<p>Think about it. First, you could create a potential <em>for</em> life. When a man and woman have sex there’s potential for life to be produced. Second, you could create a life <em>with</em> potential. The person could eventually do something wonderful. But that’s the end of your options. Either your actions have potential to create life, or you create a life with potential, but you never create a potential life.</p>

<p>What could it possibly mean to say, for example, “I just had a potential thought”? You either had a thought or you didn’t. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn’t. But you never have a potential thought.</p>

<p>In the same way, pregnancy doesn’t create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion (not a potential abortion) is needed to end pregnancy, a real life must be involved, not a potential one.</p>

<p><strong>No Tolerance in Relativism</strong></p>

<p>Relativism’s chief virtue is tolerance, or so it seems. A closer look, though, shows just the opposite to be true: the obligation of tolerance is meaningless in relativism.</p>

<p>“Morality is individual,” relativists say, “therefore we ought to tolerate others’ viewpoints and not pass judgment on their behavior and attitudes.” Do you see the contradiction built into the sentence? The word “ought” is a give-away. This attempt commits suicide.</p>

<p>If there are no objective moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance. In fact, if there is no moral truth, that’s a good reason not to be tolerant at all. Why not force my personal morality on others if it’s in my own self-interest and my own ethics allow it?</p>

<p>Moral relativism does not lead to tolerance. It leads to a moral free-for-all.</p>

<p><strong>Good and Bad Deeds in the Balance</strong></p>

<p>God demands we live obedient lives. But what about when we don’t? The most vital issue Christianity answers is, “How can we be right with God when we are not thoroughly good?”</p>

<p>There is profound misunderstanding on this point. Many err in defining goodness according to human standards. God, on this view, is concerned with what kind of people we are “on average.” If the good outweighs the bad—if good is predominant—then God winks at the moral lapses.</p>

<p>But justice never works like that, does it? The law demands that each person obey every law always, not some of the laws most of the time. You can be an upstanding citizen all your life, but a single crime is still going to bring you before the judge.</p>

<p>Further—and this is critical—no amount of good behavior pays for bad behavior. Law requires consistent obedience, and that which is already owed cannot be used to pay off past debts.</p>

<p>God, like all lawgivers, requires nothing less than moral perfection. “But that’s impossible,” you say. You’re right. That’s why we need a Savior. It’s the only way we can be right with God when we’re not thoroughly good.</p>

<p><strong>“Forcing” One’s Views</strong></p>

<p>The charge that Christians are trying to force their views on others when they get involved politically is simply unfair. Christians are citizens, too. We want to make our case in the public square and then submit our views to popular vote—no force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and then a ballot. Within the limitations of the Constitution, the majority rules. That’s the way the game is played.</p>

<p>There is no danger when people are allowed to freely speak their mind, argue for their point of view, make their case in the public square, and then call for a vote. There is a threat to liberty, though, when one group strong-arms another into silence and pushes them off the playing field.</p>

<p><strong>Abortion and Homicide</strong></p>

<p>Some observers denounce the use of the word “murder” to describe abortion. Yet this so-called “rhetoric” is completely consistent with the laws of two thirds of the states in the Union, including California.</p>

<p>California statutes under the category “Crimes against the Person,” defines murder this way: “The unlawful killing of a human being, <em>or a fetus</em>, with malice aforethought” [emphasis mine], with the following exception: “This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if…the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”</p>

<p>The only difference, then, between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the great state of California is the consent of the mother.</p>

<p>So here’s my question: How does the mere collusion of a mother with a doctor transform her unborn offspring from a person of ultimate value to a worthless castoff destined for the dumpster? What metaphysical magic works this transformation?</p>

<p>However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can’t hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide, even in the Golden State. Those who kill fetuses are prosecuted for murder.</p>

<p>On the fundamental issue, then—the innate value of unborn human beings—pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law’s general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn.</p>

<p><strong>Hitler and Mother Teresa</strong></p>

<p>Would Hitler and Mother Teresa both suffer the same fate if they weren’t Christian? No and yes.</p>

<p>No, because they’d answer for different acts of disobedience before God and, as such, their judgment would be different. Just as there are degrees of sin (Jn. 19:11), there are also degrees of punishment. Jesus said Sodom would fare better than Capernaum in the day of judgment (Matt. 11:24), though each would be condemned.</p>

<p>Yes, because each person must ultimately answer for his own sins—Hitler for his, Mother Teresa for hers, you and I for ours. Unless, of course, Jesus is allowed to answer for them.</p>

<p>That is the good news: Jesus, though rich, for our sake became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9).</p>

<p><strong>Does the Trinity Make Sense?</strong></p>

<p>Some people say the Trinity—the idea that there is one God Who subsists in three fully distinct, but fully divine persons—doesn’t make sense. This depends entirely on what one means by making “sense.”</p>

<p>If one means that the Trinity is irrational, that it violates some law of reason, then the challenge is simply false. There is no violation of the laws of reason in the Trinity. Anyone who thinks so must identify the specific breach of reason in the orthodox teaching on the Trinity (as opposed to misrepresentation, like tri-theism).</p>

<p>One might say that the Trinity doesn’t make sense in that it doesn’t appeal to any sense perception—because the Trinity can’t be pictured in the mind—and they would have a point, but it’s hardly relevant. Lots of real things—God, humor, love, faithfulness—cannot themselves be pictured, yet are clearly intelligible. So it’s no liability that the Trinity is not “sensible” in that way.</p>

<p>This tells you nothing about the truth of the doctrine, of course. That question is answered by a different means: Does God’s own self-revelation give us reason to believe that the doctrine of the Trinity, classically understood, is an accurate and true description, as far as it goes, of God’s nature? The answer to that is clearly yes.</p>

<p><strong>Religion and Science?</strong></p>

<p>The view that “religious” theories should not intrude in science is guilty of at least three logical errors.</p>

<p>First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models, though, have evidential support. We see the blending, for example, when we infer a Creator from Big Bang cosmology. A Big Bang needs a big Banger, it seems to me.</p>

<p>Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that those who believe in creation make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case since they are happy to present scientific evidence for their view, if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.</p>

<p>Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have religious significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.</p>

<p>A bright line between religion and science just isn’t possible. Instead, they should work compatibly, drawing on the strength of each based on the available evidence to give us a total picture of reality.</p>

<p><strong>The Soul Hole</strong></p>

<p>In July 1995, <em>Time</em> magazine made a stunning announcement.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[1]</a> In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show.” There is no soul, in other words.</p>

<p>How do they know this? “After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.”</p>

<p>This is one of the silliest statements I have ever read. Your soul isn’t in your body like a pea is in a pod. You cannot open yourself up and find the spot where your soul resides. Physical things reside in physical places. But immaterial things don’t need any space to fit into. If the soul is not physical, then it doesn’t need a physical location.</p>

<p>Further, just because science can’t find souls doesn’t mean souls are not real. It’s like saying, “You told me there was an invisible man in your house. But I went inside and I didn’t see him anywhere.”</p>

<p>This doesn’t prove souls exist, of course. It does show, though, that the failure of science to find the soul tells you nothing about the question one way or another.</p>

<p><strong>Life as We Know It</strong></p>

<p>A frequent response to the evidence against the origin of life by Darwinian evolution is, “All the difficulties with the evolution of life from non-life only apply to <em>life as we know it</em>. But what about other kinds of life?”</p>

<p>This is easy to respond to. “Life as we know it,” is the only life we know of. It’s unscientific, unreasonable, and unfair to postulate some separate form of life that’s unheard of simply because the evidence against the evolution of life “as we know it” from non-life leads to conclusions someone doesn’t like. It’s an example of what I call “phantom argument,” invoking unknown facts to refute known ones. Just as Christians have been faulted for invoking a “God of the gaps,” this alternative becomes “science of the gaps,” or more accurately “science fiction of the gaps.”</p>

<p><strong>Bumper Sticker Slogans</strong></p>

<p>I saw a bumper sticker that said, “If You Can’t Trust Me with a Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?” Sounds clever at first, until you think about it.</p>

<p>There are some choices no one should be “trusted” with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is “trusting” a mother with her child when she’s carrying her baby. She doesn’t need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state’s control. If it were in the control of the state, many probably should be denied that trust, considering their intention to destroy their own offspring before the baby sees the light of day.</p>

<p><strong>Christian “Faith” vs. Knowledge</strong></p>

<p>For many Christians, faith and knowledge are opposites: The more evidence you have, the less faith involved. The more bizarre and unbelievable the claim, the greater the faith, they say. The greatest faith on that view, then, would be the one farthest removed from reason or evidence.</p>

<p>Two odd conclusions follow from this kind of thinking.</p>

<p>First, apologetics—giving evidence in defense of faith—would actually be <em>detrimental</em> to faith. Yet Peter tells us to always be ready to give an <em>apologia</em>, a defense, for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15).</p>

<p>Second, if faith and knowledge are inversely proportional (an <em>increase</em> in knowledge means a <em>decrease</em> in faith), then the more evidence <em>against</em> Christianity the <em>better</em> for the faithful Christian. Indeed, believing something you knew to be false because of overwhelming evidence against it would then be a great virtue. God would be most pleased, on this view, with those who, for example, knew the resurrection never happened, yet still believed it did.</p>

<p>The apostle Paul calls such a person pitiful, however:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain….and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:13–14, 17–19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to Paul, if our belief is contrary to knowledge, we are fools. If we have an unshakable faith in something that is false, then we have an unshakable delusion.</p>

<p><strong>The Fate of the Unevangelized</strong></p>

<p>One question frequently stops Christians in their tracks: “If the Gospel alone saves, then what about those who never heard?” Can God justly convict a man who hasn’t heard about Jesus? Some people hear the Gospel and reject it, but most never hear it. How can God condemn them?</p>

<p>Christians who can’t answer this challenge don’t really understand something vital about sin and mercy. Sin brings guilt. Mercy is a gift. Anyone who is a sinner receives punishment he deserves. Anyone who is saved receives mercy that is not owed him.</p>

<p>Think of this question: Can a judge send someone to jail without first offering him a pardon? Sure. If the criminal is guilty, the judge is justified in throwing him in prison. There is no obligation to offer a pardon to a guilty man.</p>

<p>The same is true of God. He can justly convict a person who has broken His law even though the sinner has heard nothing about God’s pardon in Jesus. God owes no one salvation. He can offer it to whomever He wishes. That’s why it’s called grace.</p>

<p><strong>Christianity Based on Threats?</strong></p>

<p>Some people say that Christianity is based on threats. But what is the threat?</p>

<p>“The threat is,” they say, “that if you don’t believe in Jesus you’re going to Hell. Eternal damnation is the punishment for not believing.”</p>

<p>First, no one is punished for not believing. They are punished, rather, for sinning. There’s a difference.</p>

<p>Second, one might as well say that medicine is based on threats, too. Would it be a “threat” if a doctor told you that if you don’t have an operation to remove a tumor you’re going to die? Hardly. The doctor isn’t threatening you. He’s trying to save you by telling you the truth about a fatal condition. He’s doing you a favor.</p>

<p>People do bad things. God offers forgiveness. Some turn down God’s mercy and face God’s justice. Where is the fault with God? Why is it that when man offers a rescue it’s noble, but when God offers a rescue it’s a threat?</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>As a thoughtful Christian, always have a pen and paper handy. You never know when your own brainstorms will produce a strike of lightning that’s worthy of being saved and developed. If you keep track of those insights and develop them a bit, soon you’ll have your own collection of <em>pensées</em> to put to use in conversations as Christ’s ambassador.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[1]</a> <em>Time</em>, July 17, 1995, 52.</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%2Fpensees-short-thoughts-on-various-topics-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%2Fpensees-short-thoughts-on-various-topics-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%2Fpensees-short-thoughts-on-various-topics-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: Washington Florist Loses Her Religious Liberty Court Case
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/17/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/washington-florist-loses-her-religious-liberty-court-case
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, has lost her court case. From <em><a href="https://world.wng.org/2017/02/washington_florist_loses_discrimination_case" target="_blank">World</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that florist Barronelle Stutzman violated a state anti-discrimination law in 2013 when she declined to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. The ruling also upholds the lower court decision making Stutzman personally liable, putting the 72-year-old grandmother in jeopardy of losing all business and personal assets except her home.</p>

<p>Stutzman’s attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In both trials of <em>Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers</em>, they argued the Washington Law Against Discrimination compelled Stutzman to create floral arrangements in violation of her religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights. But the state high court, in upholding the lower court decision, said her creative efforts constituted “conduct”&nbsp;not “speech”&nbsp;and the law “protects patrons, not business owners.”</p>

<p>“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,”&nbsp;the justices wrote.</p>

<p>The decision also leaves in place the earlier ruling that ordered Stutzman to pay all attorneys fees racked up during the four-year legal battle. That could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the American Civil Liberties Union, ADF said in a press statement.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s astounding to me that people can’t see the difference between denying someone service because of their sexual orientation and declining to participate in a particular event they disagree with. The two are not the same. For more on the difference between them, see “<a href="http://www.str.org/blog/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events#.WKcqBBIrJR0">Refusing to Serve Individuals vs. Refusing to Participate in Events</a>”&nbsp;as well as <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas#.WKcwkRIrJR0">this LGBT activist</a> who agrees that the distinction is valid and that it’s wrong for courts to require this kind of a violation of conscience. It’s atrocious that the government would force someone, at the risk of total financial ruin, to participate in an activity he or she thinks is wrong, and I’m perfectly willing to apply this principle to both sides of the aisle.</p>

<p>Learn more about the case and the court decision from <a href="http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/washington-supreme-court-rules-against-christian-florist-in-same-sex-marriage-case" target="_blank">Joe Carter’s post</a>, and for an examination of the concept of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) antidiscrimination laws, see Ryan Anderson’s “<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/02/18747/" target="_blank">How to Think About Discrimination: Race, Sex, and SOGI</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%2Fwashington-florist-loses-her-religious-liberty-court-case" 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%2Fwashington-florist-loses-her-religious-liberty-court-case" 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%2Fwashington-florist-loses-her-religious-liberty-court-case" 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 There Biblical Justification for Capital Punishment?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-there-biblical-justification-for-capital-punishment-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Can a Christian find biblical support for the death penalty? I think so, and I want to offer a brief sketch of the relevant passages and considerations.</p>

<p>First, we discover that capital punishment was commanded by God in the Old Testament. Genesis 9:6 states that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”&nbsp;In this passage we discover two important truths. First, we see that God lays out the general principle of “life for life.”&nbsp;Of course, the Old Testament puts parameters on capital punishment. The Mosaic Law prescribes the death penalty for a number of offenses. There are three primary categories where the death penalty was applicable:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Violations against the sanctity of life (i.e. Exodus 21:12-14, 21:15, 21:16)</li>
	<li>Violations against the sanctity of the family (i.e. Lev. 20:10-21, 20:13; Deut. 22:22)</li>
	<li>Violations against the purity of the worship of God (i.e. Ex. 22:20; Lev. 20:2)</li>
</ol>

<p>The Old Testament’s limitations on capital punishment are significant in light of the absence of such limits in other ancient Near East cultures.</p>

<p>Christians who oppose the death penalty (abolitionists) may object to this citation of the Mosaic Law, however, and argue that it does not follow that we ought to enforce the death penalty today just because it was prescribed in the Law (see <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today#.WKzrvhIrJR0" target="_blank">here</a> for more on how the Old Testament applies to Christians today). I would agree and add that I do not support the death penalty in all the cases cited in the Mosaic Law. However, the Genesis 9:6 passage provides us with the necessary justification for capital punishment. In this verse, the principle of “life for life”&nbsp;is grounded in the theological truth that man is made in the image of God. Thus, capital punishment does not draw its support from changing cultural traditions, but rather from the timeless truth that man has intrinsic value because he is created in God’s image. And therefore, this principle transcends time, place, and culture.</p>

<p>Furthermore, Genesis 9:6 precedes the Mosaic Law. The tenor of the text seems to require the death penalty prior to the Law. For these reasons, the principle of the death penalty is certainly relevant for civil society today.</p>

<p>When we turn to the pages of the New Testament, we do not find much data regarding the death penalty. However, it does seem that capital punishment was assumed in the New Testament. First, we find that governing authorities may practice capital punishment. Romans 13:3-4 states that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil...[I]f you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”&nbsp;Furthermore, in Acts 25:11, the Apostle Paul addresses Festus and the tribunal: “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”&nbsp;In these passages, it seems that the State is justified in using the death penalty to keep order.</p>

<p>Opponents of the death penalty may cite the Sermon on the Mount, arguing that Jesus’&nbsp;teachings prohibit the death penalty. This objection turns on the idea that capital punishment is incompatible with Jesus’&nbsp;teachings on forgiveness. There are several things we could say in response to this charge.</p>

<p>First, the Sermon on the Mount was not addressed to the State but rather to the individual, and thus it deals with the ethics of the individual. Certainly, the individual is called to forgive, but this application to the individual cannot be applied to the State. The State is not in the business of forgiveness but instead is to protect its citizens and maintain order. In addition, using the Sermon on the Mount proves too much. It would seem to severely limit all forms of criminal punishment. What do we do with the criminal we have offered forgiveness to? On this view, it would seem like consistency would demand that we allow the criminal to go free.</p>

<p>Three other objections are typically offered by the abolitionist. First, she might argue there is an apparent contradiction between the principle of the death penalty and the principle of the sanctity of life. In light of this objection, taking someone’s life is an odd way of expressing the sanctity of life! However, it’s important to note that the Bible does not uphold the sanctity of all human life but of innocent human life. The right to life is not absolute and may be overridden by a greater principle such as justice or the protection of other people.</p>

<p>A second objection to capital punishment is it precludes reform. On this view, the criminal should be rehabilitated, not punished. In response, this view mistakes the idea that justice is remedial and not penal. However, I would argue that the goal of capital punishment is justice and not reform. And justice is only satisfied by the punishment of the guilty person. Furthermore, goodness demands that we protect innocent people. The relationship between capital punishment and society parallels the relationship between self-defense and the individual.</p>

<p>Lastly, the opponent of capital punishment will argue the death penalty cannot be administered in an even-handed way given the current state of the culture and the legal system. Indeed, there are times when it is unfairly applied, but let me offer three responses. First, there is nothing in the death penalty that requires it to be unfairly applied, and therefore this objection does not show there is anything intrinsically wrong with it. Second, it is better to have unequal justice than no justice at all. Do we withhold all medical treatment because some individuals have died from the improper distribution of that care? In the same way, we should not withhold justice via capital punishment because some have died unjustly as a result of capital punishment. Lastly, this is a problem where progress can be made—it’s fixable. If we’re committed to the death penalty, we need to work hard to apply it across the board fairly rather than do away with it totally.</p>

<p>There is certainly room for Christians to disagree with the biblical case I’ve laid out here, but with these considerations I think we are justified in our support of capital punishment.</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-there-biblical-justification-for-capital-punishment-" 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-there-biblical-justification-for-capital-punishment-" 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-there-biblical-justification-for-capital-punishment-" 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: Do Pro-Lifers Want the Government to Regulate a Woman’s Body?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-pro-lifers-want-the-government-to-regulate-a-woman-s-body-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The slogan made a compelling point: “No part of a man’s body is regulated by politicians. Equality cannot exist until the same is true of a woman’s body.”&nbsp;They’re right in a sense. The government doesn’t regulate a man’s body. It can’t force him to tattoo his back, ingest a certain food, or amputate his arm. Why should the government regulate a woman’s body, specifically her reproductive organs, and demand her to continue a pregnancy against her will?</p>

<p>Though this reasoning seems correct, there are three missteps in thinking that radically alter the conclusion.</p>

<p><strong>1. The government shouldn’t regulate your body, but it should regulate what you do with your body.</strong> I agree that politicians should stay out of the private affairs of law-abiding citizens. The government has no business forcing people to do—or not do—things to their body. What the government can do, though, is regulate <em>what people do with their bodies</em>. For example, we have laws against using your body to assault another person. The government, in this case, is regulating a part of your body—your fists. We also have laws preventing you from killing another innocent person, thereby regulating your body another way. In both of these examples, you’ll notice we find it reasonable for the government to regulate what you do with your body in a particular instance: whenever you use it to harm another person. That brings us to the next point.</p>

<p><strong>2. What is done during an abortion is not done to the woman’s body, but to another person’s body</strong>. The unborn is not part of the mother’s body, like her appendix, tonsils, or uterus. Those parts belong to the woman. When they’re surgically removed (denoted by the addition of the suffix “-ectomy��), we recognize that part of a woman’s body has been removed. An appendectomy removes the woman’s appendix, a tonsillectomy removes a woman’s tonsils, and a hysterectomy removes her uterus. But if the unborn is just part of the mother’s body, then what part of the woman is missing after an abortion? We know a mother has not lost any body part after such a procedure. That’s because the unborn is not part of <em>her</em> body, but it’s <em>her child’s</em> body. An abortion doesn’t merely affect her body, but another body that has been growing inside her own.</p>

<p>That the unborn is a unique individual human being is also proven by the science of embryology. From the moment of conception, the unborn’s DNA is different from the mother, a detail that forensic scientists use to distinguish between different people. The unborn also has its own fingerprints, heart, and brain. The unborn can also be conceived <em>outside</em> of the mother’s body—in a laboratory dish—and placed <em>inside</em> her uterus days later. That’s proof it’s not her body, but another body being implanted in her womb.</p>

<p>This fact makes the first point even more relevant. If it’s reasonable for the government to regulate what you do with your body when you harm another person, then abortion can also be regulated (or prevented). That’s because the unborn is another body and abortion clearly harms that body.</p>

<p><strong>3. The demand for equality should not grant a woman the right to an abortion, but restrict her ability to get an abortion</strong>. If women want equal treatment—and I agree they should get it—then they should be prevented from procuring an abortion. After all, men are prevented from killing an innocent human being. Equality cannot exist until women are prevented from doing the exact same thing. All that pro-lifers are asking is for the law to be applied equally to both men and women.</p>

<p>Currently, the law does not prohibit abortion. What the pro-life community demands is consistency. Men can’t kill a toddler on a playground. Women can’t either. Laws regulate what men and women can and can’t do to toddlers. That’s consistent. But although a man <em>can’t</em> kill a woman’s unborn child, a woman <em>can</em> kill the very same child if she desires. That’s not consistent. We’re not asking the government to regulate what a woman can do <em>to</em> her own body, but to regulate what she can do <em>with</em> her body, especially when it involves killing an innocent human being. That’s genuine equality for men, women, and unborn children.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-pro-lifers-want-the-government-to-regulate-a-woman-s-body-" 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%2Fdo-pro-lifers-want-the-government-to-regulate-a-woman-s-body-" 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%2Fdo-pro-lifers-want-the-government-to-regulate-a-woman-s-body-" 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 Shack” Movie Review
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Melinda Penner
date: 03/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/-the-shack-movie-review
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I went to see <em>The Shack</em> so we could talk about it on the <a href="/w/concerns-about-the-shack-">podcast</a>. I read the book several years ago and wrote a <a href="/w/a-review-of-the-shack-by-william-p-young">review</a> of it that’s on our blog.</p>

<p>My response to the movie is pretty much what it was to the book. It’s a very affective movie. It’s emotionally moving. But how it affects us emotionally isn’t the measure of whether it’s a good movie. And too often Christians use that measurement—for instance, in worship songs that make us feel close to God but actually are about us rather than God</p>

<h2>Good Things</h2>

<p>We don’t understand how much God loves us, and the loving embrace of the three characters, including Papa as a woman, gets that across. The idea of seeing God face to face is wonderful. I often think how happy my parents and others I know are who now see God face to face. When I was a kid, I had a book I loved called <em>If Jesus Came to My House</em> about Jesus visiting a child, and I kept thinking about that during the movie. How great it will be to be with God face to face.</p>

<p>We believe God is good and therefore trust that He’s at work even when we don’t understand it. The movie makes that point really well. When we begin to apprehend how good God is and how much He loves us, we can trust Him like a child trusts a good and loving parent. We rest in that.</p>

<p>The movie makes an effective point about how we place ourselves in the judgment seat over God and others, and we have no place there. We’re playing God, and that’s not our place. That really spoke to me because I can be very judgmental.</p>

<p>In the conclusion, the narrator says that after this healing experience of grace, Mack was quick to forgive and to ask for forgiveness. When we’ve really experienced grace and remember how much grace and mercy God gives us—how humbling, but comforting, grace is—that is how we become.</p>

<h2>Bad Things</h2>

<p>But, while there are affective and true things in the story, there are some very fundamental problems.</p>

<p>The most fatal flaw is imaging the Trinity—we should not do it because it misrepresents the Trinity and cannot accurately represent the Trinity. The Trinity isn’t physical, so any physical representation will mispresent the truth of the Trinity. Greg has always said not to use illustrations to try to explain the Trinity because every one of them actually defines a heresy. That’s the case in <em>The Shack</em>—it’s impossible to represent God accurately in physical form, therefore we should not do it.</p>

<p>We can accurately define the Trinity even if the words cannot capture the full mystery of the Trinity. Augustine’s definition of the Trinity: The Father is God, the son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds work out some of the details of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed says we cannot divide the divine substance in our understanding of the Trinity, and there’s no way to avoid that when picturing the Trinity in a movie because the three persons can be represented, but not the single divine substance, the unity of the three persons. The Trinity is not physical and it’s totally unique, so there is no way to represent it without going to one error or another.</p>

<p>Any physical representation of the Trinity will necessarily mislead us about God’s true nature. That’s probably why God prohibited it in the Second Commandment.</p>

<p>Some have compared the Trinity in <em>The Shack</em> to Aslan of Narnia, but they aren’t parallel. Aslan is a Christ-like figure, not the Trinity. Jesus did take on physical substance, so He’s different from the other two persons of the Trinity, but the Father and the Spirit are and have always been immaterial. Tim Challies has a good <a href="http://www.challies.com/articles/why-papa-of-the-shack-is-not-aslan-of-narnia" target="_blank">article</a> talking about the different genre types that show why the comparison doesn’t work. Aslan is in a fantasy world, so Aslan isn’t Jesus. C. S. Lewis wasn’t trying to make a direct representation of Jesus; Aslan is a character <em>like</em> Jesus. But <em>The Shack</em> takes place in the real world and has characters in this world meant to be the Trinity. It can’t help but make claims about the true God. The kind of literature makes a difference in how to interpret these characters.</p>

<p>There’s a problem with portraying Papa, the Father, as a woman. The Bible tells us about qualities the Father has that we understand as more feminine—a hen gathering her chicks—but God revealed Himself as Father and we should not mess with that. The Bible describes some of God’s qualities in feminine terms, but all of His titles, names, and pronouns are masculine. It’s how <em>He</em> chose to make Himself known to us. Papa says to Mack that He’s appearing as a woman because of Mack’s bad relationship with his father. People these days think it’s okay to change the pronouns in the Bible. But God has revealed Himself in words He chose. Papa says He’s known by many names and the Bible gives many names for God, but not the one she says in the movie, Elousia.</p>

<p>There’s confusion in the roles of the Trinity—Papa has nail marks on her wrists. She says, “What happens to my Son leaves a mark on me,”&nbsp;meaning Papa was there with Jesus. But the Father was not crucified. I think the Spirit had the nail marks, too. Again, there may be an emotionally appealing point there, but it’s not biblical, and it’s confusing the persons of the Trinity.</p>

<p>Papa says she doesn’t punish and she isn’t wrathful. God doesn’t punish His children, He disciplines us. But He does punish unredeemed sinners. The Bible tells us God is wrathful. He’s loving and He’s just. We can’t solve the problem of evil, pain, and suffering by leaving out part of what the Bible says about God.</p>

<p>The view of salvation is unclear. “I’m especially fond of everyone,”&nbsp;is the refrain. Well, yes. But if God loves everyone and doesn’t punish, does everyone go to Heaven? In the movie, Jesus says His way isn’t a religion and He’s not a Christian. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. Maybe He doesn’t fit stereotypes?</p>

<p>There’s always a limitation to how much can be explained theologically in a story like this. There’s a certain amount of imprecision that all kinds of errors can be read into. But that’s all the more reason not to recommend this movie and book. It says some things that are biblical, many things that aren’t biblical, and says some things imprecisely, so it’s not clear. Even if a fictional narrative can’t tease out all the theological niceties, it can state things in ways that aren’t vague and misleading.</p>

<h2>Bottom Line</h2>

<p>God’s revelation limits us by what God has told us about Himself, and these aren’t details to be tinkered with. Christians have gotten used to using Scripture for our purposes, snatching verses out of context, asking what this means to me rather than what God meant. God tells us about Himself, and we need to work out our understanding within those boundaries.</p>

<p>We cannot solve the problem of pain and suffering by limiting what God has told us about Himself—He’s loving and wrathful. The God of <em>The Shack</em> is only loving. While that’s incredibly comforting, and something we can relate to, it’s not the Bible’s God.</p>

<p>Because fiction can have so much emotional power, it can bypass our critical thinking, and we accept ideas without evaluating them. This is the problem with so much popular culture. It’s no less a problem with Christian fiction.</p>

<p>For all the good in this movie, the flaws are too serious because they are about who God is. Many Christians never learn about the Trinity. They never learn the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, which are teaching tools. They don’t understand the Trinity, so their views are shaped by things like this movie. As a result, they have a false view of God. None of us can know God completely in this life. We can’t fathom all the details of the Trinity. But we must be faithful to the biblical revelation because that’s how God has made Himself known to us.</p>

<h2>Addendum</h2>

<p>Paul Young, the author of <em>The Shack</em>, has just published <a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/what-does-the-shack-really-teach-read-lies-we-believe-about-god" target="_blank">a non-fiction book</a> describing his theological views. He’s clarified the ambiguities and answered questions that were unclear in the book and movie. And it’s not historic, biblical Christianity.</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-the-shack-movie-review" 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-shack-movie-review" 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-shack-movie-review" 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>
            
          


