# articles

title: Ida: Missing Link, Missing Evidence
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/ida-missing-link-missing-evidence
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In May of this year, a scientific paper was released that fanned the flames of the evolution/intelligent design debate to new intensity. It documented the discovery of an elegantly structured, beautifully preserved fossil of a haplorrhine, an ancient primate thought to be ancestor to both modern-day lemurs and “higher”&nbsp;primates, including human beings.</p>

<p>The spectacular fossil was named Ida after the six-year-old daughter of Professor Jorn Hurum of Norway’s National History Museum who headed up the research team. Ida has been variously described as the “eighth wonder of the world”&nbsp;and “the final piece of Darwin’s jigsaw.”</p>

<p>Secular sources heralded the discovery in glowing terms. The TimesOnline headline read, “Fossil find provides ’missing link’&nbsp;in human evolution.”&nbsp;<em>National Geographic</em> rendered the phrase “’MISSING LINK’&nbsp;FOUND”&nbsp;in all caps—in net-speak the equivalent to shouting. Fox News referred to Ida as a “Holy Grail”&nbsp;fossil that had instantly attained “celebrity”&nbsp;status.</p>

<p>The public announcement of the paper coincided with a PR campaign worthy of a rock star: a glitzy promotional website<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> heralding “the link uncovering our earliest ancestor”;&nbsp;features on ABC’s “Good Morning America,”&nbsp;“Nightline,”&nbsp;and “World News”;&nbsp;a full-length documentary entitled “The Link”&nbsp;aired on the History Channel; and a new book of the same title with advance distribution of over 100,000 copies. All this before other researchers in the scientific community had a chance to even begin to evaluate the claims.</p>

<p>Though this fossil find is remarkable in many ways, it is not unlike other discoveries touted as the final nail in the coffin of creation, which pronouncements, on closer examination, turn out to be premature with the discovery that the body was not quite dead yet.</p>

<p>When faced with such challenges, good ambassadors do not immediately react with scorn, derision, and abuse. Ridicule is not an argument. Instead, they separate the wheat from the chaff by calmly applying a three-step plan that is the core of all critical thinking.</p>

<p>First, get a clear fix on the facts themselves. Next, note the inferences and implications others have drawn from the facts. Finally, do you own assessment. Check to see if there is a good fit between the inferences drawn and the facts that they are allegedly based on.</p>

<p>How does Ida fair by this analysis? What can we adduce from the evidence by applying our three steps of critical thinking?</p>

<h2>Just the Facts, Ma’am</h2>

<p>Ida, officially known as Darwinius masillae, was originally unearthed by an amateur in 1983 from a famous fossil graveyard called Messel Pit, an ancient crater lake in Germany. The 95%-complete fossil reveals a creature the size of a small raccoon with traits similar to both lemurs and small monkeys. She is an alleged ancestor of modern lemurs called a Haplorrhine. Radioactive isotopes in Messel’s volcanic rocks indicate Ida lived 47 million years ago during the Eocene period.</p>

<p>The journal paper, available to the public from the Public Library of Science,<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> consists primarily of a detailed description of the structure and paleobiology (the study of the biology ancient creatures) of the fossil.</p>

<p>There is little question by anyone in the field of paleontology that Ida is a remarkable specimen. In addition to offering a finely-textured picture of skeletal structure, the fossil also reveals an intricate soft-tissue halo encircling the body showing hair, fingernails, teeth, and even the leaves and fruit left over in Ida’s digestive tract from her last meal.</p>

<p>“Ida, has a unique anatomy,”&nbsp;wrote <em>National Geographic</em>. “The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>ScienceDaily offered more details, particulars that to evolutionists suggest Ida’s significance in the evolutionary order:</p>

<p>Ida was found to be lacking two of the key anatomical features found in lemurs: a grooming claw on the second digit of the foot, and a fused row of teeth in the middle of her lower jaw known as a toothcomb. She has nails rather than the claw typical of non-anthropoid primates such as lemurs, and her teeth are similar to those of monkeys. Her forward facing eyes are like ours—which would have enabled her fields of vision to overlap, allowing 3D vision and an ability to judge distance.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Those are the facts, as far as I have been able to assemble them at this date. Now, what does it all mean? That is another issue entirely.</p>

<h2>Inferences and Implications</h2>

<p>The evolutionary establishment is generally buoyant about the significance of this find. “This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals,”&nbsp;said Sir David Attenborough, well-known naturalist and broadcaster. “The link they would have said until now is missing...it is no longer missing.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>A statement by the producers of the TV special reads, “She is a transitional species showing characteristics from both the non-human (prosimians and lemurs) and human (anthropoids, monkeys, apes and man) evolutionary lines.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> The History site’s headline boasted, “This changes everything.”</p>

<p>Ida’s promotional website, The Link, was nearly rapturous in its praise of the discovery:</p>

<p>Now, for the first time, an incredibly complete early primate fossil has been discovered which provides us with direct evidence of an intermediate link between the human primate lineage and earlier mammals. Ida is an example of a transitional fossil between primitive primates and the prosimian and anthropoid branches, the latter of which eventually led to humans...She is the earliest, and one of the most significant links, ever found.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Ironically, the authors of the scientific paper themselves were more restrained, at least in their publication: “Note that Darwinius masillae [Ida]...<em>could</em> represent a stem group from which later anthropoid [pre-human] primates evolved, <em>but we are not advocating this here”</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added].</p>

<p>Some have pointed out that this qualification seems disingenuous, since these scientists themselves were complicit in the media splash responsible for some of the more extravagant claims about Ida.</p>

<p>Others’&nbsp;assessments have been more sober-minded. Brian Switek, a science writer who also blogs for Smithsonian magazine’s <em>Dinosaur Tracking</em>, wrote:</p>

<p>The grand claims about [Ida] being our ancestor cannot be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case...I hardly think this is a responsible way to conduct or communicate science, flooding the media with poorly supported claims...The overall poor quality of the paper and the disproportionate hyping of the find make me wonder if this research was rushed into publication so that the media splash would occur on time.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Now it’s time to take a closer look. What is our own assessment? Are the conclusions of evolutionists compromised in some way?</p>

<h2>Assessment: Missing Link?</h2>

<p>The first thing to note here is that Ida provides no meaningful “link”&nbsp;to human evolution. I am not a Darwinist, but even on their own terms the “missing link”&nbsp;language is misleading.</p>

<p>First, there is a 47-million-year gap between Ida and the first true humans, appearing 100,000 years ago. Ida is 44 million years removed from the earliest hominids—“Lucy,”&nbsp;for example, a 3.18-million-year-old specimen unearthed in Ethiopia in 1974. Consequently, making the connection between Ida and modern man requires not a “link,”&nbsp;but an intercontinental superhighway.</p>

<p>Second, the language itself is misleading. Mark Henderson, science editor of TimesOnline, himself a committed Darwinist, makes this point:</p>

<p>There is no such thing as the missing link. For all its popular appeal the concept has no meaning in science because there is no fossil that can fully explain an evolutionary transition all on its own. Even in the plural the phrase can be misleading because evolution is supremely well attested in the fossil record...If some of the pieces have still to be found, the overall picture is perfectly clear. Thousands of fossils can still be thought of as missing links because their discovery adds to understanding of how evolutionary trees branch out and older species give rise to new ones.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Darwinian biologist PZ Myers posted this on his blog, Pharyngula:</p>

<p>The whole “missing link”&nbsp;category is a bit of journalistic trumpery: almost every fossil could be called a link, and it feeds the simplistic notion that there could be a single definitive bridge between ancient and modern species. There isn’t. There is the slow shift of whole populations which can branch and diverge.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Notice the claims implicit in the remarks of both of these evolutionary scientists: 1) The roads that link destinations on the Darwinian map cannot be seen, only inferred from fragmentary evidence, yet 2) the evolutionary road map itself is not in question. These comments raise two central questions: What is a “transitional form,”&nbsp;and how do we know when we have one?</p>

<h2>When Is a “Transition”&nbsp;Really a Transition?</h2>

<p>According to Darwinism, the development of living things was a slow, gradual process advancing by minuscule steps over long stretches of time. If you could collapse the process through time-lapse photography, it would look like an animated cartoon made the old fashioned way: a series of images—each slightly modified from the one before—flashing in sequence to create a fluid, visual story of descent with modification.</p>

<p>Each “page”&nbsp;in this sequence would be a transition. The story for any particular branch of the evolutionary tree would be made up of thousands upon thousands of steps of transition (“pages”&nbsp;of the animation), with each successive stage not only fully functional itself, but also better adapted to its environment than its predecessor.</p>

<p>Of course, no such animation exists because the fossil record has not provided paleontologists with the pages needed to create a fluid visual history. Even so, it still is possible, at least in principle, to reconstruct the account from fragmentary evidence. There are two different ways to look at this process.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>First, a fossil may be identified as transitional if it is closely connected in time with a series of other fossils, and the sequence—when taken as a whole—displays a gradual development from one kind into another. Fuz Rana, author of <em>Who Was Adam?</em>, explains what this would look like for human evolution:</p>

<p>To uphold the theory, the hominid fossil record should be rooted in a single knuckle-walking apelike primate that existed between 6 and 5 million years ago. Over time, a variety of hominids should appear in a branching, treelike pattern from this ancestral form, and a clear evolutionary pathway from this supposed ancestor to modern humans should be evident [documenting] the gradual emergence of the anatomical and behavioral traits that define humanity.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>An illustration may help here. If you fly over Orange County in Southern California at low altitude, you can clearly see the transition between the southbound 405 and the westbound 55 in Costa Mesa near my radio studio, followed by the link to the 73 toll road through Irvine to San Juan Capistrano, finally hooking up with Interstate 5 headed south to San Diego. The route consists of a series of connected segments that flow seamlessly, creating a clear course from Costa Mesa to points south. Even if small clouds or smog obstruct some of your vision, the section-by-section pathway is obvious.</p>

<p>This illustration parallels the first way of identifying evolutionary transitions: seeing gradual anatomical changes in the fossil record that document relatively unambiguous, evolutionary pathways that directly link one transition to its successor.</p>

<p>Darwinists readily acknowledge that this sort of evidence has not been forthcoming, though, as you can see, it is the kind of data required to give us confidence that any alleged ancestral relationship is credible.</p>

<p>In the absence of a gradual, step-by-step record of evolution, paleontologists have adopted a second approach to identifying transitions. On this method, if a fossil is midway in development between two other specimens (if it shares physical characteristics of both) and falls between them in time, it is considered transitional even if the distances in time are very great. This is the empirical situation paleontologists actually face when surveying the fossil record.</p>

<p>Note the second definition of “transitional form”&nbsp;implicit in the following statement about Ida: “The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur, but a ’lemur monkey,’&nbsp;displaying a mixture of both groups, <em>and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line”</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added].<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> Simply because Ida’s bodily characteristics (morphology) rest between two groups on the Darwinian tree of life, she is immediately declared the common ancestor—the missing link—between both groups.</p>

<h2>Tortured Logic</h2>

<p>There is a serious problem with this approach, though. To illustrate, imagine yourself now flying tens of thousands of feet higher than your earlier pass over Orange County. Instead of scattered clouds, a massive front covers the continental U.S. save for occasional gaps that allow you to glimpse short pieces of highway every few hundred miles.</p>

<p>Your task is to determine which sections of road connect with each other to form routes to specific destinations like L.A., San Francisco, or Seattle. Would you be justified in inferring a connection if one section in west Texas fell between a length of highway in central New Mexico and one in southern Arkansas as long as each section ran roughly in the same direction?</p>

<p>I think you can immediately see the peril of this approach. Clearly, there would be no way to tell <em>from the empirical evidence alone</em> which sections of road connected with other segments of highway to lead you to a specific destination. In the same way, how can we have confidence that one specimen in the fossil record is the ancestor of another specimen that is millions of years removed from it in time?</p>

<p>You might reason that, since the land mass is continuous, all roads must be connected in some way. But if you made that assumption flying over Hawaii, you’d be wrong. Hawaii is a cluster of islands. All highways do not connect, but branch out briefly and then stop at the shore.</p>

<p>The lesson here is simple: You must first know <em>that</em> the highways link up before you can trust that any particular segments of the roadway connect the route. By parallel, you must first assume <em>that</em> evolution is true before you can place alleged transitions in their “proper”&nbsp;evolutionary pathways.</p>

<p>This is precisely how paleontologists proceed. Henry Gee, Senior Editor in biological sciences for <em>Nature</em>, is candid about the problem of reconstructing evolutionary lineage given the fragmentary fossil record—a problem complicated by “deep time,”&nbsp;his term for the eons that may elapse between specimens.</p>

<p>Regardless, Gee is convinced we <em>can</em>&nbsp;“recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity,”&nbsp;even though (since fossils never come with birth certificates) we “would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor.”&nbsp;What is the source of Gee’s confidence? “Evolution...is not in doubt, because <em>if we didn’t have ancestors, then we wouldn’t be here”</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added].<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>You can immediately see the problem with Gee’s approach. The minute you make his assumption, you corrupt the process. There is a big difference between <em>demonstrating</em> that a fossil <em>might be</em> transitional based on the empirical evidence itself, and <em>declaring</em> that a fossil <em>probably is</em> transitional because the paradigm requires it.</p>

<p>Simply put, fossils are declared transitions in virtue of the favorable connections they create on the Darwinian map. But whether or not life is connected in that way is the very thing at issue in the debate over evolution. Gee is arguing in a circle.</p>

<p>Of course, if you assume what you need to prove, it all makes sense. Your mind can easily fill in gaps, even when they are many and massive. When new information disqualifies one scenario, the pieces are merely moved around to suggest another.</p>

<p>Track the suggested pathways of human evolution displayed in <em>National Geographic</em> over the years and you’ll see what I mean. The map is constantly shifting. Routes originally thought to be on the superhighway to modern man are now considered evolutionary dead ends, but <em>the underlying map is never in question</em>.</p>

<h2>More Problems</h2>

<p>And there are other hazards to this approach. There is too much room for speculation, wishful thinking, and error. For example, here are three sections of “highway”&nbsp;that initially appear to be a convincing chronicle of the evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds:<img alt="" height="166" src="file://localhost/Users/melindapenner/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.png" width="309"></p>

<p>Despite the visual depiction above (taken from the Nova website), paleontologists now know that <em>Archaeopteryx</em> could not have been the ancestor to modern birds because it shows up in the fossil record millions of years <em>after</em> true birds actually appear. Two crow-sized birds (referred to as Protoavis, or “first bird”) found in the Dockum Formation in Texas date 75 million years <em>older</em> than Archaeopteryx.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> Clearly, the child cannot come before the parent. Yet the illustration endures.</p>

<p>You might have noticed another problem with this diagram—one I caught quite by accident just as I was finishing this article. Look at the dates. Velociraptor is not the <em>oldest</em> fossil of the three, but the <em>youngest</em>. Nova explains the discrepancy this way:</p>

<p>Experts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found—but they think it might have looked somewhat like Velociraptor (hence our showing it here, despite its much later age).</p>

<p>Why do the experts think that Archaeopteryx’s closest dinosaur ancestor looked like Velociraptor even though it had to exist 100 million years earlier? It <em>must</em> have. The Darwinian paradigm demands it.</p>

<p>Regardless of Nova’s assurances, given the discovery of Protoavis the empirical facts of the fossil record are exactly the <em>opposite</em> of Nova’s illustration: birds first, then Archaeopteryx, then Velociraptor crossing the finish line 40 million years later.</p>

<h2>The Missing Link to the Missing Link?</h2>

<p>Though Ida is a magnificent fossil that promises to yield a wealth of information for paleobiology, mapping out this Haplorrhine’s place in the grand scheme of Darwinian evolution is another matter entirely. Biologist Jonathan Wells, author of <em>Icons of Evolution</em>, puts the task in perspective:</p>

<p>There’s absolutely no way to know—and many Darwinists acknowledge this—whether in fact any other animals evolved from this one or not, much less humans. So the line of ancestry and descent is completely speculative.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>Despite the claim of Ida’s promoters that “This changes everything,”&nbsp;our three-step critical-thinking analysis indicates that the evidence itself fails to persuade. As scientists with a more sober outlook have pointed out, media claims exceed the facts. Further, even the most restrained assessments seem to be poisoned by the dangerous tendency to reason in a circle by assuming what evolutionists are required to prove, then offering it as evidence to support the ruling paradigm.</p>

<p>One could say it is just too early to assess this find thoroughly because the broad scientific analysis has just begun, and there is some merit to that qualification. For now, though, based on our three-step evaluation, it appears that Ida—as others before her—may be, as one wag put it, just another missing link to a missing link to a missing link.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1"><a href="http://www.revealingthelink.com">www.revealingthelink.com</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">You can find the original scientific paper, entitled, “Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology,”&nbsp;at <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723">http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">“’MISSING LINK’&nbsp;FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?”&nbsp;<em>National Geographic News</em>, May 23, 2009. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">“Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates?”,&nbsp;ScienceDaily, 5/19/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Drew Zahn, “’We found missing link’—But critics say fossil frenzy is more about pushing ideology than science,”&nbsp;WorldNetDaily, 5/19/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Cited in “Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates?”,&nbsp;ScienceDaily, 5/19/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Brian Switek, “Poor, Poor Ida, Or: ’Overselling an Adapid.’”&nbsp;On Laelaps, 5/19/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Mark Henderson, “Analysis: There Are Many Missing Links,”&nbsp;TimesOnline, 5/20/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">PZ Myers, “Darwinius masillae,”&nbsp;posted on Pharyngula, 5/19/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">This distinction was first suggested to me by Fuz Rana of Reasons To Believe. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Fuz Rana, <em>Who Was Adam?</em> (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), 141-2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Alex Watts, “Scientists Unveil Missing Link in Evolution,”&nbsp;Sky News Online 5/20/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Henry Gee, “Creationists Be Damned, Damned, Damned, and Damned Again,”&nbsp;4/28/09, “I, Editor”&nbsp;blog on nature.com. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">“Fossil Birds Shake Evolutionary Hypothesis,”&nbsp;<em>Nature</em> 322:677, 1986. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Quoted in WorldNetDaily, 5/23/09. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</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%2Fida-missing-link-missing-evidence" 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%2Fida-missing-link-missing-evidence" 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%2Fida-missing-link-missing-evidence" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God Solved the Justice/Grace Problem
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/30/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-solved-the-justice/grace-problem
content:
            <div> 
		<p>While it’s still unclear how <em>LOST</em> will ultimately end up, some recent developments seem to provide a good illustration of one way people have chosen to resolve the problem that has plagued humanity throughout history: Deep down, we know we deserve justice from God, but we want grace. How can we who know we are guilty get mercy from a perfectly good and just God?</p>

<p>Justice and grace seem to be irreconcilable. We want God to be good. But if we deserve punishment, then for God to be truly good and just, He must punish. We long for grace. But for God to show us grace it would seem He must violate perfect justice, and therefore He would not be truly good.</p>

<p>One way to resolve this is to split God into two and reject one half.</p>

<p>We love a god of mercy, but fear a god of justice. Therefore, deny His justice and suddenly God loves us no matter what, and it doesn’t matter what we do. There is no justice to face. But is this a <em>good</em> god? Is a god who doesn’t right wrongs, who ignores evil and sweeps it under the rug, who tells you, “Hey, just learn to make your own kind of music—it’s all good,”&nbsp;is that a god worthy of our respect? Justice is real and good, so a god who allows evil and injustice to remain is less than good.</p>

<p>Then there are those who grasp the idea of God’s perfect holiness and the goodness of destroying evil, and so they despair of mercy and live in fear. These people hang on to God’s righteousness and reject the possibility of grace.</p>

<p>God’s <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:21-26&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">answer</a> to this problem is beyond brilliant:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, <strong>so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God did not lay aside His good and perfect desire to completely wipe out all evil, and yet neither did He lay aside His grace—He became <em>both just and justifier</em>, righteous judge and gracious redeemer. He satisfied His perfect justice and upheld His righteousness by demonstrating His wrath against evil on the cross. Now grace is freely given because it’s no longer in conflict with justice. Rather, it’s <em>because</em> of the justice fulfilled through Jesus’&nbsp;willing sacrifice that the full beauty and power of grace is revealed, for we see the real price of it.</p>

<p>This is the true, complete God. The true story is not one where justice and grace are forever at war with each other, but one of redemption through a justice-satisfying, grace-enabling, costly sacrifice by a good judge who has the right and authority to convict.</p>

<p>This is the Gospel, yet I’ve found that many people who hear the Christian story are only able to hear the part about the perfect judge who they know will destroy them when all wrongs are punished in the end. They can’t see past God’s righteous wrath to the cross. And people who recognize their own guilt and know nothing of the cross will either acknowledge God’s unbending justice and hate Him, or deny His justice and live with a morally weak god.</p>

<p>This is what seems to be playing out on <em>LOST</em> (spoilers ahead). The writers would like to embrace grace, as they did so powerfully in the episode “Dr. Linus,”&nbsp;but at the same time deny the goodness of justice by associating judgment with the apparently devilish Man in Black. They can’t see that by denying the value of judgment they remove all power from grace, making it weak and meaningless. For if “God”&nbsp;wants us to make our own way morally, and does not judge evil, then there is no guilt to be released from, no grace needed. It’s just to be expected that someone would say, “Eh, your lying, manipulation, and murder is no big deal. Let’s just move on.”&nbsp;That is neither good nor powerful.</p>

<p>The creators of <em>LOST</em> can’t see a way for righteousness and justice to be truly good and desirable at the same time that grace is possible, so they jettison judgment in favor of grace (or so it seems for now). Without a cross by which justice can be done <em>and</em> grace given, they must split God into two, putting His grace into Jacob and His condemnation of evil into the manipulative Man in Black. And so it becomes Jacob vs. Man in Black, grace vs. judgment, “Jesus”&nbsp;vs. scary “Old Testament God.”&nbsp;And in this way, they lose both justice and grace.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-solved-the-justice%2Fgrace-problem" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-solved-the-justice%2Fgrace-problem" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-solved-the-justice%2Fgrace-problem" 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: “Misquoting” Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The story behind “The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”</em></p>

<p>In <em>Misquoting Jesus,</em> the <em>New York Times</em> bestseller subtitled <em>The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why</em>, author Bart Ehrman fires a shot meant to sink the ship of any Christian who thinks the New Testament documents can be trusted. Here it is:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t <em>have</em> the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways...There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> [Emphasis in the original].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ehrman is right on the facts, as far as they go. There are 130,000 words in the New Testament, yet the surviving manuscripts (the handwritten copies) reveal something like 400,000 individual times the wording disagrees between them.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Indeed, Ehrman points out, the manuscripts “differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Further, Bart Ehrman is an accomplished scholar with impeccable bona fides. He co-authored <em>The Text of the New Testament (4th Edition)</em>—an academic standard in the field—with Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest New Testament manuscript scholar alive at the time.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The <em>Washington Post</em> says <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>&nbsp;“casts doubt on any number of New Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well gospel.”&nbsp;<em>Publishers Weekly</em> promises that Ehrman’s arguments “ensure that readers might never read the gospels or Paul’s letters the same way again.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Which, of course, is exactly what Ehrman wants. <em>Misquoting</em> is the kind of what-they-don’t-want-you-to-know exposé that has become popular in recent years. Ehrman “exposes”&nbsp;discoveries that sabotaged his own “born-again”&nbsp;faith while a graduate student at Princeton, leaving him with the agnosticism about God he now embraces.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Has the Bible been changed over 2,000 years of copying and recopying? Ehrman answers, “Yes, significantly.”&nbsp;Worse, the massive number of alterations make it virtually impossible to have any confidence of reconstructing the autographs.</p>

<p>Without the original renderings, there is no inspired text. Without inspired Scripture, there is no orthodox Christianity, only a jumble of spiritual ideas about Jesus expressed in a diverse body of conflicting texts that have tumbled down to us through the corridors of time.</p>

<p>Is this skepticism justified? Simply put, no. In spite of Ehrman’s credentials, his who-knows-what-the-original-text-said view is not the majority opinion of textual scholars. This includes Bruce Metzger, Ehrman’s mentor, to whom he dedicated the book. The reasons for this confidence are based in the nature of the reconstructive task itself.</p>

<h2>Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Recipe</h2>

<p>A manuscript is a hand-copied text. For the first 1500 years after Christ, all copies of the Bible were reproduced by scribes who did the best they could—in most cases—to faithfully transmit the text. Inevitably, mistakes happened which were then compounded geometrically when the flaw was copied, spawning multiple copies with the same error in subsequent generations of texts.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Some changes, it seems clear, were intentional and even theologically motivated.</p>

<p>Given that history, it’s hard to imagine how an original can be restored. The uncertainty, though, is based on two misconceptions by the rank and file about the history of the communication of ancient material like that found in the New Testament.</p>

<p>The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear—one person passing the message on to a second who gives it to a third, etc., leaving a single message many generations removed from the original. Second, the objection assumes oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.</p>

<p>Neither assumption applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot. Second, the transmission was not linear, but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed 10 copies which generated 100 and so on.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you see how scholars confidently reconstruct an original from conflicting manuscripts that are centuries removed from the autograph.</p>

<p>Pretend your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she awakes, she scribbles the complex directions on a sheet of paper, then runs to the kitchen to mix up her first batch of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”&nbsp;In a few days, she is transformed into a picture of radiant youth.</p>

<p>Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, handwritten instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.</p>

<p>All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s schnauzer eats the original script. In a panic she contacts her friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. The alarm goes out to the others who received copies from her card-playing trio in an attempt to recover the original wording.</p>

<p>Sally rounds up all the surviving handwritten copies, 26 in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices differences. Twenty-three of the copies are virtually the same save for misspelled words and abbreviations littering the text. Of the remaining three, however, one lists ingredients in a different order, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop”&nbsp;instead of “chop then mix”), and one includes an ingredient not mentioned in any other list.</p>

<p>Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings and abbreviations are inconsequential, as is the order of ingredients in the list (those variations all <em>mean</em> the same thing). The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired because one can’t mix something that hasn’t been chopped. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would mistakenly add an item than 25 people would accidentally omit it.</p>

<p>Even if the variations were more numerous and diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence with enough copies and a little common sense.</p>

<p>This, in simplified form (very simplified, but you get the point), is how scholars do “textual criticism,”&nbsp;an academic enterprise used to reconstitute all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It is not a haphazard effort based on guesses and religious faith. It is a careful analytical process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work and, given certain conditions, reconstruct the original with a high degree of certainty.</p>

<p>This last point raises the key question of this entire discussion: <em>Regardless of the raw number of variants, can we recover the original reading with confidence?</em> The answer to that pivotal question depends on three factors. First, how many copies exist? Second, how old are the manuscripts? Third, what is the exact nature of the differences (the variants)?</p>

<h2>How Many and How Old?</h2>

<p>If the number of manuscripts available for comparison are few and the time gap between the original and the oldest copy is wide, then the autograph is harder to reconstruct. However, if there are many copies and the oldest ones are closer in time to the original, the scholar can be more certain she has pinpointed the exact wording of the initial text, for all practical purposes.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular writings historians rely on for all their data from antiquity that have been restored with a high level of confidence based on available textual evidence.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Josephus’&nbsp;first century document <em>The Jewish War</em> survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th century—four centuries after they were written.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Tacitus’&nbsp;<em>Annals of Imperial Rome</em> is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Thucydides’&nbsp;<em>History</em> survives in eight copies. There are ten copies of Caesar’s <em>Gallic Wars</em>, eight copies of Herodotus’&nbsp;<em>History</em>, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s <em>Iliad</em> has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>Note that for most ancient documents only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-1500 years or more. Yet scholars are confident they have reconstructed the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.</p>

<h2>The Biblical Manuscript Evidence</h2>

<p>The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison. A recent count shows 5,500 separate Greek manuscripts.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).</p>

<p>Among the 2,795 minuscule fragments dating from the 9th to the 15th centuries are 34 complete New Testaments.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th century and earlier. Codex Vaticanus is likely the oldest, dated c. 325-350.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> The magnificent Codex Sinaiticus, dated c. 340<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup>, contains half the Old Testament and virtually all of the New. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the mid-5th century.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-third century.<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup> The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes most of the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>

<p>The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup> showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40 years of its composition.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that most papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. Even so, the textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.</p>

<p>Two other cross-checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions (translations) and citations by early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”</p>

<p>Early in the history of the Church, the Scriptures were translated into Latin (10,000 copies exist<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup>). By the 3rd and 4th centuries the New Testament had been translated and reproduced in Coptic and Syriac, and soon after in Armenian, and Georgian, among others. <sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup> These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the church grew. Translations help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.</p>

<p>In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Indeed, the patristic quotations themselves include virtually every verse in the New Testament.<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup></p>

<p>I want you to notice something here. The chief concern Bart Ehrman raises regarding the biblical texts—the massive number of variants—can only arise with a massive number of manuscripts. Scholars universally consider this a virtue, not a vice—good news, not bad—because the condition causing the problem is the very condition providing the solution. The more manuscripts available for comparison, the more changes that will likely appear, but also the more raw material to use for comparison to fix the problem the variants pose.</p>

<p>This mountain of manuscripts gives us every reason to believe the originals have been preserved in the aggregate. No missing parts need be replaced. We have 110% of the text, not 90%.<sup id="fnref:24"><a href="#fn:24">24</a></sup> The real question is this: Do we know how to separate the wheat from the chaff to recover the original reading? That depends entirely on our last question: What is the nature of the variants themselves?</p>

<h2>Those Pesky Variants</h2>

<p>According to manuscript expert Daniel Wallace, “A textual variant is simply any difference from a standard text (e.g., a printed text, a particular manuscript, etc.) that involves spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution, or a total rewrite of the text.”<sup id="fnref:25"><a href="#fn:25">25</a></sup> Note that <em>any</em> difference, no matter how slight, is added to the total count.</p>

<p>What exactly are those differences? They can be divided into two categories: significant variants and insignificant ones. An insignificant variant has absolutely no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original text. The meaning remains the same, regardless of which reading is the original.</p>

<p>For example, well over half the variants (yes, more than 200,000) are spelling errors,<sup id="fnref:26"><a href="#fn:26">26</a></sup> due either to accident (the ie/ei mistake is as common in Scripture as it is in our own writing), or different choices of phonetic spelling (<em>kreinai</em> vs. <em>krinai</em>). A host of others are immaterial differences in abbreviation or style (a definite article appearing before a name—“the James”—omitted in another because it adds nothing to the meaning).<sup id="fnref:27"><a href="#fn:27">27</a></sup></p>

<p>Clearly, some insignificant variations are <em>theologically</em> important. The rendering in the KJV of 1 John 5 (the <em>Comma Johanneum</em>) appearing to echo the Trinity <em>is</em> about a significant doctrinal issue, but clearly this variant is not in the original so it creates no textual concern. It appears in only a four manuscripts, the earliest dating from the 10th century (four others have it penciled into the margin by a scribe),<sup id="fnref:28"><a href="#fn:28">28</a></sup> and is almost universally acknowledged to be a corruption. Further, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on this text, but is verified by many other passages not in question.</p>

<p>A similar problem occurs with thousands of other variants that appear in only one manuscript (“singular readings”). These obvious mistakes are easily corrected.</p>

<p>Here’s how Wallace<sup id="fnref:29"><a href="#fn:29">29</a></sup> sums up the variations:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Spelling differences or nonsense readings (e.g., a skipped line)</li>
	<li>Inconsequential word order (“Christ Jesus”&nbsp;vs. “Jesus Christ”) and synonyms</li>
	<li>Meaningful, though non-viable variants (e.g., the <em>Comma Johanneum</em>)</li>
	<li>Variants that are both meaningful and viable</li>
</ol>

<p>Wallace’s last category constitutes “much less than”&nbsp;1% of all variations.<sup id="fnref:30"><a href="#fn:30">30</a></sup> In other words, <em>more than 396,000 of the variants have no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original</em>. Even with the <em>textually</em> viable differences that remain, the vast majority are so <em>theologically</em> insignificant they are “relatively boring.”<sup id="fnref:31"><a href="#fn:31">31</a></sup> These facts Ehrman himself freely admits:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another.<sup id="fnref:32"><a href="#fn:32">32</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wallace’s fourth category—those variants both meaningful and viable (in a textual sense)—is the only one of any consequence. “We are talking here,”&nbsp;write Kostenberger and Kruger, “about a situation where there are two (or more) possible readings, and the evidence for each reading...is relatively equal.”<sup id="fnref:33"><a href="#fn:33">33</a></sup></p>

<p>Here the analytical skills of the professional textual critic are applied to weed out the most unlikely variants. She has at her disposal a specific set of rules—the accepted canons of textual analysis—that enable her to resolve the vast majority of conflicts to recover the original with a high degree of confidence.</p>

<p>Ironically, this is precisely the point Ehrman unwittingly demonstrates as he closes out his case against the New Testament documents.</p>

<h2>Ehrman’s “Top Ten”</h2>

<p>On the final page of the paperback edition of <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>, Ehrman lists the “Top Ten Verses That Were Not Originally in the New Testament.”&nbsp;It serves as his parting salvo, but in reality proves his entire thesis false.</p>

<p>First, I immediately recognized six of the ten citations, and in every case my own Bible translation (NASB) makes a marginal note that these verses are not in the earliest manuscripts. No surprises here.</p>

<p>Second, one third of Ehrman’s “Top Ten”&nbsp;list <em>actually is in the New Testament</em>, after all. Luke 22:20, 24:12, and 24:51b are, in fact, questionable in Luke. They do appear, however, almost word for word in uncontested passages (respectively, Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24; John 20:3-7; Acts 1:9, 11).</p>

<p>Third, nothing of theological consequence is lost by striking any of the variants Ehrman lists, even the long ending in Mark (16:9-20) or the engaging but likely non-canonical account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).</p>

<p>Finally (and most damaging), Ehrman’s list proves just the opposite of what he intends. For all his hand wringing that the original text is lost forever, his list itself demonstrates it’s possible to recognize the most important spurious renderings and eliminate them.</p>

<p>Ehrman’s own works (<em>Misquoting</em> and also <em>The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture</em>) prove that the text-critical methods mentioned above—the very methods he uses to critique the New Testament—are adequate to restore the original reading. It is proof that the massive number of variants do not interfere with our ability to recapture the original, but instead the rich manuscript evidence we possess allows us to weed out the vast percentage of variants. Otherwise Ehrman would not be able to say with confidence his “Top Ten”—or any other verses—are not in the New Testament.</p>

<p>This is a fact he acknowledges (again, ironically) in another work. Compare the pessimism of <em>Misquoting Jesus</em> with the optimism expressed in Metzger and Ehrman’s <em>The Text of the New Testament</em>:<sup id="fnref:34"><a href="#fn:34">34</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone <em>for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Bart Ehrman has two books with his name on them that give the exact opposite impression.<sup id="fnref:35"><a href="#fn:35">35</a></sup> And both were published the same year (2005).</p>

<p>What can we conclude from the evidence? Virtually all of the 400,000 differences in the New Testament documents—spelling errors, inverted words, non-viable variants and the like—are completely inconsequential to the task of reconstructing the original. Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to a vigorous application of the accepted canons of textual criticism.</p>

<p>This means that our New Testament is over 99% pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words),<sup id="fnref:36"><a href="#fn:36">36</a></sup> and none affects any significant doctrine.</p>

<p>Scholar D.A. Carson sums it up this way: “What is at stake is a purity of text of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”<sup id="fnref:37"><a href="#fn:37">37</a></sup></p>

<p>Our chief question has been, “Can we reproduce the original New Testament to a high degree of certainty?”&nbsp;Even Bart Ehrman, in spite of himself, demonstrates we can.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Bart Ehrman, <em>Misquoting Jesus—The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why</em>, first paperback edition (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 7, 90. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Daniel Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation,”&nbsp;bible.org (<a href="http://bible.org/article/number-textual-variants-evangelical-miscalculation">http://bible.org/article/number-textual-variants-evangelical-miscalculation</a>). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ehrman, 10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Bruce Metzger passed away in 2007. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Both quotes can be found on the back cover of <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ehrman, 7, 257. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">When a large number of manuscripts exhibit the same “signature”&nbsp;pattern of variations, they are referred to as a text family or a “text type,”&nbsp;e.g., the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, or the Majority Text (aka the Byzantine Text, the underlying manuscript family of the KJV). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Kostenberger and Kruger, <em>The Heresy of Orthodoxy</em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 205. <em>Sufficient</em> certainty is the goal, not <em>absolute</em> certainty. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Very minor differences in number appear in various catalogs of these documents, but these are accurate enough to make our point. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Paul Barnett, <em>Is the New Testament History?</em> (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 45. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Geisler and Nix, <em>A General Introduction to the Bible</em> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Bruce Metzger, <em>The Text of the New Testament</em> (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Kostenberger and Kruger, 207. The number of manuscripts is continually increasing as more are discovered. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Geisler &amp; Nix, 402. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Ibid., 391. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid., 392. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Ibid., 394. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Ibid., 389-390. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Metzger, 39-40. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Geisler and Nix, 388. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Kostenberger and Kruger, 208. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">Barnett, 44. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23">Metzger, 86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:24">Daniel Wallace, “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?”,&nbsp;<em>Bibliotheca Sacra</em>, April-June, 1991, 169. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:24"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:25">Daniel Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:25">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:26">Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”,&nbsp;<a href="http://bible.org/article/what-we-have-now-what-they-wrote-then">http://bible.org/article/what-we-have-now-what-they-wrote-then</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:26"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:27">Kostenberger and Kruger, 215-217. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:27"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:28">Ibid., 219. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:28"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:29">Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:29">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:30">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:30"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:31">Kostenberger and Kruger, 226. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:31"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:32">Ehrman, 55. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:32"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:33">Kostenberger and Kruger, 225. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:33"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:34">Metzger and Ehrman, <em>The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration</em>, 4th Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:34"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:35">To be fair, this portion was undoubtedly authored by Metzger. Nonetheless, the ironic conflict remains. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:35"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:36">Geisler and Nix, 475. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:36"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:37">Carson, D.A., <em>The King James Version Debate</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:37"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman" 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-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman" 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-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman" 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 God Appear to Atheists?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/11/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-god-appear-to-atheists-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve heard atheists say that the best thing God could do would be to reveal Himself openly so that everyone could believe in Him, do what He wants, and not go to Hell. Since God does not do this, we know that either He does not exist or He is not good.</p>

<p>When this comes up with your atheist friends, try exploring the question of what would happen if God were to unequivocally prove His existence to an atheist. What would come of this? Would God’s sudden appearance change the atheist’s heart such that he would desire to devote himself to God?</p>

<p>Atheists aren’t idiots. An open display of powerful glory by the God of the universe would likely drive former atheists to serve Him out of fear, but what would this accomplish from God’s perspective? God doesn’t desire eternal slaves—i.e., those who work to fulfill His requirements out of a desire to escape punishment or to gain something they want. As God reminds the Israelites throughout the Old Testament, it’s not the acts of worship He’s after, but the hearts of children who <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4-5;&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">adore</a> their Father and want to be with Him.</p>

<p>I submit to you this illustration from <em>The Gulag Archipelago</em>, a book about the communist, totalitarian Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century. This is the kind of scenario God has no interest in creating:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with "stormy applause, rising to an ovation." For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes...But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly...However, who would dare be the <em>first</em> to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it...But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who’d been arrested. He was afraid!...</p>

<p>The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Stalin had made himself known to his people in all his power, and this was the result—forced worship given to avoid punishment. Yes, the standing ovation occurred, but it was not done out of love—it was not <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%204:23;&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">truthful</a>. And for the atheist who sees God as a Stalinesque dictator, the result would be the same. This kind of "worship" does not please God; in fact, the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%2029:13-15;&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">hypocrisy</a> of it <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%2066:2-3;&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">angers Him</a>.</p>

<p>A person who faults God for not openly showing His power in order to ensure that atheists will have the chance to do what they need to do to avoid Hell has missed the very purpose of God’s revelation of Himself. We exist to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," not to grudgingly follow His orders. How would cowing the atheist into submission by His presence further this goal for the atheist? The atheist has misdiagnosed his situation: uncertainty about God’s existence is <em>not</em> his main problem, so certainty would not <em>solve</em> his problem. God is available with evidence enough to give confidence and trust to those whose hearts have been changed to desire Him. But if one hates the idea of the biblical God even in theory, one would be unlikely to love Him if He suddenly appeared in person.</p>

<p>The major difference between atheists and Christians is not that Christians believe God exists, but that they love Him for who He is and delight in pleasing Him, worshiping Him, and being with Him. This is why it’s a good idea to ask the atheist who blames God's lack of appearance for his unbelief, “If I were to prove without a doubt that God exists, would you then love Him?”&nbsp;This question gets to the heart of the real issue for the atheist.</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-god-appear-to-atheists-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-god-appear-to-atheists-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-god-appear-to-atheists-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Worshiping Images of Ourselves
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/01/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/worshipping-images-of-ourselves
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Justin Taylor has an interesting and helpful <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/08/27/what-are-we-apart-fro-christ/" target="_blank">post</a> that takes the reader step by step through the second half of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:16-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 1</a>. In an addendum to his post, he quotes a <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homosexuality-part-1" target="_blank">sermon</a> by John Piper addressing the question of why Paul connects homosexuality with idolatry in this chapter.</p>

<p>Piper’s explanation is an important aspect of the Christian view of homosexuality that often gets overlooked. Christians frequently refer to the idea that there is a created purpose for sexuality and for our bodies, and that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against this purpose, but I think Piper’s description (from <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:16-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 1</a>) of homosexuality as a dramatization of the rejection of our proper relationship to God, in direct opposition to heterosexual marriage’s illustration of Christ and the church, is helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the issue.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The reason Paul focuses on homosexuality in these verses is because it is the most vivid dramatization in life of the profoundest connection between the disordering of heart-worship and the disordering of our sexual lives. I’ll try to say it simply, though it is weighty beyond words.</p>

<p>We learn from Paul in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:22-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Ephesians 5:31-32</a> that, from the beginning, manhood and womanhood existed to represent or dramatize God’s relation to his people and then Christ’s relation to his bride, the church. In this drama, the man represents God or Christ and is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. The woman represents God’s people or the church. And sexual union in the covenant of marriage represents pure, undefiled, intense heart-worship. That is, God means for the beauty of worship to be dramatized in the right ordering of our sexual lives.</p>

<p>But instead, we have exchanged the glory of God for images, especially of ourselves. The beauty of heart-worship has been destroyed. Therefore, in judgment, God decrees that this disordering of our relation to him be dramatized in the disordering of our sexual relations with each other. And since the right ordering of our relationship to God in heart-worship was dramatized by heterosexual union in the covenant of marriage, the disordering of our relationship to God is dramatized by the breakdown of that heterosexual union.</p>

<p>Homosexuality is the most vivid form of that breakdown. God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union. Therefore, when man turns from God to images of himself, God hands us over to what we have chosen and dramatizes it by male and female turning to images of themselves for sexual union, namely their own sex. Homosexuality is the judgment of God dramatizing the exchange of the glory of God for images of ourselves. (See the parallel uses of “exchange”&nbsp;in verses 25 and 26.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s important to put all of this in the context of Taylor’s full <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/08/27/what-are-we-apart-fro-christ/" target="_blank">post</a> on Romans 1, a chapter he refers to as “a universal text that applies to all of us apart from Christ—what we are, what we do, and what we would do apart from God’s restraining and redeeming grace.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fworshipping-images-of-ourselves" 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%2Fworshipping-images-of-ourselves" 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%2Fworshipping-images-of-ourselves" 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: Prosperity Preaching and the Stockdale Paradox
topic: Theology
author: Derek White
date: 06/10/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/prosperity-preaching-and-the-stockdale-paradox
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In his 2009 book <em>The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science that Could Save Your Life</em>, Ben Sherwood describes an intriguing phenomenon known as the Stockdale Paradox (after Admiral James Stockdale, the highest-ranking P.O.W. of the Vietnam War), which suggests a counterintuitive link between optimism and survival:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When [interviewer Jim Collins] asked Stockdale to explain which American prisoners did not survive captivity in Vietnam, the admiral replied, "Oh, that's easy. The optimists."</p>

<p>Collins was perplexed, but Stockdale explained that the optimists "were the ones who said 'we're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go; and then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."</p>

<p>Stockdale went on: "This is a very important lesson. <strong>You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."</strong> (41-42)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note that according to Stockdale it isn't optimism <em>per se</em> that leads to heartbreak and despair, but an optimism of baseless expectations for specific and immediate improvement. Although such optimism is always energizing at first, the excitement invariably sours to disillusionment as the optimist is faced with a stark incongruity between the world <em>as it actually is</em> and the world <em>as he imagined it to be</em>.</p>

<p>This lesson, of course, applies as much to spiritual survival as it does to the physical. The prosperity "gospel," with its promises of material wealth and temporal bliss, leaves its believers vulnerable to the same kind of heartbreak described above. Compare the empty we're-going-to-be-out-by-Christmas optimism Stockdale recalls from Vietnam with the prosperity optimism preached by the likes of Joel Osteen:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God promises your payday is on its way. If you'll learn to be a prisoner of hope and get up every day expecting God's favor, you'll see God do amazing things. You'll overcome every obstacle. You'll defeat every enemy. And I believe and declare you'll see every dream, every promise God has put in your heart. It will come to pass (<em>It's Your Time,</em> 16).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps surprisingly, my issue with these declarations isn't the ridiculous boldness with which they are announced, for as Christians we certainly <em>do</em> believe that every obstacle will be overcome and every enemy defeated. No, the main problem (apart from their being entirely too "self"-oriented), is the perceived <em>immediacy</em> of these promises' fulfillment. One doesn't get the impression from Osteen that the truly faithful may potentially face a lifetime of failure, depression, sickness, or persecution. Rather, the believer will "see" every dream and every promise come to pass—a striking verb to employ, given that the New Testament uniformly pits faith <em>against</em> sight.</p>

<p>Our hope as Christians is much more forward-looking. While we indeed already possess all things in Christ, the same reality is not yet true of us in ourselves, and won't be until the final day. Our inheritance is secure, though we do not yet experience it in its fullness. And the prosperity pushers who teach otherwise—that Christian victory is something to be obtained here, now, "before Christmas,"—are just setting their listeners up for a spiritual death by heartbreak.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fprosperity-preaching-and-the-stockdale-paradox" 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%2Fprosperity-preaching-and-the-stockdale-paradox" 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%2Fprosperity-preaching-and-the-stockdale-paradox" 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: Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/04/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/federal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote in his <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html" target="_blank">decision</a> on the California proposition defining marriage as one man and one woman:</p>

<blockquote>“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,”&nbsp;the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”</blockquote>

<p>Regarding the second challenge, it’s important to note that Prop 8 makes <em>no</em> classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The definition is one man and one woman. No homosexual person is banned from marrying within this definition of marriage shared by everybody, and there is no test for sexual orientation.</p>

<p>Instead, Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a <em>relevant</em> characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there’s no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more <a href="http://www.michiganfamily.org/index.php/what-every-child-needs/" target="_blank">ramifications</a> when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage.</p>

<p>Second, I find the first challenge to be disingenuous. Defining marriage as one man and one woman does not “unconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to marry”&nbsp;any more than defining it as <em>only two</em> people “burdens”&nbsp;it, or defining out close relations burdens it, or an age requirement burdens it, or any of our other laws limiting who can marry whom burden it.</p>

<p>In other words, even after the judge’s decision, <em>we still have a limiting definition of marriage</em>. Therefore, it’s disingenuous to strike Prop 8 down based on the idea that it’s burdening the right to marry <em>if the judge is going to retain the other limitations</em>.</p>

<p>The only consistent options for the judge would be to either strike down <em>all</em> of the qualifications for marriage or let the people debate the issue and establish the definition, as they did with Prop 8, and apply the definition equally to everyone. The question is not one of equal rights (since the judge did not rule every definition unconstitutional), but of whether or not the particular defining characteristic we’re talking about is relevant to the institution of marriage (race is not relevant to marriage since skin color has nothing to do with any aspect of what marriage entails, but gender <em>is</em> relevant). Because defining marriage is not an issue of equal rights, it’s not the place of the judge to decide by fiat, but for the people to debate.</p>

<p>Instead, the judge merely arbitrarily drew the lines of definition for the people without offering any justification for why he drew the lines there and not somewhere else. The reason he offered (that it’s unconstitutional to limit marriage) is simply false. And he must know this, or he would have struck down every part of our current, limiting definition.</p>

<p>(See Greg’s ��<a href="http://www.str.org/w/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses?inheritRedirect=true" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses</a>”&nbsp;for more on this subject.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffederal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8" 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%2Ffederal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8" 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%2Ffederal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8" 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: Evolution Can’t Tell Darwin’s Story
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/26/2010
source: https://www.str.org/w/evolution-can-t-tell-darwin-s-story
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH9vK4zgGw" target="_blank">Creation</a></em>, a film about Charles Darwin’s personal life, is not a rant against God or even a story of the heroism of one man crusading for science against religion. Surprisingly, the movie is not polemical. It doesn’t bother to argue against religion, nor does it spend time arguing for the truth of evolution. It’s clear that the filmmakers assume this fight has already been won, and so the issues remain in the background. Instead, the story focuses on the inner struggle of Darwin who is suffering to the point of illness due to his daughter’s death and his indecision about whether or not to finish and publish <em>On the Origin of Species—</em>a book that his religious wife does not want him to write.</p>

<p>Throughout this story of Darwin’s struggle, the movie doesn’t hurl anger at God or religion. God is merely...absent, unreal. Religion is clichés and traditions, kindly enough for the most part, but impotent. Darwin gives up on it altogether after hearing a sermon about how “not one sparrow will fall to the ground apart from the will of God” (a verse that got a scornful chuckle from the audience member next to me). As one who surrounds himself with things of death—dead animals hang from his workroom ceiling as they wait to become skeletons, skulls line his office, and all of nature’s cruelties in the struggle for survival constantly engage his thoughts—he knows there is no God who sees the death and suffering that has been driving all the species of the world since life began. The death of his daughter is to him just one more example of the ugliness of the stark, purposeless, unfeeling truth of animal life, weak genes, and the survival of the fittest.</p>

<p>No, religion in <em>Creation</em> is simply a thing that will eventually pass away due to its lacking any usefulness. But religion is not singled out for the viewer as the only thing unworthy of the Darwins’ faith. While Darwin’s wife, Emma, seeks help in religion, Darwin seeks help in medicine; and we are keenly aware, watching this movie from our perspective, just how impotent nineteenth century medicine is—special water baths, bleeding, etc. We are expected, as viewers, to recognize that neither of these refuges—religion or medicine—has the power to save, and they must evolve into something better in the future if they are to survive.</p>

<p>As with religion and medicine, the evolutionary ideas Darwin is exploring in his research do come into the story, but the film’s point is not, ultimately, about biological evolution. Darwin’s atheistic, evolutionary view of the world merely forms the framework used by the filmmakers to shed light on his inner struggle. Everything moves from lower to higher, death to greater life. And as passages of Darwin’s words from <em>Origin</em> are carefully placed throughout the story, as evolution is used to visually reflect the rise of Darwin’s soul from despair to redemption through the love and forgiveness of his wife, one comes to see the irony of using this framework: In the end, <em>Creation</em> turns out to be the same old Christian story of sin, guilt, spiritual death, love, forgiveness, new life, and reconciliation.</p>

<p>At one point in the movie, a doctor tells Darwin that he must find faith if he wants to get better. Not faith in God, necessarily, just faith. I assume that by “faith” he meant a belief and trust in something real and worthwhile that would give him a reason to live. Darwin does find his “faith,” regain his health, and finish his book, but exactly what the turning point consists of is not clear. The beginning of it occurs <em>before</em> he is reconciled to his wife and is never really explained. But one thing the filmmakers intended to say is made clear from the triumphant voiceover of (presumably) bits of <em>Origin</em> at the end of the movie: “From suffering and death, higher beings emerge”* The filmmakers (and, one would assume, Darwin) have found purpose in suffering. Just as struggle and death in the animal kingdom brought about “greater” beings, so too did good come out of Darwin’s suffering.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, they alight on part of the Christian answer—that suffering brings about a greater good—despite the fact that using images and ideas of atheistic evolution to tell a story with this moral creates a curious contradiction. In a world of random molecules, there is no such thing as “greater,” or “higher,” or “good.” Such things do not objectively exist in a universe that has neither purpose nor standard, so one can’t make value judgments about either one biological creature over another or one state of mind over another.</p>

<p>And yet the movie persists not only in doing this, but also in urging us to rise above the base evolutionary struggle (as if there were such a thing as “above”). When Darwin and his wife reconcile, Emma says she is not sorry that she married him, her first cousin, even though they suspect the weakened genes of their children caused the deaths of two of them (the “sin” of Darwin’s world)—she is not sorry, because she loves him. The film, through Emma, shows that we are more than mere animals making decisions according to “survival of the fittest”; love is a “higher” calling. The movie asserts this within an atheistic world, but how can a materialist, evolutionary world, with nothing existing higher than nature as a standard towards which we must strive, explain this?</p>

<p>The use of <em>the</em> story of materialism to show the power of decidedly non-material, spiritual things (things that are even more powerful than the science of medicine in this film) is jarring, but the contradiction couldn’t be avoided. To tell a good, human story, one must speak of the non-material realities we experience. And if one’s worldview can’t support such things, one must borrow from another that can.</p>

<p>When the movie ended, I could hear people commenting on how depressing it was, and they were right. They weren’t sidetracked by Darwin’s perplexing personal triumph at the end. The movie spent much time bombarding us with Darwin’s view of the world—the reality of the impersonal and never-ending death, suffering, and decay on which this atheistic universe has built itself for no purpose whatsoever. There is no one above the creaturely struggle who will set things right, no one out there who recognizes our grief, no standard of “higher” and “lower,” no purpose or point. Death just <em>is</em> and will be. And despite Darwin’s change of heart, no real answer is ever given to us by the filmmakers to change these facts, and the people around me knew it. Darwin overcame, yes, but for no intellectual reason we could discover.</p>

<p>*<em><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11px"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11px">Quote may not be exact.</span></span></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%2Fevolution-can-t-tell-darwin-s-story" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevolution-can-t-tell-darwin-s-story" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevolution-can-t-tell-darwin-s-story" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Faith Is Not Wishing
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/faith-is-not-wishing
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I don’t like the word “faith.”</p>

<p>It’s not that faith isn’t valuable. True biblical faith is essential for salvation. But faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians.</p>

<p>Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief”&nbsp;unnecessary or irrelevant. That kind of knowledge undermines genuine faith and offends God.</p>

<p>The reasoning goes something like this. We all know God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then, is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.</p>

<p>On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. Faith is a “leap,”&nbsp;a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,”&nbsp;as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.</p>

<p>This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know.</p>

<p>But this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.”&nbsp;If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.</p>

<p>The “I just take Christianity on (blind) faith”&nbsp;attitude can’t be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to <em>make</em> a defense for the hope that is in us.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Also, the biblical word for faith, <em>pistis</em>, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust. And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured. It must be earned. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true.</p>

<p>In fact, I suggest you completely ban the phrase “leap of faith”&nbsp;from your vocabulary. Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence.</p>

<p>The following biblical examples make my point.</p>

<h2>Blood, Boils, Frogs and Flies</h2>

<p>Israel’s exodus from Egypt was depicted in a clever animated film called “The Prince of Egypt.”&nbsp;After seeing the movie, my wife and I spent time reading the original account in the Hebrew Scriptures.</p>

<p>Though I’d read this passage a number of times, something jumped out at me then that I hadn’t seen before, a phrase God kept repeating over and over in the account.</p>

<p>The material relevant to my point starts in Exodus 3. Reading the encounter with God at the burning bush, we realize Moses is reluctant to be God’s deliverer. And it’s understandable. Why would Pharaoh, the most powerful leader in the world, submit to a renegade Jew? Why would two million Hebrew slaves follow a murderer and a defector?</p>

<p>“What if they won’t believe me, or listen to me?”&nbsp;Moses demurred. “What if they say, ’The Lord hasn’t appeared to you’?”</p>

<p>What God <em>didn’t</em> say in response is as important as what He <em>did</em> say. He didn’t say, “Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to take this on blind faith. Tell the Hebrews the same thing. They’ve got to have faith.”</p>

<p>Instead God asked, “What’s that in your hand?”</p>

<p>“A staff,”&nbsp;Moses answered.</p>

<p>“Throw it on the ground.”</p>

<p>So he threw it down, and it became a serpent.</p>

<p>“Stretch out your hand,”&nbsp;the Lord said. “Grab it by the tail.”</p>

<p>Reluctantly, Moses did as he was told. When he grabbed the snake, it became a staff again.</p>

<p>“Do this,”&nbsp;God said, “and then they’ll believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, has appeared to you.”</p>

<p>More signs followed that got the people’s attention: the river of blood; frogs covering the land; the gnats, flies, and locusts; the boils and pestilence; the hail; the darkness; and finally the angel of death. All for one purpose: “That they might <em>know</em> there is a God in Israel.”&nbsp;Not simply “believe,”&nbsp;“hope,”&nbsp;or “wish.”&nbsp;<em>Know</em>. This is no idle comment, but a message that is central to the account. In fact, the phrase is repeated no less than ten times throughout the account.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>What was the result? “And when Israel <em>saw</em> the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they <em>believed</em> in the Lord and in His servant Moses”&nbsp;(Exodus 14:31).</p>

<p>Note the pattern: a powerful <em>evidence</em> (miracles, in this case), giving the people <em>knowledge</em> of God, in Whom they then placed their active trust (faith). Knowledge -some level of certainty—went before belief in each of these cases.</p>

<p>God didn’t ask the Hebrews, or even Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking. He demonstrated His power, giving them good reason to believe, resulting in obedience. First, the Hebrews were given good reason to know. This then grounded their investment of faith (active trust) in God. Pharaoh got the picture, too, but his response was not humble surrender leading to salvation. Instead, it was submission under compulsion. In both cases, though, each was compelled to act based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s power.</p>

<p>In the animated feature, “The Prince of Egypt,”&nbsp;Miriam breaks into a song of praise following Israel’s deliverance. The song is entitled “When You Believe,”&nbsp;and includes these words: “There can be miracles, when you believe...Who knows what miracles you can achieve, when you believe...Just believe...Gotta believe...”</p>

<p>Is that the way it happened, that the people achieved miracles <em>because of</em> their belief? No, reality was just the opposite. In the original account, miracles didn’t <em>follow</em> belief; they <em>preceded</em> it. Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish.</p>

<h2>Taking the Easy Way Out?</h2>

<p>Fast forward to the New Testament and you’ll find the same pattern in the life of Christ. In Mark 2, we encounter Jesus speaking to a group gathered in a home in Capernaum. A crowd blocks the front door, keeping a paralytic—being carried by his four friends—from gaining an audience with the Healer. The only way in is from above, so they dig through the earthen roof and lower the deformed man down on a pallet.</p>

<p>Jesus is impressed. Seeing their faith He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”&nbsp;His words offend the scribes, though, who grumble among themselves at such an audacious claim. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”&nbsp;they whisper.</p>

<p>Jesus, aware of their complaint, puts a question to them. “Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ’Your sins are forgiven,’&nbsp;or, ’Arise, take up your pallet and walk’?”</p>

<p>How would you respond? If you were in Jesus’&nbsp;position, would it be easier for you to claim to forgive sins or to claim to heal paralysis? Clearly, it’s always easier to boast about something no one can check up on than it is to claim to have supernatural powers and run the risk you’ll fail the test.</p>

<p>Jesus knew it looked like He was taking the easy way out, until His next remark: “But in order that you may <em>know</em> that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He then turned to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”&nbsp;Then, in the sight of everyone, the paralytic got up and got out.</p>

<p>Jesus gives us the same lesson we find in Exodus. He proves something that can’t be seen—the forgiveness of sins—with evidence that can be seen—a dramatic supernatural healing. Jesus heals “in order that you may know.”&nbsp;Once again, the concrete <em>evidence</em> allows the doubters to <em>know</em> the truth so they can then <em>trust</em> in the forgiveness Christ could give. Once again, there is no conflict between knowledge and faith. Rather, the first is the basis for the second.</p>

<h2>The Apostle Peter</h2>

<p>The book of Acts and Peter’s dramatic sermon on Pentecost gives us another vivid example of the evidence/knowledge/faith equation.</p>

<p>The crowd is both amazed and bewildered at the manifestations of the Spirit they see with their own eyes. Peter takes his stand before the throng and explains that it isn’t intoxication they witness, but prophecy being fulfilled in their midst by the hand of God.</p>

<p>He recounts that Jesus—one attested to by miracles, signs, and wonders—had been murdered at the hands of godless men. Death couldn’t hold Him in the grave, though. He had risen. Not only did King David himself foretell such a thing; Peter and the rest of the disciples had witnessed the risen Christ themselves. The Holy Spirit, the gift promised by the Father, was now being poured out in a way that Peter’s entire audience could “see and hear.”</p>

<p>He then closes with a statement tailor-made for all those who think that certainty somehow diminishes genuine faith: “Therefore let all the house of Israel <em>know for certain</em> that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>When the crowd beholds the evidence—the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy, the witnesses of the resurrection, the powerful manifestations of the Spirit in their midst—the people are pierced to the heart. They are <em>convinced</em> of their error, they <em>know</em> the truth, and thousands <em>believe</em>, putting their <em>trust</em> in the Savior.</p>

<h2>Hear, See, Handle, Believe</h2>

<p>John, the Beloved Disciple, brings it all together for us in 1 John. He opens his letter with the evidence of his own eyewitness encounter with Christ. Notice how many senses he appeals to:</p>

<p>What was from the beginning, what we have <em>heard</em>, what we have <em>seen</em> with our eyes, what we <em>beheld</em> and our hands <em>handled</em> concerning the Word of Life—and the life was <em>manifested</em>, and we have <em>seen</em> and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was <em>manifested</em> to us—what we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim to you also...</p>

<p>Then he closes his letter like this:</p>

<p>And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may <em>know</em> that you have eternal life.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>To John, faith wasn’t a blind leap. It wasn’t wishing on a star. It was grounded in evidence that led to knowledge. And when the evidence is so overwhelming—as it was for the earliest follows of Jesus (and many since then)—the knowledge is certain.</p>

<p>The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles: Biblical faith isn’t wishing, it’s confidence. It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality. It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true—not just “true for me,”&nbsp;but actually, fully, and completely true.</p>

<p>Spiritual growth involves increasing our knowledge <em>and</em> our certainty of God. So there are two things here: first knowledge, and second confidence in what we know.</p>

<p>How do we increase confidence? Wish harder? Hope against hope? Stop our ears to the sounds of the critics without, and ignore the doubts of the agnostic within? This will never work, because confidence cannot be fabricated. It must be earned. As you gather substantiating evidence, your confidence grows automatically and your faith is deepened.</p>

<p>Faith is not about wishing, but about confidence, and the facts make the difference. You get a hold of the facts, you study, you learn—even a little—and you’ll realize you’re not just wishing on a star about eternal things. You’ll realize Christianity is really true.</p>

<p>And that changes everything.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">1 Peter 3:15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Cf., Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14, 9:29, 10:2, 14:4, and 14:18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Acts 2:36, the New American Standard Version (and throughout). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">1 John 5:11-13. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</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%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-is-not-wishing" 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: Learn to Defend God’s Beauty
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/09/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/learn-to-defend-god-s-beauty
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After listening to a few of Christopher Hitchens’s debates with Christians, one quickly sees (because of how many times he returns to the subject) that his core problem with Christianity is that he finds the Christian God petty, tyrannical, spiteful, unjust, hateful, and unreasonable. In short, he hates Him and wants nothing to do with Him. I’ve been finding that this is not at all unusual for atheists.</p>

<p>Those of us interested in apologetics spend a lot of time learning to defend the reality of God and Christianity, but not nearly enough time learning to deeply understand the beauty and goodness of His character and actions. But we need to be able to do this if we are to present God to someone else <em>as a person—</em>someone worthy of devotion and trust.</p>

<p>Why is it necessary to demonstrate God’s goodness in addition to merely arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity? Consider this quote from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Future-Grace-John-Piper/dp/1590521919/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1244264301&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"><em>Future Grace</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When you believe merely on the basis of a testimony you might assent to the truth without delighting in it or seeing it as spiritually beautiful. But when you believe because you have had a spiritual “taste”&nbsp;or “apprehension”&nbsp;of spiritual beauty, then the faith itself is permeated by this taste of spiritual beauty. [Charles] Hodge says, “We may believe on the testimony of those in whose veracity and judgment we confide, that a man of whom we know nothing has great moral excellence. But if we see for ourselves the exhibition of his excellence, we believe for other reasons, and <em>in a different way...</em>.”</p>

<p>What makes faith saving faith is this “different way”&nbsp;of believing that comes from a different (not alternative, or contradictory) way of apprehending or tasting the reality behind the testimony we affirm...[Hodge:] “It is a faith which rests upon the manifestation by the Holy Spirit of the excellence, beauty, and suitableness of the truth...”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, as apologists, it’s necessary but not enough to argue well for the existence of God; after all, even the demons believe this and are no better off for it, for they still do not see God as beautiful and love Him. We need to spend enormous amounts of time reading the Bible, thinking through the character of God in light of every aspect of that character as presented in the entirety of the book. How can God be good in light of Hell or the destruction of the Canaanites? Is God a tyrant? What does His justice look like? His mercy? His love?</p>

<p>Prove to an atheist that a God that he finds hateful and ugly exists, and that atheist will still find Him hateful and defy Him. But describe and defend the beauty and goodness of that God, and perhaps the Holy Spirit will move him to love.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flearn-to-defend-god-s-beauty" 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%2Flearn-to-defend-god-s-beauty" 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%2Flearn-to-defend-god-s-beauty" 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 God Were Real...
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/16/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-god-were-real-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s the temptation of some who reject the reality of God’s existence to use the following kind of reasoning as part of their evidence: “If the Christian God were real, He would [X]. However, He does not [X], therefore He is not real.”</p>

<p>The problem with a person using this kind of reasoning is that he presumes to know what God would do, and often he does this without the proper knowledge of God’s actions in the past, His character, or His overall purposes. The reasoning turns out to really be: “If I were God, I would do [X]. The Christian God does not do what I would do (in light of <em>my</em> purposes and goals), therefore He is not real.”&nbsp;But God is a person. He has his own, specific goals and purposes. Because the reasoner’s assumption is based on faulty understandings of these things about the Christian God, his prediction of what God “would do”&nbsp;is also faulty.</p>

<p>Some examples of this type of reasoning: “If Jesus had really come back from the dead, He would have started a revolt against the Romans.”&nbsp;Or, “If Jesus had really physically risen from the dead, He would have stuck around instead of ascending to heaven.”&nbsp;Or, “If God really existed, He would appear to everyone and prove He exists.”</p>

<p>Matthew 27:39–43 gives another great example of this kind of objection:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”&nbsp;In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him. He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do you see the argument? “If you were really the Messiah, then God would rescue you from the cross. God is not saving you, therefore you are not the Messiah, and we will not believe in you.”&nbsp;Since the survival of the Messiah (leading to a political revolt) was most important to these objectors, they assumed that this would be most important to God. But this conclusion was based on both a lack of knowledge and faulty assumptions about God’s purposes. It turns out that the <em>much</em> better option for God was to <em>not</em> take Jesus down from the cross. They were completely wrong.</p>

<p>This story from Matthew might be a good one to bring up if your friend makes this type of argument. Try asking, “Would you be open to the idea that you’re missing some information you need in order to understand what God would do in this situation, just as the people in this story were? I can see what’s causing the confusion for you; so if you’re interested, I’d love to talk more about this so I can help fill in the rest of the relevant details as you’re trying to make sense of this.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-were-real-" 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-god-were-real-" 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-god-were-real-" 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: Responsible Science and Stem Cell Research
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/responsible-science-and-stem-cell-research
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Ethical Stem Cell Research: A Mass of Misconceptions</em></p>

<p>On March 9, 2009, newly elected President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order entitled “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> The president’s order explicitly revoked President Bush’s Executive Order 13435 that, among other things, clarified certain limits on federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells.</p>

<p>President Obama signed the order to “lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research [ESCR],”&nbsp;because science itself was at stake. “We make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology,”&nbsp;he said that morning.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>He assured his listeners, however, that “appropriate safeguards”&nbsp;would be in place. “We will support [this research] only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted.”&nbsp;Further, “We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.”&nbsp;“This practice,” he said, is “dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”</p>

<p>For a president who candidly admitted that questions about the beginning of human life were “above my pay grade,”&nbsp;this was a stunning development. Worse, both the language of this Executive Order and the President’s own explanation and defense of it are deeply misleading.</p>

<h2>Misconception #1</h2>

<p>President Obama’s Executive Order did not “lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research,”&nbsp;for one simple reason. There has never been a “ban”&nbsp;on federal funding for ESCR. In fact, there have been no bans of any kind on any stem cell research of any sort.</p>

<p>Quite the opposite is true. George W. Bush was the first president to provide federal funds (more than $200 million) for stem cell research, including existing lines of <em>embryonic</em> stem cells that came from embryos long since sacrificed using private funds. Federal funds would also be available for any new ESCR projects as long as the cells were “derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>There were <em>restrictions</em> on federal funding, but no <em>ban</em>. Federal funds for education are also restricted according to Title IX guidelines, but it would hardly be fair to call this a “ban on educational funding.”</p>

<p>Executive Order 13435 justified the funding restrictions by actually detailing a moral argument—characterized by President Obama as “ideology”&nbsp;interfering with science:</p>

<p>(c) the destruction of nascent life for research violates the principle that no life should be used as a mere means for achieving the medical benefit of another;</p>

<p>(d) human embryos and fetuses, as living members of the human species, are not raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold; and</p>

<p>(e) the Federal Government has a duty to exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, both supporting important medical research and respecting ethical and moral boundaries.</p>

<p>Obama’s order and statement contained no such argument. There was no attempt to wrestle with the weighty moral issues, or to balance policy with the ethical concerns of thoughtful critics. Their moral apprehensions were simply brushed away by presidential fiat.</p>

<h2>Misconception #2</h2>

<p>For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the President’s ESCR Executive Order (EO), it actually changed nothing at all, at least for the moment. It made for dramatic political theater, but it did nothing to alter the federal status of funding for ESCR.</p>

<p>The real obstacle to unrestricted funding was not Executive Order 13435, but rather an act of Congress—an appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) containing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The amendment says, in part, “none of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The claim of Obama’s EO that “human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions”&nbsp;was a pure fiction, one that has been circulating for a long time. Bush’s own EO—rescinded by President Obama in March—had introduced no new restrictions. It merely supplied a morally nuanced articulation of current law and directed that federal funds be spent on stem cell research that did not sacrifice human lives in its effort.</p>

<p>The Dickey-Wicker Amendment has been a part of the DHHS omnibus bill since 1996. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed first by Bill Clinton, then by George Bush. Ironically, <em>Barack Obama himself signed it</em> just two days after he inked his controversial EO on ESCR.</p>

<p>So why did President Obama issue an EO that his own signature immediately nullified two days later? Whatever might be inferred from this action, one thing is clear: The bottleneck on ESCR was not caused by the prior administration. It was in place long before with bipartisan consent of both houses of Congress and signed by presidents of both parties.</p>

<p>Perhaps the president wasn’t aware of the amendment. This strikes me as surprising since it had been a fixed—and controversial—feature of the bill for 13 years. The very next day the <em>New York Times</em> weighed in on Dickey-Wicker calling for its repeal, and there is a movement in his own party—headed by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)—to do just that. Was the president completely in the dark about something lesser figures were fully apprised of and that was central to the viability of his own EO?</p>

<p>Perhaps the president knew, but thought the amendment only a temporary obstacle that would expire in September along with the current fiscal year. Why, then, no reference to it? Why not rally the faithful against the one remaining obstacle to the advance of science? Why give the impression that the only relevant obstacle—Bush’s EO 13435—had been eliminated?</p>

<p>There might have been other reasons. One can only speculate.</p>

<h2>Misconception #3</h2>

<p>In spite of assurances to the contrary, the president’s new Executive Order does nothing to limit reproductive cloning. President Obama’s comments trade on a long-standing confusion���the alleged distinction between “therapeutic”&nbsp;cloning and “reproductive”&nbsp;cloning.</p>

<p>Therapeutic cloning is the kind of cloning used by scientists to produce embryonic material for research. Reproductive cloning is the kind of cloning done to eventually produce a baby. It is the second kind that the president called “dangerous”&nbsp;and “profoundly wrong,”&nbsp;a practice that “has no place in our society, or any society.”</p>

<p>Here is the relevant question: How does cloning to produce cells for research differ from cloning to produce a new human being? The answer is: <em>There is no difference at all</em>.</p>

<p>Human embryonic stem cell research requires human embryonic stem cells. There is only one source of such cells. They must all come initially from human embryos,<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> and there are only two possible sources of human embryos for this task.</p>

<p>First, there are tens of thousands of embryos allegedly destined for the trash can—the frozen remnants of over-ambitious IVF attempts. Though ESCR admittedly destroys these living human beings, to many this is okay because “the embryos are going to die anyway.”</p>

<p>Beside the obvious moral inadequacy of this reasoning (it would justify lethal medical experiments on death row inmates or ill-fated Jews in concentration camps, for example), there is another more pressing practical problem. The vast majority of these embryos are not destined for destruction. They are the private property of parents who intend to implant them in the future or, if not, still do not want their diminutive offspring donated for medical experiments.</p>

<p>There is a second source of human embryos, however. Scientists can create their own embryos from scratch. First, remove genetic material from a cell taken from the person who needs therapy and place it into the nucleus of an egg whose own genetic material has been evacuated. Then jump start it with an electrical charge and embryonic stem cells begin to form. These cells have the same genetic makeup of the donor, avoiding potential rejection problems when used in therapy.</p>

<p>The technical term for this procedure is “somatic cell nuclear transfer.”&nbsp;It also goes by a more common name: human cloning. Cloning is nothing more than asexual reproduction. Though a different biological process is involved, it is the same kind of human duplication that happens whenever identical twins are conceived.</p>

<p>Regardless of the manipulations of technology used to create human embryos for research (IVF or cloning), each <em>reproduces</em> a full, genuine human being in the earliest stages of her development—a self-contained, self-integrated living entity with her own nature. She has the innate capacity to proceed through the full series of human developmental stages, <em>if she is allowed to survive</em>. All she needs is proper nurture and environment, the same as you and me.</p>

<p>Her cells are not yet individuated (they haven’t developed unique vocations as bone cells, skin cells, etc.). Yet she is still an individual self (though not yet self-aware) and will remain herself for her entire life until death. She will never <em>become</em> a human; she already <em>is</em> one.</p>

<p>Here is the critical point. Since all cloning reproduces a human being, <em>all cloning is reproductive cloning</em>. A full human being is reproduced in both instances. The difference in language (“therapeutic”&nbsp;vs. “reproductive”) signifies nothing about the cloning itself, but rather about the fate of the unfortunate human being it produces. Current policy allows human cloning as long as the little human created is killed for research instead of being allowed to survive and mature.</p>

<p>Agreed, therapeutic cloning will never make a <em>baby</em>, but only because it’s very difficult to grow that large in a Petri dish. Seal up a senator in a Mason jar and he won’t grow much, either. President Obama assures us that no human beings produced through cloning <em>will survive</em>. They will be sacrificed for research, instead.</p>

<p>Ironically, therapeutic cloning, not reproductive cloning, is the procedure that is “profoundly wrong,”&nbsp;a practice that “has no place in our society, or any society.”&nbsp;Yet this is the cloning approved of by the scientific establishment and current law, a serious moral harm that is made attractive through verbal sleight of hand.</p>

<h2>Misconception #4</h2>

<p>Here is the final false impression. The president promised that ESCR would be done “only when it is...scientifically worthy.”&nbsp;The fact is, embryonic stem cell research is not medically justified and therefore not scientifically worthy, considering the ethical risks.</p>

<p>A distinction rarely made publicly in this debate is the one between two kinds of stem cells being used for research: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. The former require the destruction of human embryos. The latter come from a variety of sources, none of which are lethal or harmful to the donor. Research conducted on both types of cells for a long time has produced stunning results in both cases.</p>

<p>Adult stem cell research has been magnificently successful. I know of 73 treatments currently in use from efforts using adult stem cells, and my list is over two years old. <sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Therapies exist for brain cancer, ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, stroke, limb gangrene, heart damage, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, and a host of others.</p>

<p>These are not speculations or eager hopes, but modalities already saving lives. I have personally spoken with people who are alive today because of clinical success with adult stem cell therapies.</p>

<p>And the success continues. Over the past two years, scientists discovered they could reprogram ordinary skin cells to perform like embryonic stem cells. Further, the process, called induced pluripotent stem-cell technology, produces stem cells that are patient specific, eliminating the problem of immune rejection. It also avoids the ominous moral and political hurdles—human cloning and embryo destruction—facing ESCR. And the process is cheaper than research on embryonic cells, prompting hundreds of labs to opt for the new technology over ESC experimentation.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Ironically, news of major breakthroughs in this field surfaced just one week before the president signed his new Executive Order.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The report prompted this remark from Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “Stem cell research that requires destroying embryos is going the way of the Model T. No administration that values science and medical progress over politics will want to divert funds now toward that increasingly obsolete and needlessly divisive approach.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> On Monday, March 9, however, the president was silent regarding this new and promising alternative.</p>

<p>The results for ESCR are equally stunning, but for the opposite reason. How many therapies have been developed for human application through embryonic stem cell research to date? <em>Not a single one.</em> So far it has been all hype, no results. The future benefits of this research are purely speculative and there are good reasons to doubt they will ever be realized, not the least of which is the tendency of embryonic stem cells to cause dangerous proliferation of tumors.</p>

<p>Unlike the reports on adult stem research, which has already produced an abundance of effective therapies, the claims being made about ESCR’s potential have been outlandish and completely unverified. Proponents have wildly exaggerated the possibilities of medical progress, and have wildly exaggerated the chances the possibilities will actually be realized.</p>

<p>Destruction of human embryos for research has not shown itself to be “scientifically worthy.”&nbsp;So far, that description applies only to adult stem cell research.</p>

<h2>Only One Question</h2>

<p>I have argued elsewhere<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> that only one question needs to be answered to resolve what many think is a complex moral problem. That question is, “What is it?”&nbsp;Both abortion and ESCR kill something that is alive. In fact, both destroy the same thing at different stages of development. Whether it’s right or not to take that life depends entirely on what it is we’re killing.</p>

<p>Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, then <em>no justification for ESCR is necessary</em>. Experiment as you please. However, if the unborn is a human being, <em>no justification for taking her life is adequate</em>, because we do not justify harming other human beings for the reasons people routinely give for ESCR. We don’t carve up innocent human beings in hope that it might benefit someone else who is sick, even if “they’re going to die anyway.”</p>

<p>It is incomprehensible to me how a stunning number of pro-lifers could rally in support of ESCR for the very same reasons pro-choicers classically have justified abortion: It doesn’t look human; it’s in the wrong location (a Petri dish, not a uterus); it’s too small to be of moral consequence; it’s alive, but not a life; it’s human, but not a human being; it’s a human being, but not a person; others will gain tremendous benefit. When pro-lifers embrace pro-choice logic, they undermine their entire moral enterprise.</p>

<h2>Only One Answer</h2>

<p>Though the water has been muddied by a parade of medical experts, Nobel laureates, movie stars, victims of disease, and extravagant claims of miraculous cures, giving a green light to federally funded ESCR is, as one person put it, “bad ethics and bad science.”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>It implicitly authorizes human cloning to provide the massive number of embryos needed for research, though its claims of medical benefit are exaggerated and its expectations of future benefit are unjustified.</p>

<p>Embryonic stem cell research destroys valuable human beings in the earliest moments of their lives. Most embryos are harvested at seven days, just 14 days away from a beating heart. They are full human beings who need only nurture, care, and the proper environment to grow to maturity, yet their bodies are being sacrificed for medical progress. Simply put, this is wrong.</p>

<p>The threat of the “brave new world”&nbsp;is not science. It is science unrestrained by “ideology.”&nbsp;The difference between science based solely on facts, and those constrained by ideology is the difference between Joseph Mengele and Jonas Salk.</p>

<p>When any embryo is destroyed for the sake of science, a valuable human being has been sacrificed. For those who acknowledge what all embryologists know, that human life begins at conception, there is only one answer to the question of destroying human embryos for research: No.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-cells/. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Find the president’s complete remarks here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-As-Prepared-for-Delivery-Signing-of-Stem-Cell-Executive-Order-and-Scientific-Integrity-Presidential-Memorandum/. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-3112.pdf">http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-3112.pdf</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Lines of existing ESCs originally obtained from embryos can be coaxed into reproducing, but this was not what the president had in mind. That practice was central to the policy he rescinded. President Obama wants new lines of ESCs from new embryos. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><a href="https://www.stemcellresearch.org/stem-cell-research-treatments/">https://www.stemcellresearch.org/stem-cell-research-treatments/</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ryan T. Anderson, “Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War,”&nbsp;<em>The Weekly Standard</em>, March 9, 2009. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Rob Stein, “Researchers Find Safer Way to Produce Stem Cell Alternative,”&nbsp;<em>The Washington Post</em>, March 2, 2009, p. A05. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10"><em>Precious Unborn Human Beings</em>, and <em>Making Abortion Unthinkable—The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion</em>, both available from Stand to Reason. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Ibid, Ryan T. Anderson. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</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%2Fresponsible-science-and-stem-cell-research" 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%2Fresponsible-science-and-stem-cell-research" 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%2Fresponsible-science-and-stem-cell-research" 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: Peter Singer Rejects Inalienable Human Rights
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/19/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/peter-singer-rejects-inalienable-human-rights
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An article by Dinesh D'Souza posted on Christianity Today directly addresses many of the conversations we've had in the blog comments recently about the foundation for human rights and whether or not rights can continue indefinitely in a post-Christian culture.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/march/22.60.html" target="_blank">D'Souza explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;">
<p>Nietzsche's argument [that the values of the West will not continue if their foundation is understood to be mythical] is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity. It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth and that we share the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values makes sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Without the understanding that every human is, by nature, of the kind of being that is intrinsically valuable and worthy of rights, one must come up with some other standard of abilities or characteristics that each human being (or any creature, for that matter) must meet in order to be considered a "person" worthy of rights.&nbsp; In an atheist worldview, rights aren't real things that we must recognize, they're subjective privileges given and taken away by those who are in power, according to their current preferences for certain characteristics.</p>

<p>In Peter Singer's case, he prefers rationality and consciousness as the standard for granting rights to creatures.&nbsp; After defining rights according to his idea of "personhood," here's what he reasons should follow:&nbsp;</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;">
<p>Singer writes, "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality—and, consequently, a greater claim to rights—than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. ... The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>D'Souza says that Peter Singer is one of the few atheists intellectually honest enough not to continue to pretend that all human beings are equal merely because they're human:&nbsp;</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;">
<p>[Singer] argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals.&nbsp; Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal.... Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order.... There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We commonly see arguments for a standard of "personhood" for rights when it comes to stem cell research and abortion, but few are willing to go on to&nbsp;consistently and logically embrace the full&nbsp;implications of an atheist worldview in the area of rights as Singer has above.&nbsp; The horrific implications don't in themselves prove the worldview false, but when one is unable to be consistent, that should raise questions.&nbsp; Which more closely resonates with your knowledge of real truth, beauty, and goodness--that we should care for the weak, the disabled, and the elderly, or that we should kill them?&nbsp; Peter Singer, or Mother Teresa?</p>

<p>D'Souza notes that most of the new atheists distance themselves from Singer, and he&nbsp;suspects this is because "they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism."&nbsp; After all, the new atheists often argue that we don't need Christianity to uphold a moral society because an atheist can be just as moral as a Christian.&nbsp; But unfortunately (and embarrassingly for the new atheists), as Singer demonstrates, an atheist can only be as moral as a Christian if he still believes in the same morality.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/03/peter-singer-rare-intellectually-honest.html" target="_blank">Justin Taylor</a>)</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/03/peter-singer-rejects-inalienable-human-rights.html#comments" target="_blank">COMMENTS</a></p>
</div>

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


title: What the Resurrection Proves
topic: Theology
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/13/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-the-resurrection-proves
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/what-the-resurrection-proves/">Fred Sanders</a> at Biola University provides this nugget from R.A. Torrey, a prominent evangelist at the turn of the last century.&nbsp; Torrey made some interesting points about the <em>implications</em> of Jesus' resurrection.&nbsp; I drew two lessons from Torrey's point.&nbsp; First is that in the apologetic effort to demonstrate the resurrection, we cannot leave it at that because what it proves is what is life-transforming.&nbsp; Second is that only a physical resurrection proves these vitally important theological implications.&nbsp; No spiritual or symbolic resurrection will result in the same conclusions.</p>

<p>Sanders writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But what particularly drew my interest in Torrey’s book was that fourth chapter (Chapter VIII) on the resurrection: “What the resurrection of Jesus from the dead proves.”</p>

<p>Torrey opens the chapter with a recap of the previous arguments, and then asks,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But suppose He did rise from the dead, what of it? What does His resurrection prove? It proves everything that most needs to be proved. It proves everything that is essential in Christianity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There follow six points:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. The resurrection of Christ from the dead proves that there is a God, and that the God of the Bible is the true God.</p>

<p>2. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that Jesus is a teacher sent from God, who received His messae from God, that He was absolutely inerrant, that He spoke the very words of God.</p>

<p>3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that He is the Son of God.</p>

<p>4. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that there is a judgment day coming.</p>

<p>5. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that every believer in Christ is justified from all things.</p>

<p>6. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that all who are united to Christ by a living faith shall live again.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The apologetic project of “proving the resurrection” is important, especially to demonstrate that the Christian faith is not a leap into the irrational or a retreat to personal commitment. But on its own, it’s a fairly tiresome business. Unless, that is, you keep the theological context in view: Christ as the revelation of God the Father, as the one judge whose claim on all humanity has been vindicated in a mighty act of divine self-demonstration, as the one whose sacrifice is salvation, and whose rising from the dead catches humanity up in its momentum.</p>

<p>Torrey (and the solid evangelical tradition he spoke from) knew that the two projects had to be held together, and that the apologetic project must serve the theological. Both proofs have their place, but what the resurrection proves is more important than proving the resurrection.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(HT:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.tennapel.com/">Doug TenNapel</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%2Fwhat-the-resurrection-proves" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-the-resurrection-proves" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-the-resurrection-proves" 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 Want to Be a Good Apologist?
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/19/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Years ago I was given a piece of advice that has proved to be more valuable in my life than anything else: Read through the Bible once a year.</p>

<p>There are so many reasons why this is a good idea (wisdom, knowledge, spiritual growth, love for and awe of God), but in terms of apologetics, it’s important to have a good grasp of the whole of the Bible—how things fit together, how one part explains another, and where you can find which piece of information in order to answer a person’s questions. Reading through the Bible regularly will give you the basics you need to work through some of the more difficult issues to explain (suffering, slavery, war against the Canaanites, judgment, etc.) in light of all the necessary information. And when a person objects to the God of the Bible based on a verse that was taken out of context, you’ll immediately recognize the problem and be able to correct it.</p>

<p>If you need to get started in this habit by following a one-year plan, then by all means do so. However, the best way to do this is to read as large a chunk at one time as you can manage. One book in one or two sittings is ideal. I can remember the first time I read through the Bible. I used a one-year plan and read such a little amount per day that I couldn’t keep track of the story. Characters would be referred to later on in one of the longer books and I wouldn’t remember who they were. I had no understanding of the overall history of Israel even after finishing. It wasn’t until a class assignment forced me to read the entire Old Testament in four months (and therefore, in large portions per sitting) that the text opened up to me as a full, meaningful, unified story.</p>

<p>Here’s the suggestion: Set aside a two-hour block (or a couple one-hour blocks) per week and read the Bible as you would any other book (i.e., not just a few sentences at a time). The first few years, read to get the overall picture—don’t let the details slow you down. (Feel free to set up other times during the week to meditate on smaller portions, if you wish.) This will get easier and easier over time, as more of the larger pieces fall into place for you and everything makes more sense. Don’t give up! After a few years, you’ll be in a better position to start thinking carefully through everything, and you’ll find that many of your questions have already been answered; but you have to learn your times tables before you can do calculus, so start putting the time in now.</p>

<p>How long will this take you each year? Well, the Bible on CD runs 76 hours. That’s 38 weeks at two hours a week or 25 weeks at three hours. That’s nothing! Completely doable. Then, once you master this habit, add on an extra reading of the New Testament each year—only 18 hours! I want these numbers to give you motivating hope. It never occurred to me (before I was forced) to think such a thing was possible for me, but it is. You can do this, and I promise you that if you stick with it, making this commitment will be a turning point for you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-want-to-be-a-good-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%2Fyou-want-to-be-a-good-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%2Fyou-want-to-be-a-good-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: Just the Facts, Ma’am
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/just-the-facts-ma-am
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There is an old TV show you may have heard of, but probably have never seen unless you are over fifty or watch reruns that are half a century old. It was an austere LAPD police drama called “Dragnet.”</p>

<p>Though the program has been largely forgotten, two lines from the show have not. The first is, “The names have been changed to protect the innocent.”&nbsp;The second is, “Just the facts, Ma’am,”&nbsp;detective Joe Friday’s trademark request of whomever he questioned as a witness.</p>

<p>Just the Facts, Ma’am is an easy tactic to use. It requires no cleverness or deft maneuvering. Only two things are necessary. First is the awareness that many challenges to Christianity are based on bad information. These objections can be overcome by a simple appeal to the facts.</p>

<p>The second requirement is that you need to know the facts. If you do, you can beat the objection. This is not an absolute requirement for this tactic, though, because sometimes you can spot a wrong answer even though you do not know the right one (I’ll tell you how to do that in a moment). But knowing the right answer is central to using Just the Facts, Ma’am, and often that information is just a few keystrokes away.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example of a popular challenge to Christianity that is not based in fact, though many think it is. The protest goes something like this: “More wars have been fought and more blood has been shed in the name of religion than any other cause. It is the greatest source of evil in the world.”</p>

<p>Now, one might point out that even if this were the case, it is not entirely clear what conclusions about religion are justified from that data. You couldn’t properly conclude, for example, that God does not exist or that Jesus was not the Savior simply by citing acts of violence done in the name of God or Christ. Since oppression and mayhem are neither religious duties for Christians nor logical applications of the teachings of Christ, violence done in the name of Christ cannot be laid at His door. This might tell you something about <em>people</em>. It tells you nothing about <em>God</em>.</p>

<p>So there are logical problems with this complaint. But the bigger problem is that this charge is simply not true. Religion has <em>not</em> caused more wars and bloodshed than anything else.</p>

<p>Though it is easy to characterize religion as a blood-thirsty enterprise replete with witch hunts, crusades, and religious jihad, the fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from <em>denial</em> of God, not <em>pursuit</em> of Him. “In [the 20th] century alone,”&nbsp;Dennis Prager notes, “more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies—Nazism and communism—than by all religions in history.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Grab an older copy of the <em>Guinness Book of World Records</em> and turn to the category “Judicial,”&nbsp;sub-heading “Crimes: Mass Killings.”&nbsp;You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism: over 66 <em>million</em> wiped out under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup>; between 32 and 61 <em>million</em> Chinese killed under communist regimes since 1949<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup>; one third of the eight million Khmers—2.7 <em>million</em> people—were killed between 1975 and 1979 under the communist Khmer Rouge.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The greatest evil has not resulted from people zealous for God. It has resulted when people are convinced there is no God they must answer to.</p>

<p>I want you to notice something about the facts I cited above. They were as precise as I could make them without being cumbersome. I gave you a specific source with exact numbers and precise dates. Exactness is an important element of Just the Facts, Ma’am because of a foundational principle of persuasion: When citing factual information in your defense, <em>precise numbers are always more persuasive than general figures</em>.</p>

<p>Though your memory may not always be up to the task (mine certainly isn’t), always use the specific rather than the general when you can. When you communicate with factual precision, you convince your listeners that you know what you are talking about.</p>

<p>Saying “thousands died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11,” is not as compelling as saying “2,973 human beings were buried beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.”&nbsp;Each bit of precision—“2,973,”&nbsp;“September 11, 2001,”&nbsp;the specific locations of the attacks—adds force to your facts. It may take longer to say it, but with proper delivery it is much more compelling.</p>

<p>This kind of exactness can be a powerful persuader. For example, I was once involved in a head-to-head duel, of sorts, with Pulitzer Prize winning historian Garry Wills before San Francisco’s liberal Commonwealth Club, being taped for national broadcast on NPR. In his opening salvo on the topic “Christianity in America,”&nbsp;Professor Wills scorned the idea that the Founding Fathers of our republic were Christians. They were not Christians, he claimed, but deists.</p>

<p>The microphone then passed to me. Fortunately, I had my facts. “The phrase ’Founding Fathers’&nbsp;is a proper noun,”&nbsp;I explained. “It refers to a specific group: the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, but these 55 Founding Fathers made up the core.”&nbsp;I then continued citing from memory, the best I could, the following facts.</p>

<p>The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists—Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin—this at a time when church membership usually entailed “sworn adherence to strict doctrinal creeds.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>This tally proves that 51 of 55—a full 93%—of the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political underpinnings of our nation, were Christians. Virtually every person involved in the founding enterprise of the United States was a God-fearing Protestant whose theology in today’s terms would be described as Evangelical or “fundamentalist.”</p>

<p>When I was finished, I set my microphone down and waited, bracing for the rebuttal from my learned opponent. But he said nothing. After a few moments of awkward silence, the moderator moved on to a new topic. Dr. Garry Wills, Pulitzer prize winning emeritus Professor of History at Northwestern University, had his facts wrong. Mine were not only correct, they were precise, adding tremendous persuasive power to my rebuttal.</p>

<h2>Following a Plan</h2>

<p>Challenges to Christianity that fail due to faulty facts may seem difficult to spot at first, especially if you are not well-versed in the issue in question. But the task becomes much easier if you have a plan, a series of steps to guide your effort.</p>

<p>For Just the Facts, Ma’am, I use the same two-step plan whether I am having a conversation or doing a more detailed analysis of a book or article. Here are the steps.</p>

<p>First ask<em>, “What is the claim?”</em>&nbsp;This may seem like an obvious initial step, but you’ll be surprised how often we charge ahead without having a clear fix on a target. Take a moment to isolate the precise point being made. Write it down in unambiguous terms if you need to.</p>

<p>Sometimes the claim is clear, but not always. Assertions are often implicit or hidden under a layer of rhetoric and linguistic maneuvering. Pay careful attention to get a clear fix on exactly what the person is asserting.</p>

<p>For example, I read a piece in a university newspaper written by a student who claimed that pro-lifers had no right to oppose abortion unless they were willing to care for the children born to mothers in crisis pregnancies. Notice the author was making two assertions here.</p>

<p>The first was the obvious moral point, which was easily dispatched. In my written response to the paper, I pointed out it simply does not follow that because a person objects to killing innocent children, he is obliged to care for those that survive. Imagine how bizarre it would sound to argue, “You have no right to stop me from beating my wife unless you’re willing to marry her.”&nbsp;Clearly, the offender is not off the hook simply because others won’t step in to take his place.</p>

<p>Implicit in the challenge, though, was a second assertion, the claim that pro-lifers were <em>not</em> doing anything for pregnant women carrying to term. The student therefore felt justified criticizing the pro-life movement.</p>

<p>This brings us to the second step of our plan. Once the claim is clear, ask, “<em>Is the claim factually accurate?”</em>&nbsp;Sometimes answering this question takes a little investigation.</p>

<p>A short trip to the internet revealed there were roughly 4,000 national and international pro-life service providers dedicated to the well-being of mothers in crisis pregnancies who choose life for their children. They provide medical aid, housing, baby clothing, cribs, food, adoption services—even post-abortion counseling services—all at no cost. Amazingly, there were more crisis pregnancy centers in the country than abortion clinics. A quick check of the local phone directory showed there were 10 right in the university’s own city. I pointed out each of these facts in my response to show there was no factual basis for the student’s objection.</p>

<h2>Cracking the Code</h2>

<p>I followed my two-step plan when evaluating the historical claims of a blockbuster novel whose broadside on Christianity and the Bible had created a public sensation, along with tremendous turmoil for Christians. First, I isolated the claims. The author (Dan Brown) made it simple in most cases by stating his contentions clearly. Here are some of them: <sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<ul>
	<li>In the first three centuries, the warring between Christians and pagans threatened to rend Rome in two.</li>
	<li>The doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God was fabricated for political reasons at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and affirmed by a close vote.</li>
	<li>Constantine arranged for all gospels depicting Jesus as a mere mortal to be gathered up and destroyed.</li>
	<li>The Dead Sea Scrolls found in a cave near Qumran in the 1950s confirm that the modern Bible is a fabrication.</li>
	<li>Thousands of Christ’s followers wrote accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;life. These evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version.</li>
</ul>

<p>Because I now had specific items to assess, my job was much easier. The first challenge was easy. Even a cursory analysis of this period of history reveals there were no wars between pagans and Christians, and for a very good reason. Jesus’&nbsp;followers had neither armies nor the will to resist. Instead, they were pacifists who considered it a privilege to by martyred for Christ. They wouldn’t fight even tormentors like Diocletian who executed Christians by the thousands just 20 years before Constantine.</p>

<p>The Council of Nicea was not an obscure event in history. We have extensive records of the proceedings written by those who were actually there: Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius, archdeacon of Alexandria. Two things stand out in those accounts in light of Brown’s claims. First, <em>no one</em> at Nicea considered Jesus to be a “mere mortal,”&nbsp;not even Arius, whose errant views made the Council necessary. Second, Christ’s deity was the <em>reason</em> for the council, not merely the <em>result</em> of it.</p>

<p>After a pitched debate, the orthodox party prevailed. The vote wasn’t close at all; it was a landslide. Of 318<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> bishops, only the Egyptians Theonas and Secundus refused to sign.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The council affirmed what had been taught since the beginning. Jesus was not a mere man; He was the God the son.</p>

<p>Regarding the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, Brown might be forgiven for not getting the date right (the first scrolls were discovered in the 1940s, not the ’50s). There is no excuse, however, for another misstep: <em>The Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing of Jesus.</em> There were no gospels in Qumran. Not one shred or shard mention His name. This is a complete fabrication.</p>

<p>As for the rest of the claims, I want to let you in on a little secret. Answering the second question—“Is the claim factually accurate?”—does not always require investigation. I mentioned earlier that sometimes it is possible to spot a wrong answer even when you do not know the right one.</p>

<p>Here is how I do that. Before beginning any research, I ask, “<em>Does anything about the assertion seem suspicious or unlikely on its face?”</em></p>

<p>For example, early in the book, Brown claims that over a period of 300 years the Catholic Church burned five million witches at the stake in Europe around the 15th century.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> I was immediately suspicious of this “fact.”&nbsp;I quickly took out my calculator and did the math. Rome would have to burn 45 women a day, every single day, non-stop for three hundred years. That’s a lot of firewood.</p>

<p>Further, a quick internet search revealed that the population for Europe at the time was about 50 million. If half were female (25 million) and half of those were adults (12.5 million), then something like <em>40% of the entire adult female population perished</em> at the hand of the Vatican. That’s more carnage than the black plague of 1347, which killed only one third. Let’s just say, this seems highly unlikely.</p>

<p>Many of Dan Brown’s other claims can be quickly dispatched using the same technique:</p>

<ul>
	<li>If the deity of Christ was an idea invented by Constantine and completely foreign to Christ’s followers who viewed Him as a mere mortal, what explains the “relatively close vote”&nbsp;at Nicea?</li>
	<li>If the early records of Jesus’&nbsp;life are so corrupted and compromised with “countless translations, additions, and revisions,”&nbsp;and if “history has never had a definitive version of the book,”&nbsp;from where does Brown derive his reliable, authentic, unimpeachable biographical information about Jesus?</li>
	<li>How does Brown know that thousands of Jesus’&nbsp;followers wrote accounts of His life if the great bulk of these records were destroyed? This is the classic problem for conspiracy theorists: If all evidence was eradicated, how do they know it was there in the first place?</li>
	<li>How is it physically possible for Constantine to gather up and burn<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> all of the handwritten copies from every nook and cranny of the Roman empire by the 4th century and destroy the vast majority of them?</li>
</ul>

<p>Each of these difficulties becomes obvious when you take a moment to ask if anything about the claim seems suspicious or implausible on its face. Granted, sometimes unlikely things turn out to be true, but when that’s the case, the evidence has to be very precise and convincing. Usually, this question can save you some sleuthing.</p>

<h2>Abortion and Homicide</h2>

<p>Here’s another challenge that can be overcome by a simple appeal to facts. Some denounce the use of the word “murder”&nbsp;to describe abortion. Yet this “rhetoric”&nbsp;is completely consistent with the laws in nearly two thirds of the Union, at least in one regard.</p>

<p>In the California statutes, for example, under the category “Crimes against the Person,”&nbsp;§187, murder is defined this way: “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, <em>or a fetus</em>, with malice aforethought”&nbsp;[emphasis mine]. After the definition, we find among the exceptions: “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>This exception in the California statute is troubling. The moral principle underlying all homicide statues is that human beings have innate worth. Value is not derived from something outside of the person; it is intrinsic. That’s why destroying a human being is the most serious of crimes.</p>

<p>Fetal homicide statutes like California’s are odd because the only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide is the consent of the mother. If the <em>intrinsic</em> value of unborn human beings qualify them for protection under homicide statutes, why is something <em>extrinsic</em>, like the mother’s choice, relevant? How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the little human being inside her?</p>

<p>However one answers this question, two facts remain. One, abortion is legal in states like California. Two, apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is homicide. Those who do so are prosecuted for murder.</p>

<p>On the use of the word “murder,”&nbsp;then, pro-lifers are not extreme. They agree with the statutes of the majority of states in this country: Unborn children are valuable human beings due the same protection as the rest of us. The problem is not with pro-life “extremists,”&nbsp;but with inconsistent laws.</p>

<h2>Just the Context, Ma’am</h2>

<p>Resolving a challenge by appealing to the facts works with scriptural issues, too. Here’s a quick example. I have been asked why God prohibits killing in the Ten Commandments, but then commands killing when the Jews take the land. That’s a contradiction, they say.</p>

<p>It would be, if not for a simple fact. The Ten Commandments don’t say, “Do not kill,”&nbsp;but rather, “Do not murder”&nbsp;(Exodus 20:13). There are different words for each in Hebrew just as in English, for a good reason. There is a moral distinction between <em>justified</em> killing (killing in self defense, for example) and <em>unjustified</em> killing (murder). God prohibits the second, not the first. The facts show there is no contradiction.</p>

<p>Here’s another example of applying Just the Facts, Ma’am to a passage that is almost universally misunderstood: “Do not judge, lest you be judged”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:1). This is a verse everybody knows and quotes when convenient, even if they do not usually like the Bible. Jesus qualified this command, though, in a way that most do not:</p>

<p>And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye&nbsp;(Matthew 7:3, 5).</p>

<p>A closer look at the facts of the context shows that Jesus did not condemn all judgments, only hypocritical ones—arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension. Not all judgments are of this sort, so not all judgments are condemned. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually encourages a different sort of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with (“<em>first</em> take the log out of your own eye, <em>then</em> you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye”).</p>

<p>As you can see, many who challenge Christianity have based their case on ignorance or error. When that happens, objections can be overcome by a straightforward appeal to the facts. Always ask, “Does anything about the claim seem unlikely on its face?”&nbsp;Then do a little sleuthing and verify the details.</p>

<p>Like detective Joe Friday, simply say, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”&nbsp;Read critically. Reflect on the claims. Check the background information. Find the truth.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Dennis Prager, <em>Ultimate Issues</em>, July-September, 1989. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Donald McFarlan, ed., <em>Guinness Book of World Records 1992</em> (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1991), 92. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">John Eidsmoe, <em>Christianity and the Constitution</em>, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 43. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Dan Brown, <em>The Da Vinci Code</em> (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231-234. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Philip Schaff, <em>History of the Christian Church, Vol. III</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 623. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 629. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Brown, 125. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid., 234. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</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%2Fjust-the-facts-ma-am" 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%2Fjust-the-facts-ma-am" 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%2Fjust-the-facts-ma-am" 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: Prince Caspian: Good Film That Misses the Mark
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/prince-caspian-good-film-that-misses-the-mark
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I struggled to decide how to write this review. I enjoyed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZRZ-2et2uY&amp;t=7s" target="_blank"><em>Prince Caspian</em></a> as a film and recommend that people see it, and yet I think it missed out on the most important thing it <em>should</em> have done. Even though I’m going to focus here on that one thing (because that’s the thing most interesting to me), I don’t want to leave the impression that I didn’t like the movie. The movie was a good one in itself even if it didn’t accomplish what the book accomplished.</p>

<p>A quick overview before I get to my criticism: The filmmakers understandably took some liberties with the story, rearranging the storyline, adding new plot points and removing others. For the most part, except for a silly bit of modernizing at the end, I think they did a good job with this. The opening had me riveted; I liked having the plot filled out with more of King Miraz. And this is no cutesy kiddie movie. It felt bigger and more serious to me than the first, and it’s pretty intense—violent and scary. I was quite surprised when I found out it was PG instead of PG-13. I wouldn’t recommend taking young children.</p>

<p>Here’s my main criticism: The filmmakers still don’t get Aslan. They’ve made him <em>a</em> character rather than <em>the</em> character. Because of certain changes here and there, he lost the authority he should have radiated and didn’t inspire the awe that Aslan should inspire. I think there are a few reasons these things didn’t come across (minor spoilers ahead). First, Aslan is not central. In the book, a few of the main characters do not believe in Aslan (until he shows up, of course), and this fact is often pointed out and discussed. The question of Aslan can’t be avoided, and everything leads to Him. When these moments are removed from the story (as most of them were in the film), Aslan isn’t just away from Narnia, he’s inconsequential to it.</p>

<p>Second, not only does Aslan show up later in the film than he does in the book, but they actually removed the pivotal scene where Lucy says she’s going to follow Aslan whether the others (who can’t see him) will join her or not, after which they begrudgingly come with her. At first, the others can’t see Aslan at all, but as they follow, he becomes more and more plain. When Susan finally sees him, she apologizes for not agreeing to follow after him the day before when Lucy first begged them to follow:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But I’ve been far worse than you know. I really believed it was him—he, I mean—yesterday.... And I really believed it was him tonight, when you woke us up. I mean, deep down inside. Or I could have, if I’d let myself. But I just wanted to get out of the woods and—and—oh, I don’t know. And what ever am I to say to him?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is an important moment because it unmasks their unwillingness to follow Aslan the day before (an incident that <em>was</em> depicted in the movie) as a product of their own rebellion, <em>not</em> Aslan’s absence or their inability to see him. In the film, however, who can blame the children for not going after a character who doesn’t show himself to them? Since we’re not told otherwise, the children seem to have been doing the best they could on their own and Aslan looks weak and arbitrary. If the filmmakers’ goal had been to keep Aslan powerfully central, they never would have removed this.</p>

<p>Third, changes in two key lines from the book greatly weaken his character. The first one happens when Lucy finally meets Aslan face to face. She remarks to him that he’s bigger. In the film, Aslan says that every year she gets bigger, so shall he get bigger. But here’s the actual interchange in the book:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Aslan,” said Lucy, “you’re bigger.”<br>
“That is because you are older, little one,” answered he.<br>
“Not because you are?”<br>
“I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is actually a very profound idea and one of my favorite moments in the book. When we deepen with age and experience, we’re able to see further into the rich depths of God, and our understanding and awe of His greatness grows. It’s very clear in the book that the change is happening all on Lucy’s side, but the film leaves the impression that Aslan has changed (whether that was what they intended or not). One is left with the postmodernish suggestion that we create God for ourselves in our minds; he gets greater as we are better able to define greatness. To make Aslan contingent on other characters is to kill the attractiveness of his character.</p>

<p>The second change is even worse (being more explicit) and involves another of the ideas most memorable to me—one that recurs throughout the series. In the book, when Lucy realizes she’s failed to do something she should have—and could have—done, she asks Aslan what would have happened had she done what was right: “Please, Aslan! Am I not to know?” Aslan responds powerfully, “No. Nobody is ever told that.” Aslan has authority and perfect wisdom—rebelling against his command has consequences, and Lucy’s not doing what he had revealed for her to do causes new difficulties for everyone. But make no mistake, Aslan is quite aware of what would have happened had she obeyed. Compare this to the film version where Aslan’s response to Lucy’s plea is: “We can never know what would have happened.” We? Yikes! I’m not a fan of open-theist (open-lionist?) Aslan.</p>

<p>These changes are small—just a few lines here and there, but they have huge implications that weaken Aslan. And a weak Aslan doesn’t draw people—doesn’t inspire awe in the viewers. He’s remote and almost irrelevant. Narnians created sacred places in the past to celebrate him, but we’re not really sure why. Hmmm. I suppose it’s not surprising our culture would create this new Aslan.</p>

<p>At the place where I used to work, I lent the Focus on the Family <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Narnia-Never-Magic-Theatre/dp/1589972996/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1" target="_blank"><em>Narnia</em> radio dramas</a> (which stay very close to the original books) to a friend. She knew nothing of the stories and didn’t recognize any Christian allegory at all. After she listened to <em>Wardrobe</em>, I handed her <em>Caspian</em>. She took one look at the artwork and said with great anticipation, “Oooh, is Aslan in this one, too? I really like him!”</p>

<p>Sadly, it’s hard to imagine anyone saying that after coming out of this movie.</p>

<p>Speaking of other people coming out of this movie, <a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed662242308/?ref_=bo_tt_ra" target="_blank">this review</a> is great fun. I’m always fascinated by the way outsiders view Christianity and Christian themes, and this article by someone who apparently (laughably, to use his own term) thought the river-god was supposed to be God will give you an earful.</p>
</div>

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


title: Answering the New Atheists Part 2
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-1?inheritRedirect=true">Read part 1 here.</a></p>

<p><em>Science: No Safe Haven</em></p>

<p>Infamous New Atheist Christopher Hitchens recently debated <em>Privileged Planet</em> author Jay Wesley Richards at Stanford on the existence of God. In the middle of Richards’s opening remarks, Hitchens cut him off with a pair of questions.</p>

<p>“Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?”&nbsp;he interrupted. “Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?”&nbsp;Richards assented to both. Hitchens shrugged. “I rest my case,”&nbsp;he said dismissively. “This is an honest guy, who has just made it very clear science has nothing to do with his world view.”</p>

<p>It was a remarkable non sequitur from a brilliant man. Precisely what ’case’&nbsp;did Hitchens think was vindicated? Richards affirmed belief in supernatural events. But this should not be surprising—or in any way damning, for that matter—since it is part of the package of the theistic world view Richards was defending.</p>

<p>Apparently for Hitchens, anything not <em>proven</em> by science is <em>contrary</em> to science, and if contrary, then irrational. Supernatural events, by definition, cannot be countenanced by a scientific view grounded in naturalism. Therefore, belief in miracles borders on lunacy. QED, Richards is refuted.</p>

<p>I want you to notice two things about Hitchens’s dismissal of Richards. First, in spite of all this atheist’s sermonizing about reason, he was guilty of a sophomoric blunder in reasoning: His own appeal was circular. The very thing at issue in the debate is whether or not such a materialistic view of the universe is sound. By <em>assuming</em> as evidence against Richards’s view the very thing he is obliged to <em>prove</em> in the debate, atheistic materialism, Hitchens showed himself to be the irrational one, not Richards.</p>

<p>Second, notice the impulse to use science as a stick to beat up on theism. So-called “New Atheists”&nbsp;like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett are convinced that science is on their side. They presume that the deliverances of science have somehow inveighed with finality against belief in God. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p>

<p>We learned in the last <em>Solid Ground</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> that, on the contrary, careful observation of and thoughtful reflection on the natural realm indicate that a superior supra-natural intelligence is the best explanation for both the existence of the world and its finely ordered complexity on multiple levels (physics, biology, etc.).</p>

<p>There are three additional reasons why science is no safe harbor for the atheist. First, Hitchens’s implicit scientism is false. Second, the discipline of science <em>in principle</em> is not capable of refuting anything supernatural. Third, the science game, as currently construed, is rigged.</p>

<h2>Scientism Commits Suicide</h2>

<p>The modern slogan that only science gives us reliable truth about the world is called “scientism.”&nbsp;At first glance, this looks appealing. Many think knowledge begins and ends with the scientific method. Anything else is mere subjective opinion and unsubstantiated belief. However, those who hold this view will be surprised to know it self-destructs. Consider this dialogue:</p>

<p>“I don’t believe in religion.”</p>

<p>“Why not?”</p>

<p>“There is no scientific evidence for it.”</p>

<p>“Then you shouldn’t believe in science either.”</p>

<p>“Why not?”</p>

<p>“Because there is no scientific evidence for it.”</p>

<p>This was a terse exchange, so let me expand a bit. I noticed first that the slogan “Only science gives reliable truth”&nbsp;is a statement about truth that also purports to be true, so it includes itself in what it refers to (just like the statement “All English sentences are false”&nbsp;includes itself as an English sentence).</p>

<p>Next, I simply asked, “Can the statement satisfy its own requirement?”&nbsp;I quickly realized it could not. Since there is no scientific evidence proving that science is the only way to know truth, the view self-destructs.</p>

<p>The next time someone dismisses you with the “Only science gives reliable truth”&nbsp;canard, ask if he wants you to take his statement as fact or simply unsubstantiated opinion. If fact, ask what testable scientific evidence led him to his conclusion. As it turns out, this claim is not a fact <em>of</em> science. It is a philosophical assertion <em>about</em> science that itself cannot be proven by the scientific method and would therefore be unreliable, according to this approach.</p>

<p>It gets worse. Scientism commits suicide a second way, so this notion is doubly dead. Imagine you wanted to collect all knowledge in a box. Let’s call it the “Truth Box.”&nbsp;Before any alleged truth could go into the box, it must first pass the scientific truth test (this is the claim of scientism).</p>

<p>The problem is, your knowledge project could never get started because some truths need to be in the Truth Box first before science itself could begin its analysis. The truths of logic and mathematics must be in the box, for example, along with truth of the basic reliability of our senses. Certain moral truths—like “Report all data honestly”—must be in the box. In fact, the entire scientific method must be in the box <em>before</em> the method itself can be used to test the truthfulness of anything else.</p>

<p>None of these truths can be established by the methods of science because science cannot operate in a knowledge vacuum. Certain truths—known through means other than science—must be in place before science can begin its task. Since scientism is inconsistent with the presuppositions that make science possible, scientism as a comprehensive view of knowledge self-destructs a second time. When New Atheists implicitly invoke scientism against theism, they are leaning on a bent reed.</p>

<h2>Weighing a Chicken with a Yardstick</h2>

<p>Atheists face a second serious problem with science. Let me ask what might seem like an odd question. Can you weigh a chicken with a yardstick? Clearly not. Yardsticks measure length, not weight. Does it follow, then, that chickens weigh nothing? Again, clearly not. Tools meant to measure one attribute tell you nothing about other attributes they have no capability of assessing.</p>

<p>This notion is so elementary it is easy to miss its significance regarding the question of science and the supernatural, so let me state it bluntly. Strictly speaking, <em>science is not capable of ruling out anything, even in principle, about the immaterial realm.</em></p>

<p>The scientific enterprise, presently construed, is designed to measure physical things, a function it fulfills reasonably well. It is not suited to directly measure nonphysical things. It is a mistake, however, to take this natural limitation of science as evidence against theism. Yet this kind of blunder is made frequently.</p>

<p>For example, a few years ago <em>Time</em> magazine made a stunning announcement. 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,’&nbsp;some kernel of awareness that runs the show.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>According to <em>Time</em>, everything about human consciousness—thoughts, desires, pains, pleasures, motives, emotions—can be explained in purely physical terms. A mother’s love for her children is reduced to c-fibers firing in her brain. The virtue of kindness is nothing more than genetic structure. Our hopes for the future are simply so much chemistry. Brain and body work together as a sophisticated, biological machine with no help from a ghostly, immaterial thing called a soul.</p>

<p>How do they come to this conclusion? “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>In other words, scientists are convinced an immaterial soul cannot exist first because they can’t find it with scientific instruments, and second because there is no room for it to fit in the brain. That’s like saying you don’t believe in invisible men because you’ve never seen any. Clearly, you can’t measure an immaterial soul with instruments, so the inability of science to find one means nothing. This issue must be resolved by different means.</p>

<p>Though science can help us in many ways, it cannot foreclose on anything—souls, spirits, God(s), salvation, Heaven, Hell—outside its domain for a simple reason: It is not equipped to measure those things. It’s like trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick. This approach to defeating theism is a dead end.</p>

<p>Science has never <em>advanced</em> empirical evidence to show that supernatural events cannot happen. Instead, it has <em>assumed</em>, prior to the evidence, that the material world is all there is. This illicit intrusion of naturalistic philosophy into the process is central to the third reason science provides no safe harbor for the atheist.</p>

<h2>A Stacked Deck</h2>

<p>Whenever you hear the complaint, “Creation or intelligent design (ID) is not science,”&nbsp;a subtle sleight of hand is in play. The ruse capitalizes on an ambiguity between two completely different definitions of science.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>The first definition is the most well known. Science is a <em>methodology</em>—observation, experimentation, testing, etc.—that allows researchers to discover facts about the world. Any view that does not follow the right methodology is not science. Presumably, this is why evolution succeeds and ID fails.</p>

<p>The second definition of science involves the <em>philosophy</em> of naturalistic materialism. All phenomena must be explained in terms of matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that does not conform to this second definition is also not science.</p>

<p>There are two requirements, then, for an investigation of the natural world to qualify as “scientific.”&nbsp;First, one must use the <em>right methods</em>. Second, one must come up with the <em>right kind of answers</em>, those consistent with materialism. Usually, these two elements are not in conflict. Good methods produce answers completely consistent with matter in motion governed by natural law. But sometimes they are not compatible.</p>

<p>Evolution, arguably, is a case in point. At first blush, it seems like Darwinism is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest intelligent design, the second definition of science is surreptitiously invoked to label design as “unscientific”&nbsp;regardless of the integrity of the methods used to infer design. Take careful note here: <em>When there is a conflict between methodology and materialism, the philosophy always trumps the facts</em>.</p>

<p>Modern science does not <em>conclude</em> from the evidence that design is not tenable. It <em>assumes</em> it prior to the evidence. Any scientific methodology (first definition of science) that points to a designer of any aspect of the universe is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition of science) as “religion disguised as science.”</p>

<p>Douglas Futuyma, author of one of the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbooks, says, “Where science <em>insists on material, mechanistic causes</em> [i.e., materialistic philosophy] that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes <em>unknowable supernatural forces</em>”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>Those who believe in intelligent design, however, claim that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation might indicate foul play and not an accident. If the body is bullet-ridden, chances are the death was not a result of natural causes. In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not a leap of faith, but a conclusion based on evidence.</p>

<p>Clearly, though, the materialist paradigm is paramount, and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin is amazingly candid about this fact. In <em>The New York Review of Books</em>, he makes this stunning admission:</p>

<p>Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science <em>in spite of</em> the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...<em>in spite of</em> the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our <em>a priori</em> adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> [emphasis in the original].</p>

<p>Here, Richard Lewontin, distinguished Harvard Genetics Professor, admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to produce the truth, whatever it may be, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers. He openly admits the game has been rigged.</p>

<p>Most who hold this prejudice are not so candid. In fact, the majority—confident their convictions rest on scientific fact, not materialist philosophy—are not even aware of any problem. They show their hand, however, with telltale responses like “Creation is not science,”&nbsp;or “ID is religion disguised as science.”</p>

<p>These comments should always trigger questions. “<em>What specifically</em> disqualifies creation as science?”&nbsp;or “<em>Why</em> dismiss the idea of design in spite of the evidence?”&nbsp;Invariably, your probing will reveal the real reason behind the rejection: bias, not fact. Creation of any sort is not the right <em>kind</em> of answer. Whenever you hear the responses above, you know the philosophical ruse is in play.</p>

<p>Can theists be biased? Certainly. Whenever someone takes sides on an issue, it��s always possible she has not been even-handed in her analysis. Not all bias is equal, however. A Christian’s bias does not inform her conclusions the same way a materialist’s bias does.</p>

<p>The physicalist is forced to eliminate certain answers before the game gets started. A theist is not so encumbered. She believes in the laws of nature, but also is open to the possibility of supernatural agency. Both are consistent with her worldview. She can judge the evidence on its own merits, not hindered by a philosophy that automatically eliminates supernatural options before the evidence receives a hearing.</p>

<p>Ironically, the Christian’s bias <em>broadens</em> her categories making her <em>more</em> open-minded, not less. She has a greater chance of discovering truth, because she can follow the evidence wherever it leads.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<h2>God of the Gaps?</h2>

<p>Critics are quick to object at this point. “This attempt to remove the philosophic restraints on science commits the ’God of the gaps’&nbsp;fallacy. Just because science hasn’t solved some of the problems doesn’t mean it never will. There is no need to punt to superstition. A rational (i.e., naturalistic) answer is always available. Using God to arbitrarily plug holes that science has yet to fill is a misguided strategy.”</p>

<p>Here’s my response. First, this is yet another circular tactic. The critic’s complete confidence in his own “science of the gaps”&nbsp;is dictated by the assumption that the universe runs on materialist principles, so every event <em>must</em> have a naturalistic explanation, whether science has discovered it yet or not. But the legitimacy of materialism is the very thing at stake in the discussion between theists and atheists, so implicitly invoking it against theists is not helpful.</p>

<p>Why assume there <em>is</em> a gap in our knowledge simply because there are no answers consistent with materialism? It’s possible that some breaches remain because we’ve been slavishly looking for answers in the wrong places.</p>

<p>Second, careful appeals to a supra-natural agent (God) are not based on what we <em>don’t</em> know, but on what we <em>do</em> know. They are not arbitrary leaps of faith fueled by ignorance. Design can be detected empirically. If the evidence is good, the gap has been filled with a real answer based on good reasons. Just because the solution is not the right <em>kind</em> of answer (a naturalistic one) doesn’t mean it’s not the <em>right</em> answer.</p>

<p>Third, sometimes the very nature of the problem makes a naturalistic explanation wildly counter-intuitive. It may be theoretically possible that a man with five bullet holes in his chest died from natural causes, but is it reasonable to hold out for a naturalistic solution when evidence for agency is so decisive? What really matters is the data on hand, not facts that might be forthcoming—existing evidence, not future fantasies.</p>

<p>In the final analysis, science provides no safe haven for the atheist. No legitimate deliverances of science in any way compromises theism. First, the idea that science is the only reliable discipline to give us knowledge about the world is false. Second, science cannot, even in principle, foreclose on the possibility of religious truth, supernatural events, or nonphysical persons like God. Third, the dirty little secret is that the game of science has been rigged to produce materialistic answers regardless of the evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>In the <a href="http://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-3?inheritRedirect=true">next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em></a>, we will see if the New Atheists’&nbsp;claim that morality is on their side has any substance.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">See “Answering the New Atheists: Part I,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, May 2008. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2"><em>Time</em>, July 17, 1995, 52. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">I first heard this excellent observation from Phillip Johnson. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Douglas Futuyma, <em>Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution</em> (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), 12. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,”&nbsp;<em>The New York Review of Books</em>, January 4, 1997. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">I owe this insight to J.P. Moreland. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-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%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-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%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-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: Hitchens’s Challenge Solved
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/08/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/hitchens-s-challenge-solved
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In debates, Christopher Hitchens often offers the following <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsKxVMvTXw&amp;feature=related" target="_blank">challenge</a>: “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.”&nbsp;Leaving aside the fact that this challenge is based on a misunderstanding of the theist objection (he thinks the objection is that without God, we <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5cxwq6QK7o&amp;feature=related">couldn’t know</a> right from wrong, when the actual objection is that there wouldn’t <em>be</em> any right or wrong), the challenge itself is completely invalid when proposed by an atheist because, logically, it could never be answered to the satisfaction of an atheist, even if valid answers exist.</p>

<p>Why is this the case? Think about what type of moral action Hitchens is asking for. Why might an atheist be unable to do something moral? The answer can’t be a physical inability. Nobody is stopping atheists from doing moral things. So why might an atheist <em>not</em> be able to do something moral that a theist could do? The only possibility is that there might be certain acts that only theists would <em>recognize as being moral</em>. Atheists, not recognizing those acts as being good, would <em>not</em> attempt to do them as moral acts.</p>

<p>And now we come to the logical problem. By the definition of the answer required, we must come up with something that is moral, but that atheists do not recognize as being moral. But if atheists do not recognize it as moral, <em>Hitchens</em> won’t recognize it as moral. Therefore, any <em>true</em> example (if it exists) of a moral good that meets the criterion of not being recognized by atheists will, by definition, necessarily be rejected by Hitchens, and any answer that <em>fails</em> to meet the criterion will be easily refuted by him. It is unanswerable.</p>

<p>Since it is <em>logically impossible</em> to give an answer that will satisfy Hitchens, he may as well ask us to draw him a square circle and then declare himself the winner when we fail. In the end, his challenge is nothing but a rhetorical trick, and it should be exposed and dismissed as such. Hitchens should never get away with even asking it, let alone demanding we give him an “acceptable”&nbsp;answer in order to defend theism.</p>

<p>As it happens, there <em>is</em> an answer to Hitchens’s question—one that seemed obvious to me immediately—and it illustrates perfectly the problem with the challenge. The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God—to love Him with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength. Not only will no atheist ever do this, no atheist <em>can</em> do this. But of course, since they do not recognize worship as a real, valid moral good, no atheist would accept this response to Hitchens’s challenge. They necessarily reject it precisely because it <em>correctly</em> answers the challenge; because it succeeds, it fails. <em>Any</em> correct answer that exists will necessarily fail. Only an invalid question could lead to a paradox like this.</p>

<p>(UPDATE: To avoid confusion, I want to clarify that the defeating answer to the challenge is not worship. The answer is this: The question cannot logically be answered and is therefore invalid. Although I do think worship is one moral thing an atheist can’t do, in this post worship is merely an illustration to show why the question is invalid.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhitchens-s-challenge-solved" 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%2Fhitchens-s-challenge-solved" 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%2Fhitchens-s-challenge-solved" 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 Shack Worth Your Time?
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/24/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-shack-worth-your-time
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I'm becoming increasingly depressed by the weak and empty Christianity that's being peddled out there. What's even sadder is that I see people happily eating this stuff up with no idea of what they're missing. Please don't sell yourself short. We have a great and glorious God; seek Him in all His satisfying weight and depth!</p>

<p>The latest craze among Christians is a book called <em><a href="http://theshackbook.com/" target="_blank">The Shack</a></em>, and judging by its popularity, you've probably already heard of it. I haven't read the book, but Tim Challies posted a very detailed <a href="http://www.challies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_Shack.pdf">review</a> online, and it would be a good idea for you to look through it. The book is a fictional story about a man wrestling with the problem of evil, the nature of God, the Trinity, the church, etc., in the midst of a family tragedy. And as Challies points out:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>Though <em>The Shack</em> is not a textbook for theology, and though it may not appear on the outside to be theological, as long as it discusses the nature and the plan of God, it must be so.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Challies goes on to explain and give examples where <em>The Shack</em>'s view of the Bible, salvation, and the Trinity fall woefully short. (For example, the Father is revealed to the main character "in the form of a large, matronly African-American woman" who asks him to call her "Papa.") The end result of its shortcomings is a very low view of God:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>When we look to the Bible's descriptions of heaven we find that any creatures who are in the presence of God are overwhelmed and overjoyed, crying out about God's glory day and night.</p>

<p>But in <em>The Shack</em> we find a man who stands in the very presence of God and uses foul language...(140, 224), who expresses anger to God (which in turn makes God cry) (92), and who snaps at God in his anger (96). This is not a man who is in the presence of One who is far superior to him, but a man who is in the presence of a peer. This portrayal of the relationship of man to God and God to man is a far cry from the Bible's portrayal. And indeed it must be because the God of <em>The Shack</em> is only a vague resemblance to the God of the Bible. There is no sense of awe as we, through Mack, come into the presence of God.</p>

<p>Gone is the majesty of God when men stand in His holy presence and profane His name. Should God allow in His presence the very sins for which He sent His Son to die? Would a man stand before the Creator of the Universe and curse? What kind of God is the God of <em>The Shack</em>?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Don't waste your time on these things, but instead make an effort to seek the books that intensely glorify the true, Trinitarian God and the cross. This probably means you'll have to read some books that are more than 50 years old (at least), but you'll be so grateful you did. If you're interested in the Trinity, try Bruce Ware's <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Father-Son-Holy-Spirit-Relationships/dp/1581346689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1481253621&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=father+son+and+holy+spirit" target="_blank">Father, Son, and Holy Spirit</a></em>. If you'd like a story of redemption and God's care, take a look at John Newton's <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Spirituality-John-Newton-Evangelical/dp/1573831182/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1214002619&amp;sr=8-3" target="_blank">An Authentic Narrative</a></em> (only 100 pages). It's possible there are a few good things about <em>The Shack</em>, but why spend your time on it when there's so much out there better than this?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-shack-worth-your-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%2Fis-the-shack-worth-your-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%2Fis-the-shack-worth-your-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: Answering the New Atheists Part 3
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-2?inheritRedirect=true">Read part 2 here.</a></p>

<p><em>Holier than Thou</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Hymns are usually written as anthems of praise to God. They extol His noble characteristics and recount the benefits of his favor. But atheists have hymns, too. They celebrate the freedoms of god-lessness and the virtues of a world bereft of the ravages of religion.</p>

<p>John Lennon’s sublime vision of Utopia is such a hymn. It is simply entitled “Imagine”:</p>

<p>Imagine there’s no heaven</p>

<p>It’s easy if you try</p>

<p>No hell below us</p>

<p>Above us only sky</p>

<p>Imagine all the people</p>

<p>Living for today...</p>

<p>Imagine there’s no countries</p>

<p>It isn’t hard to do</p>

<p>Nothing to kill or die for</p>

<p>And no religion too</p>

<p>Imagine all the people</p>

<p>Living life in peace...</p>

<p>You may say I’m a dreamer</p>

<p>But I’m not the only one</p>

<p>I hope someday you’ll join us</p>

<p>And the world will be as one...</p>

<p>Lennon’s God-less Garden of Eden is the world envisioned by New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. They are convinced that religion is not only wrong, it is dangerous.</p>

<p>Hitchens titled one of his chapters “Religion Kills.”&nbsp;Richard Dawkins chose “Childhood, Abuse, and the Escape from Religion.”&nbsp;Sam Harris’s book <em>The End of Faith</em> is subtitled “Religion, Terror, and the future of Reason.”&nbsp;He recounts the bloodletting endorsed by the Almighty in a chapter entitled “In the Shadow of God.”</p>

<p>To reject the evil of religion, then, is to take the moral high road, the path to a better world: “Imagine all the people, living life in peace...”&nbsp;The point: Morality is on the side of atheism, not theism and religion.</p>

<p>The atheists’&nbsp;challenge based on morality takes two forms. The first is the problem of evil in general. It is a common—and understandable—complaint. One doesn’t need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. “If everything was designed,”&nbsp;Hitchens asks, “what are we to make of the designer who has subjected so many generations to barbarism, misery, ignorance, slavery and early death?”</p>

<p>Second is the problem of religious evil in particular: crimes done in the name of God, in defense of some theological doctrine, or in the furtherance of some religious goal. The New Atheists concur with Blaise Pascal who noted that, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”</p>

<p>As you will see, though, both of these objections falter in fatal ways.</p>

<h2>“Above Us Only Sky”</h2>

<p>In previous issues of <em>Solid Ground</em><sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup>, I have discussed at length why citing evil in favor of atheism is self-defeating. Here is that argument in summary form.</p>

<p>The problem of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil, though, is to make a moral judgment. Moral judgments require a moral standard—a moral law—and a moral law requires an author. If the standard is transcendent, then the law-giver must be, too.</p>

<p>It would be self-defeating to acknowledge shadows, but deny light because light makes shadows possible in the first place. In the same way, it is self-defeating to complain that transcendent moral laws have been broken, yet deny that a transcendent moral law-giver (God) exists.</p>

<p>In a world bereft of God, there are many ways to characterize Hitchens’s “barbarism, misery, ignorance, slavery and early death”: sad, painful, unpleasant, even ghastly. Yet if God doesn’t exist, the one thing we can never do is call such human destruction tragic, or wanton abuse wicked. If God doesn’t exist to ground morality, the carnage ceases to be tragic at all, if by that word we mean a genuine breach of goodness.</p>

<p>Note that concepts like “evil”&nbsp;and “tragic”&nbsp;are parasitic on moral perfections. Evil is spoiled goodness. We already know this. Note the words we use to describe it: <em>un</em>righteousness, <em>im</em>morality<em>, im</em>purity. Evil depends on the good. Where does such goodness come from, though?</p>

<p>This point was explored in the movie “The Quarrel.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> The main characters, Hersh and Chiam, were boyhood friends who separated in a dispute over God and evil. Then came the Holocaust; each thought the other had perished. After the war, they reunite by chance and immediately become embroiled once again in their boyhood quarrel.</p>

<p>Hersh, now a rabbi, offers this challenge to the secularist Chiam:</p>

<p>If there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who’s to say which is better?</p>

<p>Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe, then who’s to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong.</p>

<p>If there is no God, it is hard to begin making sense of the notions of evil or moral tragedy to begin with. The events that trouble us are reduced to mere “stuff”&nbsp;that happens. There are different kinds of “stuff,”&nbsp;to be sure, some we like (Mother Teresa), and some we don’t (Hitler), but in a universe without of God it amounts to nothing more than “stuff”&nbsp;in the end. The irony is, if real evil does exist, someone very much like God must also exist, also.</p>

<p>But there is also a practical consideration. The great 20th Century British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell wondered how anyone could talk of God while kneeling at the bed of a dying child.</p>

<p>It is a powerful image. Like the three-word sound byte “Where was God?”,&nbsp;it strikes many Christians dumb. How can anyone cling to the hope of a benevolent, powerful sovereign in the face of such tragedy?</p>

<p>They might consider Christian philosopher William Lane Craig’s response: What is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say to that dying child? “Too bad”? “Tough luck”? “That’s the way it goes”? No happy ending, no silver lining, nothing but devastating, senseless evil?</p>

<p>This is why Dinesh D’Souza asks, “Where is <em>atheism</em> when bad things happen?”&nbsp;The New Atheists are struck dumb while kneeling at the bed of a dying child. They cannot speak of the patience and mercy of God. They cannot mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. They cannot offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. They have no “good news”&nbsp;of hope for a broken world. Their worldview denies them that luxury. Theism can do much better.</p>

<p>This problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not religious people are more moral than atheists, by the way. On balance, atheists can be as good as anyone else, it seems to me. The question is not whether an atheist can be virtuous, but whether he can make sense of either virtue <em>or</em> vice in a universe bereft of God.</p>

<p>The reality of evil in the world does not help the atheist. It hinders him. Rather than being good evidence <em>against</em> God, the presence of evil in the world is one of the best arguments <em>in favor of</em> God.</p>

<h2>“Religion Kills”</h2>

<p>There are two serious problems with citing religious evil as evidence against the existence of God. The first is logical, and the second is factual.</p>

<p>Here’s the essence of the logical problem. When faced with the claim that religion—even Christian religion—has been responsible for more wars, wickedness, and wanton evil than anything else in history, what if I simply responded, “You’re right. So what?”&nbsp;Even if I agreed with that analysis (I do not), what would follow? What would that fact alone tell us anything about the legitimacy of religion or the existence of God?</p>

<p>The answer is, it would tell us nothing at all about those two things. Here’s why: You cannot legitimately infer anything about God’s existence or the possibility of religious truth <em>simply</em> from the behavior of religious people or the teaching of some religions. This becomes obvious when you break the various forms of the argument into their unadorned parts:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Some religious people do evil. Therefore, religion itself is evil.</li>
	<li>Some religions teach evil. Therefore, all religions are evil.</li>
	<li>Some religious people do evil, and some religions teach evil. Therefore, God does not exist.</li>
</ul>

<p>When the reasoning is stated simply, absent the rhetorical garb it is usually clothed in, it instantly becomes obvious even on casual reflection that none of these arguments are valid. Even if the premises are true, the conclusions do not follow.</p>

<p>You couldn’t properly conclude, for example, that God does not exist or that Jesus was not the Savior simply by citing acts of violence done in the name of God or Christ. This might tell you something about people. It tells you nothing about God or His Messiah.</p>

<p>Turn the argument around the other way and the flaw becomes even more obvious: “Christopher Hitchens believes God <em>does not</em> exist. Hitchens is an immoral man. Therefore, God <em>does</em> exist.”&nbsp;Even if it were true that Hitchens were immoral (I’m not commenting either way), this fact alone couldn’t possibly confirm theism.</p>

<p>But there is a second problem with the “religion kills”&nbsp;argument, this time empirical, not logical. The atheist is in no position to object to carnage done in the name of God because atheistic ideologies in the 20th century have been responsible for the greatest blood-letting in all history—to the tune of over 100 million bodies for communism alone.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup>&nbsp;“Marx has a lot more blood on his hands than Christ—other people’s blood, I mean,”&nbsp;Columnist Mark Steyn quips, “but the hyper-rationalists are noticeably less keen to stick him with the tab for the party.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Richards Dawkins has a response: “If we accept that Hitler and Stalin shared atheism in common, they both also had moustaches, as does Saddam Hussein. So what?...Individual atheists may do evil things, but they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Dawkins’s rejoinder completely misses the point. I said above that nothing can be inferred about the existence of God <em>simply</em> from the evil acts of professing theists because nothing about belief in God <em>per se</em> entails such behavior. (The same could be said for moustaches.)</p>

<p>This is not true of atheism, however. There is a certain natural affinity between particular world views and behaviors and lifestyles that seem logically to flow from them. Atheism doesn’t <em>require</em> mass murder, but it has few ideological resources to <em>resist</em> it. Dawkins is strangely myopic here when it comes to the consequence of ideas.</p>

<p>Joel Engel reflects:</p>

<p>Let’s imagine six billion people who believe that flesh and blood is all there is...that Hitler and Mother Teresa, for example, both met the same ultimate fate. Common sense suggests that such a world would produce a lot more Hitlers and a lot fewer Teresas, for the same reason that you get a lot more speeders/murderers/rapists/embezzlers when you eliminate laws, police and punishment...Nothing clears the conscience quite like a belief in eternal nothingness.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>I think it is fair to ask why anyone should expect that a world without God, Heaven, or Hell would lead inexorably to oneness and world peace, Lennon’s “brotherhood of man.”&nbsp;If someone thinks divine accountability is an inferior means of securing moral order, then anarchy is the answer to the world’s ills. I presume, however, that Mr. Dawkins locks his latch at night, and not because he has deeply religious neighbors.</p>

<p>Theists are banking on God, and history is on our side. The record shows that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Just count the corpses.</p>

<h2>Sheep and Goats</h2>

<p>There is no question that some religious people and some (false) religious teaching have caused tremendous evil. So has true religion (Christianity) falsely construed or inconsistently practiced. Regarding Christianity, though, an important question needs asking: Is oppression and bloodshed either a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of the teachings of Christ? If not, then violence done in the name of Christ cannot be laid at His door.</p>

<p>Imagine yourself a builder who sends out crews with detailed, written instructions for their work. Instead of building, though, they destroy. Would you be responsible? That would depend on one thing: the written instructions. One can’t hold Christianity responsible when so-called Christians violate the written instructions. The fault is not with Christ, but with people who disobey Him.</p>

<p>Jesus was quite clear on this: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”&nbsp;(John 14:15). His command to love extended even to one’s enemies (Luke 10:29-37). He also warned of interlopers, wolves in sheep’s clothing. His assessment of them is withering: “<em>I never knew you</em>. Depart from Me, <em>you who practice lawlessness”</em>&nbsp;(Matthew 7:23).</p>

<p>The Apostle John reflects the same view: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother”&nbsp;(1 John 3:10).</p>

<p>Nothing in Christian teaching itself mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerced adherence to Biblical doctrines. The teachings of Christ do not lead logically to wanton bloodshed. Well-meaning Christians say and do silly and even dangerous things, often simply out of ignorance, but sometimes out of malice. This is not an excuse, but it does show that the problem is with Christians, not Christianity. By parallel, there may be charlatans in the medical profession, but that does not mean there isn’t real disease or legitimate doctors to treat it.</p>

<p>Someone once said, “You can’t hold a religion responsible for the crimes of its heretics.”&nbsp;It is not God’s fault when so-called Christians disobey the written instructions. Since oppression and mayhem are neither religious duties for Christians nor logical applications of the teachings of Christ, violence done in the name of Christ cannot be laid at His feet.</p>

<p>The New Atheists have failed to carry the day. Nothing that the recent wave of critics has said or written even comes close to undermining the intellectual or moral credibility of theism or Christianity.</p>

<p>John Lennon has invited us to dream. But there is a difference between believe and make believe, trusting what is unmistakably real and what one simply imagines. In the real world, reason, science, and morality all point so forcefully to God’s existence that we can still say confidently with the Psalmist, “The fool has said in his heart, ’There is no God.’”</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Author’s note: Much of what follows builds upon what was discussed in “Answering the New Atheists: Part I &amp; II”&nbsp;found in the last two issues of Solid Ground. To make the most out of what follows, review those thoughts before you begin. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">E.g., “Evil As Evidence for God,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, September 2007. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">“The Quarrel,”&nbsp;directed by Eli Cohen, released 1992. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">For more details, see “Just the Facts, Ma’am,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, March 2008, at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Mark Steyn, “O Come, All Ye Faithless,”&nbsp;<em>Spectator.CO.UK</em>, December 17, 2005. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Richard Dawkins, <em>The God Delusion</em> (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 273, 278. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Joel Engel, “Imagining ’Imagine’,”&nbsp;<em>The Weekly Standard</em>, December 8, 2003. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</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%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-3" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-3" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-3" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Answering the New Atheists Part 1
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Escape from Reason</em></p>

<p>The so-called “New Atheists”&nbsp;grabbing the headlines lately have been creating a stir. These are old-school modernists with an attitude. They’re angry. Not only is theism false and religion inherently irrational, according to them, religious people are dangerous.</p>

<p>Richard Dawkins, author of <em>The God Delusion</em>, compares the evils of religion to the evils of smallpox, “but harder to eradicate.”&nbsp;He equates religious faith with mental illness. According to Sam Harris, author of <em>The End of Faith</em>, religion is so bad it should be eliminated like slavery was. Christopher Hitchens’s title speaks for itself: <em>god</em> [sic] <em>Is Not Great—How Religion Poisons Everything</em>.</p>

<p>A closer look at their arguments, however, reveals serious weakness. There’s really nothing new about the “new”&nbsp;atheism except, perhaps, the belligerence. No new breakthroughs in science, discoveries in history, or developments in philosophy have overturned theism in general or Christianity in particular.</p>

<p>On the contrary, the more we learn, the stronger our case becomes. Just recently one of the preeminent philosophical atheists in the world, Antony Flew, did a dramatic about-face and embraced theism on the strength of the scientific evidence for a designer.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the assault has continued. The New Atheists generally do not argue for atheism. Instead, they attack religion. And they are very good at it. These writers have tremendous rhetorical appeal, overwhelming their opponents with dozens of objections fired off in rapid succession.</p>

<p>Though I do not have space here to parry every allegation, most of the objections fall into three specific categories. The New Atheists think reason is on their side, science is on their side, and morality is on their side. In the next three issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I want to show they are wrong on each count. I’ll take on the question of rationality first.</p>

<p>Since these challengers take the side of reason, we need to take a moment and see exactly how careful thinking works. In any debate, there are always two distinct elements in play: substance and style. These are often confused with each other. Those good at gamesmanship are sometimes persuasive for the wrong reasons. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, you need a game plan based on the fundamental skills of critical thinking.</p>

<h2>A Crash Course in Critical Thinking</h2>

<p>The primary purpose of reason is to help us discover what is true. The primary tool of reason is argument. An argument is a specific kind of thing. Think of it like a simple house, a roof supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. If the walls are solid, the conclusion rests securely on its supporting structure. If the walls collapse, the roof comes down, and the argument is defeated.</p>

<p>The task of critical thinking is to weed out distracting or irrelevant details so you have an unobstructed view of the structure of the core argument and can assess its strength. This involves a simple, four-step plan.</p>

<p>First ask<em>, “What is the claim?”</em>&nbsp;This may seem like an obvious initial step, but you’ll be surprised how often we charge ahead without having a clear fix on a target. Take a moment to isolate the precise point being made. Write it down in unambiguous terms if you need to. In this case, the claim is clear: God does not exist.</p>

<p>Second ask, “<em>What are the reasons given to support the claim?”</em>&nbsp;The person making the point is trying to persuade you to believe him. How is he doing that? Sometimes the rationale is obvious, but not always. The more troublesome appeals are implicit, hidden in the rhetoric. Pay close attention and note what you discover.</p>

<p>Third ask, “<em>Which appeals are irrelevant?”</em>&nbsp;This is the “weeding”&nbsp;step and it’s the most difficult because you have to know what counts as a relevant reason and what does not. Appeals are frequently unrelated to the claim. These include any attack on a person’s character, psychology, circumstances, or culture.</p>

<p>For example, ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labeling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself. True, many religious people are foolish and gullible, but so are many non-religious people. This observation gets you nowhere.</p>

<p>Some Christians may be hypocrites—fakers. Church-goers may have all sorts of vices, but this tells you nothing about Christ. It may be that many Christians born in America would be Muslim if born in Iraq. This may tell you something about culture and psychology, but it tells you nothing of the relative merits of Christianity vs. Islam. For some, God <em>is</em> a crutch, but that doesn’t prove there is no God to hold them.</p>

<p>Each of these is a rabbit trail because none addresses the issue. As one has said, “You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> The atheist’s question is simple: Does God exist? Any appeal that does not speak directly to that question is an irrelevant, irrational intrusion. Anyone who advances such an appeal is being unreasonable. Weed out the nonsense.</p>

<p>Finally ask, “<em>Does the conclusion follow from the evidence?</em> Once you isolate the structure of the argument, it’s time to test the walls (the reasons) to see if they are strong enough to keep the roof (the claim or point of view) from tumbling down. Are the factual claims accurate? Do the reasons give adequate support for the claim?</p>

<p>For example, Christopher Hitchens notes that any person looking to nature for evidence of design must face the fact that 98% of all species ever “designed”&nbsp;are now extinct. This he takes as evidence against a Designer.</p>

<p>But is this a good reason to deny God? What logical link is there between the design of a created artifact—whether a species or a buggy whip—and its demise? Even something perfectly designed is crafted with particular circumstances in mind. When conditions change, its usefulness may have run its course. When carriages give way to cars, buggy whips disappear. When wetlands dry up, frogs fade into oblivion. Extinction may tell you something about circumstances. It tells you nothing about design.</p>

<p>Since Hitchens’s conclusion does not follow from his evidence, this argument fails. The rules of reason show him to be unreasonable at this point.</p>

<h2>Dawkins’s Delusion</h2>

<p>Richard Dawkins fares no better. In his case, we do not need to dig for the argument. On pages 157-8 of <em>The God Delusion</em>, Dawkins summarizes what he calls the “central argument”&nbsp;of his book. The substance is as follows:</p>

<p>1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.  </p>

<p>2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.  </p>

<p>3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.  </p>

<p>4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.   The appearance of design is an illusion.</p>

<p>5. We don’t have an equivalent naturalistic explanation for the apparent design features of physics.  </p>

<p>6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.  </p>

<p>7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.</p>

<p>Now it’s time to do some weeding. The first premise is an introductory observation. It may have literary value, but it’s not part of the argument. Weed it out.</p>

<p>In (2), Dawkins notes the powerful, completely rational tendency to infer design from the appearance of design. This is a problem for him, so he offers (3) to rebut it. Regardless of the legitimacy of (3) (I’ll address that below), notice that neither of these points moves Dawkins closer to his conclusion. He does not intend them to. Rather, he is trying to anticipate an objection and dispatch it before it gets traction. Since Dawkins means (3) to cancel out (2) so he can make room for his own naturalistic explanation for the appearance of design, you can strike them both. Neither contribute to the core argument.</p>

<p>(4) is a mini argument of its own (Darwinism adequately explains the appearance of design. Therefore, this appearance is an illusion. It is not evidence for God.) I’ll let it stand for the moment.</p>

<p>(5) is not a premise. It’s a candid admission of a problem. Dawkins thinks Darwinism provides an explanation for the “illusion”&nbsp;of design in biology, but there’s no such naturalistic explanation for the appearance of design in the fine-tuned constants of physics. He admits the problem, then punts. (6) is not evidence. It is an article of faith. Since (5) and (6) have nothing to do with the argument, eliminate them both.</p>

<p>Now that we have relieved Dawkins’s argument of all its irrelevant and distracting&nbsp;details, this is what we are left with:</p>

<p>(4)&nbsp;The most ingenious and powerful explanation [for the appearance of biological design] is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.   The appearance of design is an illusion.</p>

<p>(7)&nbsp;Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.</p>

<p>As you can see now, our final step of analysis is virtually effortless. Clearly, there is no rational connection between (4) and (7). Even if we grant (4)—a highly controversial point, given the amount of contrary evidence—Dawkins only succeeds in showing that the <em>design</em> argument fails. It’s entirely possible that other arguments succeed. Since there is nothing in Richard Dawkins’s line of reasoning that contributes to his conclusion, the central argument of his book is irrational.</p>

<p>In both of these cases, the rules of reason show that the New Atheists have not taken the rational high ground. But how does theism fare when put to the same test?</p>

<h2>A Simple, No Frills Argument for God</h2>

<p>The case for theism can be made with a simple argument. It doesn’t trade on irrelevant attacks on atheists, but rather on sound reasons for believing in God. When someone charges, “It’s not rational to believe in God; there is no proof,”&nbsp;this straightforward line of reasoning rebuts the charge.</p>

<p>Note in advance that I am defending the <em>rationality</em> of theism, not the absolute <em>certainty</em> of it. Mine is a very modest claim. If I succeed, then theists are within their rights to believe in God.</p>

<p>My main premise is an uncontroversial, self-evident principle: <em>Every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing can cause itself.</em> Simply put, things happen for reasons. Those reasons have to be sufficient to explain what took place. Nothing that happens made itself happen. Something else must have been the cause.</p>

<p>Three more premises are added, creating three distinct arguments that all lead to the same conclusion:</p>

<p>A Big Bang (effect) needs a Big Banger (cause).</p>

<p>Design (effect) needs a designer (cause).</p>

<p>Moral law (effect) needs a moral law giver (cause).</p>

<p>Therefore, God exists.</p>

<p>There are sophisticated ways of defending these premises,<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> but you don’t need them. A simple summary of the rationale for each variation will do for most cases.</p>

<p>The first variation is called the cosmological argument. That the universe had a beginning is completely uncontroversial in virtually any circle, scientific or theological. Something outside the natural, physical realm must have caused the cosmos. Because of the nature of the effect—a massive, complex, material world—something personal, powerful, and non-physical is the most likely explanation.</p>

<p>What is more reasonable? The cosmos came from a personal, powerful Creator outside the natural, material realm, or the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason?</p>

<p>The second is called the teleological, or design, argument. Richard Dawkins himself affirms that design needs a designer. He begins his book, <em>The Blind Watchmaker</em>, with this sentence: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> He tacitly admits that <em>something</em> must account for the intricate order. Though he thinks the mechanisms of Darwinism are up to the design task in biology, it is dubious in the extreme that the complex set of instructions in DNA, for example, have no author. Design evident in physics has no such naturalistic explanation, as Dawkins himself admits. Thus, the “fine tuning”&nbsp;argument was largely responsible for the conversion of philosophical atheist Antony Flew.</p>

<p>What is more reasonable? The intricate and delicately balanced design in the universe—both in biology and in physics—is an accident, or the “appearance”&nbsp;of design is the result of an actual, intelligent Designer?</p>

<p>The third is called the moral argument. Even though there is a relativistic impulse in our culture, when pressed, virtually everyone affirms objective morality, including Christopher Hitchens. Even those who deny morality contradict themselves in everyday conversation. The person who says, “Morality is relative,”&nbsp;and then says, “It’s <em>wrong</em> for you to push your morality on me,”&nbsp;or “We <em>should</em> tolerate others,”&nbsp;or “We have an <em>obligation</em> to the poor,”&nbsp;proves my point. Morality entails obligation, and we only have obligations towards persons.</p>

<p>What is more reasonable? Transcendent moral obligations have no explanation—there is no one we must obey and there are no ultimate consequences for behavior, either good or bad—or transcendent moral obligations are grounded in a transcendent personal God who’s character defines goodness, to whom we are accountable, and who will ultimately punish badness and reward goodness?</p>

<p>Each variation of this argument shows that belief in God is rational, that there are good reasons to conclude God exists. Even if it turns out that theists are mistaken, there is nothing irrational about their conviction. Contrary to the New Atheists claim, theism has a solid foundation in reason.</p>

<h2>Who Designed the Designer?</h2>

<p>But who made God? Richard Dawkins thinks theism has “utterly failed”&nbsp;because apparently there is no answer to this question. Sam Harris shares this conviction. The utter failure, however, is with the objection, not with theism.</p>

<p>First, if you see shoe prints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation.</p>

<p>Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “<em>Everything</em> has a cause,”&nbsp;but rather, “All <em>effects</em> have causes.”&nbsp;Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.</p>

<p>Moreover, God Himself is not “complex”&nbsp;in the way the universe is. Philosopher William Lane Craig notes:</p>

<p>As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts...In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The “Who designed the designer?”&nbsp;objection misses the mark widely. It creates no logical, rational limitation to the argument for God based on the existence of the cosmos, design, or morality.</p>

<h2>Theism on the High Road</h2>

<p>The New Atheists claim that reason is on their side and that atheism represents the rational high road. My point in this short piece was to show this is not the case. Though I have not addressed each of their arguments—that would take a book—I have taken representative examples from their writings to show they are often <em>ir</em>rational in the way they reason.</p>

<p>Theists, on the other hand, are well within their rational rights to hold that God exists. The arguments I’ve offered build from common-sense premises to a conclusion that seems to be the most reasonable inference from the evidence provided. There are no linguistic tricks, rhetorical ruses, rabbit trails, or red herrings.</p>

<p>The charge that belief in God is irrational is common, but completely without basis. There is nothing unreasonable about the idea of a personal God designing and creating the cosmos, or grounding transcendent moral law. This is a thoughtful conclusion based on the evidence.</p>

<p>By contrast, atheism seems more at odds with good thinking. The arguments are often filled with irrelevant distractions and logical fallacies, and the pertinent evidence does not deliver the conclusion they are after.</p>

<p>In the <a href="http://www.str.org/w/answering-the-new-atheists-part-2?inheritRedirect=true">next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em></a>, we will see if the New Atheists fair any better with science.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of <em>The New Republic</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">See, for example, W.L. Craig’s <em>Reasonable Faith</em> for the Kalam cosmological argument, Richards and Gonzalez’s <em>Privileged Planet</em> and Dembski and Kushiner’s <em>Signs of Intelligence</em> for the design argument, and Lewis’s <em>Mere Christianity</em> and Beckwith and Koukl’s <em>Relativism</em> for the moral argument. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Richard Dawkins, <em>The Blind Watchmaker</em> (New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Company, 1986), 1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">See “What Do You Think of Richard Dawkins’&nbsp;Argument for Atheism in <em>The God Delusion</em>?”&nbsp;at <a href="http://reasonablefaith.org">reasonablefaith.org</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</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%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswering-the-new-atheists-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Is It Okay to Wear Mixed Fibers?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/25/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-it-okay-to-wear-mixed-fibers-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Year-Living-Biblically-Literally-Possible/dp/0743291476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1206395473&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Year of Living Biblically</a>: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible</em>, did the author, A. J. Jacobs, succeed in following the <em>whole</em> Bible literally? Was he following the <em>whole</em> Bible when he examined his clothing for mixed fibers?</p>

<p>To believe the Old Testament Law literally is to believe that this was the covenant God made with the ancient nation of Israel—a set of instructions for running their nation. To believe the New Testament literally along with the Old is to believe that when we were joined to Christ, we died with Him and were raised with Him, causing us to be released from the Law. From <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%206-7;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 6-7</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life...</p>

<p>Do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband...Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God...Now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The purpose of the Law is to show us that we can’t be perfect, even if we know exactly what we’re supposed to do. In fact, having the Law only makes people want to rebelliously break it more (just like any child will want to do what you tell him not to do). In other words, “through the commandment sin would become <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%207:13;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">utterly sinful</a>”&nbsp;because the commandment reveals and provokes our innate rebelliousness against God.</p>

<p>The purpose of revealing these things through the Old Testament Law is to drive us to trust in Christ for forgiveness and life. Paul explains in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal%203;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Galatians 3</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is why a literal interpretation of the Bible tells us we are <em>not</em> bound to follow all the stipulations of the Old Testament Law.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%205:18-21;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 5:20-21</a>).</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%2Fwhy-is-it-okay-to-wear-mixed-fibers-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-it-okay-to-wear-mixed-fibers-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-it-okay-to-wear-mixed-fibers-" 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: When You Woke That Thursday Morning
topic: Theology
author: Derek White
date: 03/20/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-you-woke-that-thursday-morning
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When You woke that Thursday morning,<br>
Savior, teacher, faithful friend,<br>
Thoughts of self and safety scorning,<br>
Knowing how the day would end;<br>
Lamb of God, foretold for ages,<br>
Now at last the hour had come<br>
When but One could pay sin's wages;<br>
You assumed their dreadful sum.</p>

<p>Never so alone and lonely,<br>
Longing with tormented heart<br>
To be with Your dear and only<br>
For a quiet hour apart;<br>
Sinless Lamb and fallen creature,<br>
One last paschal meal to eat,<br>
One last lesson as their teacher,<br>
Washing Your disciples feet.</p>

<p>What was there that You could give them<br>
That would never be outspent,<br>
What great gift that would outlive them,<br>
What last will and Testament?<br>
"Show me and the world you love Me,<br>
Know me as the Lamb of God:<br>
Do this in remembrance of Me,<br>
Eat this body, drink this blood."</p>

<p>One in faith, in love united,<br>
All one body, You the head,<br>
When we meet, by You invited,<br>
You are with us as You said.<br>
One with You and one another<br>
In a unity sublime,<br>
See in us Your sister, brother,<br>
One in ev'ry place and time.</p>

<p>One day all the Church will capture<br>
That bright vision glorious,<br>
And Your saints will know the rapture<br>
That Your heart desired for us,<br>
When the longed for peace and union<br>
Of the Greatest and the least<br>
Meet in joyous, blest communion<br>
In Your never-ending feast.</p>

<p>(Text: Jaroslav J. Vajda, b. 1919)</p>
</div>

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


title: No Other Name Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-other-name-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>During this “silly season”&nbsp;of presidential politics, it is not uncommon to hear something I think is odd. Politicians, regardless of political stripe, make a confused confession of faith in Christ that goes something like this (note carefully the inflection): “<em>I</em> am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is <em>my</em> savior. He is the only way <em>for me</em>. But I can’t say He is the way for <em>others</em>.”</p>

<p>Does this statement strike you as unusual? Now, there is a sense in which it is not unusual at all. Comments like this are so common lately—not just with politicians, but also with a massive number of rank and file Christians—they hardly raise an eyebrow anymore. That, of course, is the idea. It is a clever way of both aligning with Christ (in one sense) and denying Him (in another). No one gets offended. Everyone is satisfied.</p>

<p>But does the statement strike you as <em>theologically</em> unusual? Think of Christ’s response when He was asked a similar question at His trial: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the living God?”&nbsp;He didn’t respond, “That’s true for <em>me</em>.”&nbsp;He simply said, “I Am,”&nbsp;and, in virtue of <em>that</em> confession, was led away to crucifixion.</p>

<p>Just weeks later, when facing the same ruling body that crucified Christ, Peter’s own confession was unqualified: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is <em>no other name</em> under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved”&nbsp;(Acts 4:12). When threatened, he was unmoved: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge, for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard”&nbsp;(Acts 4:19-20).</p>

<p>There was no ambivalence or ambiguity in these ancient confessions, yet today ambivalence abounds. Indeed, it is hard to know what such a confused confession even means. In what sense can Jesus be my savior, but not the savior for others?</p>

<p>This month’s <em>Solid Ground</em> is the first of a two-part series meant to deal with the foolishness behind the relativistic religion prompting confessions like the one above. This confusion is so corrosive it puts the Gospel itself in jeopardy. Those who hold this view sincerely are not likely to suffer any inconvenience or discomfort required to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Worse, this conviction is so theologically thin, it may not be a legitimate expression of faith at all.</p>

<p>Three possible explanations for this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too Christianity come to mind: theological uncertainty, religious pluralism, and Christian inclusivism. (I left out “dishonesty”&nbsp;because I didn’t want to seem completely jaundiced, though I do think that is what drives some people to make this statement, particularly politicians.) I don’t think any of these succeed, and I want to tell you why.</p>

<h2>One Way for Some</h2>

<p>There are Christians who genuinely believe and trust that Jesus is the source of their pardon before the Father, yet aren’t completely sure they are right. They <em>believe</em>, but do not <em>know</em>. Their explanation would go something like this: “I can’t say that others have to trust in Jesus for salvation because I’m not even sure that I have to. I <em>believe</em> I need Jesus, so I’m trusting Him as best I can, but I don’t <em>know</em> Jesus is the only truth.”</p>

<p>I am completely sympathetic to this reason for reverting to religious relativism because I realize that this is the best some Christians can do. They lack confidence because they lack of knowledge.</p>

<p>The role of Christian defenses (apologetics) is to supply the evidence meant to elevate mere belief to credible and justified conviction. Since they have not availed themselves of the kind of resources that could bridge this belief/knowledge gap, their hesitation is understandable.</p>

<p>This approach, though, has a lethal liability for our “confused confession”&nbsp;(“true for me but not for you”). The biblical claim that Jesus is God’s messiah for the world (John 3:16 et al) is either true or false. If true, then those who trust in Him are pardoned and those who do not are still in their sin. If false, then Jesus fails to save anyone, unbeliever <em>or</em> believer. Those who reject Him face no consequence for doing so, and those who trust Him have trusted in vain.</p>

<p>There is no reasonable option, however, to claim that Jesus is my savior, but not the world’s. The claims of Christ can be true for me and true for you <em>even though you don’t believe them</em>. Or they can be false for you and also false for me <em>even if I do believe them</em>. Under no circumstance, though, can they be half and half. Jesus either is the savior for all, or He is the savior of none.</p>

<p>Here is another way of putting it. The question can always be asked, “What essential, foundational, defining benefit would any Christian gain from Christ that without Christ would be lost?”&nbsp;The correct answer is “salvation.”&nbsp;That is why we call Jesus “Savior,”&nbsp;after all. If that would be our fate bereft of Christ, why would it be any different for anyone else?</p>

<p>This brings me to the question of why Jesus is the only savior for everyone. It is very difficult for a believer to assert <em>that</em> Jesus is singular savior if they are unconvinced that He <em>is</em> one.</p>

<p>As each of us lives life, we accumulate to our account a rap sheet of sorts, a personal list of our crimes before God. When we stand before Him at the final judgment, God is not going to ask what religious club we belonged to. He is going to judge us from the record in the books according to our deeds (Revelation 20:11-15).</p>

<p>God is going to ask if we lived our lives the way we should have: honoring Him and loving Him before anything else, never lying or deceiving, never taking something not our own, never dishonoring our parents, never abusing other people in any way, never hungering after something that does not belong to us (including people we were not married to), always loving our neighbors as ourselves—that kind of thing.</p>

<p>Now, if we have never broken any of His laws—if we have never faltered in any of God’s requirements—then we have nothing to worry about. However, if we have done wrong, we will be punished in proportion to our crimes.</p>

<p>This, of course, is not good news. It is bad news. The good news is that even though God would be completely just to punish without any further consideration, He extends an offer of mercy through His son.</p>

<p>Jesus has purchased a pardon. With it we are rescued. Without it, we stand alone. Anyone trusting in their own merits will be judged by their own merits and found wanting. Anyone trusting in the merits of Christ will be judged by the merits of Christ and will find favor.</p>

<p>There is no middle ground for the Christian with the confused confession. If he thinks there is, he has either severely misjudged the problem—sin—or the only solution—Christ—or both.</p>

<h2>Many Ways for All</h2>

<p>It could be that the confused confession is motivated by a different false conviction: religious pluralism. There are actually two kinds of pluralism. The first is so unremarkable it only needs to be mentioned in passing to prevent those who are not reading carefully from thinking I am denying something obvious.</p>

<p>The religious pluralism I am concerned about is not simply that there are lots of religious views out there—a pluralism of views—and we ought to live in peace with people who disagree with our own convictions. That strikes me as self-evident.</p>

<p>The pluralism that concerns me is the view that, generally speaking, all religions are each, <em>on their own terms</em>, legitimate roads to God. God has somehow ordained various paths for various people and diverse cultures. Therefore, no one is within his rights saying that his religion is better than anyone else’s. God is bigger than our limited theological categories, some would say. Christ is the path for Christians, but others have legitimate paths of their own. This alternative, though, is another dead end.</p>

<p>In the children’s book, <em>The Blind Men and the Elephant</em>, Lillian Quigley retells the ancient fable of six blind men who visit the palace of a rajah and encounter an elephant for the first time. As each touches the animal with his hands, he announces his discoveries.</p>

<p>The first blind man put out his hand and touched the side of the elephant. “How smooth! An elephant is like a wall.”&nbsp;The second blind man put out his hand and touched the trunk of the elephant. “How round! An elephant is like a snake.”&nbsp;The third blind man put out his hand and touched the tusk of the elephant. “How sharp! An elephant is like a spear.”&nbsp;The fourth blind man put out his hand and touched the leg of the elephant. “How tall! An elephant is like a tree.”&nbsp;The fifth blind man reached out his hand and touched the ear of the elephant. “How wide! An elephant is like a fan.”&nbsp;The sixth blind man put out his hand and touched the tail of the elephant. “How thin! An elephant is like a rope.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>An argument ensues, each blind man thinking his own perceptions of the elephant are the correct ones. The rajah, awakened by the commotion, calls out from the balcony. “The elephant is a big animal,”&nbsp;he says. “Each man touched only one part. You must put all the parts together to find out what an elephant is like.”</p>

<p>Enlightened by the rajah’s wisdom, the blind men reach agreement. “Each one of us knows only a part. To find out the whole truth we must put all the parts together.”</p>

<p>This fable is often used to illustrate religious pluralism, that every faith represents just one part of a larger truth about God. Each religious tradition has only a piece of the truth, ultimately leading to God by different routes. Advocates of Eastern religions are fond of using the parable in this way.</p>

<p>There is a problem with the parable, though. It presumes that Christians reject pluralism because they lack exposure to other beliefs, much as the blind men erred because each explored only a part of the elephant. Had they searched more completely, they would have seen their error. Christians are just uninformed.</p>

<p>This is not the case, though. Christians reject pluralism, in part, because defining elements of different religions contradict each other. Judaism teaches Jesus is <em>not</em> the Messiah. Christianity teaches He <em>is</em>. Jesus either is the Messiah or He is not. Both groups can’t be right. The notion that Christianity and Judaism are somehow equally true is contradictory, like square circles.</p>

<p>Other examples abound. What happens when we die? Some religions promote Heaven and Hell. Others teach reincarnation. For still others there is no afterlife, only the grave. When we shuffle off this mortal coil, we <em>may</em> go to Heaven or Hell, or we <em>might</em> be reincarnated, or we <em>could</em> disappear altogether. But we can’t do them <em>all</em> at the same time. Someone is mistaken. It’s possible all of these options are false, but they cannot all be true.</p>

<p>What if the elephant in the parable were a miniature, so small one of the blind men could completely encompass it in his hand? If another then claimed, “The elephant is bigger than a house,”&nbsp;the first would be right to disagree. An elephant cannot be small enough to fit into one’s hand and also big as a house at the same time.</p>

<p>No possible future discovery is going to change the fact that religious claims cannot be harmonized. Rather, exploration complicates the issue. The more we discover about core beliefs of various faiths, the more complex the problem of harmonizing becomes.</p>

<p>Appealing to the ubiquity of something like the “golden rule”&nbsp;is no help. It is a moral action guide that says almost nothing about any religion’s fundamental understanding of the shape of the world. Profound contradictions between foundational beliefs are not removed by pointing out shared moral proverbs. Contradictory claims can’t be simultaneously true. Religious pluralism self-destructs.</p>

<p>I guess someone could respond that from God’s perspective the details don't matter. He is satisfied with any sincere religious effort. But how do they know this? This claim is an article of faith, a leap of hope that turns out to be contrary to the teachings of many religions, especially Christianity.</p>

<p>Any informed Christian can immediately see the challenge religious pluralism presents for the Great Commission, the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Christ, etc. Clearly, those who follow Jesus and understand the New Testament teaching on the work of the cross—and also for those who take the first of the Ten Commandments in its plain and obvious sense—cannot make peace with pluralism no matter how politically incorrect it is to oppose it.</p>

<h2>One Way <em>and</em> Many Ways</h2>

<p>There is a final, more sophisticated way of explaining how Jesus can be the savior for Christians even though others need not believe in Him. It is a high-bred combination of one way and many ways called “inclusivism.”</p>

<p>Inclusivism is different from pluralism, but in its more extreme form—there are actually two versions of it—has the same ultimate impact, and therein lies its danger.</p>

<p>First, inclusivism is only promoted by Christians who agree that, as the New Testament claims, Jesus is the only way of salvation. However, explicit faith in Christ is not required on this view. In God’s bookkeeping, so to speak, Christ is the only <em>grounds</em> of forgiveness for anyone: Without the cross there could be no salvation. However, the <em>object of faith</em> for the salvation provided by Christ has not always been Jesus. Therefore, a person does not have to believe in Jesus to benefit from Him.</p>

<p>Old Testament saints had no knowledge of Jesus. He hadn’t been revealed yet. Even so, God rescued the ancients who were faithful to the limited light they had been given. In the same way (the explanation goes), there are millions of people today outside the range of the Gospel who have never had a chance to consider Christ, yet still seek God the best way they know how. Would it be just for God to condemn them for not believing in a Jesus in whom they have never heard?</p>

<p>As I mentioned, this inclusivism takes two different forms, what I might call “modest inclusivism,”&nbsp;and also a more radical variety. The modest version goes like this: For everyone who <em>hears</em> the Gospel, the standard for <em>them</em> is faith in Christ. For those who <em>explicitly</em> reject the Gospel there is no hope. However, we must be either agnostic about those who have never had a chance to hear the Gospel, or consider it possible that God judges them by a different standard.</p>

<p>I do not think there is good scriptural justification for this hesitation. However, I am somewhat sympathetic to this view given the uncertainty some have. It is far less dangerous then the more radical version of inclusivism. Here it is.</p>

<p>Even those who are exposed to Christianity and who have heard the Gospel are not required to believe it. They can be forgiven even if they reject Christ. Maybe they have been so deeply influenced by circumstances and cultural biases that they do not have the psychological freedom to take the Gospel seriously. For whatever reason, they sincerely and diligently pursue other religious options. In this effort, God recognizes their <em>implicit</em> faith and answers with the saving grace of Christ.</p>

<p>The first—modest inclusivism—is somewhat benign. The second—radical inclusivism—is so insidious, in my view, I am reserving an entire issue of <em>Solid Ground</em> to its discussion and refutation.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Lillian Quigley, <em>The Blind Men and the Elephant</em> (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959). Possible original sources of the story are the <em>Jataka Tales</em>, a collection of Buddhist birth stories, and the <em>Pancatantra Stories</em>, Hindu religious instruction fables. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</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%2Fno-other-name-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-other-name-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-other-name-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The One Argument in The Golden Compass
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/07/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John 18:19–24<span face="Times New Roman"> describes a revealing incident from Jesus’ trial where, after answering the question asked of him, Jesus is struck by a nearby official. Jesus responds, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?”</span></p>

<p>They struck him because they hated Him. He was perfectly good, merciful, loving, kind, and true. He had all the right words and gave them all in just the right way. He never sinned in His treatment of others but humbly served them at every turn. And they hated Him.</p>

<p>God revealed Himself most fully to us through Jesus who is “the radiance of His glory and the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%201:1-3;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">exact representation</a><span face="Times New Roman"> of His nature,”&nbsp;and so we see in this courtroom incident a reflection of how God has been treated by us throughout the centuries. It doesn’t matter how good, just, and true He is; we just keep branding him a conniving, cruel criminal.</span></p>

<p>This was precisely the goal of author Philip Pullman when he created <em>His Dark Materials</em>, a trilogy that begins with <em>The Golden Compass</em> (whose film version is being released today); and considering humanity’s track record, we should not be surprised by this. In short, the plot of the trilogy can be summed up as Genesis 3 from Satan’s perspective: God is a fraud and a liar who wants to prevent us from gaining true knowledge and wisdom so that He can maintain tyrannical control over our lives. The task of the protagonists, therefore, is to free all the multiple universes by rebelling against God (the “Authority”) and ultimately destroying him:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>[The leader of the rebellion] showed me that to rebel was right and just.... He opened my eyes. He showed me things I had never seen, cruelties and horrors all committed in the name of the Authority, all designed to destroy the joys and the truthfulness of life.... He is the greatest commander there ever was. Every detail of his forces is clear in his mind. Imagine the daring of it, to make war on the Creator!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Never mind that the means this leader used to open a doorway into another universe and thereby initiate the rebellion involved the mutilation and murder of a child. In this story, the important categories the characters fall into are not the morally good versus the bad, but rather, those who are seeking knowledge and rebelling against authority versus those who are preventing people from doing so:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>There are two great powers...and they’ve been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sadly, Pullman is blind to the kind of relationship between the true God and his people that inspired <a href="http://www.know-britain.com/hymns/when_i_survey_the_wondrous_cross.html" target="_blank">these words</a><span face="Times New Roman"> from one whose greatest joy was found in submitting to God:</span></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>Were the whole realm of nature mine,<br>
that were an offering far too small;<br>
love so amazing, so divine,<br>
demands my soul, my life, my all.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But in the end, obeying and submitting is not the real issue for Pullman. Not even he can deny the beauty of obeying and submitting to a legitimate and worthy authority:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>And Lee felt whatever bird nature he was sharing respond with joy to the command of the eagle queen, and whatever humanness he had left felt the strangest of pleasures: that of offering eager obedience to a stronger power that was wholly right.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The truth about God is that submitting to Him and His instructions (given for our good, not to harm us) is precisely what will <em>cause</em> us to “know more and be wiser,”&nbsp;and to rebel against Him is to bring suffering on ourselves through our own foolishness. But this obviously is only the case if God is actually good.</p>

<p>And so we come to the one, core argument about the real world made by Pullman through these novels: <em>The God of the Bible is not good</em>. (<a href="http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail.html" target="_blank">Specifically</a>, He’s a “complex villain” who is “savage, petty, boastful and jealous, and yet capable of moments of tenderness and extremes of arbitrary affection” and who inspires others to do evil.) In the midst of all the sensational plot details that could easily sidetrack our objections, this is the point we need to respond to as Christians. And this won’t be accomplished by picketing movie theaters. Not remotely. I don’t even think it’s necessary to address the books and movie directly. The way we ought to respond to the presence of this idea in our culture is by proclaiming day in and day out the truth about our glorious, just, merciful, loving God—who He is and what He has done.</p>

<p>Don’t get discouraged. It’s true that many people will continue to hate God regardless of how well you describe Him, but you must continue—not in anger, but with tears for those who have such a distorted view of the One who is “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:7-11;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">more desirable</a> than gold.” And as you do so, “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2012:1-3;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">consider Him</a> who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”</p>

<p>**Links for more information from different perspectives, and resources to help you understand and explain the goodness of God:</p>

<ul>
	<li>An interview with <a href="http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail.html" target="_blank">Philip Pullman</a>, the author.</li>
	<li>An interview with <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2429395/golden-compass-director-chris-weitz-answers-your-questions-part-i/" target="_blank">Chris Weitz</a>, the director.</li>
	<li>A summary and review of the novels at <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2181&amp;var_recherche=golden+compass" target="_blank">First Things</a>.</li>
	<li>An analysis of the trilogy from the <a href="https://www.equip.org/article/killing-god/" target="_blank">Christian Research Journal.</a></li>
	<li>A glimpse of the gravity and implications of God’s holiness in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1197023766&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Holiness of God</a>.</li>
	<li>Greg Koukl’s explanation of the goodness of God’s justice and judgment in <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/cd019.htm" target="_blank">Three Tough Questions</a>.</li>
	<li>See God as the true source and end goal of all joy in <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/Store/Books/ByTopic/All/60_Desiring_God/" target="_blank">Desiring God</a>.</li>
</ul>

<p>(Please note that since I have not yet finished reading the third book, my remarks are based only on the first two. With this in mind, I limited my comments to the theme that has been central to the series so far and doesn’t seem likely to change. For more specific details about the series, see the links above.)</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-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass" 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-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass" 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-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass" 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: Wilkerson Prophecy
topic: Theology
author: Melinda Penner
date: 03/10/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/wilkerson-prophecy
content:
            <div> 
		<p>David Wilkerson, pastor of Times Square Church, founder of Teen Challenge, and a man who has done a great deal of ministry in difficult places to people with little hope that are often overlooked, posted an&nbsp;<a href="http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">“urgent message”</a>&nbsp;he felt compelled to give about coming destruction.&nbsp; He says it comes from God.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of thoughts about evaluating these kinds of claims.&nbsp; (Just for the record, I believe that miracles and prophecies haven’t ceased so that potentially there are genuine prophecies given today, but I think, particularly in the case of prophetic claims, the genuine article is pretty rare in practice.&nbsp; So I don’t dismiss prophetic claims out of hand.)</p>

<p>First, because someone claims to receive a prophecy or that the Holy Spirit has spoken to him does not compel us to accept the claim on its face.&nbsp; The New Testament consistently directs us to think, evaluate, and judge preaching and claims to speak for God, measuring them against what God has already revealed in Scripture.&nbsp; If someone speaks on God’s behalf, which by definition is what a prophecy is, we are to evaluate and judge his words.&nbsp; This kind of claim is by nature subjective and we don’t have direct access to that experience.&nbsp; Instead, we are to test the words.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Second, we should evaluate how the prophecies measure up to Scripture and we should also take into account the track record of past prophetic utterances by the same person.&nbsp; There’s a case to be made that New Testament prophets don’t have the same 100% accuracy requirement set for the Old Testament prophets, but if someone has the gift of prophecy there should be some kind of success and consistency in past prophecies.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.geocities.com/asterisktom/wilkerson.html" target="_blank">Here’s a brief record of some of Wilkerson’s past claims</a>.&nbsp; It doesn’t appeal to me as a very compelling record to lend credibility to the current one.</p>

<p>Third, I look for specificity and details to actually be able to match up with the fulfillment so that we can know that the prophecy was fulfilled.&nbsp; Frankly, most prophecies I’ve heard in the church are general and vague warnings or encouragements that could potentially said to be fulfilled by a number of events.&nbsp; Apparently Wilkerson gave a prophecy a few weeks prior to 9/11 that seemed to be fulfilled on that day - and it could have been - but the prophecy strikes me as rather general, as his past ones have been, and this one turned out to have been given in proximal time to something that met its general description.&nbsp; If prophecies are meant to communicate something to us directly from God then it seems reasonable to me that we have to be able to know that it was actually fulfilled to confirm that claim.&nbsp; Generalities don’t do it.</p>

<p>All of this leaves me skeptical of Wilkerson’s latest claim.&nbsp; I could be wrong.&nbsp; But I personally don’t feel compelled to take this seriously for the reasons I’ve given.&nbsp; I don’t think it meets the standard of biblical prophecy.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwilkerson-prophecy" 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%2Fwilkerson-prophecy" 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%2Fwilkerson-prophecy" 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: Reflections on Greg’s 35th Spiritual Birthday
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/28/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/reflections-on-greg-s-35th-spiritual-birthday
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today’s a special day for me. It was 35 years ago today—September 28, 1973—in an apartment on Granville Street near Stoner Park in West Los Angeles that, sitting at the table with my younger brother Mark, I bowed my head, said a simple prayer, laid down my arms, surrendered the fight, and decided to follow Jesus of Nazareth. I was thinking about this as I was driving back from an event last night. I used to view my spiritual mentors who were ten years in the Lord and I would think, Gosh, they’ve known the Lord for ten years. They must be perfect. They must be never sin. They must have all their problems solved.</p>

<p>Here I am, 35 years into this journey, and I’ve got to tell you it’s like having a tiger by the tail for me. Some of you have heard me tell my story of how I thought I was too smart to be a Christian. Then in a sense, ironically, I gave my life ultimately for a defense of the intellectual credibility of the kind of worldview that Jesus of Nazareth promoted and demonstrating in the best way I can that Christianity is worth thinking about. But it isn’t as if it always makes sense to me, that I don’t have questions. If anyone looks at me and thinks, Wow, 35 years in the Lord. I bet he never sins anymore, you’ve got another thing coming because that’s just not the way it is. But it has been an adventure.</p>

<p>Just like any adventure it has had its high points and its low points. Just like any relationship it has had its seasons. This is one of the reasons I think that Paul in 2 Timothy told Timothy in chapter 4, ��In season and out of season, do your job, Timothy...Preach the Gospel.”&nbsp;In season and out of season, understanding that with every Christian there are seasons in which you’re “in”&nbsp;and on top of things, and there are seasons in which you’re “out”&nbsp;and not on top of things and it doesn’t matter. Your job is still the same if you’re a follower of Christ.</p>

<p>I don’t know that I’ve always been so good at always being so consistent in being ready to give a defense. I try to be. But I’m like anybody else who gets caught sidewise in life and then has to deal with those things that are less than satisfying or areas of my character that the Lord is having me deal with. That’s a struggle. So I’m probably just like you in that regard even after 35 years.</p>

<p>I will tell you one thing that has made a significant difference to me. When I became a follower of Christ in 1973 I was a student at UCLA. I was a loud, opinionated, obnoxious, long-haired hippy. Now, 35 years later, I am no longer a long-haired hippy. I’m actually no longer as obnoxious, I think, and maybe not quite as loud. Probably a little bit more opinionated. But I think there has been transformation in my life in good measure because of people in my life that have facilitated that.</p>

<p>I have to say that there are two people that have been central. One is my brother, Mark, who labored with me before and after I came to the Lord. It’s still true to this day that he’s a friend, confidante, and counselor. He’s my younger brother, but he’s older than me in the Lord because he became a Christian a couple of years before I did. He prayed for me and shared with me when it didn’t seem like anything was getting through. Yet it was.</p>

<p>After a couple of years of effort, talking, and praying I came to my senses. God was working in my life before there were any signs of it. I hope that’s an encouragement to some of you who are laboring with some hard-headed cases that you think aren’t listening and will never come to their senses. You never know what God is doing. So my brother, Mark, was central in my conversion and the changes in my life since. I’m thankful, and I thank him.</p>

<p>The other person, especially initially, who was central in my transformation from loud, opinionated, obnoxious to not-as-loud, not-as-obnoxious was Craig Englert. Craig is now a pastor in Kehei, Maui, but for two years at great personal risk to life and limb for him and his dear wife Kathy, Craig took me under his wing and led me by the hand through the most difficult times for a new follower of Christ those first couple of years. He helped me through some tough times and gave me a boot in the pants when I needed it. It was at no small expense to him in time and effort and anguish, but I’d like to think that his efforts were well spent.</p>

<p>I have had other mentors since then, near and far. There are different motifs for passing the faith on, passing the baton on, as Paul did to Timothy. I’ve mentioned J.P. Moreland, for example. It was a different kind of relationship than I had with Craig, though no less impactful.</p>

<p>I know with a certainly that without those people I would not be here with you today, and I wouldn’t have been effectively involved in ministry for the last 18 years because it was those relationships that made all the difference in the world to establish me firmly in the Lord and change my character so God could use me.</p>

<p>Craig and the others who followed him were not content merely to defend the truth, they wanted to mentor me. I see 2 Timothy as a motif for mentoring. It’s my favorite book. It’s not the most theologically profound book in the Bible. I think Paul’s book of Romans is more theologically substantive. But in a sense, for practical Christian living, for my money as a defender of the faith, trying to carry the torch in the difficult times in the 21st century, I think 2 Timothy speaks volumes. It’s very clear. It’s very straightforward.</p>

<p>Its basic message is to guard the Gospel, guard the truth that has been passed on to you. In one sense, that was part of Craig’s and the others’&nbsp;influence in my life, guarding and protecting the Gospel, and passing it on to me. They were not just guarding it in the abstract; they were passing it on to a person. When Paul wrote his last letter to Timothy, which was the last letter of his life, knowing he was about to die, he penned these important words and he sent the letter, not to a church, but to a person. He was passing the baton to an individual because Paul understood the need to entrust others with this message who would then carry it to others still.</p>

<p>In 2 Timothy 2:2 there was a verse that was one of the first I memorized, which was really the heart of my relationship with Craig. Paul tells Timothy “the things you have heard from me and learned from me in the presence of many witnesses...”&nbsp;In other words, its public teaching, the standard stuff. He continues, “these entrust to faithful men,”&nbsp;who would be able to teach others also. In that, you have those four generations passing the torch: Paul to Timothy to faithful men to others also. The baton is passed.</p>

<p>If you saw the Olympics, many of you were captivated understandably by the swimming and gymnastics. But there was quite a bit of drama in track, especially in the 4 x 100 relays because in both the men’s and women’s American teams they dropped the baton. So our teams suffered defeat in the relays because they didn’t <em>pass</em> that baton. That was the very language Paul used with Timothy. He said, If you’re going to be an athlete, you’ve got to compete according to the rules. You can’t drop the baton. Them’s the rules.</p>

<p>I’m so thankful now when I look back over 35 years for all those people who initially passed the baton to me, who guarded the baton, who kept it safe. They passed to me the truth of the Gospel. They didn’t distort it or malign it. They didn’t mischaracterize it. I appreciated that my brother Mark took the time to tell me the truth. He didn’t candy-coat it. He didn’t promise me the world. He didn’t say Jesus was going to solve all my problems. In fact, when I became a Christian, my problems just <em>started</em> in a certain sense. He didn’t say everything was going to be wonderful.</p>

<p>I became a Christian in September of 1973 and I entered the next New Year, 1974, in tears. I recall it well. I was that distressed about the direction my life was taking me now that God was in charge moving me in the direction I needed to go, the direction I didn’t want to go under my own tutelage, as it were. I had spent 23 years either messing up my own life or having my life messed up in some sense by other people. In any event, I was this package and there was a lot of work to be done.</p>

<p>And 35 years later, I’m still working on it. But thank God for Mark and Craig. Thank God for the many people who stepped up to the plate with me, and I wasn’t easy. I’m still not in many ways. But they hugged me when I needed it, and they kicked me in the pants when I needed it. They told me the truth. Here I am, 35 years later, still putting one foot in front of the other.</p>

<p>I had a principle that guided me a lot. Some of you who have known me for a long time knew that for many years one of the biggest frustrations of my life was that I wanted to be in full-time Christian work and I wasn’t. I did little things here and there, and I was teaching at my church, and I’d been in the mission field twice. I had training, degrees, capabilities and gifts, but couldn’t get into full-time ministry.</p>

<p>I did a talk at Hope Chapel called “I Hate to Wait.”&nbsp;One of the things that I was waiting on for that long was just wanting to do full-time what my heart desired from the very first couple of months that I began walking with Christ, and that was be immersed in this stuff and to work with other people. It took me a long time before I got my shingle, if you will. It took me 15 years or more before I finally got hired at Hope Chapel as a full-time associate pastor. From Hope, it was then on to Stand to Reason 15 years ago. Many of you know the rest. The point is that it was frustrating.</p>

<p>People ask me how they can do what I do. There’s no career track for this, but there is a principle that I applied that if you apply, I can’t guarantee you’ll go the direction that I went or your life will have the trajectory mine has—every person is different with God—but I can pretty much guarantee you that it will put you in the place where God can most effectively use you.</p>

<p>That principle is on a plaque that my wife put up in the kitchen years ago, but I knew the concept before that. The plaque simply says, “Bloom where you’re planted.”&nbsp;You’ve heard it before and it’s not even very profound. Very often we’re looking for the horizon. We want what’s out there. All I was able to do when I looked <em>out there</em> and didn’t have what I wanted out there was wish and hope. But then I began to focus on what I had right now.</p>

<p>What is it that God has given you now? Who is the person that He’s placed in front of you that you can serve? What is the circumstance that you can serve in right now with your particular gifts? And even though I wasn’t always doing what I ultimately wanted to be doing, even so my circumstances were the circumstances that God had given me and that was the place I had to prosper for Christ, not some other place in the future.</p>

<p>You know this concept in the teachings of Jesus about first being faithful in little things and then you’re given bigger things. At each stage, you have to be faithful because if you’re not faithful in the little things that you’re given, you don’t deserve the bigger things. You can’t be trusted with the bigger things. Frankly, I couldn’t be in those early years of being a Christian. I have said in my own testimony that we have at STR in a talk called <em>No Pixie Dust</em> that in talking about the hard realities of Christian growth, one of the things I mention is that anyone who walks long with Christ goes through some very difficult, very painful periods of their life. I have gone through periods in my life that are dark and painful and times of deep, emotional anguish. Growing older in the Lord has not spared me from that. In fact, sometimes growing older in the Lord, and receiving more responsibility, it’s just part of the training. And you move into the next stage.</p>

<p>I realize I am shouldering responsibilities now in the various things that I'm responsible for that I would never have been able to shoulder had I not been disciplined in the way that I was through the hard times, had I not been given small things and dealt with those under the circumstances, and then moved on to something larger. So I guess the message here is that after 35 years I still haven’t attained it yet like Paul says in Philippians 3, but I’m pressing on. Pressing on is not always easy because we all live in a fallen world and with our fallen selves. But we can still put one foot in front of the other, take each day as it comes, and bloom where we’re planted. And when we do, we get re-planted. Maybe in a bigger garden? I don’t know. And then we bloom there.</p>

<p>We pass the baton on, the truth of the Gospel, that has been passed to us. I wouldn’t be here had it not been for those fine people along the journey, especially in the beginning. Their mentoring has allowed me to arrive at 35 years in Christ and to look forward to the next, whatever He allows me.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freflections-on-greg-s-35th-spiritual-birthday" 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%2Freflections-on-greg-s-35th-spiritual-birthday" 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%2Freflections-on-greg-s-35th-spiritual-birthday" 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: LDS Test Is Necessary, Not Sufficient
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/07/2008
source: https://www.str.org/w/lds-test-is-necessary-not-sufficient
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Mormons often argue that because they live good lives, they pass the test given by Jesus in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%207:15-23;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Matthew 7:15-23</a> to determine whether or not a person is following a true prophet of God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit...So then, you will know them by their fruits.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This single test of behavioral fruit (they limit this passage to actions, to the exclusion of doctrine) proposed by many Mormons is necessary (since it’s true that we ought to see a change in behavior over time in those who truly love Jesus and His words), but it’s not sufficient. The Bible explicitly gives two doctrinal fruit tests for false prophets:</p>

<p>1. Do they teach the truth about God as revealed in the Bible? <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2013:1-3;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 13:1-3</a>—“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ’Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’&nbsp;you shall not listen...”</p>

<p>2. Do they teach the true Gospel as revealed in the Bible? <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal%201:6-9;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Galatians 1:8</a>—“If we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”</p>

<p>If we were to water down these tests for true followers of Christ to a simple, “Do they behave nicely as compared to many other people in the world?”&nbsp;we’d end up including in this group some very ethical people who deny Jesus flat out (who doesn’t know at least one kind, giving person who isn’t a Christian?); and Jesus can’t have meant for us to do this since “everyone who <em>beholds the Son and believes in Him</em> will have eternal life”&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:40;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">John 6:40</a>), and the necessary fruit—the thing we should do “that we may work the works of God”—is “that [we] believe in Him whom He has sent”&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:28-29;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">John 6:28-29</a>).</p>

<p>The question of whether or not a person knows and proclaims the true Jesus is the key element in determining the quality of his fruit because no matter how a person compares to others in behavior, nobody compares to the perfect righteousness of God; only those joined to the true Jesus (to whom Jesus will not say “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%207:21-23;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">I never knew you</a>”) will have Christ’s righteousness given to them—the perfect righteousness necessary to enter heaven. For Jesus also said, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205:20;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Matthew 5:20</a>).</p>

<p>If Jesus, the person, is all-important in our salvation, we can’t ignore the fruits of true relationship (i.e., correct doctrine—a true knowledge of Jesus Himself). Doctrine is an integral part of the fruit we’re evaluating. If it can be demonstrated that LDS teaching is contrary to the Bible in the areas of God and the Gospel, the next step is to explore whether or not the Bible has been altered. If the Bible has not been altered, then Joseph Smith is not a true prophet, and those who follow his Jesus are saying, “Lord, Lord,”&nbsp;and do many things in His name but will not enter into heaven because <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%207:21-23;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">they do not know Him</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%2Flds-test-is-necessary-not-sufficient" 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%2Flds-test-is-necessary-not-sufficient" 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%2Flds-test-is-necessary-not-sufficient" 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: One Tough Customer
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/one-tough-customer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Once in a while you will encounter people who try to overpower you instead of persuading you. They do not overwhelm you with facts or arguments. Rather, they roll over you with the force of their personalities. Their challenges come quickly, one after another, keeping you from collecting your wits and giving a thoughtful answer.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>If this description sounds familiar, then you have been steamrolled. Men are frequently guilty of steamrolling, especially when talking with women, but women can be offenders, too.</p>

<p>Steamrollers have a defining characteristic. They constantly interrupt. As soon as you begin to answer, they hear something they don’t like in your explanation, interrupt, then pile on another challenge. If you try to go down the new path, they interrupt again, firing questions, changing the subject, yet never really listening to anything you say. You find yourself constantly off balance and on the defensive.</p>

<p>Though there are benevolent steamrollers—overly excitable, but not hostile—most are insincere. Steamrollers are not usually interested in answers. They are interested in winning through intimidation. It is easier for them to ask the hard questions than to listen to an answer that is more than a shallow, ten-second sound byte.</p>

<p>Because steamrollers are so aggressive, you must manage them aggressively, though you do not need to be rude. For some, it will take a little courage and intestinal fortitude to face up to such a powerhouse at first. However, once you learn the following three steps to stop a steamroller, you will discover that getting back into the driver’s seat is easier than you thought.</p>

<h2>Step One: Stop Him</h2>

<p>The first step in dealing with a steamroller is a mild one. Even though you may feel pushed to your limits by the annoyance, don’t fire back in kind, guaranteeing a head-on collision. However, don’t buckle at the knees, either. “Once your opponent has intimidated you and knows it, you’ve lost,”&nbsp;says William Dembski, a veteran of many encounters with hostile challengers of Intelligent Design.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Instead, your first move should be a genial request for courtesy. Stop the intrusion by momentarily putting the discussion on “pause.”&nbsp;Then, briefly get permission to continue your point without being interrupted. Use a little body language if you need to, raising your hand a bit for emphasis.</p>

<p>It takes longer to describe it than to do it. Simply hold up your hand and gently say, “I’m not quite finished,”&nbsp;and then continue. Often this is all you need to do to restore order to the conversation.</p>

<p>If the steamroller is especially aggressive, be calm and wait for an opening. Do not try to talk over him if he isn’t cooperating at first. When you get a pause, don’t be afraid to ask for a reasonable amount of time to make your point. Quickly negotiate an informal agreement. You ask him to give you something—patience and courtesy—so that you can give him something in return—an answer. Here are some variations:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Is it okay with you if I take a few moments to answer your question before you ask another? I’ll give you a chance to respond when I get done. Will that work?”</li>
	<li>“That’s not a simple issue. I need a moment to explain myself. Is that okay?”</li>
	<li>“Let me respond to your first challenge. When I’m done, you can jump in again with another. Is that all right?”</li>
	<li>“That’s a good question, and it deserves a decent answer, but that will take a few minutes. Are you okay with that?”</li>
</ul>

<p>Notice the negotiation here. You make a petition, and he grants it. With more aggressive steamrollers, it is especially important for them to verbally consent to your request. (Of course, if a person answers “no”&nbsp;to any of these questions, you might ask him why he brought the challenge up in the first place.)</p>

<p>Be careful not to let annoyance or hostility creep into your voice. That would be a mistake, especially with this kind of person. Don’t let a steamroller get under your skin. Being defensive and belligerent always looks weak. Instead, stay focused on the issues, not on the attitude. Talk calmly and try to look confident.</p>

<p>Be sure to respond adequately to one question before you are forced to tackle another, but don’t take unfair advantage of the time you buy with this little negotiation. Make your point, then ask, “Does that make sense to you?”&nbsp;This invites him back into the conversation. Give him the courtesy of offering you a reply without interruption. You do not want to be a steamroller yourself.</p>

<h2>Step Two: Shame Him</h2>

<p>If the steamroller breaks trust with your agreement, or if you can’t succeed in stopping him in the first place to negotiate an orderly conversation, move to phase two of the Steamroller tactic. This step is more aggressive. It also takes a bit more courage because you will now be directly confronting the rudeness of an impolite person.</p>

<p>You might consider using his name at this point. It will soften the exchange. A person’s name is important to him. Keep this in mind when conversations begin to take a hostile turn. At the first sign of tension, use their name in a friendly manner as you continue. It really helps take the edge off.</p>

<p>You tried to stop the steamroller. That didn’t work. Now you want to shame him for his bad manners, but you want to do it with integrity. Start by taking the same basic approach you did in Step One. This time, though, make an explicit request for courtesy.</p>

<p>First, ignore any new challenges he has introduced. Do not follow his rabbit trails. Second, address the steamroller problem directly. If you are not able to get the floor right away, let him talk. When he finally pauses, look him in the eye and calmly say something like this:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Can I ask you a favor? I’d love to respond to your concern, but you keep breaking in. Could I have a few moments without being cut off to develop my point? Then you can tell me what you think. Is that okay with you?”&nbsp;Wait for a response.</li>
	<li>“Can I ask you a quick question? Do you really want a response from me? At first I thought you did, but when you continue to interrupt I get the impression all you want is an audience. If so, just let me know and I’ll listen. But if you want an answer, you’ll have to give me time to respond. Tell me what you want. I need to know before I can continue.”&nbsp;Wait for an answer.</li>
	<li>“Here’s what I have in mind. You make your point, and I’ll be polite and listen. When you’re done, it will be your turn to be polite to me and not interrupt while I respond. Then, I’ll let you have your say without breaking in. I need to know if that’s okay with you. If not, this conversation is over. What would you like to do?”&nbsp;Wait for a response.</li>
</ul>

<p>Notice that each example I have offered is progressively more direct. You have to judge which one is appropriate for the circumstances you face. The last one is very aggressive. If you started this way, you would be out of line. With some people, though, a direct approach like this is the only thing that will save the conversation. Use it only after the other person has used up a lot of grace.</p>

<p>Remember, steamrollers are strong customers who sometimes need to be addressed with equal strength, yet coupled with civility. This can be harder if you have a gentle spirit, but unless you toughen up at this stage, you’ll get nowhere.</p>

<p>Hopefully, Step Two will work. The steamroller might even be ashamed and apologize. Accept his gesture graciously, then return to his original issue and deal with it. Say, “Let’s go back to the beginning. Your challenge as I understand it is this...(repeat the question). Now, here is how I’d like to respond.”</p>

<p>This second step is very effective in taming even the most belligerent steamroller. Don’t be snippy or smug. Stay focused, stay pleasant, stay gracious, but stay in control.</p>

<p>If this doesn’t work, go immediately to Step Three.</p>

<h2>Step Three: Leave Him</h2>

<p>First you stop him, then, you shame him. If that doesn’t work, you leave him. When all else fails, let it go. Walk away. If the steamroller won’t let you answer, listen politely until he’s finished, then drop it. Let him have the satisfaction of having the last word, then shake the dust off your feet and move on. Wisdom dictates not wasting time with this kind of fool.</p>

<p>This last step is informed by a simple bit of insight: Not everyone deserves an answer. This may sound odd at first. Characteristically, an ambassador is always ready, alert for any chance to represent Christ, not backing away from a challenge or an opportunity. Sometimes, though, the wisest course of action may be to bow out graciously.</p>

<p>Jesus warned, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:6). He followed His own advice, too. Jesus was amazingly tight-lipped before Pilate (“Jesus gave him no answer,”&nbsp;John 19:9). At times, He was also evasive with religious leaders intent on tricking Him (“Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things,”&nbsp;Matthew 21:27).</p>

<p>Knowing when to step back requires the ability to separate the hogs and the dogs from the lost sheep looking for a shepherd. But how do you know when someone’s crossed the line? When do we have an obligation to speak, and when should we save our pearls for another time?</p>

<p>Part of the answer can be found in Jesus’&nbsp;next words in Matthew 7:6: “...lest they trample [the pearls] under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”&nbsp;Be generous with the truth except with someone who shows utter contempt for the precious gift being offered him. He will simply trample it in the mud and then viciously turn on you.</p>

<p>If you sense someone pawing the turf and readying for a charge, it may be time to leave. You are under no compulsion to waste your efforts on people like this. There is plenty of ripe fruit waiting to be harvested. Save your energy for more productive encounters.</p>

<p>Of course, there are times when you will find yourself in a Jeremiah situation, being faithful to speak the truth even though it falls on deaf ears. But those occasions are not the rule. Usually, wisdom dictates we ration our efforts.</p>

<p>There is an exception to this principle, however. I’ve learned from my radio show that sometimes my real audience is not the person I am talking to, but the people who are listening in, eavesdropping on the conversation.</p>

<p>This happens more often than you may think, even if you are not a radio host. Sometimes a word spoken to a hardened heart bounces off and hits a soft one. You may not even know anyone else was listening. Years later you discover that the Holy Spirit had a different audience in mind for your efforts. This has happened to me many times. Lee Strobel calls this “ricochet evangelism.”</p>

<p>Incidentally, when I face an aggressive challenger, I often give him the last word. Not only is this gracious, it’s powerful. It conveys a deep sense of confidence in your own view. Instead of fighting for the final say-so, give it away. Make your concluding point clearly and succinctly, and then say, “I’ll let you have the last word.”&nbsp;But don’t break this promise. Grant him his parting shot, and then let it rest. Never match a steamroller’s incivility with rudeness. Instead, let him share his final thoughts, then calmly walk away.</p>

<p>Dealing with a steamroller is rarely a smooth and tidy enterprise. When you encounter abuse, don’t take it personally. It’s not about you. It’s about Christ. When you falter—and you will—don’t get discouraged with the process. I get caught flat-footed, too. It’s a chance to learn for the next time around.</p>

<p>The principle? Make the best of the opportunities you have, then trust the Holy Spirit to be the witnessing partner who makes the difference. You do your part, then let God do His.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This article is adapted from Gregory Koukl, <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">William Dembski, ed., <em>Darwin’s Nemesis</em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 102. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: No Other Name Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2009
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-other-name-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I do not consider myself a particularly brave person, and I think it especially foolish, on the main, to make a frontal assault on a clearly superior force. Further, it is always dangerous to cross theological swords with C.S. Lewis. He was, arguably, the most compelling voice for Christianity in the 20th century, and his impact continues unabated into the 21st.</p>

<p>Even so, as a young Christian I read something Lewis wrote that gave me pause the first time I saw it. Now, 35 years later, it troubles me more than ever. It appears towards the end of <em>The Last Battle</em>, the final installment of Lewis’s wonderful and theologically rich children's fantasy, <em>The Chronicles of Narnia</em>.</p>

<p>Emeth, a noble young Calormene soldier who all his life had innocently served Tash, the false god of his people, encounters Aslan face to face for the first time.</p>

<p>“Lord, I am no son of thine, but the servant of Tash,”&nbsp;he admits to the great lion.</p>

<p>“Child,”&nbsp;Aslan answers, “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me...If any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>In narrative form, Lewis seems to be suggesting that those who sincerely pursue God the best way they know how, regardless of the particulars of their own religion, are accepted by Him.</p>

<h2>Anonymous Christians?</h2>

<p>I don’t for a moment think Lewis was a pluralist. In fact, when Emeth asks Aslan if he and Tash are one (“Tashlan,”&nbsp;as some had put it), he “growled so that the earth shook.”&nbsp;This was an error; Tash and Aslan were opposites. Clearly, though, the sincerity and noble life of this young Calormene were taken by Aslan as implicit loyalty to the lion.</p>

<p>Lewis intimates that, though all religions are not true in themselves (pluralism), there still exist people of other faiths who are what Karl Rahner called “anonymous Christians,”&nbsp;those enjoying the grace that comes through Jesus alone, even though they never explicitly put their faith in Him.</p>

<p>Was Lewis right? According to recent polls, more than half the Evangelicals in this country think he was.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> This trend has given rise to what I have called the “confused confession.”&nbsp;It is a term I introduced last fall (<em>Solid Ground</em>, November 2008) to describe the following claim: “Jesus is <em>my</em> savior. He is the only way <em>for me</em>. But I can’t say He is the way for <em>others</em>.”</p>

<p>As I argued earlier, this could mean a number of different things.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Some, for example, may be uncertain about the fate of those who never heard about Jesus. This, I think, is Lewis’s concern. Perhaps God will judge them by the limited light they’ve been shown. Others, though, seem to take it quite a bit further.</p>

<p>Dinesh D’Souza, author of the vigorous defense of Christianity entitled <em>What’s So Great about Christianity</em>, faltered in a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish thinker Dennis Prager. When asked by Prager if Jews who do not accept Jesus as savior can still be saved he said, “I believe the answer to that is yes.”&nbsp;Clearly, Abraham made it to Heaven without believing in Jesus, D’Souza pointed out. There must be, then, another “mode of salvation...that doesn’t include Jesus.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>In her book <em>A Simple Path</em>, Mother Teresa explained why she did not “preach religion”&nbsp;to those in her care. In a section entitled “Equal Before God”&nbsp;she writes:</p>

<p>There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Consequently, Mother Teresa never considered it a problem when people of different religions joined together in prayer at her center and read from their own scriptures, since her focus was to encourage them in their “relationship with God, however that may be.”</p>

<p>Roman Catholic thinker Avery Cardinal Dulles makes this stunning claim in his essay, <em>Who Can Be Saved?</em>:</p>

<p>Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Remarks like these raise a host of questions. If Jews today don’t need to believe in Jesus, but can be saved as Abraham was, why did both Jesus and Paul say the Gospel should go to the Jews <em>first</em>, before it went to the gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6, Acts 1:8, Rom. 1:16)? Given that Hindus worship idols, wouldn’t helping them be “better”&nbsp;Hindus make them better at breaking God’s first commandments (Exodus 20:3-5)? If atheists are <em>seeking</em> truth, why does Paul say they are <em>suppressing</em> the truth (Rom. 1:18)? If people following false religions are recipients of God’s grace, why does Scripture say they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25) and are therefore without excuse (1:20)? Worse, what implications do such sentiments have for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)?</p>

<p>This is why I call such a confession “confused.”&nbsp;It may sound plausible at first, but it is hard to make sense of it in light of either Old or New Testament teaching.</p>

<p>Let me tell you one of the reasons this confusion gets a foothold. People draw the wrong conclusions from an obvious Scriptural fact: Not everyone in history needed to believe in Jesus to be restored to relationship with God. Though it may be that Abraham understood something about Jesus (John 8:56), that cannot be said of every patriarch, prophet, or Old Testament faithful. Despite their own sins, they still found favor with God apart from explicit faith in Christ. This is Lewis’s point.</p>

<p>Couldn’t the same be true today, some ask, not only of those who have never heard, but also for those who reject the message of Christ through no apparent fault of their own? How can we say what’s in a person’s heart? Who are we to judge?</p>

<p>This, I think, is D’Souza, Teresa, and Dulles’s point. Though Jesus’&nbsp;death on the cross is the only <em>provision</em> for forgiveness, <em>belief</em> in Jesus is not the only way to receive the grace He alone provides. This view is called “inclusivism,”&nbsp;since even those who do not believe in Christ can, in certain circumstances, be included in the grace that He secures.</p>

<p>It is true, you and I are in a poor position to judge the hearts of others. But God is not. Though our judgments may falter, His are true. Has He said anything to shed light on this question? I think He has. Lots.</p>

<h2>A “Jealous”&nbsp;God</h2>

<p>First, it might be helpful to remember that from the very beginning, the God of the Bible has been narrow in His demands.</p>

<p>Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s command in the garden brought swift justice. The serpent’s suggestion of an alternate route to wisdom, knowledge, and fulfillment resulted in death, not the promised enlightenment.</p>

<p>God’s very first commandment to His fledgling people explicitly condemned all other “roads to Rome.”&nbsp;In Exodus 20:2-5 He said, “I am the Lord your God...You shall have no other gods before Me...You shall not worship them or serve them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.”&nbsp;Transgressors of this command were executed.</p>

<p>God showed His utter contempt for other religions by pummeling Egypt with plagues, each one directed at a different Egyptian deity (Exodus 12:12b “...and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord.”). The capstone plague ended the life of every first-born whose doorway lacked the blood covering applied according to God's very precise and particular conditions.</p>

<p>During their wanderings in the desert, the Jews were offered only one antidote to the poison of the serpents God had unleashed in judgment upon them. Only those who gazed upon a bronze snake lifted up on a pole were spared (Numbers 21:9). Jesus Himself cites this event as a type of His crucifixion, which alone purchases eternal life (John 3:14-15).</p>

<p>In Acts we learn that “Christian”&nbsp;was not the first name given to the followers of Jesus. Instead, the name they used for themselves embodied the heart of their message about the Savior. They were simply called “The Way”—not “a way”&nbsp;or “one of the ways”&nbsp;or “our way,”&nbsp;but <em>The</em> Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23).</p>

<p>This pervasive theme of exclusivity was captured with crystal clarity in Jesus’&nbsp;words, “Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus’&nbsp;very next words warned of false prophets who would appear as sheep, yet would ravage the flock like wild wolves.</p>

<h2>From Wide to Narrow?</h2>

<p>Even so, it does seem that New Testament standards are more “narrow”&nbsp;than Old Testament ones. Why is that? Here some distinctions may be helpful.</p>

<p>First, throughout the biblical revelation, the <em>source</em> of salvation has always been the unmerited mercy of God. Our Sovereign owes no rebel a pardon. That He extends clemency to any is a pure gift of grace (Eph. 2:8, Titus 3:4-7).</p>

<p>Second, the <em>ground</em> of salvation has always been the redemption secured by Christ on the cross. Old Testament saints who, because of progressive revelation, had not yet learned about Jesus were still saved because of Him. God “passed over the sins previously committed”&nbsp;(Rom. 3:25), knowing the full, complete, and final payment would be made at the cross (Heb. 10:10-18).</p>

<p>Third, the <em>means</em> of salvation has also been constant. Every sinner ever justified gained access to God’s mercy by faith. Whether in Old Testament or New, active trust in God’s grace appropriated His mercy. In every age, the just have lived by faith (Gen. 15:6, Hab. 2:4, Rom. 4:5, 5:1).</p>

<p>Each of those has been constant. Only one thing changes as God progressively reveals His plan. The <em>object</em> one expressed faith in (means) that appropriated the work of Christ (ground) based on the grace of God (source) has been different at different times.</p>

<p>Adam received the covering God provided for his nakedness and trusted God’s promise that a seed of woman would crush the serpent (Gen. 3:15, 21). Abraham simply believed God’s promise of descendants who would bring blessing to the nations of the Earth (Gen. 12:3, 15:6). Jewish slaves in Egypt believed the blood covering would protect them from the plague of death at Passover (Ex. 12:13, 23). Old Testament saints counted on the atoning sacrifices God required to cover their sins (Leviticus).</p>

<p>There is only one question we need to answer at this point: What is the appropriate object of faith <em>now</em>, in the New Covenant period, since the public appearance and proclamation of the world’s singular Messiah?</p>

<p>The answer from every New Testament writer is the same. Since Pentecost, the <em>object</em> of faith and the <em>ground</em> of salvation are one and the same: Jesus. There is no other name that can save, and there is no other “name”&nbsp;we may put our trust in. Not the Levitical sacrifices or Passover blood (Hebrews 10:8-10). Not zeal or sincerity (Rom. 10:1-2). Certainly not pagan gods, false prophets, or counterfeit religions (Matt. 24:23-25, Gal. 1:8-9, Jude 4).</p>

<p>That’s why Jesus said our response to Him is the acid test of our true loyalty to the Father. Anyone who loves God will honor the One sent by God. Conversely, those who reject Him, reject the Father also. This one point is so critical, it is repeated in various ways no less than 16 times in the New Testament (John 5:23b, 5:37-38, 8:19, 8:42a, 12:48-50, 14:7, 15:20b-21, 15:23, John 16:2-3; 1 John 2:22, 2:23, 4:2-3, 4:15, 5:1, 5:9-12; 2 John 1:7-9a).</p>

<p>These verses reveal something crystal clear to me. Had any Old Testament saints lived during the time of Jesus or after, their love for the Father expressed in their primitive faith would have driven them to embrace His Son, Jesus. Each one of those accepted by the Father under the Old Covenant would have loved the Son of the New (“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad,”&nbsp;John 8:56).</p>

<p>In a sense, then, nothing has changed from Genesis to Revelation. God’s way has always been specific, limited, and precise. A narrow gate leads to life. A broad way leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).</p>

<p>And there are many more verses that make this clear. For example:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“He who believes has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but <em>the wrath of God abides in him.”</em>&nbsp;John 3:36</li>
	<li>“I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for <em>unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.”</em>&nbsp;John 8:24</li>
	<li>“And I say to you, everyone who confesses me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; but <em>he who denies me before men shall be denied before the angels of God</em>.”&nbsp;Luke 12:8-9</li>
	<li>And after he brought them out he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”&nbsp;And they said, “<em>Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.”</em>&nbsp;Acts 16:30-31</li>
	<li>I testify about [the Jews] that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For <em>Christ</em> is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:2-4</li>
	<li>And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son. <em>He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life</em>. 1 John 5:11-12</li>
</ul>

<h2>The God-Fearing Gentile</h2>

<p>The most compelling single passage against inclusivism comes from the book of Acts and the conversion of a gentile named Cornelius. Scripture says Cornelius was “a devout man...who feared God with all his household, gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually”&nbsp;(10:2). Indeed, his “prayers and alms [had] ascended as a memorial before God”&nbsp;(10:4). As “a righteous and God-fearing man,”&nbsp;he was “divinely directed by a holy angel”&nbsp;to send for Peter to come to his house and hear a message from him (10:22).</p>

<p>This is quite a spiritual pedigree, all without the Gospel of Christ. In fact, Peter was so impressed at the clear working of God in Cornelius’&nbsp;life he said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him”&nbsp;(10:34-35). This is the whole of inclusivist theology in a single sentence. Everything stated about Cornelius fulfills the inclusivists’&nbsp;demand.</p>

<p>What does Peter do next? He does not assure this “anonymous Christian”&nbsp;that all is well and turn on his heel to leave. Instead, he preaches the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (10:36-41), then warns of final judgment by Jesus for all <em>except those who believe in Him for the forgiveness of their sins</em> (10:42-43).</p>

<p>Why go through all this detail? Because for all his spiritual nobility, <em>Cornelius is still lost</em>. If the inclusivist gospel were true, Cornelius would not have needed a special visit from Peter. Yes, Cornelius had responded faithfully to all the revelation given to him up to that point. But it was not enough. It was just the first step. Even god-fearing Cornelius needed the rest of the story, the specifics about Christ and the cross, without which he could not be saved.</p>

<p>The teachings of Jesus and the writings of those disciples He trained to continue His message give little comfort to inclusivists. Remarkably, Dulles admits as much: “The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> If this is the clear testimony of the ancients, what good reason do we have to abandon that message in the modern era? I don’t see any...</p>

<p>And I will give you one final reason to be faithful to it.</p>

<h2>Pascal Redux</h2>

<p>I have a last thought for any who may still be tempted to sit on the fence on this issue. Blaise Pascal, the 17th century French scientist and Christian sage, once offered a famous wager to his detractors. Based merely on a kind of cost/benefit risk assessment, Pascal argued it is smart to “bet”&nbsp;on God. If the Christian is right, he gains eternal life. If wrong, he passes into non-existence, nothing lost. The atheist, on the other hand, gains nothing if correct, and if incorrect suffers eternally for his errors.</p>

<p>I think the wisdom of Pascal’s wager applies to inclusivism. If we preach the message of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church—that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation—and we are wrong, what is the downside? If we proclaim that those separated from the Gospel are also separated from Christ and have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 2:12), yet we are mistaken, Heaven will be more crowded than we thought. If we erroneously preach exclusivism, the upshot is good news, not bad.</p>

<p>However, what if we take the side of inclusivism and err? What if we are wrong when we teach that the person who has heard the Gospel of Christ does not have to answer it’s challenge by humbling himself before the cross? What if we say that sincere people will be accepted by God in the pursuit of their own religious convictions? What if we discourage other Christians from “forcing”&nbsp;their views on “good”&nbsp;Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. What if we do any of these things and it turns out their rejection of Christ—either active or passive—seals their fate: judgment and an eternity of suffering for their crimes against God. What is the downside then? Only that we have given false hope to the lost, and have prevented them from seriously considering the only salvation available to them. If you are an inclusivist and you are wrong, that is very bad news.</p>

<p>It seems we have a simple choice. We can be broad-minded and advance the broad way, a path Jesus said leads to destruction. Or we can suffer the charge of “narrow-minded”&nbsp;and preach the narrow way, the only path that Jesus said leads to life. I would not want to be on the wrong side of this issue.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">C.S. Lewis, <em>The Last Battle</em> (New York: Collier, 1956), 164-5. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">“Religious Americans: My Faith Isn’t the Only Way,”&nbsp;Associated Press, June. 23, 2008. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Refer to, “No Other Name—I,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em> November 2009 at str.org for details and difficulties. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Dinesh D’Souza, “The Christian God, the Jewish God, or No God: A Meaningful Dialogue,”&nbsp;May 8, 2008. Find a video clip of this portion of the debate at: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoonNPAs1Zc&amp;eurl=http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_hitchens_prager_debate.htm">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoonNPAs1Zc&amp;eurl=http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_hitchens_prager_debate.htm</a> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Mother Teresa, <em>A Simple Path</em> (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), 31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., “Who Can Be Saved?”,&nbsp;<em>First Things</em>, February 2008. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7"><em>Ibid</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</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%2Fno-other-name-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%2Fno-other-name-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%2Fno-other-name-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: Golden Compass Movie Doesn’t Capture the Spirit of the Novel
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/07/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/golden-compass-movie-doesn-t-capture-the-spirit-of-the-novel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Not that I’m complaining, of course.</p>

<p>Gone is the wildness, the almost animal-like portrayal of characters that have no moral anchor, where person after person is praised for his (or her) power, not his virtue; where, as an example, Lyra, the main character, is suspicious of a boy she meets until she’s told he’s a murderer. “A murderer was a worthy companion” because he had proved himself to be strong, able to overcome others. Gone is the harsh, brutal, ugly world where Lord Asriel displays a severed head to the scholars, where Lyra has turned lying into a proud art form, or Iorek has to be talked out of biting someone’s head off.</p>

<p>This is the tamed, children’s version. Here, Lord Asriel isn’t feared by Lyra because of his anger and instability (though still admired for his power), he’s a kind, brave, father. Mrs. Coulter didn’t decide she wanted nothing to do with her baby, the baby was taken away from her against her will. There are frequent moments of tenderness between the characters that I never saw in the book. Everyone is more likable, more human, and there is certainly more warmth (although not enough to explain why Lyra doesn’t freeze death within five minutes, dressed the way that actress was dressed).</p>

<p>This movie gave the characters more soul than they ever had, though I can’t decide whether this is an improvement or simply a lightly-sickening, sappy twist that doesn’t belong in this story. It’s just...less objectionable. And unlike the novel, this world does have some beauty in it, added by both the stunning locations and the sense of a moral reality that the novels lacked. So, where the first couple hundred pages of the novel were difficult to get through—what with being unable to tell whom we should be rooting for (since <em>all</em> the characters seemed untrustworthy and/or dangerous), all the political blah, blah, blah, and the lack of life and joy in the story—the film version moved along more quickly.</p>

<p>The anti-religious aspect of the trilogy is very well disguised in this film. I’m not sure anyone would even notice it unless they had read the book. What I don’t understand is how the filmmakers plan to keep up what they’ve started in terms of both tone and content for the sequels, as the next two books are more starkly brutal and <em>necessarily</em> become more explicit about original sin, the Fall, and the new Adam and Eve. How are they going to explain what Lord Asriel does next (shudder) in the context of this kinder, gentler Asriel? There’s no way to hide these things without changing the very essence of the story.</p>

<p>As I was explaining the difference between the novel and film to a co-worker here at STR, he said, “Ah, so they’ve decided to use the seeker model for creating the film series.” Exactly! This film was not made for the fans, it was designed to reel new people in, as the director, Chris Weitz, <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2429395/golden-compass-director-chris-weitz-answers-your-questions-part-i/">explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The whole point, to me, of ensuring that “The Golden Compass” is a financial success [by playing down the whole “the Church is evil and we must kill God” thing] is so that we have a solid foundation on which to deliver a faithful, more literal adaptation of the second and third books. This is important: whereas “The Golden Compass” had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can’t be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books.... I will not be involved with any “watering down” of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, I guess this is good news for us because we all know how these things work out: Sure, you “just start out” seeker sensitive and promise all sorts of rewards to the faithful in the future, but somehow, you never get around to giving them what they need because you’re too busy trying to tempt others to join you by giving those people what they want.</p>

<p>Regardless, I’m not sure they can ever get back to the original tone of the novels after playing a song <a href="http://www.bridgetothestars.net/news/hear-kate-bushs-lyra/" target="_blank">like this</a> in the credits:</p>

<p>“Ly-r-a-a-a-a . . . L-y-y-y-r-r-a-a-a-a<br>
And her soul walks be-side he-r-r-r-r-r-r<br>
We have all our love to gi-i-i-ve he-r-r-r-r-r” (etc., etc.)</p>

<p>Are you kidding me?</p>

<p>I’m not a fan of the books, but even I know that the real Lyra wouldn’t stand for that. Face it, Weitz, The spirit of the books has already been destroyed...not that there’s anything wrong with that.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgolden-compass-movie-doesn-t-capture-the-spirit-of-the-novel" 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%2Fgolden-compass-movie-doesn-t-capture-the-spirit-of-the-novel" 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%2Fgolden-compass-movie-doesn-t-capture-the-spirit-of-the-novel" 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: Virtue, Faith, and Freedom
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/11/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/virtue-faith-and-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In his book, Unspeakable: Facing up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror, Os Guinness describes the difference a worldview can make:</p>

<p>Before the time of Mount Sinai and the voice that spoke to Moses out of the fire, the pagan earth was crowded with small deities. Fearsome or favorable, such gods were pliable and portable. Humans made them, so humans could manipulate them. At Sinai everything changed, as George Steiner wrote: "The Jew emptied the world by setting his God apart, immeasurably apart from man's senses. No image. No concrete embodiment. No imagining even. A blank emptier than the desert. Yet with a terrible nearness. Spying on our every misdeed, searching out the heart of our heart for motive." Invisible, unimaginable, unmanipulable--the God of Sinai is the One before whom all hearts lie open and no secrets are hidden, the One before whom all other authorities, loyalties, allegiances, and accountabilities rapidly receded into a distant second place. (p. 99)</p>

<p>Those who build and ordain their own idols have ultimate power over their gods. They are the creators of their own ideals--ideals which are ready to change at the whim of the one in power. But to the Jews, God revealed Himself as the One to whom all (whether in power or no) must submit and whom no one can deceive, manipulate, or change--the God who created us. In a society that acknowledges this, the government will never have absolute power.</p>

<p>But the concept Americans have of being "under God" is steadily eroding, and with it, two things will occur in greater and greater measure: First, our leaders will lose the sense that they are subject to the ultimate Power, leaving no check on their own ambition for power as they create laws based on personal whims rather than ones constrained by a higher standard. Second, the peace and order that comes when people are willingly submitted to a good, inescapable, higher (than the government) authority will disappear bit by bit.</p>

<p>The non-tyrannical democracy we enjoy in America is only possible because our people constrain themselves to a certain extent. But as inner constraints disappear, governments need to increase their power just to maintain order; and because of the bent of human nature towards evil and chaos, freedom doesn't tend to last long in the countries of this world. Our Founding Fathers had planned a solution for this problem which Guinness describes this way:</p>

<p>The forgotten part of the framers' solution may be called the enduring triangle of freedom: freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith of some sort, and faith requires freedom. Only so can a free republic hope to remain free. (p. 101)</p>

<p>John Adams summarized this need for our country to have the inner constraints that come from recognizing our place "under God" when he said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (p. 101)."</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fvirtue-faith-and-freedom" 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%2Fvirtue-faith-and-freedom" 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%2Fvirtue-faith-and-freedom" 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: Strive for Clarity
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/01/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/strive-for-clarity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over the years I’ve found that a key concept I must rest in as I talk to others about Christ if I’m to avoid despair, hopelessness, and even anger is this: My job in evangelism is to focus on presenting and clarifying the gospel and its implications, not to convert people.</p>

<p>Though a person’s salvation is initiated by God (“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him,”&nbsp;John 6:44) and completed by God (“These whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified,”&nbsp;Romans 8:30), our communication to others is (usually) the instrument God chooses to work through to bring others to Himself. We speak the message to others, and He will either choose to move them at that time or He will not. We need not be anxious about “sealing the deal”&nbsp;in our encounters with non-Christians because their conversions are not our responsibility.</p>

<p>So what is our responsibility? J.I. Packer, in his book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Sovereignty-God-J-Packer/dp/083081339X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6918168-0911917?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1180684473&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank">Evangelism &amp; the Sovereignty of God</a></em>, talks about our biblical mandate to tell others the good news about Christ:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We are all under orders to devote ourselves to spreading the good news, and to use all our ingenuity and enterprise to bring it to the notice of the whole world...While we must always remember that it is our responsibility to proclaim salvation, we must never forget that it is God who saves...Our evangelistic work is the instrument that He uses for this purpose, but the power that saves is not in the instrument...(pp. 26-27).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If only the <em>communication</em> of the gospel is our responsibility, we will take a tremendous amount of pressure off ourselves if we focus on clarity rather than conversion. Speaking to those who are likely to be reading this blog, all of the apologetics we learn—whether theology, historical facts, tactical/analytical skills, or philosophy—are for the purpose of explaining clearly the truth about God in a way that truly communicates the message to the listener and honors and glorifies God by displaying His truth as literal truth about reality to the world.</p>

<p>But our task as a body of Christians is not accomplished only through apologetics; those who are gifted in apologetics speak the truth about God in those terms, and those who have gifts of mercy or hospitality display the truth of God’s character in these ways in addition to their verbal proclamation of the message. Using our various gifts to clearly communicate the truth fulfills our responsibility as God’s messengers whether or not He chooses to move in the listener’s heart at that time.</p>

<p>Once I grasped this concept and focused on clarifying the gospel, answering questions and challenges in a way that honored God’s truth, and leaving conversions to the Holy Spirit, my conversations immediately lost much of their pressure and stress.</p>

<p>Packer continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]f we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the gospel is preached, we shall start to think that it is our responsibility to secure them&nbsp;(p. 27).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Taking on a responsibility we can’t possibly shoulder is what will lead to despair. We must simply remember that our success is not determined by conversions, but by our faithfulness and dependence on Him as we continue to fulfill the task He’s given us to act as His ready instruments of communication, never knowing when He will choose to remove the brick wall from behind a friend’s 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%2Fstrive-for-clarity" 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%2Fstrive-for-clarity" 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%2Fstrive-for-clarity" 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: Bomb Discovered at Abortion Clinic
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/26/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/bomb-discovered-at-abortion-clinic
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A suspicious package was found yesterday in front of an abortion clinic in Austin, Texas. It has just been confirmed that the package was indeed a bomb.</p>

<p>It is absolutely wrong for anyone to take this kind of action for the purpose of stopping or punishing abortionists.</p>

<p>In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7&amp;version=49" target="_blank">Romans 13:1–7</a>, Paul explains how God has granted the government authority in His stead to keep order by rewarding good and punishing evil, saying:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>Do what is good and you will have praise from the [government]; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if 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 on the one who practices evil.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If we are to stop the practice of abortion in this country, justice must be sought through the government as long as it is functioning. In this democratic country, this means that we work to change the minds of our fellow citizens who will then change the laws in a democratic manner, at which time the government will apply the appropriate punishment to convicted abortionists.</p>

<p>God has not given citizens the right to bring His wrath and punishment against those who do evil; this power belongs only to the government. Therefore, if a person kills an abortion doctor, that person is committing unlawful murder both in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of God.</p>

<p>This kind of violence is not only horribly wrong, it is also profoundly foolish. As we seek to change people’s minds on the issue of abortion in order to collectively change the law by democratic vote, this kind of action destroys clarity and causes people to fear pro-lifers and to cease to listen to their arguments. (It’s unfortunate that a solitary person here and there can taint everyone else, but that’s reality.) The result is that, besides a person being unlawfully injured or killed, the overall cause of ending the practice of killing unborn children suffers a severe setback. So what practical good could the killing of one abortion doctor possibly do? And how much harm in every way!</p>

<p>The following is <a href="/w/str-violence-statement" target="_blank">Stand to Reason’s official statement on abortion violence</a> (from the website):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It’s always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it destroys a valuable human being without good reason. Therefore, civilized people are morally obliged to campaign vigorously against this wrong and use appropriate means to end it.</p>

<p>In opposing this evil, however, one is only justified in using the degree of force necessary to stop a harm that is within his power to prevent. Lethal force is never justified when other means are available. Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.</p>

<p>Killing abortionists, then, is also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle that pro-lifers are committed to defending. Therefore, Stand to Reason condemns the use of violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who condone it.</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%2Fbomb-discovered-at-abortion-clinic" 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%2Fbomb-discovered-at-abortion-clinic" 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%2Fbomb-discovered-at-abortion-clinic" 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: 200 Years of Christianity, Politics, and Human Rights
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/28/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/200-years-of-christianity-politics-and-human-rights
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Pro-lifers are often accused of inappropriately trying to force their religious views on others when they say that an unborn child ought to have the same rights as a born child.</p>

<p>Not surprisingly, similar accusations were hurled at <a href="http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm" target="_blank">William Wilberforce</a> as he argued in Parliament in the late 18th, early 19th century for an end to the slave trade. I found, in the preface to a new edition of Wilberforce’s book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1598561227/ref=s9_asin_title_1-1966_p/105-9789810-6244447?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_s=center-1&amp;pf_rd_r=1SAFK9NQQK614YF48KZ2&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=278240701&amp;pf_rd_i=507846" target="_blank">A Practical View of Christianity</a></em>, the following quotes of protest directed towards Wilberforce’s work in his day:</p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>“Humanity is a private feeling, not a public principle to act upon.” —The Earl of Abingdon</p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p>“Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.” —Lord Melborne</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can see clearly now that Wilberforce was in the right to let his religion inform him in this matter. But back then, the cultural tide was against him, and things were not in the least clear to people because they were accustomed to the practice of slavery and had come to depend upon it as a way to improve their lives. Wilberforce’s peers scoffed because they recognized that the promotion of justice for the slaves was a political action based on a religious idea (i.e., we’re made in the image of God and are therefore all intrinsically valuable and worthy of protection), and so they deemed the position unworthy of a public lawmaker’s reasoning. But unfortunately for the slaves, when God is removed from public reasoning as the basis for rights, the value of each person must be determined according to arbitrary qualifications set by the popular opinion of the society. In this case, skin color seemed like a reasonable characteristic by which to grant and deny people rights, and so this is where their reasoning led them.</p>

<p>Everyone knew that the end of the slave trade would bring many complications to their society economically and socially, and not many were willing to risk the upheaval that a high value of all humanity (<a href="/w/the-sled-test" target="_blank">regardless of their characteristics</a>) would bring. People didn’t like the thought then, and they don’t like it now. But understand that the reasoning that argued then for unshakable rights for people with dark skin is the same reasoning that argues now for rights for the unborn. Deny the second, and, philosophically, you leave everyone’s rights open for dismissal.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F200-years-of-christianity-politics-and-human-rights" 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%2F200-years-of-christianity-politics-and-human-rights" 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%2F200-years-of-christianity-politics-and-human-rights" 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 Law and the Christian
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/18/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-law-and-the-christian
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/05/24_dilemma.html#comment-69866242" target="_blank">the comments section</a> of “<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/05/24_dilemma.html" target="_blank">24 Dilemma</a>,” AC asked an interesting question that I thought was worth discussing with everybody: “If all Christians were to be elected to office…would it be right in the eyes of God to put the death penalty for...adultery (like it was in the Old Testament)?”</p>

<p>Just today I heard someone on the radio say he was afraid of Christians doing this very thing, so this is a real question many people have out there. To answer it, we need to think carefully about what the Old Testament Law is and what our relationship to it ought to be as Christians.</p>

<p><span>In the case of ancient Israel, God was working through a nation. He gave them a constitution that would shape their country to reflect His holiness to the world. Their perfection was demanded by the Law in order to do this (hence, the harsh punishment for its violation). This constitution (and contract with God) was the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. But even though the Law was perfect and holy, it didn’t have the power to make the people act perfectly holy (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208:3&amp;version=49" target="_blank">Romans 8:3</a>), so Israel failed to represent God well. (This is the reason for the punishment of their exile to Assyria and Babylon.)</span></p>

<p>Paul says that, though they would fail to live up to the perfect holiness it demanded, Israel was given the Law so that all the world—including those who had the perfect Law—would realize that they need a righteousness that comes from God instead of their own works because they’ll never measure up to the perfect holiness of God’s own character, which is the standard of goodness (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:19-26;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 3:19–26</a>).</p>

<p>Now, in the New Covenant, God is not working through a political nation, but instead the Church is made up of people all over the world who have joined themselves to Christ (not a nation) and been made new creations who can find the power to overcome sin through the Spirit (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 8</a>). All who now identify with Christ are seen by God as having died and risen with Christ. When those who were under the Law died with Him, they were released from their former contract (as all dead people are) and raised with Christ to the New Covenant (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207:1-6;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 7:1–6</a>).</p>

<p>We have therefore been released from the Old Testament Law; it is not a contract that God made with Christians, but with ancient Israel. The Law still instructs us as to what holiness looks like, but we aren’t under that contract, so it has no authority over us.</p>

<p>A political government in these times ought to keep order (according to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 13</a>), but it doesn’t have a contract with God to enforce perfect holiness in order to represent God to the world. This is because God has not made that contract with any nation today; it is Christ who now perfectly represents the character of God to the world. Therefore, instituting all Old Testament laws and punishments today would be to misunderstand the purpose and authority of the contract God made with ancient Israel.</p>

<p>If you’re interested in hearing more detail about the relationship of the Christian to the Old Testament Law, Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries has an article titled “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171106100038/https://www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm" target="_blank">The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ</a>” that fills in many of the gaps I left above (you’ll need to find the title of the article on the linked page and click on it). I also recommend the book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Cross-Albert-H-Baylis/dp/0310490804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6918168-0911917?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1179514664&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">From Creation to the Cross</a></em> which has an excellent chapter on the Law and covers many other theological themes in the Old Testament.</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-law-and-the-christian" 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-law-and-the-christian" 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-law-and-the-christian" 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: Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Postmodern Turn Part 1
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Knowledge and Truth</em></p>

<p>Would you die for truth? Of course you would. Multitudes do everyday. Or more precisely, they die because they don’t have truth.</p>

<p>People don’t believe their doctor’s warnings. They die for the truth of cancer. People underestimate the impact of a couple of drinks. They die for the truth of drunk driving. A pedestrian doesn’t look both ways before crossing the street. He dies for the truth of inertia, mass, and Mack trucks.</p>

<p>People die for truth all the time. They die as a result of false beliefs about important things. They get it wrong. They’re dead.</p>

<p>Truth, then, is often a life and death matter. Whether or not you live or die depends on getting some things right every single day.</p>

<p>This is just as applicable to eternal matters as to temporal ones. Jesus made specific claims about the world. These claims are either true or false. If Jesus was wrong, He—and those who follow Him—can be safely ignored. If He was right, though, that changes everything.</p>

<p>Given the gravity of this matter, it seems odd that so many—both outside the church and inside—are convinced there either is no such thing as truth, or that our understandings of truth have to be so radically altered they’re unrecognizable.</p>

<h2>Ambassadors</h2>

<p>In light of this trend, we have a challenge: How do Christian ambassadors talk effectively about the One who said He was the truth when much of our culture considers distinctions like true and false completely superfluous? How do we reach people with what we think is truth when many deny truth even exists?</p>

<p>The apostle Paul, the most successful missionary in the early church, had some insight on this. He gave a general guideline, then a warning of danger, and finally an antidote to the danger.</p>

<p>First the guideline: Contextualize the Gospel. Adapt it to culture in every way you can that does not compromise the message. Paul called this becoming “all things to all men”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 9:19-22). As much as possible, be like those you’re trying to reach. Blend in. Be one of them. Incarnate. If something gets in the way, get rid of it.</p>

<p>Paul warned of a danger, however:</p>

<p>See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ&nbsp;(Colossians 2:8).</p>

<p>Beware the deadly ideas. When trying to adapt the Gospel, take care you do not adopt the culture’s deceptive ideas and thus destroy the very foundation of our message.</p>

<p>The antidote? Go on the offensive against the false ideas. Paul said, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”&nbsp;(2 Corinthians 10:5).</p>

<p>We must aggressively challenge current ideas that, in J. Gresham Machen’s words, “prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Here is my concern for the church in a postmodern era. In seeking to be “missional,”&nbsp;<em>adapting</em> our message to an emerging culture, we are in danger instead of <em>adopting</em> the culture’s dangerous ideas.</p>

<p>This is precisely what I think happens in segments of what has come to be known as the “emerging church.”&nbsp;Instead of adjusting their method, some have been, in my opinion, “taken captive through philosophy and empty deception,”&nbsp;sacrificing the message in the process.</p>

<p>This concern is so critical for ambassadors for Christ I am devoting three issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> to exploring the ideas of the emerging culture and its influence on the emerging church.</p>

<p>At the heart of this debate are questions about the nature of truth and knowledge. I will address these first. So here is my first question: What is knowledge?</p>

<h2>Knowledge</h2>

<p>When you think about it, there seem to be three types of knowledge. The first is knowledge of facts. We can know about things. This is also called propositional knowledge, or simply “knowing <em>that</em>.”&nbsp;The second kind of knowledge is knowledge by acquaintance. This is an experiential knowledge based on personal encounter. This is how we know our friends and loved ones, or how we’re acquainted with places we’ve been to, a “knowing <em>who”</em>&nbsp;or “knowing <em>of</em>.”&nbsp;Knowing how to drive a car or write a sentence is yet a different kind of knowledge. This might be called skill knowledge, or know <em>how</em>.</p>

<p>It may have occurred to you that Christianity involves all three. There are certain facts or truths (know that) that when believed properly lead us into a personal relationship with God (know who), after which we grow in personal skill at living called “sanctification”&nbsp;(know how).</p>

<p>Here is something else you may have noticed. The first kind of knowledge is very important to Christianity���indeed vital. Yet it is inadequate to any deep spiritual purpose when it stands alone.</p>

<p>Consider the kinds of things that Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) deals with: who God is, what the world is like, what’s the best way for man to live, and how to fix it when we don’t live the way we should. Isn’t it obvious that the particulars here are important? Do you see that if you don’t get your basic information right, then your relationship with God and your skill at spiritual living is going to be off to a bad start?<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>It should also be clear, however, that propositional knowledge on its own is not enough. Christianity is much more than statements of fact. Facts alone, even if you believe them, will not help you (more on this later).</p>

<p>For now I want to focus on the first type of knowledge, propositional knowledge, for two reasons. The first reason is that propositional knowledge is the foundation that the other two kinds of knowledge are built upon. The second reason is that this is the kind of knowledge being questioned in this postmodern era.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<h2>Belief</h2>

<p>Think for a moment, about what you mean when you say you “know”&nbsp;something (in the first sense of knowledge).</p>

<p>The first element that propositional knowledge involves, it seems, is belief. When you say you know something you mean at least that you believe it. It would be odd to say, for example, that you <em>knew</em> your car was red, but you didn’t <em>believe</em> it was red. Knowledge involves belief. All the facts you think you know are facts you also believe.</p>

<p>So, what is a belief? Well, minimally a belief is a kind of thought. Since all thoughts are about something (philosophers call this “intentionality”), it’s always appropriate to ask of any belief, “What is this belief about?”&nbsp;What is it you are thinking about when you say you believe something?</p>

<p>The answer is easy when you consider what you mean when you say you believe. A belief is a kind of thought in which you hold that something (the thing you are thinking about) is a certain way. If you believe grass is green, your belief is about grass, and the content of your belief is that grass is a certain color, green, in this case. Simple enough, you say, and you’d be right. But there is actually something quite profound in this simple observation.</p>

<p>Here it is: Whenever you say you believe something, you mean that you think that what you believe is actually so (grass really <em>is</em> green). Put another way, when you say you believe something, you are also saying that what you believe is <em>true</em>. When people say, “That’s unbelievable,”&nbsp;they mean that it’s hard to imagine it could be true.</p>

<p>Why is this so profound? Because there is a tendency today, especially on religious or moral issues, for people to say, “I have a belief, but I’m not saying it’s true.”&nbsp;This is very odd because you cannot have a belief and at the same time&nbsp;deny that what you believe is true. You may not <em>know</em> it to be true. You could be mistaken even, but your belief is <em>that</em> it is true, nevertheless. Indeed, if you didn’t believe your belief was true, you wouldn’t believe what you believe in the first place. You’d believe something else.</p>

<p>Wouldn’t it be odd to hear, “I believe that Washington D.C. is the capitol of the United States, but I’m not saying you’re wrong for believing New York city is the capital”? But that’s the kind of thing people say all the time when it comes to spiritual matters.</p>

<p>Here is the thought I want you to keep in mind when it comes to belief: Everyone thinks he’s right in what he believes, otherwise he wouldn’t believe it. Nobody’s neutral.</p>

<p>Here’s another question: Can we be wrong in our beliefs? Of course we can. Simply believing something can’t make it true? Another way of putting it is belief is not a truth-maker. If belief alone could make something true, there would be no difference between believe and make-believe, fantasy and reality. If belief is not the truth-maker, what is? That depends on the definition of our next word: truth.</p>

<h2>Truth</h2>

<p>What is truth? This term has been the source of a massive amount of confusion lately. But the confusion is unnecessary because there is nothing mysterious about the meaning of this word. When my philosopher friend Frank Beckwith is asked “What is truth,”&nbsp;he simply responds, “Do you want the true answer or the false one?”</p>

<p>Frank’s response is clever because it shows that no degree in philosophy is necessary to answer the question. We already know the answer: Truth is when things are the way we think they are. When our thinking matches up accurately to what we’re thinking about—when our beliefs are correct—we say they are true.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Aristotle put it this way: If you say that it is and it is, or you say that it isn’t and it isn’t, that’s true. If you say that it isn’t and it is, or you say that it is and it isn’t, that’s false.</p>

<p>But you already knew this because you use the word “truth”&nbsp;(or one of its derivatives) all the time, and this is exactly what you mean. This is the garden variety definition of truth. It’s what most people mean when we use the word.</p>

<p>We all know what a lie is. We also know that truth is just the opposite. The Bible uses the word “truth”&nbsp;in this way all the time. Paul said, “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying”&nbsp;(Romans 9:1). John writes, “No lie is of the truth”&nbsp;1 John 2:21. Sometimes the contrast is between truth and error (e.g., 1 John 4:6), which is basically the same thing.</p>

<p>This brings us back to our earlier question: If belief is not the truth-maker, what is? Answering this question is now quite a bit easier because we have our definition of truth in clear focus. If truth is when things are the way we think they are, then “things”—objects in the world—are what make our beliefs true. Facts of the world are truth-makers.</p>

<p>A true proposition describes a fact. If this is the case, then if there is no truth, there are no facts. When people say there is no truth, this is actually what they’re implying, even if they don’t realize it. Doesn’t this seem strange?</p>

<h2>Justification</h2>

<p>We have already established that whenever we say we believe something, we are also saying that what we believe is <em>true</em>. But what gives us the confidence we’re right? This question introduces our next concept: justification.</p>

<p>People believe things for reasons. Reasons are our “justification,”&nbsp;our evidence or proof. Usually we believe things because we think our reasons for them are good. If we don’t have good reasons for our beliefs, it doesn’t make sense to say we know them. Without justification our beliefs may be right, but only because we got lucky. That’s why if we have no evidence for our view people say, “You don’t <em>know</em> that. You’re just guessing.”&nbsp;Guessing is not knowledge.</p>

<p>Justification comes in degrees. Sometimes our commitment to a belief is not very strong because we know our evidence (our justification) is not strong. The better our reasons, the stronger our confidence. As our evidence grows, the way we describe our level of confidence changes from probable (over 50%), to likely, to beyond a reasonable doubt, to obvious. The final level, the highest level of psychological confidence, is certainty.</p>

<p>Here’s our next question: Since justification comes in degrees, when does it seem right to say we have enough justification for knowledge? When is enough enough? Is mere probability, 51%, enough for knowledge? No, this does not seem to be sufficient. Does knowledge require absolute certainty? That’s nice when we have it, but it does not seem to be necessary for knowledge. Certainty is too demanding a standard for knowledge.</p>

<p>In criminal law the level of confidence adequate to deprive an offender of his liberty or, in some cases, even his life is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”&nbsp;This seems right. The threshold for justification adequate for knowledge is somewhere between mere probability and absolute certainty. When the evidence gives us confidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems fair to say we have knowledge.</p>

<p>Of course, there’s always the skeptic who will say, “But if you don’t have <em>absolute certainty</em>, then it’s always <em>possible</em> you could be mistaken.”&nbsp;That’s correct, but just because it’s possible to be mistaken doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think I am mistaken.</p>

<p>This is the skeptic’s error. Wisdom, careful thinking, common sense always sides with the odds-on favorite. When the weight of evidence is significantly in our favor, it’s fair to say we have knowledge, even though it’s possible we may be mistaken. Knowledge does not require certainty that is incorrigible, infallible, indubitable, invincible, or absolute. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to know very much.</p>

<p>So far we’ve established that to have a belief is to hold that something is true—that it fits the world as it really is—and when our belief <em>does</em> fit, our belief actually <em>is</em> true.</p>

<p>Our justification—our reasons or evidence—give us confidence that we’re right. When our justification rises to a certain level—not necessarily certainty, but more than mere probability—we can claim to have knowledge. That threshold seems to be when we have evidence that gives us confidence beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>

<p>When talking about knowledge, then, we have both truth and belief joined together, and the glue that holds them together is evidence, our justification.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>With this foundation in place I want to show you why each of these is absolutely vital to our message and, therefore, crucial for every one of Jesus’&nbsp;ambassadors.</p>

<p>This I will do in the <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-2#.V82Zo6OZORs">next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em></a>.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">J. Gresham Machen, <em>What Is Christianity?</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 162, as quoted in William Dembski and James Kushiner, <em>Signs of Intelligence</em> (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001), 59. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">This isn’t true in everything (you can make great toast even if you know nothing about how toasters work), but when it comes to religion, facts are essential. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Note: When I say that propositional knowledge is the foundation, I am not referring to foundationalism, which is a theory of epistemic justification. At this point I am not saying anything about how beliefs are justified. I’m simply using the word “foundation”&nbsp;in the sense of “logically prior.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Put another way, “truth”&nbsp;is when a statement, idea, or point of view actually fits—corresponds to—the way the world is. This is why philosophers call this the “correspondence”&nbsp;view of truth. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">If you’re a philosophy student, you might recognize the standard K = JTB formula: Knowledge = Justified True Belief. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Evil as Evidence for God
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/evil-as-evidence-for-god-2007
content:
            <div> 
		<p class="text-align-center">&nbsp;</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><em>As a Christian ambassador, your biggest challenge may be making sense of the problem of evil.&nbsp; Surprisingly, though, evil is actually evidence <u>for</u> God, not against Him.</em></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The wave of best-selling atheist books has forced followers of Christ to confront an age-old objection: the problem evil, considered by some to be the strongest evidence against the existence of God.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I actually think it proves just the opposite. The entire objection hinges on the observation that true evil exists "out there" as an objective feature of the world.&nbsp; Therein lies the problem for the atheist.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Bowling and Badness</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Think of it this way.&nbsp; How do you know the difference between a good bowler and a bad one?&nbsp; By the bowlers’ scores, of course.&nbsp; There must be a way to keep score to make a judgment between mediocre and masterful. C.S. Lewis pointed out that a portrait is a good or bad likeness depending on how it compares with the “perfect” original.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the same way, evil is a value judgment based on a scoring system of some sort, a standard of moral perfection that evil falls short of.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To say something is evil, then, is to make a moral judgment, and moral judgments make no sense outside of a moral standard.&nbsp; Evil as a value judgment marks a departure from that standard of morality.&nbsp; If there is no standard, there is no departure. Lewis notes:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.&nbsp; But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust?&nbsp; A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Here’s the key question:&nbsp; Where does the moral standard come from?&nbsp; Is it a product of chance?&nbsp; Does morality simply fall from the sky?&nbsp; What world view makes the best sense out of objective morality?&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Answering these questions will help clear up another bit of confusion on both sides of the aisle. Some Christians have claimed that no atheist can be a truly moral person. To which Michael Shermer, editor of <em>Skeptic</em> magazine, fires back, “I’m an atheist, and I’m moral.”</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It’s a shallow response, but it works because the challenge itself misses the point.&nbsp; The question isn’t whether an atheist can <em>be</em> moral, but whether he can <em>make sense</em> of morality in a universe bereft of God.&nbsp; This is what philosophers call “the grounding problem.”&nbsp; What grounds morality?&nbsp; What does it “stand” on, so to speak?&nbsp; Why is the universe the way it is?</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I think we can get much closer to an answer to these questions by simply reflecting on the nature of a moral rule.&nbsp; By making observations about the effect—morality—we can determine its characteristics and then ask what cause is adequate to produce it.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Four Observations about Morality<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><strong>[ii]</strong></a></strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The first thing we observe about moral rules is that, though they exist, they are not physical because they don't seem to have physical properties.&nbsp; We don't bump into them in the dark.&nbsp; They don't extend into space.&nbsp; They have no weight.&nbsp; They have no chemical characteristics.&nbsp; Instead, they are immaterial things we discover through the process of thought, introspection, and reflection without the aid of our five senses.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a profound realization.&nbsp; We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled upon something real.&nbsp; Yet it's something that can't be proven empirically or described in terms of natural laws.&nbsp; This teaches us there's more to the world than just the physical universe.&nbsp; If non-physical things—like moral rules—truly exist, then materialism as a world view is false</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There seem to be many other things that populate the world, things like propositions, numbers, and the laws of logic.&nbsp; Values like happiness, friendship, and faithfulness are there, too, along with meanings and language.&nbsp; There may even be persons—souls, angels, and other divine beings.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Our discovery also tells us some things really exist that science has no access to, even in principle.&nbsp; Some things are not governed by natural laws.&nbsp; Science, therefore, is not the only discipline giving us true information about the world.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It follows, then, that naturalism as a world view is also false.&nbsp; Our discovery of moral rules forces us to expand our understanding of the nature of reality and open our minds to the possibility of a host of new things that populate the world in the invisible realm.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Second, moral rules are a kind of communication.&nbsp; They are propositions:&nbsp; intelligent statements of meaning conveyed from one mind to another.&nbsp; The propositions are in the form of imperatives, commands.&nbsp; A command only makes sense when there are two minds involved, one giving the command and one receiving it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There's a third thing we notice when we reflect on moral rules.&nbsp; They have a force we often feel <u>prior</u> to any behavior.&nbsp; This is called the incumbency of moral rules, the "oughtness" of morality.&nbsp; It appeals to a person's will, pushing him to act in a certain way, though he often disregards its force and chooses to disobey.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Finally, there is a deep discomfort that emotionally healthy people feel when they violate clear and weighty moral dictates—a kind of ethical pain—making them aware they have done something wrong and deserve punishment.&nbsp; This sense of guilt carries with it not just the uncomfortable awareness of wrong-doing, but also the dread of having to answer for the deed.&nbsp; Distraction and denial may temporarily numb ethical pain, but it never entirely disappears.&nbsp; Only sociopaths succeed in silencing the conscience completely.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Narrowing Our Options</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; These four observations provide us with a foundation from which to answer the question, "Why morality?"&nbsp; We need only determine the possible options, then ask which option best accounts for our observations.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A word of caution here.&nbsp; At this point our discussion gets personal, because the ultimate answer to our question has serious ramifications for the way we live our lives.&nbsp; It's tempting to abandon careful thinking when conclusions that make us uncomfortable come into focus.&nbsp; Faced with a limited number of options, no one sits on the fence.&nbsp; When the full range of choices is clear, rejection of one means acceptance of another.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Our options are limited to three.&nbsp; One:&nbsp; Morality is simply an illusion.&nbsp; Two:&nbsp; Objective moral rules exist, but are mere accidents, the product of chance.&nbsp; Three:&nbsp; Moral rules are not accidents, but instead are the product of intelligence.&nbsp; Which option makes most sense given our four observations about morality?&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Some want to argue that morals just don't exist.&nbsp; They're nothing but illusions, useful fictions that help us to live in harmony.&nbsp; This is the relativist's answer.&nbsp; This view is not an option for those who raise the problem of evil.&nbsp; Their complaint about the injustice of the universe is a tacit admission of morality.&nbsp; C.S. Lewis observed:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.&nbsp; Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple....If there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.&nbsp; <em>Dark</em> would be without meaning.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a> [emphasis in the original]</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Some take a second route.&nbsp; They believe in objective morality, but contend that God is not necessary to ground ethics.&nbsp; We discover them as part of the furniture of the universe, so to speak, but they have no explanation, nor do they need one.&nbsp; This seems to be the course taken by Christopher Hitchens, best-selling author of <em>God Is not Great—How Religion Poisons Everything</em>.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This won't do for a good reason:&nbsp; Moral rules that have no ground or justification need not be obeyed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An illustration is helpful here.&nbsp; One evening in the middle of a Scrabble game, you notice the phrase "do not go" formed in the random spray of letter tiles on the table.&nbsp; Is this a command that ought to be obeyed?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; It's not a command at all, just a random collection of letters.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Commands are communications between two minds.&nbsp; Chance might conceivably create the appearance of a moral rule, but there can be no bona fide command if no one is speaking.&nbsp; Since this phrase is accidental, it can safely be ignored.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even if a person is behind the communication, one could ignore the command if it isn't backed by appropriate authority.&nbsp; If I stood at an intersection and put my hand up, cars might stop voluntarily, but they'd have no duty to respond.&nbsp; They could ignore me with no fear of punishment because I have no authority to direct traffic.&nbsp; If, on the other hand, a policeman replaced me, traffic would come to a halt.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What is the difference between the policeman and me?&nbsp; My authority is not grounded.&nbsp; It doesn't rest on anything solid.&nbsp; The policeman, however, represents the government, so his authority is justified.&nbsp; The state can appoint legitimate representatives to carry out its will because it is operating within its proper domain.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We learn from this that a law has moral force when it is given by an appropriate authority, one operating within its legitimate jurisdiction.&nbsp; If one violates such a law, he could be punished.&nbsp; The same is true of moral laws.&nbsp; They have incumbency—force to them—if there is a proper authority behind them.&nbsp; Moral rules that appear by chance have no such grounding.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Our second option fails because it doesn't explain three important features we observed about morality.&nbsp; Chance morality fails to be a communication between two minds, and therefore, cannot be imperative.&nbsp; It doesn't account for the incumbency of moral rules, nor does it make sense of the guilt and expectation of punishment one feels when those rules are violated.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>One Remaining Answer</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Only one answer remains as a possible source of morality.&nbsp; If morality is not an illusion and not the product of chance, then morals must be the result of an intelligent Mind.&nbsp; Universal moral laws that have genuine incumbency require an author whose proper domain is the universe, who has the moral authority to enforce his laws, and the power to ultimately mete out perfect justice.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What is the best explanation for the existence of morality?&nbsp; A personal God whose character provides an absolute standard of goodness is the best answer.&nbsp; An impersonal force won't do because a moral rule is both a proposition and a command, and these are features of minds.&nbsp; Ethicist Richard Taylor explains:&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">A duty is something that is owed....but something can be owed only to some person or persons.&nbsp; There can be no such thing as a duty in isolation....The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God.&nbsp; The words remain, but their meaning is gone.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Only one option makes sense of each observation about morality:&nbsp; a personal God, who is the creator of both the material and the immaterial domain.&nbsp; Moral laws suggest a moral law giver.&nbsp; His laws are a communication of his desires, imperatives expected to be obeyed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The existence of God also explains the incumbency of morality.&nbsp; Ethics are adequately grounded because God is a proper authority for moral rules.&nbsp; The universe is his possession because he created it, and he has the right to rule over it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ethical pain—true moral guilt—also makes sense.&nbsp; Since morals are not disembodied principles, but personal commands, a violation is not just a broken rule, but an offense against the person who made the rule.&nbsp; Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard has pointed out that a man could not have anything upon his conscience if God did not exist.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Some—like Michael Shermer—attempt to argue they don't need God for them to be moral.&nbsp; They can be virtuous people even though they’re atheists.&nbsp; No one thinking carefully about it, though, would deny that an atheist can behave in a way one might call moral.&nbsp; The real question is, "Why ought he?"&nbsp; Trappist monk Thomas Merton put it this way:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave?&nbsp; Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination?&nbsp; Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A moral atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn't believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks.&nbsp; He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause.&nbsp; This is silly.&nbsp; Either his meal is an illusion, or someone provided it.&nbsp; In the same way, if morals exist—as the reality of evil proves—then some cause adequate to explain the effect must account for them.&nbsp; God is the most reasonable solution.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>The Final Verdict</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The argument against God based on the problem of evil can only be raised if some form of moral objectivism is true.&nbsp; Morals, therefore, exist.&nbsp; I don’t need to give a complete taxonomy of ethical guidelines to make my case.&nbsp; If there is even one moral absolute, it invites the question, "What kind of world view best explains its existence?"</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Atheism can't make any sense of it.&nbsp; Neither can most Eastern religions, by the way.&nbsp; If reality is an illusion, as they hold, then the distinction between good and evil is ultimately rendered meaningless.&nbsp; Something like the Judeo-Christian or Muslim idea of God must be true to adequately account for moral laws.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Morality grounded in God explains our hunger for justice—our desire for a day of final reckoning when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, when all the guilty are punished and the righteous are rewarded.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This also explains our own personal sense of dread.&nbsp; We feel guilty because we <em>are</em> guilty.&nbsp; We know deep down inside that we have offended a morally perfect Being who has the legitimate authority to punish us.&nbsp; We know we will have to answer for our own crimes against God.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the end, we're forced to accept one of two alternatives.&nbsp; Either relativism is true or morality is true.&nbsp; Either we live in a universe in which morality is a meaningless concept and are forever condemned to silence regarding the problem of evil, or moral rules exist and we're beholden to a moral God who holds us accountable to His law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are no other choices.&nbsp; As Dr. Francis Schaeffer put it, "These are not probability answers; [these] are the only answers.&nbsp; It is this or nothing."<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a>&nbsp; If one is certainly false, the other is certainly true.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> Clive Staples Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York:&nbsp; Collier Macmillan, 1960, paperback), 31.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> See a more thorough treatment of these four points in Beckwith and Koukl, <em>Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em>, Baker Books, 1998, chapter 16, “Why Morality?”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a>Some object to the term "moral law" because moral laws can be broken, while scientific laws are inviolable.&nbsp; I have two responses.&nbsp; First, it's not obvious that scientific laws can never be violated.&nbsp; Miracles entail the suspension of natural law, and miracles seem to at least be possible, if not actual, unless one arbitrarily asserts naturalism.&nbsp; Second, moral laws are different from natural laws precisely at this point.&nbsp; The nature of a moral law is that it can be disobeyed by creatures with moral free will.&nbsp; If it couldn't be disobeyed, it would not qualify as a moral law.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a>Lewis, ibid.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a>Richard Taylor, <em>Ethics, Faith, and Reason</em> (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:&nbsp; Prentice-Hall, 1985), 83-4.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a>Quoted in Phillip Yancy, "The Other Great Commission," <em>Christianity Today</em>, October 7, 1996, 136.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a>Francis Schaeffer, <em>He Is There and He Is Not Silent</em>, from <em>The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer</em> (Wheaton, IL:&nbsp; Crossway Books, 1982), vol. 1, 303.</p>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevil-as-evidence-for-god-2007" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevil-as-evidence-for-god-2007" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevil-as-evidence-for-god-2007" 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>
            
          


