# articles

title: Only the Trinity Fits All of the Scriptural Data
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/only-the-trinity-fits-all-of-the-scriptural-data
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In keeping with my own philosophy that Christians should first major in the majors before nitpicking on secondary issues, I have decided to tackle the question “Who was Jesus?”—along with the larger issue of the Trinity—in the next two issues of <a href="http://www.str.org/explore#&amp;format=Publication" target="_blank"><em>Solid Ground</em></a>.</p>

<p>My broad goal is to make a clear, scriptural case for the Triune nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with a particular focus on the deity of Jesus Christ. And also show why the doctrine is critical to a sound understanding of the Lord we serve and of His work in our salvation.</p>

<p>In this first installment, I aim to accomplish four things. First, I want you to understand the <em>significance</em> of the Trinity. Next, I want to look briefly at the alleged <em>problem</em> of the Trinity. Third, I want to offer a clear, concise, coherent <em>definition</em> of the Trinity. Finally, I want to address the alleged <em>contradiction</em> of the Trinity and silence that objection once and for all.</p>

<p>For many, the Trinity seems to be a mysterious, intractable difficulty. I think they’re mistaken. I’m convinced the Trinity is not a problem, but a magnificent solution to a host of other problems. Most importantly, only the Trinity is consistent with God’s own self-revelation in both Testaments:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Only the Trinity can make sense of the love of God as an intrinsic moral excellence, a holy affection continuously given and received from eternity past among the divine persons. Only the Trinity can turn Jesus’&nbsp;sacrifice on a cross into a testament of God’s love for the world, since it was <em>God’s</em> blood, shed by Christ, that purchased Christ’s church (Acts 20:28). And only with the Trinity can a man suffer a finite amount of time, yet cover an eternal debt for a countless multitude, since the man was Himself the God of infinite grace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1" target="_blank">The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem Part 1</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%2Fonly-the-trinity-fits-all-of-the-scriptural-data" 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%2Fonly-the-trinity-fits-all-of-the-scriptural-data" 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%2Fonly-the-trinity-fits-all-of-the-scriptural-data" 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: Random Mutation, Natural Selection, and Information
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/14/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/random-mutation-natural-selection-and-information
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This new <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g" target="_blank">video</a> from the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryScienceNews/videos" target="_blank">Discovery Institute</a> is a clear and concise explanation of why we should doubt the power of random mutations and natural selection to build new, functional information content in DNA. Here are some excerpts, but watch the whole video (below) to see the helpful way they illustrate the truth of this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>According to modern evolutionary theory, new proteins and new forms of animal life arise through random genetic mutations, sifted by natural selection. But in an alphabetic text or a section of computer code, random changes typically degrade meaning, or functionality, and ultimately generate gibberish.</p>

<p>STEPHEN MEYER: “As we’ve come to appreciate the digital or typographic character of genetic information...it raises some really interesting questions about the efficacy of that mutation-driven mechanism... If you start making random changes to a section of computer code, you’re much more likely to degrade the information that’s there already than you are to come up with a new operating system or program.”...</p>

<p>Scientists in the 1960s didn’t know how many of [the possible arrangements of amino acids] were actually functional... That didn’t stop evolutionary biologists from speculating. Many argued that there must be a high proportion of functional sequences among all possible sequences so that a random search for a new functional sequence would have a high probability of success.</p>

<p>STEPHEN MEYER: “The way they did that is to say, well maybe biological sequences are...not nearly as picky about which characters are where as written language is or as computer code is... Maybe proteins don’t really care which amino acid is where and there’s a great deal of variability, and therefore you can have the same function performed by a huge number of protein chains and a huge number of genes.”</p>

<p>But recent experiments in molecular biology and protein science have replaced speculation with data. These experiments have established that DNA-based sequences capable of making functional proteins are, in fact, extremely rare among the vast number of possible sequences...</p>

<p>For even a single functioning protein fold to arise, the mutation selection mechanism would have time to search just a tiny fraction of the total number of relevant sequences—one ten-trillion-trillion-trillionth of the total possibilities. It follows that it is overwhelmingly likely that a random mutational search would have failed to produce even one new functional protein fold in the entire history of life on Earth.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="aA-FcnLsF1g" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aA-FcnLsF1g?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frandom-mutation-natural-selection-and-information" 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%2Frandom-mutation-natural-selection-and-information" 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%2Frandom-mutation-natural-selection-and-information" 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 Abortion Is Unjust Discrimination
topic: Bioethics
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-abortion-is-unjust-discrimination
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our new motion graphic video on the S.L.E.D. test explains why no human being—regardless of size, race, sex, etc.—should be excluded from the community of human persons.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="tL_R0y1Utnw" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tL_R0y1Utnw?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-abortion-is-unjust-discrimination" 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-abortion-is-unjust-discrimination" 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-abortion-is-unjust-discrimination" 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: Thanksgiving in a Secular Society
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/26/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/thanksgiving-in-a-secular-society
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Stephen Nichols <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-thanksgiving-day/" target="_blank">explains</a> how our worldview affects our gratefulness and expression of thanks, and what this means for an increasingly-secular society:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In his scientific study of gratitude, Emmons came to the realization that gratitude raises a singular and significant question: When we say thank you, to whom are we grateful?</p>

<p>The interesting thing here is that if we trace this “to whom”&nbsp;line of questioning back, like pulling on the threads of some tapestry, we find a singular answer at the end of each and every thread. The answer is God.</p>

<p>To whom are we grateful? We are grateful in an ultimate sense to God...</p>

<p>When we consider God as the “to whom”&nbsp;we are thankful, we may well be seeing both the necessity of thanksgiving and the eclipse of thanksgiving. As culture veers more and more towards a secular state it shrinks back from gratitude. So vainly we think we did this all ourselves. So wrongly we think we deserve, or even have a fundamental right to, all of this. We also know what is at the end of the string if we pull on it long enough. We know that we will be confronted with a Creator. We know we will be accountable to a Creator. Saying thank you means we are dependent, not independent. We would rather be ungrateful. Paul says we know God from all the evidence He has left of Himself, but we don’t want to “honor him or give thanks to him”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%201.21" target="_blank">Rom 1:21</a>). Then the downward spiral begins. A culture of ingratitude careens ever downward into decline...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Today is your opportunity to do something radical and beautiful—give thanks to God openly and publicly, amidst your family and friends, in front of Christians and atheists alike. May your public glorifying of God today bring some light to our nation.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.challies.com/a-la-carte/a-la-carte-november-25-1" target="_blank">Tim Challies</a>)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthanksgiving-in-a-secular-society" 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%2Fthanksgiving-in-a-secular-society" 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%2Fthanksgiving-in-a-secular-society" 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: Planned Parenthood Isn’t the Only Abortion Problem
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/planned-parenthood-isn-t-the-only-abortion-problem
content:
            <div> 
		<p>By now you’ve either seen or heard about the Planned Parenthood videos. The Center for Medical Progress has been releasing undercover video footage exposing Planned Parenthood’s grisly practice of killing unborn children and selling their body parts. These videos, though, didn’t make Planned Parenthood evil.</p>

<p>Planned Parenthood was evil <em>last year</em>, long before they were exposed. They were evil the year before that, and the year before that. The reason is because they take advantage of vulnerable women who face crisis pregnancies and help them kill their innocent children. They’ve been doing that with government protection for over 40 years. These videos have not changed what Planned Parenthood <em>does</em>, only the public’s <em>perception</em> of them.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad these videos have exposed Planned Parenthood’s barbaric behavior. I want as many people as possible to see them. More than that, though, I want pro-lifers to be passionate about saving the lives of unborn children for as long as abortion remains legal, not just as long as the hype of these videos remains.</p>

<p>Defunding Planned Parenthood would be great. The concern, though, is that once new videos are no longer released and the excitement fades, people will lose interest in abortion. We’ll go right back to where we were a year ago.</p>

<p>That’s why my focus has always been on changing culture. The way you change culture is by changing minds. Changing minds changes public opinion. Changing public opinion changes public policy. When public policy is determined by a culture that treats every human being—born or unborn—as equally valuable, then organizations like Planned Parenthood will no longer be tolerated by ordinary citizens.</p>

<p>That’s why what we’re doing together has the power to save lives for the long term. We’re not merely stopping evil today. We’re also creating a culture that will recoil at human atrocities that are committed tomorrow.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fplanned-parenthood-isn-t-the-only-abortion-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%2Fplanned-parenthood-isn-t-the-only-abortion-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%2Fplanned-parenthood-isn-t-the-only-abortion-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: Twelve Points That Show Christianity Is True
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/21/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/twelve-points-that-show-christianity-is-true
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve had the privilege of taking a course on apologetics with Dr. Norman Geisler. He’s considered by many to be one of the foremost apologists alive today. I’ve certainly come to appreciate Dr. Geisler all the more since becoming one of his students.</p>

<p>In his lectures, he was adamant about driving home the twelve points that show Christianity is true. This is a logical case that starts by arguing for the existence of objective truth and concludes that the Bible is the Word of God. These twelve points have provided me with a strategy to keep in the back of my mind when asked about the veracity of the Christian faith. I hope this will be as helpful to you as it has been for me.</p>

<ol>
	<li>Truth about reality is knowable.</li>
	<li>Opposites cannot both be true.</li>
	<li>The theistic God exists.</li>
	<li>If God exists, then miracles are possible.</li>
	<li>Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.</li>
	<li>The New Testament is historically reliable.</li>
	<li>The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.</li>
	<li>Jesus’&nbsp;claim to be God is confirmed by miracles.</li>
	<li>Therefore, Jesus is God.</li>
	<li>Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.</li>
	<li>Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.</li>
	<li>Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).</li>
</ol>
</div>

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


title: What If I Deny Christ Out of Fear?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/17/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-if-i-deny-christ-out-of-fear-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a question you may be thinking about after the Oregon murders: Would I <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/06/losing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-114-3.html" target="_blank">lose my salvation</a> if I denied Christ out of fear? Jesse Johnson of Cripplegate <a href="http://thecripplegate.com/if-i-deny-christ-can-i-still-go-to-heaven/" target="_blank">responds</a> to this question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[M]any Christians have denied Jesus when faced with persecution. The most obvious example of this is Peter—he denied Jesus three times, yet Jesus directly told him that he was still a follower of Christ (John 21:19). So on the one hand, the heart of the gospel is a truth worth dying for (as evidenced by Jesus and most of the Apostles), but on the other hand the gospel offers forgiveness even to those who deny Christ.</p>

<p>This is potentially confusing because of 2 Timothy 2:12: “If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.”</p>

<p>But the denial in this verse is not talking about the momentary denial like Peter, or like a student scared for his life in the face of a gunman. That denial references the absolute walking away from the faith; apostasy. And in that case, there is no salvation.</p>

<p>This verse seems so drastic, and that is the point. Paul—himself facing martyrdom (4:6)—challenges his readers to persevere. But Paul does not want true believers to lose heart, and so he immediately follows verse 12 with: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 2:13).</p>

<p>There will always be moments where we lose faith, but for those who are in Christ, we should have confidence that while we may lose faith, Jesus may never lose us. Even if we momentarily are gripped by fear, and value our lives more than the life of Christ, Jesus still possesses us, and he cannot deny himself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even so, Johnson says, you <em>should</em> say you are a Christian if an answer is demanded of you, even at the risk of death. He explains why you need not worry about whether or not you would be strong enough to do this in <a href="http://thecripplegate.com/if-i-deny-christ-can-i-still-go-to-heaven/" target="_blank">the rest of his article</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-if-i-deny-christ-out-of-fear-" 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-if-i-deny-christ-out-of-fear-" 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-if-i-deny-christ-out-of-fear-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Diffuse the Accusation of Intolerance
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/14/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-diffuse-the-accusation-of-intolerance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What if someone who’s hostile to Christianity asks for your opinion on a controversial topic? Greg referenced <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/how-to-get-out-of-a-corner-2#.Vh2QGRNViko" target="_blank">this approach</a> on <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/paying-the-price-for-engaging-critics-october-14-2015#.Vh6dKBCrRZp" target="_blank">today’s podcast</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you’re placed in a situation where you suspect your convictions will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, or judgmental, then turn the tables. When someone asks for your personal views about a moral issue, preface your remarks with a question.</p>

<p>Say, “You know, this is actually a very personal question you’re asking. I don’t mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it’s safe to offer my views.</p>

<p>“So let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from your own?”</p>

<p>Now when my friend gives her point of view, it’s going to be very difficult for her boss to call her intolerant or judgmental without looking guilty, too.</p>

<p>This response capitalizes on the fact that there’s no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view she thinks is right and everybody passes judgment at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It’s an inescapable consequence of believing in morality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of Greg’s article <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/how-to-get-out-of-a-corner-2#.Vh2QGRNViko" target="_blank">here</a>. I can think of a specific instance right now when I used this approach in response to a hostile questioner. It completely defused a very tense situation, enabling us to have a deep, profitable conversation about same-sex marriage that ended with him understanding my position and saying he believed I wasn’t a bigot after all.</p>

<p>Some people object to having tactical questions like this one in mind when speaking to non-Christians because they think tactics are impersonal, but it was the very use of this question that <em>enabled</em> me to be personal with my friend by defusing his anger and defensiveness. I recommend it to you. (<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/03/responding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics.html" target="_blank">See more</a> on how tactics like this one work to increase communication and uphold people’s dignity.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-diffuse-the-accusation-of-intolerance" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-diffuse-the-accusation-of-intolerance" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-diffuse-the-accusation-of-intolerance" 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: Your Theological Preferences Don’t Prove Anything... Even if You’re an Atheist
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/19/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-theological-preferences-don-t-prove-anything-even-if-you-re-an-atheist
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An atheist friend of mine posted this video on Facebook, and it’s a great illustration of the fact that subjective reasons for believing your religion is true are not persuasive to anyone else:</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="P0A_iF1B3k0" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0A_iF1B3k0?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>Ironically, though, the atheist’s argument in this video is ultimately a subjective, theological one. The atheist says, (A) a real God would reveal Himself directly and clearly to everyone, (B) no being has done this, therefore (C) no God exists. But (A) is just a theological assertion about what he thinks a real God would do. Why should we believe that? I can think of <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/should-god-appear-to-atheists#.VfzOdiBViko" target="_blank">reasons</a> why God wouldn’t do what this atheist prefers. And if there is a God, He knows a lot better than we do <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/if-god-were-real#.VfzQRSBViko" target="_blank">what He should do</a> because He has far greater knowledge, so I wouldn’t expect our personal preferences about theology to always be correct.</p>

<p>The atheist’s theological preference for a God who reveals Himself directly to everyone doesn’t prove the theists’&nbsp;claims are false any more than the theists’&nbsp;theological preferences prove the atheist’s claim is false. His preference is as subjective as theirs!</p>

<p>Preferences aren’t the way to determine what’s true, as the atheist points out very well - 2+2=4, no matter who likes or doesn’t like that fact. It could likewise be a fact that a God exists who doesn’t reveal Himself to everyone, even if the atheist doesn’t like it.</p>

<p>There’s a right answer about the spiritual aspect of reality (which means either some or all theology in this world is certainly false, since people disagree); some people are getting the answer wrong, and some could be getting it right. But your preferences about what God <em>should</em> do don’t prove anything either way, even if you’re an 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%2Fyour-theological-preferences-don-t-prove-anything-even-if-you-re-an-atheist" 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%2Fyour-theological-preferences-don-t-prove-anything-even-if-you-re-an-atheist" 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%2Fyour-theological-preferences-don-t-prove-anything-even-if-you-re-an-atheist" 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: Platonic Relationships for Same-Sex Attracted Christian Men?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/platonic-relationships-for-same-sex-attracted-christian-men-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was recently asked (by email) what I think of two male Christians with same-sex attraction (SSA) pursuing a platonic relationship together. By “platonic,”&nbsp;the questioner meant that these two men were attracted to one another, but they were not going to engage in sexual activity because they upheld a biblical sexual ethic. Below was my answer.</p>

<p>First of all, I can only imagine how difficult it is for Christians with SSA to develop healthy relationships with others of the same sex. I’m grateful for those I know who are trying to honor Christ in their relationships. They deserve our respect, love, support, and prayer.</p>

<p>My view is that it’s unwise for Christian men with SSA to form <em>that kind</em> of platonic relationship. I can think of at least three quick reasons. First, it will frustrate them. Their relationship will be in constant sexual tension because of their attraction to each other without the possibility of fulfilling those desires. Second, it will create unnecessary risk for sin (either lusting or sexual behavior). The longer you’re in a relationship where both of you are attracted to each other, the more opportunity there is for sinful missteps. Third, it will encourage each other’s same-sex attraction and habituate an unhealthy pattern of thought. Keep in mind, sexual desires towards people of the same sex are described in Romans 1 as “degrading passions”&nbsp;(NASB). That’s because it treats a person of the same sex as a sexual counterpart, which is a violation of the complementarity expressed in Scripture (Gen. 1:27, 28, 2:24, Matt. 19:4-6).</p>

<p>By the way, I would apply the same advice to myself in a similar heterosexual relationship. I would <em>not</em> carry on in a platonic relationship with a woman I’m attracted to (and she attracted to me). It would be unwise. Sure, I can talk to her when I see her, say “hi”&nbsp;here and there, but if we’re attracted to each other, it’s unwise for me (and her) to develop and maintain <em>that kind</em> of platonic relationship.</p>

<p>I’m not saying men with SSA should not form <em>any</em> relationships with other men. It would be better for them to form strong relationships with other men they’re <em>not</em> sexually attracted to.</p>
</div>

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


title: Do You Have This Kind of Confidence? Mentoring Letter—October 2015
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-you-have-this-kind-of-confidence-mentoring-letter-october-2015
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>When it seems like the church at large is absolutely thick with tares—unregenerate people in our midst who think they’re Christians, but are not (also in Matt. 13)—I ask myself, “What specifically gives me any confidence I’m not among the spiritually self-deluded?”</em></p>

<p>Twenty-two years ago in our inaugural STR brochure I wrote, “Christians need a good dose of confidence.”&nbsp;Of course I was referring to the Christian’s confidence that the smart money was on Jesus in a toe-to-toe contest with secular alternatives.</p>

<p>I’m deeply grateful because the generosity of supporters have made it possible for STR to create resources for the past two decades that help give Christians confidence.</p>

<p>Sometimes, though, we need confidence of a different kind.</p>

<p>It’s one I think about a lot, especially since I encounter scores of people utterly convinced they’re on the right religious path, yet seem to me to be deeply deceived. Something like 75% of the people in this country believe in Hell, yet almost no one thinks he’s going there. If the gate is narrow—as Jesus said—multitudes are in for a terrifying turn.</p>

<p>It makes me wonder: Will I be one of them?</p>

<p>During the Jesus Movement, it all seemed so simple: Pray the prayer and you’re in. I have a more sober—and I think more biblical—view now. In Jesus’&nbsp;parable of the sower in Matt. 13, two of the four types of soil produced lively growth for a season, then withered to firewood.</p>

<p>When it seems like the church at large is absolutely thick with tares—unregenerate people in our midst who think they’re Christians, but are not (also in Matt. 13)—I ask myself, “What specifically gives me any confidence I’m not among the spiritually self-deluded?”</p>

<p>Questions like these drive me back to the text, hungry for that second kind of confidence. Here’s what I found: four markers giving me assurance the benefits of my faith are actually in force. Conveniently, they all start with P.</p>

<p>First is promise. “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God,”&nbsp;John assures, “in order that you may know you have eternal life”&nbsp;(1 Jn. 5:13). No guessing here. Knowledge.</p>

<p>Jesus said the sinner who beat his breast in remorse and begged for forgiveness received it. Period. (Lk. 18:13-14) Jesus is a reliable refuge. Flee to Him, trust in Him, find rest in Him. Without this promise, there simply is no hope for any of us.</p>

<p>Second is presence, a deep sense that God is near because we belong to Him. “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,”&nbsp;Paul says in Rom. 8. We are His and He is ours. As adopted children we cry out, “Abba! Father!”</p>

<p>Where promise is objective, presence is subjective. It’s something we feel, so it varies with personality, circumstance, and mood. Every Christian feels forsaken at times. Also, the sense of God’s presence can be counterfeited (as with the LDS “witness”).</p>

<p>Consequently, I take presence to be an evidence (an indicator), not a test (a requirement). Whenever the feelings of God’s presence evade me, I find my footing in promise, as David did frequently (note in Psalms the record of his travails).</p>

<p>Third is persistence—we actively press forward in Christ. We keep our hands to the plow and don’t look back. Growth in godliness is evidence of new life.</p>

<p>James made it clear that there is faith and there is “faith.”&nbsp;One works the other doesn’t—in both senses of the word (if you work, your faith is working; if you don’t, it isn’t). John has the same view: “And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments”&nbsp;(1 Jn. 2:3-6). This is not works earning salvation, but growth in goodness evidencing salvation, giving us confidence.</p>

<p>Finally, perseverance. You go the distance. Scripture consistently teaches this: “If we endure, we shall also reign”&nbsp;(2 Tim. 2:12); “We have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end”&nbsp;(Heb. 3:14). Paul’s confidence at the end of his own life was, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith”&nbsp;(2 Tim. 4:7).</p>

<p>Do you want confidence in Christ? Then trust the promise and follow hard after Him. Daily press on towards the goal. Fix your eyes on Christ and finish the course.</p>

<p>Confidence for every Christian is part of our vision at STR.</p>

<p>Will you give today to prepare more Christian ambassadors with clear thinking for every challenge, and the courage and grace needed for every encounter?</p>

<p>When you respond with a donation, be sure to ask for my talk on three must-have skills for every encounter. “Ambassadors for Christ: The Essential Skills”&nbsp;shows why basic knowledge, tactical diplomacy, and an attractive manner are all crucial in a culture increasingly hostile to Christian values.</p>

<p>It’s a key tool to help you make a difference—and our way of saying thanks for your gracious friendship and support today.</p>

<p>Safely in His hands,</p>

<p>Gregory Koukl</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-you-have-this-kind-of-confidence-mentoring-letter-october-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-you-have-this-kind-of-confidence-mentoring-letter-october-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-you-have-this-kind-of-confidence-mentoring-letter-october-2015" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Response to Edward Feser on Romans 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/20/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week philosopher Edward Feser <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/repressed-knowledge-of-god.html" target="_blank">raised some concerns</a> about a recent <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/are-atheists-just-suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html" target="_blank">video blog</a> that I did on Romans 1. Here is my response to his assessment.</p>

<p>Feser’s concern, I think, is partly the result of taking general remarks made in a video blog about Romans 1 and asking of it the kind of precision not generally possible in that format. In a brief verbal summary of an issue there is little opportunity for nuance regarding the kinds of concerns brought up in Feser’s thoughtful 2,500 word blog, which may account for my own remarks appearing “glib.”</p>

<p>Maybe a few brief comments (versus a full-throated response) will add more clarity, though it probably will not alleviate all the disagreement. No worries. I can live with opposing views, even from people I respect (I thoroughly enjoyed what I’ve read of Feser’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1445290854&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+last+superstition" target="_blank"><em>The Last Superstition</em></a>).</p>

<p>Feser faulted me for lack of argument, yet my purpose was not to make a case, but rather merely to articulate what I take to be Paul’s assessment of man’s condition.</p>

<p>As to the comment, “’The Bible says so’&nbsp;is, of course, not a good argument to give someone who doesn’t accept the authority of the Bible in the first place,”&nbsp;I agree wholeheartedly, as those familiar with my work know. My comments in the video blog, however, were directed to believers (just as Paul’s were), not atheists, so a straightforward appeal to the text seems legitimate.</p>

<p>As to whether or not my take on Romans 1 is an “extreme interpretation,”&nbsp;I can only commend you to Paul’s wording itself. I don’t think it is the least bit vague, ambiguous, or moderate. He says that certain of God’s attributes have been “clearly seen”&nbsp;and “understood”&nbsp;(1:20), and certain particulars about God are “known,”&nbsp;being “evident within them,”&nbsp;since “God made it evident to them”&nbsp;(1:19). Yet men still “suppress”&nbsp;(<em>katecho</em>, “to hold down, repress,”&nbsp;Wuest) these truths “in unrighteousness.”&nbsp;It’s difficult to see how a more moderate (vs. my “extreme”) understanding of the passage could actually be faithful to Paul’s words.</p>

<p>Further, if our knowledge of God is merely “general and confused”&nbsp;(Aquinas), it’s hard to see how God can hold us accountable for it (“without excuse”&nbsp;1:20), making us properly subject to his “wrath”&nbsp;(<em>orge</em>, 1:18).</p>

<p>Even after reading Feser’s critique (<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/repressed-knowledge-of-god.html" target="_blank">et al.</a>), it still strikes me that, regarding man’s innate knowledge of God, Paul is saying something quite a bit stronger than that man has “a natural inclination of the weaker and inchoate sort.”&nbsp;Thus, his unbelief is properly culpable.</p>

<p>For the record, I take this knowledge to be dispositional (known even if not currently or consciously aware of), not occurent (in mind and currently aware of) for the reasons that Feser (and others) pointed out. So man’s state of awareness of God, and his heart’s disposition towards rebellion against God are both sub-conscious.</p>

<p>Thus, though many atheists are not consciously aware of their rebellion (some are, of course) and may feel they have intellectual integrity in their atheism (some demonstrate a measure of integrity in their reasoned rejection of God), still, when all the cards are on the table in the final judgment, when men’s deepest and truest motives are fully revealed (Lk. 12:2), rebellion will be at the core. This rebellion-at-the-core, I think, is what Paul had in mind in Rom. 1—a fairly ordinary, run of the mill biblical point, it seems.</p>

<p>Regarding beleaguered Emil (see <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/repressed-knowledge-of-god.html" target="_blank">Feser’s post</a>), I am inclined to agree with Feser: “A religious believer is not like someone trying to hold a beach ball underwater; rather, he is like someone trying to get a submerged beach ball with a leak in it to come back up to the surface.”&nbsp;Nicely put.</p>

<p>Remember, Paul’s point is that fallen humans are in rebellion and unbelief. But regeneration changes that, does it not? Those who have come to Christ (e.g., “Emil”) are not the subject of his concern. Doubt may still crop up, but for completely different reasons, I think. So the alleged <em>reductio</em> simply does not apply here since the scope of Paul’s comments (along with my reflections on them) is limited to man in rebellion, not to believers who have laid down their arms.</p>

<p>However, even deeply distressed Emil (and atheists with his same complaint) must account for the objective morality that was violated by the massacre, and no subjectivist account (biological or social) is going to be adequate. Ultimately, even man’s ubiquitous complaint about real Evil in the world (a complaint I share), ultimately and irrevocably (I think) points back to the God who alone grounds the Goodness necessary to make the problem of evil intelligible to begin with.</p>

<p>So, it seems to me that my general remarks about Romans 1 and atheists are defensible given the video’s intended audience and scope, and given the specific language of Romans 1. In the future when I address this issue, I will try to remember the “dispositional knowledge”&nbsp;qualification that might alleviate some confusion.</p>

<p>One final thought. Though I do not think it helpful to bandy this phrase about in the public dialogue, the statement, “The <em>fool</em> has said in his heart there is no God,”&nbsp;is not mine, but God’s.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-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%2Fa-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-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%2Fa-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-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: Rich Theology in MacArthur’s Book on Jesus’ Parables
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/24/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/rich-theology-in-macarthur-s-book-on-jesus-parables
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John MacArthur has a new book coming out on Jesus’&nbsp;parables, and I recommend it. It’s called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Parables-Mysteries-Kingdom-Revealed-Through/dp/1400203481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1445643940&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=parables%3A+the+mysteries+of+god%27s+kingdom+john+macarthur" target="_blank"><em>Parables: The Mysteries of God’s Kingdom Revealed through the Stories Jesus Told</em></a>, and while it didn’t radically change my understanding of any of the parables, it did deepen it, both theologically and devotionally—more than I was expecting.</p>

<p>MacArthur explains what a parable is in this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A parable is an ingeniously simple word picture illuminating a profound spiritual lesson... Parables are not to be mined for layer upon layer of secret significance. Their lessons are simple, focused, without much embellishment.*</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As the parables are designed to teach one particular point, each of the chapters is titled according to the theological lesson taught by the parable (or parables) discussed in that chapter—lessons about receiving the Word, the cost of discipleship, justice and grace, neighborly love, justification by faith, faithfulness, being wise as serpents, Heaven and Hell, and persistence in prayer.</p>

<p>MacArthur doesn’t just explain the historical and cultural background of each parable, along with the context of each one within the surrounding text; he also brings in quite a bit of theology, gathering relevant verses from other parts of the Bible to round out each lesson Jesus is teaching.</p>

<p>Because of the richness of the theology, it took me longer than usual to read this book. But don’t conclude from this that this was a <em>difficult</em> book to read. It was actually very readable. Rather, I just found myself frequently wanting to pause to meditate on these truths about Jesus and His kingdom. I wanted to slow down and go over every angle of each bit in my mind—to let it shape my view of Jesus and become part of the way I see the world.</p>

<p>We often hear that we should tell stories, like Jesus, because that’s the best way to help people clearly learn and remember significant truths. But when asked by His disciples, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”&nbsp;Jesus responded, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”&nbsp;In other words, the parables actually <em>obscure</em> truths from people who don’t want hear them. MacArthur explains:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The symbolism hides the truth from anyone without the discipline or desire to seek out Christ’s meaning. That’s why Jesus adopted that style of teaching. It was a divine judgment against those who met His teaching with scorn, unbelief, or apathy...</p>

<p>In short, Jesus’&nbsp;parables had a clear twofold purpose: <em>They hid the truth</em> from self-righteous or self-satisfied people who fancied themselves too sophisticated to learn from Jesus, <em>while the same parables revealed truth</em> to eager souls with childlike faith—those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These parables have been given to you “to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,”&nbsp;and MacArthur’s book will help you understand and appreciate them. Since the book is both readable <em>and</em> theologically rewarding, I especially recommend it for new Christians. What better way for them to see Jesus more clearly and build a theological foundation than by learning from Jesus’&nbsp;parables?</p>

<p>*All quotes are from the uncorrected proof provided to us for reviewing purposes.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frich-theology-in-macarthur-s-book-on-jesus-parables" 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%2Frich-theology-in-macarthur-s-book-on-jesus-parables" 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%2Frich-theology-in-macarthur-s-book-on-jesus-parables" 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: Thankful to Whom?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/12/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/thankful-to-whom-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is Thanksgiving in Canada, and whether you celebrate it today or in November, if you are anything like me and my family, you will probably spend Thanksgiving weekend gathered around a table filled with delicious food and surrounded by your family and friends. One of our Thanksgiving family traditions is taking turns going around the table sharing one thing we are thankful for.</p>

<p>Even though this year has brought its challenges, there are so many things to be thankful for. I am thankful for the good health of my family, the lives of my three children, my freedom, and a new job with Stand to Reason, just to name a few.</p>

<p>I recently found myself reflecting on what it means to be thankful. Thankfulness for something only makes sense if there is <em>someone</em> to be thankful to—thankfulness is always expressed towards other persons.</p>

<p>Think about the statement, “I’m loved!”&nbsp;It only makes sense if there is someone out there who loves you. Simply stating that you are loved without any reference to anyone is meaningless. The statement, “I’m loved”&nbsp;naturally leads to the question, “By whom?”&nbsp;Likewise, the statement, “I’m thankful”&nbsp;invites the obvious question, “To whom?”</p>

<p>For example, whom should I thank for the life of my unborn child? If this is only a material world, then there really isn’t anyone to thank. It would be a category error to “thank”&nbsp;my unborn child’s impersonal genes, for the same reason it would be inappropriate to thank my car for getting me to work. We cannot thank objects in any meaningful sense. Moreover, if there really isn’t anyone to be thankful to, then why do I have this innate desire to be thankful? All natural desires find their fulfillment in reality. C.S. Lewis put it this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (<em>Mere Christianity</em>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I believe the reason humanity desires to give thanks is that there is someone to give thanks to. So the next time you hear someone say, “I’m thankful”, be sure to ask, “To whom?”</p>
</div>

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


title: How Did You Get a Soul? Creationism versus Traducianism
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s not a question most of us have thought very much about. How did you get your soul? Even to ask the question is a little awkward since “you”&nbsp;are your soul.</p>

<p>There are two basic perspectives held by orthodox theologians on the origin of each human soul: creationism and traducianism. The <em>creationist</em> view (not to be confused with scientific creationism) holds that God <em>directly</em> creates a new individual soul for everyone born into this world. Even though the <em>soul</em> is supernaturally created by God, the <em>body</em> for every new human is generated by the parents. The exact moment the soul is created is debated amongst creationists. However, most evangelical creationists maintain that the soul is created by God at the moment of conception. Others have attempted to argue that the creation of the soul doesn’t come until implantation, or after implantation, or even at birth. All three of these views are fraught with difficulties.</p>

<p>The Bible supports the argument that the soul exists at conception. David wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”&nbsp;(Psalm 51:5). We are also told that Jesus existed in Mary’s womb at conception. An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit”&nbsp;(Matthew 1:20).</p>

<p>There are also scientific arguments demonstrating that every individual human life begins <em>at the moment of conception</em>. The most important is that all the genetic information is present at conception. There is nothing added (genetically speaking) from that moment on. Given proper health and safety, the human zygote will <em>develop</em> into a newborn around nine months later.</p>

<p>The word <em>traducian</em> comes from the Latin <em>tradux</em>, which means “branch of a vine.”&nbsp;This means that every human being is a “branch”&nbsp;off of his or her parents. Both soul <em>and</em> body are generated by father and mother. This is in opposition to the creationist view that says God creates every new soul directly.</p>

<p>Traducianism seems to have overwhelming support from Scripture. First, God said that He had finished His work of creation on day six (Gen. 2:2) and is resting from His work (Heb. 4:4). Therefore, it would contradict Scripture if He is creating souls today. Second, the creationist perspective doesn’t make sense of the fallen nature of man, while traducianism does. Creationists must suppose that God creates each soul <em>with a sinful nature</em>. However, the best explanation of inherited original sin is that both fallen soul and body are generated by the human parents. Romans 5:12 appears to indicate that we all sinned “through one man,”&nbsp;which points to everyone’s connectedness to Adam and his original sin.</p>

<p>Now, it must be stated that on the traducian view, the parents are only the <em>instrumental cause</em> of the new human soul. God is still the efficient cause. Therefore, both creationists and traducianists believe that God creates all souls; creationists claim God does it directly, while traducianists believe He does it indirectly through parents. That is to say, God causes <em>being</em>, while parents cause <em>becoming</em>.</p>

<p>In addition, the creationist view holds that man <em>is</em> a soul, but man <em>has</em> a body. Traducianists would push back and say that man is a unity of soul <em>and</em> body. As a result, traducianists take the image of God to include the soul and body, while creationists take only the soul to be the image of God.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism" 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’s Really in the Planned Parenthood Videos?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-s-really-in-the-planned-parenthood-videos-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s some confusion on both sides out there about what’s in the Planned Parenthood videos. You can watch the episode that’s being debated <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8" target="_blank">here</a>, in which a former tech from StemExpress describes what she witnessed in a Planned Parenthood clinic.</p>

<p>Here are some important clarifications:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://youtu.be/FzMAycMMXp8?t=4m2s" target="_blank">At 4:02</a>, O’Donnell says the tech said this before restarting the heart of the aborted baby: “Come over here! I want you to see something kinda cool. This is kinda neat.”</li>
	<li>There’s no explicit explanation given by the tech as to <em>why</em> she’s starting the heart. It’s unclear whether she was doing something “cool”&nbsp;just for fun, or whether she was doing it for some other purpose and simply called O’Donnell over because she might want to see it. Since I first saw this video, I have feared we may find out in future videos that it’s done to keep specimens fresh, but for now, <em>that has not been specifically said</em>. Regardless, playing with an infant’s life is <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil.html" target="_blank">evil enough</a>.</li>
	<li>We don’t know that the baby’s heart was still beating when they cut its face to procure the brain; O’Donnell does not specifically say either way.</li>
	<li>The clip of the fully-intact and moving fetus (<a href="https://youtu.be/FzMAycMMXp8?t=5m58s" target="_blank">at 5:58</a>) was not filmed at the Planned Parenthood clinic. The clip is, in fact, credited, “Courtesy of Grantham Collection &amp; Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”&nbsp;The image is intended to show the viewers the age of the fetal human being O’Donnell is describing, but it is not the human being described in the story. I don’t see anything illegitimate about adding this footage to help people understand what O’Donnell was seeing. Neither do I think CMP was intending to deceive people with it. (I say this not only because of the credit, but also because later on in the video they show another picture of a 19-week fetus that obviously wasn’t aborted at a Planned Parenthood clinic—care was clearly taken where the umbilical cord was cut.) But at the same time, because these videos are so shocking and most viewers only saw them once, many people have understandably misinterpreted what they were seeing and/or misremembered what they saw.</li>
	<li>Yes, the moving fetus in the video was aborted. The website for the Grantham Collection says their images were “lawfully obtained in working abortion clinics.”&nbsp;I verified that the video clip in question can be found in one of their videos, as described <a href="http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/11/stanek-weekend-question-is-it-morally-acceptable-for-pro-lifers-to-film-abortions/" target="_blank">here</a>. (I’m not linking to the video of live abortions directly because it is <em>extremely</em> graphic and starts playing automatically, but there is a link to it on that page.) CBR has confirmed this, <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/18/whos-really-lying-about-the-planned-parenthood-videos-carly-fiorina-or-the-factcheckers/" target="_blank">saying</a>, “The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage.”</li>
</ul>

<p>We need to be careful about how we talk about these videos. If you give people even the smallest thing to quibble with (even if it’s not ultimately relevant), <em>that</em> is what they will focus on, and they’ll use it to justify dismissing <em>everything</em> in the videos. This is what I’m seeing happen now.</p>

<p>Even stranger, I’m seeing journalists out there saying obviously wrong things, like, “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/09/16/watch_carly_fiorina_s_lurid_rant_about_abortion_and_planned_parenthood_at.html" target="_blank">There is nothing</a> in the videos made by CMP, either in the edited or full-length versions, that has anything approaching images of legs kicking or hearts beating”;&nbsp;and, “<a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/09/wrongometer-cnn-gop-debate-000246" target="_blank">At no point</a> do they include footage of an entire aborted fetus”; and, “<a href="http://fusion.net/story/198690/gop-debate-carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood/" target="_blank">None of the videos</a> have anyone talking about ’harvesting��&nbsp;brains”&nbsp;(actually, this topic comes up in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/centerformedprogress/videos" target="_blank">a few of them</a>); and, “<a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9342165/carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood" target="_blank">There is no moment</a> where Planned Parenthood discusses procuring fetal tissue for profit”&nbsp;(see <a href="https://twitter.com/danieljpayne/status/644502400997437440" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/17/11-most-important-takeaways-from-10th-explosive-planned-parenthood-video/#.Vfq10rSPML4.twitter" target="_blank">here</a>); and, “The Center for Medical Progress <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Fact-Check-Whos-Right-in-the-GOP-Presidential-Debate-327974961.html" target="_blank">released five videos</a>”&nbsp;(there are 10, not counting full footage videos); and, most amazingly, “Each video made by an anti-abortion group, The Center for Medical Progress, <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/carly-fiorinas-frightening-over-the-top-assertions/" target="_blank">merely shows people talking</a>”&nbsp;(i.e., without <a href="https://youtu.be/egGUEvY7CEg?t=13m16s" target="_blank">images</a>).</p>

<p>Let’s not add to that confusion. Watch the videos carefully, and don’t assume anything that isn’t explicit. Stick closely to the facts; the facts are horrifying enough on their own.</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-s-really-in-the-planned-parenthood-videos-" 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-s-really-in-the-planned-parenthood-videos-" 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-s-really-in-the-planned-parenthood-videos-" 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: Mormonism: Same Language, Different Meanings
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 09/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/mormonism-same-language-different-meanings
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Brett explains how to navigate in conversation with your Mormon friends when the language is the same but the meanings are different.</p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="281" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/140687768" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>



<p>How do you navigate a conversation with a Mormon when the language is the same, but the meanings are totally different? Here's the key to that conversation: Learn to ask questions. Questions are going to be the key because there's a terminology problem. We use all the same terminology, but we mean totally different things. In order to surface that in a conversation, you have to ask clarifying questions, “What do you mean by that?”</p>

<p>When your Mormon friends says, “I believe in God the Heavenly Father,” or, “I believe in Jesus,” or, “I believe that the Bible is the Word of God,” you have to ask, “What do you mean by ‘Jesus?’” “What do you mean by ‘the Bible is the Word of God?’ Give me more clarification.” You have to ask it again and again.</p>

<p>Your friends says, “Well, by ‘Jesus’ I mean Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, lived a perfect sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, and then rose again. That's what I mean by ‘Jesus.’” You’re going to have to get more information. Notice, all they said is something about his earthly life. “You define Jesus in this earthly life, but tell me about Jesus pre-earthly life. What about his pre-existence?” That's where then you'll begin to surface the radical differences in meaning.</p>

<p>Jesus ends up being a created being, and the only way you’re going to find that out is by getting past the terminology and getting to the definitions. That's why you have to ask, “What do you mean by that?” “Can you define that, clarify that idea, explain that to me a little bit more?” That takes time.&nbsp;</p>

<p>You have to be patient with it because it takes time to uncover those differences and to help your Mormon friends see that even though we use all the same terminology, we have completely different meanings and therefore, we have completely different Gods and completely different Jesus’. We have completely different views about Scripture.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Make no mistake, that's a huge step. That's progress if in a conversation or few conversations you can help your Mormon friend see the radical differences. That's going to be your first step in engaging them with the true gospel of Jesus Christ. They're walking into this thinking we believe the same thing, so progress is getting them to realize we have totally different Gods.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Then, you could point out to them that John 17:3 says, “Eternal life is knowing the one true God.” Even though we use the same terms, if you have a different God and I have a different god, we can't both be right. We can't both have eternal life, and that's what’s at stake.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmormonism-same-language-different-meanings" 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%2Fmormonism-same-language-different-meanings" 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%2Fmormonism-same-language-different-meanings" 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: An Explanation of the Ontological Argument
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/16/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-explanation-of-the-ontological-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Kenneth Keathley <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160804032059/http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/?p=1400" target="_blank">says</a> of the following <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68" target="_blank">video</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Does the Modal Ontological Argument prove the existence of God? It at least demonstrates that God’s existence, if possible, would be necessary. So the only way God couldn’t exist is if his existence was impossible. This means there is no 50-50 chance of God existing, no 10% or 90% either. Either God cannot exist or he must exist. The probability of God’s existence is 0% or 100%.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="RQPRqHZRP68" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RQPRqHZRP68?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>The existence of a necessary being is not contingent on anything else. Therefore, there can’t be one set of circumstances that would cause Him to exist in one kind of reality but another set of circumstances that wouldn’t, such that He would exist in some possible worlds but not in others. A necessary being can’t have a “somewhat probable”&nbsp;chance of existing in a particular world, because He exists <em>by necessity</em>; and the different possible circumstances one could imagine existing around Him have no effect on whether or not He exists, because He’s not contingent on any of them.</p>

<p>For this reason, if a necessary being is possible in <em>any</em> conceivable world, then He would exist in <em>every</em> conceivable world, including this one.</p>

<p>I still have much thinking to do before this is settled in my own mind, but after watching this video and mulling it over for a few hours, this is the closest I’ve come to understanding (and finding meaningful) the ontological argument for the existence of God. Keathley’s point is key: “Either God cannot exist or he must exist.”</p>

<p>Give the ontological argument another chance. Take some time to think about it, and see how far you get. I’m interested in reading your comments as I’m working through this, but don’t comment if you haven’t watched the video.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://twitter.com/biolapologetics/status/654796644467130369" target="_blank">@biolapologetics</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%2Fan-explanation-of-the-ontological-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-explanation-of-the-ontological-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-explanation-of-the-ontological-argument" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Apologetics with Brokenhearted Boldness and Contrite Courage
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/26/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/apologetics-with-brokenhearted-boldness-and-contrite-courage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Applying the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42:3 to Jesus, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A8-21&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Matthew</a> says, “A battered reed He will not break off, and a smoldering wick He will not put out.”&nbsp;As followers of Christ, we’re <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+2%3A1-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">told</a> to emulate His <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/05/this-is-the-kind-of-culture-christianity-creates.html" target="_blank">humility</a> and kindness towards those who are suffering, <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/01/be-a-parable-of-gods-grace.html" target="_blank">including</a> those who don’t yet know Him.</p>

<p>John Piper wrote the <a href="http://www.epm.org/resources/2003/Dec/1/counseling-suffering-people/" target="_blank">following</a> about counseling, but it also applies to using apologetics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is true that we must be personally bold and afraid of no man but courageous as we contend for the truth. If we are simply nice, concerned, genuinely curious, attentive, supportive, and affirming, we may win a hearing with suffering people, but we will never lead them to life. Grace means courage and clarity. But it is just as true that our boldness must be brokenhearted boldness, that our courage must be a contrite and lowly courage, and that we must be tender contenders for the truth. If we are brash and harsh and cocky and clever, we may win a hearing with angry and pugnacious people, but we will drive away those who suffer. Paul makes it so clear that we are laid low and given comfort “so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 1:4). Those we counsel must feel that we are utterly dependent in our lives on the merciful comfort of God to make it through our days.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>None of us likes to <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/03/christians-you-will-suffer.html" target="_blank">suffer</a>, but know that suffering creates good apologists because suffering teaches us humility and gives us a greater experiential knowledge of God’s grace, making us better <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/01/be-a-parable-of-gods-grace.html" target="_blank">representatives of God’s grace</a> to others.</p>
</div>

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


title: God’s Judgment Is According to the Light Available
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-s-judgment-is-according-to-the-light-available
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If faith in Jesus is the only means by which we can be saved, how can God judge the person who has never heard about Jesus? This common challenge appears to strike at the heart of God’s divine justice.</p>

<p>Paul reflected on this question in the first three chapters of his letter to the Romans. He tells us, “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law”&nbsp;(Rom. 2:12). There are two groups of people in this world. There are those who have the law and those who don’t. Those who have the law will be judged by it. Paul says, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin”&nbsp;(Rom. 3:19-20).</p>

<p>But there are those who do not have God’s law. Will they be judged by a standard they have never heard about? No, they will be judged by a different standard. Those without access to God’s special revelation will not be judged by what they don’t know. They will be judged by what they do know. They will be judged by the revelation of God in nature and conscience.</p>

<p>Speaking of God’s revelation in nature, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:18-20). There is enough knowledge of God through what He has made to condemn a person for rejecting it.</p>

<p>In addition, God has given everyone a conscience to bear witness to His moral character: “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things”&nbsp;(Rom. 2:1-2). Paul continues, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus”&nbsp;(Rom. 2:14-15).</p>

<p>God will judge every person who has drawn breath according to the light available to them. This doesn’t get anyone off the hook because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”&nbsp;(Rom.3:23). This means everyone needs Jesus to be saved, but not everyone will be judged for rejecting Jesus, whom they never knew of.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-judgment-is-according-to-the-light-available" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-judgment-is-according-to-the-light-available" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-judgment-is-according-to-the-light-available" 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 You Shouldn’t Lose Heart When Prayer Is Difficult
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/10/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-shouldn-t-lose-heart-when-prayer-is-difficult
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Newton found prayer to be difficult, but here’s what gave him hope:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>How strange is it, that when I have the fullest convictions that prayer is not only my duty—not only necessary as the appointed means of receiving these supplies, without which I can do nothing, but likewise the greatest honor and privilege to which I can be admitted in the present life—I should still find myself so unwilling to engage in it. However, I think it is not prayer itself that I am weary of, but such prayers as <em>mine</em>. How can it be accounted prayer, when the heart is so little affected—when it is polluted with such a mixture of vile and vain imaginations—when I hardly know what I say myself—but I feel my mind collected one minute, the next, my thoughts are gone to the ends of the earth. If what I express with my lips were written down, and the thoughts which at the same time are passing through my heart were likewise written between the lines, the whole taken together would be such an absurd and incoherent jumble—such a medley of inconsistency, that it might pass for the ravings of a lunatic. When he points out to me the wildness of this jargon, and asks, is this a prayer fit to be presented to the holy heart-searching God? I am at a loss what to answer, till it is given to me to recollect that I am not under the law, but under grace—that my hope is to be placed, not in my own prayers, but in the righteousness and intercession of Jesus. The poorer and viler I am in myself, so much the more is the power and riches of his grace magnified in my behalf. Therefore I must, and, the Lord being my helper, I will pray on, and admire his condescension and love, that he can and does take notice of such a creature... (Quoted in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Christian-Life-Christ-Theologians/dp/1433539713/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1444518010&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=Newton+on+the+christian+life" target="_blank"><em>Newton on the Christian Life: To Live Is Christ</em></a>—the best book I’ve read this year.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thank goodness “my hope is to be placed, not in my own prayers, but in the righteousness and intercession of Jesus.”&nbsp;May the difficulty you have praying today remind you of the riches of Christ’s grace and 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%2Fwhy-you-shouldn-t-lose-heart-when-prayer-is-difficult" 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-you-shouldn-t-lose-heart-when-prayer-is-difficult" 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-you-shouldn-t-lose-heart-when-prayer-is-difficult" 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: Getting Faith Right
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/getting-faith-right
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month, Brett Kunkle and I spent six hours training students in apologetics at Watermark Community Church, a very large church in the Dallas area. Brett opened the conference by role-playing an atheist. This allows the students to gauge their own ability at making a defense of their faith. During the role-play, it became obvious that most of these students were working with a mistaken definition of faith. In fact, when Brett asked the students for some evidence for their faith, one student confidently shouted, “If we had evidence, we wouldn’t need faith!”&nbsp;I think this student thought he had bested the atheist; however, all he revealed was a complete misunderstanding of biblical faith. Since I was on deck to speak after Brett, my goal was to clarify for the students what the word <em>faith</em> really means.</p>

<p>One of the liabilities of language is that words can change their meaning over time. Consider the word <em>awful</em>. A century ago it literally meant “to be full of awe.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Testifying to an awful sunset would have been communicating reverence for the event. However, today the word is almost exclusively used to articulate something as extremely unpleasant or distasteful.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Ironically, the term <em>awful</em> has come to mean the opposite of what it used to mean. Therefore, given the mutability of words, it is very important to take the time to clarify terms.</p>

<p>The word <em>faith</em> is also a word that has come to mean something completely different than it did a few millennia ago. In fact, it is rare to hear the word <em>faith</em> being used as the biblical author intended it. As a result, there is a common misunderstanding about faith that is being propagated both inside and outside the church. In his influential book <em>Love Your God with All Your Mind</em>, Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland writes, “Faith is now understood as a blind act of will, a decision to believe something that is either independent of reason or that is a simple choice to believe while ignoring the paltry lack of evidence for what is believed.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Is faith really a blind leap into the darkness of irrationality? American author Samuel Clemens thought so. Writing under the pseudonym Mark Twain, he succinctly wrote, “Faith is believing something that you know ain’t so.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> According to Twain, if you know it, then you do not need faith. Faith is for people who want to believe something <em>in spite of</em> the evidence against it.</p>

<p>In the twenty-first century, there is a cadre of atheists propagating this false belief.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Neuroscientist and atheist, Sam Harris, echoes this idea in his book <em>The End of Faith</em>. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and <em>he seems to require no evidence whatsoever</em>.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Harris takes faith to be any belief that is not buttressed by supporting evidence. So belief in fairies, unicorns, and Santa Claus would all fall into this category. The evidence is simply lacking.</p>

<p>Leading New Atheist Richard Dawkins goes one step further. In his bestselling book <em>The God Delusion</em>, he defines faith as “persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Not only is faith a belief with no evidence, but also it is <em>in spite of</em> the evidence. As a result of this incorrect concept of faith, Dawkins concludes that faith is one of the world’s greatest evils:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus,...“mad cow”&nbsp;disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. <em>Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion</em>.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The New Atheists are touted as being beacons of reason and evidence. In fact, in Dawkins’s book <em>A Devil’s Chaplain</em>, he offers some helpful advice to his readers. He writes, “And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ’What kind of evidence is there for that?’&nbsp;And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> It would be fair to ask, what kind of evidence is there for this prevalent definition of faith? Instead of <em>arguing</em> for their definition of faith, they simply <em>assume</em> it. Ironically, it is the New Atheists who just assert their definition of faith <em>without any evidence</em>. They condemn blind faith, and then expect people to accept their definition on blind faith. But is this <em>really</em> what the biblical authors had in mind when they described faith?</p>

<h2>A Biblical Definition of Faith</h2>

<p>If one wants to properly understand the biblical concept of faith, they must consult the Bible itself. Unfortunately, many of those who criticize Christian faith have never bothered to open the Bible to see what it teaches. If they had, they would have come to a completely different conclusion. Moreland says, “Biblically, <em>faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true.</em> Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we dedicate ourselves completely to it.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> (Emphasis in original.)</p>

<p>John Lennox, Oxford mathematician and author of <em>God’s Undertaker</em>, emphatically states, “Faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of it.”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Moreland and Lennox affirm that faith and reason are <em>complementary</em>, not contradictory. This is in stark contrast to the description of faith above. To determine which is correct, consider just two scriptural examples of faith.</p>

<p>In the Gospel of Mark, the author records how a group of friends brought a paralyzed man to see Jesus. Unfortunately, the house was too full and they could not get in. Determined to get their physically handicapped friend to Jesus, they lifted him onto the roof, dug a hole, and lowered him down. Jesus’&nbsp;response is very informative:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”&nbsp;Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”&nbsp;And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ’Your sins are forgiven,’&nbsp;or to say, ’Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home”&nbsp;(Mk. 2:5-11).<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus recognizes that anyone could <em>claim</em> to forgive sins since this is an invisible act that cannot be directly verified. Jesus could have merely told His audience to take a leap of faith and just believe. Instead, Jesus provides His listeners with evidence so that they will <em>know</em> He has the authority to forgive sins. He provides physical evidence, a visible healing, to back up His claim, the invisible act of forgiving sins.</p>

<p>The most important verse in the Bible defining faith is found in the book of Hebrews. In chapter 11, the author of Hebrews writes, “Now faith is the <em>assurance</em> of things hoped for, the <em>conviction</em> of things not seen”&nbsp;(Heb. 11:1; emphasis added). Some people immediately focus in on the terms “hoped for”&nbsp;and “not seen,”&nbsp;and incorrectly conclude that faith is hoped for and not seen. However, that is not what the verse says.</p>

<p>Faith is the assurance and conviction of things hoped for. Assurance entails solid reasons to believe something. One only has assurance when they have a sufficient amount of evidence. In fact, The New King James Version substitutes the word conviction with <em>evidence</em>.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> Therefore, Christians should have confidence in things hoped for and things unseen, like their future resurrection, because of the trustworthy evidence that has already been established.</p>

<p>Many more scriptural passages could be added to the list. However, this should be sufficient in demonstrating that the biblical writers saw an important relationship between faith and reason. In light of the evidence, New Atheists, like physicist Victor Stenger, have no excuse for propagating the false idea that “faith... is belief without supportive evidence.”<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> A short examination of the biblical data confirms that faith is evidence-based.</p>

<p>Here’s how I explain faith to students. Imagine you are standing at the edge of Niagara Falls. While you are watching this magnificent waterfall, you notice there is a tightrope walker walking from one side to the other, pushing a wheelbarrow full of rocks. You are mesmerized by his amazing ability, so you keep watching him do it over and over again.</p>

<p>The tightrope walker sees that you have been watching for some time and walks towards you. He asks, “Do you believe that I can do it again?”&nbsp;Given that you have seen him do it numerous times already, you reply, “Of course, I’ve seen you doing it all day.”&nbsp;Without hesitation, he dumps out all the rocks and replies, “Okay, climb in the wheelbarrow.”&nbsp;You <em>believe</em> based on evidence. And stepping into the wheelbarrow is <em>active trust</em>. Therefore, biblical faith is active trust based on evidence.</p>

<p>So, are faith and reason in conflict? It depends entirely on how one defines faith. Faith as active trust based on evidence is certainly not at odds with reason. On this view, reason <em>assesses</em> whether or not something is true and then faith <em>holds the belief</em> is true in light of those reasons. Reason assesses; faith trusts. Greg Koukl says, “So let’s set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality. Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? You bet. It works both ways.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>Certainly, there are Christians who have blind faith, but that does not mean that <em>Christianity</em> advocates blind faith. In fact, the concept of blind faith is completely foreign to the Bible. Given the widespread misunderstanding of the word <em>faith</em>, there are some Christians who are opting to use a substitute term. Instead of talking about faith, they use the word <em>trust</em>. Greg Koukl offers a suggestion to help clarify this confusion:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Stop using the word <em>faith</em>. Use the word <em>trust</em> instead, because biblical faith means active trust. And trust must be earned. Today, just as in Jesus’&nbsp;day, we have “many convincing proofs”&nbsp;(Acts 1:3) that God is real and Jesus is the risen Savior—evidence enough to satisfy your mind and earn your trust.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>God is not interested in a blind leap of faith. He is looking for a step of trust. Biblical faith is not contrary to reason; it is consistent with reason.</p>

<p>I’m so blessed to be on the front lines training Christians in the understanding and defense of the Christian faith. The impact cannot be overstated. I know that I wouldn’t be able to do this without your prayer support. Please continue to pray that God would bless this ministry.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1"><em>Merriam-Webster Online</em>, s.v. “<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/awful" target="_blank">Awful</a>,”&nbsp;(accessed April 7, 2014).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">J. P. Moreland, <em>Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul</em>, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 19.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Mark Twain, “Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar,”&nbsp;<em>Following the Equator</em>, (1897), ch. 12.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">These atheists call themselves the “New Atheists.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Sam Harris, <em>The End of Faith</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005), 19.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Richard Dawkins, <em>The God Delusion</em> (2009; repr., Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011), 5.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Richard Dawkins, “Is Science A Religion?”&nbsp;<em>The Humanist</em> 57, (January/February 1997): 26.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Richard Dawkins, <em>A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love</em> (New York: Mariner Books, 2004), 248.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">J. P. Moreland, <em>Love Your God with All Your Mind</em>, 19.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">John Lennox, <em>God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?</em> (Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson, 2009), 16.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">All Bible references are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”&nbsp;(Hebrews 11:1; NKJV).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;��</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Victor J. Stenger, <em>The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason</em> (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2009), 15.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, <em>Is God Just a Human Invention?</em>, 30.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-faith-right" 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%2Fgetting-faith-right" 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%2Fgetting-faith-right" 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: Deeper Teaching in Apologetics and Theology for Youth
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 10/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/deeper-teaching-in-apologetics-and-theology-for-youth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>My passion has always been youth. Ever since my days as a youth pastor in the local church, I’ve sought out ways to more effectively reach students and offer them serious teaching and discipleship. That’s why I started and developed Stand to Reason’s apologetics mission trip to Berkeley and our theological mission trip to Utah. Of course, those trips require some serious effort. There are lectures, reading, studying, tests, and more, and that’s before we ever go on the trip. Then there’s the actual trip, with engagements with atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Mormons, and anyone else we can throw at the students, all day long. But most Christian kids won’t have the opportunity or the maturity to attend a mission trip like this, so I’ve thought a lot about the best way to reach larger numbers of students. How do we get that typical evangelical student, who is sitting in our youth groups week in and week out, exposure to deeper teaching in apologetics and theology?</p>

<p>Three years ago, we tried out one of my ideas: an apologetics conference specifically designed for youth. I called it the <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Conference</a>, and our tagline was, “Stand to Reason Student Impact exists to provoke a new generation to rethink their worldview, recapture the truth, and then reengage the world for the cause of Christ.”&nbsp;We had about 400 students, youth workers, and parents attend that first conference, and we were ecstatic. We did it again in 2013 and more than 600 showed up. Last year about 1,100 came out, and last weekend 1,500 people (most of them students) came out for our fourth annual reTHINK Student Apologetics Conference in Southern California. We’ve clearly seen the success and impact of this conference on the lives of young people. But why? What has made reTHINK successful? Here are a few thoughts that might help you as you try to reach your own young people:</p>

<p><strong>(1) Our communicators must be able to connect with youth.</strong> This is absolutely key. Kids don’t care much about your Ph.Ds, the books you’ve written, or your scholarly accomplishments. They’re not going to listen to you simply because of your credentials. If you don’t grab them in your talk in the first few minutes and then hold them throughout, they’ll tune out. Unfortunately, that’s just the reality of modern youth. So we bring in speakers who can speak to youth exceptionally well. Not only are they humorous, not only do they tell good stories, not only do they illustrate well, they also don’t dumb down the truth, while still making it accessible to young minds.</p>

<p><strong>(2) Our conference must be filled with fun and laughter.</strong> I’m tired of apologetics being saddled with a reputation for being stodgy, always serious, angry, argumentative, somber, etc. Yes, we want to be serious about God’s truth, and our speakers do a great job with that. However, we want to model a Christian life that is filled with joy and laughter. So we intentionally plan for it. For example, as the MC, I do not get up and introduce the speakers by reading through their list of accomplishments. Instead, we joke around, tease each other, or even play a little competitive game to get the audience laughing. In the process, the speakers are introduced in a more personal way, making them more relatable. Indeed, I had many attendees applaud us for the humor and laughter. Who thought you could laugh so much at an apologetics conference?!</p>

<p><strong>(3) Our content must be focused on worldview, apologetics, and theology.</strong> The content of most youth teaching and curriculum can be summed up in two phrases: love Jesus and be good. Sadly, that’s about as much depth as they go into. We make sure students are being exposed to the evidence for Christianity, that they see life Christianly, and that they come to understand the great theological truths about our great God. And we’ve seen students rise to the occasion, telling us how much they learn and grow at each conference.</p>

<p>So those are some of the things we do to tailor this conference for youth, and it seems like God is using it to reach them. We’re taking this show on the road too, hosting our first reTHINK Conference in Dallas on October 23-24. Come join us!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdeeper-teaching-in-apologetics-and-theology-for-youth" 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%2Fdeeper-teaching-in-apologetics-and-theology-for-youth" 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%2Fdeeper-teaching-in-apologetics-and-theology-for-youth" 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 Didn’t Command Child Sacrifice
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-didn-t-command-child-sacrifice
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a charge I hear surprisingly often. From John Loftus in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=72jcOJmyRHgC&amp;pg=PT24&amp;lpg=PT24&amp;dq=Child+sacrifice+was+commanded+of+the+Israelites+by+Yahweh,+the+biblical+God.+In+Exodus+22:29%E2%80%9330+we+read:+You+shall+not+delay+to+offer+from+the+fulness+of+your+harvest+and+from+the+outflow+of+your+presses.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=sLy3zDZnAR&amp;sig=mBY54Hr8-H8cmCUJvNhsZOvGbs8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=vKDJU9ypC8ryoASYv4HABg&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA" target="_blank"><em>God or Godless?</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Child sacrifice was commanded of the Israelites by Yahweh, the biblical God. In Exodus 22:29-30 we read:</p>

<p>You shall not delay to offer from the fulness [sic] of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. (RSV)</p>

<p>The context of this passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires firstborn sons to be literally sacrificed to him. Later on we find Yahweh admitting he commanded this in Ezekiel 20:25-26, where he purportedly said:</p>

<p>Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD [Yahweh]. (RSV)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ll take those two passages one at a time, and then I’ll quote a passage that should definitively put an end to the idea that God required child sacrifice.</p>

<h2>“Every Firstborn of My Sons I Redeem”</h2>

<p>First, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+22%3A29-30&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Exodus 22:29-30</a>. In order to understand what is meant by “give to me”&nbsp;in reference to firstborn sons, we need to look earlier in the book of Exodus where God gives the specifics of how this is to be done, for Exodus 22:29-30 only addresses <em>when</em> the command is to be carried out; it doesn’t contain the instructions on <em>how</em> to do it (and contrary to Loftus, these verses <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+22&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">aren’t anywhere near</a> a section devoted to sacrifices). For the instructions, we need to go back to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+13%3A12-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Exodus 13:12-13</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“[Y]ou shall devote to the Lord the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the Lord. But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and <em>every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem</em>.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don’t know how that could be clearer (and it’s repeated again in Exodus 34:20: “You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons”). They are to sacrifice the animals, but redeem the sons. It helps to understand <em>why</em> God commanded this, which is explained in the verses immediately following, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+13%3A14-15&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Exodus 13:14-15</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ’What is this?’&nbsp;then you shall say to him, ’With a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These verses tie the firstborn-son command to God’s rescue of the Israelites in the Exodus. God was merciful to the firstborn of the Israelites by not destroying them along with the firstborn of the Egyptians, and as a result, now they all belong to Him. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+13%3A1-2&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Exodus 13:1-2</a>, the introduction to this chapter, explains:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And just as God redeemed His sons from the death of the firstborn, so the Israelites are to redeem their sons. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Chapter 13</a> sets all of this up immediately after the Israelites begin the Exodus. Child sacrifice fits neither with the specifics of these instructions, nor with the practice’s overall purpose of serving as a continual visual reminder of God’s redemption of the firstborn in the Exodus. If the Israelites had killed their firstborn, they would have been identifying their sons with the Egyptian firstborn who were killed under God’s judgment. That would obviously go against God’s stated purpose for commanding this in the first place.</p>

<h2>God Gave Them Over to Statutes of Death</h2>

<p>Now let’s look at the Ezekiel verses. They come at the end of a passage of judgment by God against Judah that recounts their rebellion even as far back as the 40 years in the wilderness. Here are excerpts to give verses 20:25-26 more <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+20%3A1-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">context</a>, in the more literal NASB:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord...</p>

<p>Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first thing to note here is that God says <em>they defile themselves when they burn their children</em>. God is against it and “pronounced them unclean”&nbsp;because of it. We also see that God first gave them statutes “by which, if a man observes them, he will live.”&nbsp;This is what God wanted for them—life. But they rejected those statutes, returning to idols; and attached to those idols were statutes of death, by which they defiled themselves. They would not have statutes of life? Then, God says, here are your idols’&nbsp;statues of death. God gave them over to these statutes of death so He could judge them for their evil through their own actions, showing that He is Lord and judgment awaits those who reject His life-giving commands. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1%3A18-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 1:18-29</a> gives some insight into this idea:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness... Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures...</p>

<p>And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, <em>God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper</em>, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The “giving over”&nbsp;of cultures to do evil is part of God’s judgment. Just as God did not command the people of Romans 1 to murder, so He did not command the Israelites to burn their children in the fire. But He gave both over to the evil they desired so that “they might know that He is the Lord”&nbsp;through His judgment of that evil. Since His judgment proves He is against that evil, ironically, the Ezekiel passage is merely more evidence of God’s hatred of child sacrifice.</p>

<h2>An “Abominable Act Which the Lord Hates”</h2>

<p>Now we come to the nail in the coffin of the claim that “<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=72jcOJmyRHgC&amp;pg=PT24&amp;lpg=PT24&amp;dq=Child+sacrifice+was+commanded+of+the+Israelites+by+Yahweh,+the+biblical+God.+In+Exodus+22:29%E2%80%9330+we+read:+You+shall+not+delay+to+offer+from+the+fulness+of+your+harvest+and+from+the+outflow+of+your+presses.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=sLy3zDZnAR&amp;sig=mBY54Hr8-H8cmCUJvNhsZOvGbs8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=vKDJU9ypC8ryoASYv4HABg&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">the biblical God required child sacrifices for His pleasure</a>”—Deuteronomy <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+12%3A29-32&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">12:29-32</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ’How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’&nbsp;<em>You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God</em>, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”</p>

<p>“Whatever I command you [specifically, in this context, in how to properly worship God], you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it [i.e., by following the examples of the other nations’&nbsp;worship practices].”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This passage is the definitive response to those who claim God required the Israelites to engage in child sacrifice, because it closes a possible loophole: Some atheists argue that the only problem God had with the Israelites sacrificing their children was that they burned them to <em>other</em> gods; but here, the command specifically says they “shall not behave thus <em>toward the Lord</em>.”&nbsp;They’re not to serve their God the way the nations serve <em>their</em> gods, particularly not in this way. Why? Because, the text says, burning sons and daughters in the fire is an “abominable act which the Lord hates”—not merely when it’s done for other gods, but when it’s done <em>toward the Lord</em>. When the text says, “Every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods,”&nbsp;it’s the <em>acts themselves</em> that are specifically being condemned.</p>

<p>In other words, the Israelites are not to learn how to worship Yahweh by watching how other nations worship their gods because the nations worship their gods with <em>abominable acts the Lord hates</em>. Further, by saying, “For they <em>even</em> burn their sons and daughters,”&nbsp;the act of ritual child sacrifice is cited here as being the <em>ultimate</em> example of an abominable act.</p>

<p>Loftus <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=72jcOJmyRHgC&amp;pg=PT24&amp;lpg=PT24&amp;dq=Child+sacrifice+was+commanded+of+the+Israelites+by+Yahweh,+the+biblical+God.+In+Exodus+22:29%E2%80%9330+we+read:+You+shall+not+delay+to+offer+from+the+fulness+of+your+harvest+and+from+the+outflow+of+your+presses.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=sLy3zDZnAR&amp;sig=mBY54Hr8-H8cmCUJvNhsZOvGbs8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=vKDJU9ypC8ryoASYv4HABg&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">claims</a> Ezekiel, in the sixth-century passage cited above (nearly a thousand years after Moses), tried to rationalize the Torah’s command to sacrifice the firstborn because “in his time [he] had come to realize that child sacrifice was repugnant.”&nbsp;But we don’t need to wait for the sixth century. We don’t even need to go beyond Moses and the Torah. Before the Israelites even entered the Promised Land, they were vehemently warned against sacrificing their sons and daughters to Yahweh.</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-didn-t-command-child-sacrifice" 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-didn-t-command-child-sacrifice" 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-didn-t-command-child-sacrifice" 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: Witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses - Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/11/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/witnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>(Notes for the video “<a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD055" target="_blank">Witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses</a>”&nbsp;- available in our store - are below. See <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/witnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-%E2%80%93-part-2#.VfRDkp1Viko" target="_blank">Part 2</a>.)</p>

<p>Over the next two days I’d like to spell out the verses that I think are the most compelling to use with a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) to argue from Scripture that Jesus is God. In addition, I want you to take these notes, print them off, and slip them into your Bible or place them by your door so that you don’t have to worry about remembering every word. It’s my hope this will be a practical resource that will help you make a lasting impact when witnessing to JWs.</p>

<p>I want to start with a word of advice. Don’t get sidetracked with all the other issues that JWs may want to talk about like soul sleep, or heaven, or the Holy Spirit. These are all important issues, but they are not the <em>most</em> important issue. Make the goal of your conversation about answering one question: <em>Who is Jesus?</em> How you answer this question changes everything. All other questions - although interesting - simply pale in comparison. Christianity stands or falls on its view of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses are very clear that Jesus is <em>not</em> God. He is actually the created archangel Michael. On the other hand, Christians hold that Jesus is the God-man. Fully human, but also fully God. So how can we show them that Jesus is God?</p>

<p>POINT #1: THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT JESUS IS JEHOVAH</p>

<p>If it could be demonstrated that Jesus is identified as Jehovah, then the JWs’&nbsp;worldview comes crashing down. So the question becomes, <em>is Jesus ever referred to as Jehovah?</em> The simple answer to this question is yes! You may be thinking, “What’s so special about Jesus being identified as Jehovah?”&nbsp;Well, this requires a little background knowledge. The proper name for God in the Hebrew Bible is transliterated YHWH. This name is called the tetragrammaton­ (which means “four letters”). The most widely used pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is <em>Yahweh</em>, though some English Bible translations use the term <em>Jehovah</em>.</p>

<p><strong>(A) Demonstrating That Jesus Is Jehovah from Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12</strong></p>

<p>With these preliminary comments out of the way, let’s dive into the argument, which involves two rather straightforward passages of Scripture.</p>

<p>Ask your visitors to take out their New World Translation (NWT) and have them flip to Psalm 102:25-27. You will find it says, “[25] Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. [26] They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. [27] But you are the same, and your years will never end.”</p>

<p>Now ask them, who is this passage about? Make sure you get a straight answer. If they know their Bible they will be excited to say, “Jehovah!”&nbsp;Some less biblically literate JWs will need a lifeline. In this case, I would encourage you to read the context together.</p>

<p>In fact, the first verse of Psalm 102 (NWT) declares, “[1] O Jehovah, hear my prayer; Let my cry for help reach you...[12] But you remain forever, O Jehovah, And your fame will endure for all generations...[21] So that the name of Jehovah will be declared in Zion And his praise in Jerusalem, [22] When the peoples and kingdoms Gather together to serve Jehovah.”</p>

<p>There can be no doubt that the psalmist is describing Jehovah. Therefore, we have established that our first text is describing the eternal, changeless (immutable), creator Jehovah. This is <em>not</em> describing a finite, created being.</p>

<p>Once you have agreed upon this point, it’s time to flip over to the New Testament. Now kindly ask your guests to turn in their NWT to Hebrews 1:10-12. It is very important that you take your time and establish the context of these verses. I usually start a few verses back to get the context.</p>

<table class="table" style="margin-bottom: 1rem;">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th scope="col">Hebrews 1:6-8 NWT</th>
			<th scope="col">Hebrews 1:6-8 ESV</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>
			<p>[6] But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do <em>obeisance</em> to him.”&nbsp;[7] Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”&nbsp;[8] <em>But about the Son, he says:</em>&nbsp;“<em>God is your throne</em> forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.”</p>
			</td>
			<td>
			<p>[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels <em>worship</em> (<em>proskuneo</em>) him.”&nbsp;[7] Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”&nbsp;[8] <em>But of the Son he says,</em>&nbsp;“<em>Your throne, O God,</em> is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

<p>Clearly, these verses are speaking about the Son - Jesus Christ. At this point I would also suggest passing over the dangling carrot in verse 8. God says to the Son, “Your throne, O God.”&nbsp;That’s right folks, God calls Jesus God (<em>ho theos</em>, in Greek). So putting aside the second part of verse 8, you need to emphasize the beginning of verse 8, “But of the Son he says.”&nbsp;And still talking about the Son, the author of Hebrews writes:</p>

<p>[10] And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. [11] They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, [12] and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”</p>

<p>Did you catch that? Where have we heard these words before? This is a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. Remember that our new JW friend has already agreed that Psalm 102:25-27 is a description of the eternal, changeless, creator Jehovah. Yet, the author of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly attributes this same identification to the Son. Therefore, Jesus is being identified as Jehovah. So, is Psalm 102:25-27 about Jesus, or is it about Jehovah? The answer is, yes! Why? Because Jesus <em>is</em> Jehovah.</p>

<p><strong>(B) Demonstrating That Jesus Is Jehovah from John 12:41 and Isaiah 6:1</strong></p>

<p>Now we’re going to start in the New Testament and move to the Old Testament. Start by asking your JW friends to open their Bible to John 12:41. You will need to read the surrounding verses to lay down the context. Here Jesus is at the end of his public ministry and is about to start his private ministry to his disciples. And although Jesus had performed many signs, some would not put their faith in him. John tells us why:</p>

<p>[37] Although <em>he</em> had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in <em>him</em>...[39] The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: [40] “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.”&nbsp;[41] Isaiah said these things because he saw <em>his</em> glory, and he spoke about <em>him</em>. [42] All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in <em>him</em>, but they would not acknowledge <em>him</em> because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; [43] for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God.</p>

<p>At this point, we need to ask a question: who is the “him”&nbsp;in verse 41? From the context, it is clearly Jesus who is being referred to. Verse 42 continues the thought, “All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in <em>him</em>, but they would not acknowledge <em>him</em>...”</p>

<p>The next question that needs to be asked is, when did Isaiah see his (Jesus’) glory?</p>

<p>Well, verse 40 gives us a quotation from Isaiah 6. This is the prophet Isaiah’s vision of Jehovah sitting on his throne. The NWT will even have the reference to Isaiah 6 in the side margin. So that’s exactly where you need to turn next.</p>

<p>Isaiah 6:1-3 says:</p>

<p>[1] In the year that King Uzziah died, <em>I saw Jehovah</em> sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple. [2] Seraphs were standing above him; each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two. And one called to the other: “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies. The whole earth is filled with his glory.”</p>

<p>So if you were to ask Isaiah, who did you see sitting on the throne? His answer would be Jehovah. But if you were to ask John, who did Isaiah see sitting on the throne?&nbsp;His answer would be Jesus.</p>

<p>They may insist that Isaiah doesn’t explicitly say he saw his glory. Fair enough. But this argument is even stronger than it appears. The New Testament authors, including John, would almost always quote from the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 6:1 reads:&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass in the year in which king Uzziah died, [that] I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne, and <em>the house was full of his glory.</em></em></p>

<p><strong>(C) The New Testament Authors Applied the Greek Term for Jehovah to Jesus</strong></p>

<p>Consider the dilemma faced by the New Testament writers. They needed to communicate two distinct truths. First, Jesus is God. Second, Jesus is <em>not</em> God the Father. The problem is, <em>theos</em> (the Greek translation of Elohim) was already used as a designation of God the Father. Do you see how this could be an issue?</p>

<p>Instead of applying the word <em>theos</em> to Jesus, which they did on occasion (See Jn. 1:1, 20:28; 2 Pt. 1:1; Rm. 9:5; Titus 2:13), they used the word <em>kurios,</em> the Greek translation of Jehovah.</p>

<p>Romans 10:9,13 says, “[9] because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [<em>kurios</em>] and believe in your heart that God [<em>theos</em>] raised him from the dead, you will be saved...[13] For ’everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [<em>kurios</em>] will be saved.’”</p>

<p>Paul takes Joel 2:32 (“everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved”) and applies it to Jesus (“if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [<em>kurios</em>]... you will be saved”).</p>

<p>Paul does this again in his letter to the Philippians. Philippians 2:9-11 says, “Therefore God [<em>theos</em>] has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, [10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [<em>kurios</em>], to the glory of God [<em>theos</em>] the Father.”</p>

<p>This is a quote from Isaiah 45:23 where Jehovah declares, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.”&nbsp;There can be no mistake that Paul is intentionally applying the name of Jehovah from the Old Testament to Jesus. Here we have very clear examples from Scripture where Jesus is described as Jehovah.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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: Witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses - Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/12/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/witnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>(Notes for the video “<a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD055" target="_blank">Witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses</a>”&nbsp;- available in our store - are below. See <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/witnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-%E2%80%93-part-1#.VfRDxJ1Viko" target="_blank">Part 1</a>.)</p>

<p>POINT #2: JESUS IS <em>DIRECTLY</em> IDENTIFIED AS GOD</p>

<p>One of the challenges that have been raised is that Jesus <em>never</em> came right out and said, “I AM GOD.”&nbsp;However, this simply is false. In fact, Jesus did make direct (or explicit) claims to be God. Let’s look at two of them together.</p>

<p><strong>(A) Jesus’&nbsp;Direct Claim for His Deity - John 8:56-58</strong></p>

<p>John 8:56-59 says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”&nbsp;[57] So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”&nbsp;[58] Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”&nbsp;[59] So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice that Jesus makes a grammatically poor statement. He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”&nbsp;Technically, he switched the tense in mid-sentence. He should have said, “Before Abraham was, I was.”&nbsp;However, Jesus is trying to communicate two important points. First, Jesus was telling the Jews that he existed <em>before</em> Abraham. Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, didn’t start existing at the virgin birth. Second, by saying “I AM,”&nbsp;Jesus claimed to be the name that God gave to Moses at the burning bush.</p>

<p>Exodus 3:14 says, “God said to Moses, ’I am who I am.’&nbsp;And he said, ’Say this to the people of Israel, “I am has sent me to you.”’”</p>

<p>When Jesus takes the name I AM, he is calling himself the eternal, self-existent One, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It would have been obvious to any first-century Jew that Jesus was <em>explicitly</em> claiming to be God, because every Jew in the first century would have known Exodus 3:14.</p>

<p><strong>(B) Jesus’&nbsp;Direct Claim for His Deity - Mark 14:62-64</strong></p>

<p>Next, let’s look at Mark 14:61-64. It says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[61] Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”&nbsp;[62] And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”&nbsp;[63] And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? [64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?”&nbsp;And they all condemned him as deserving death.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus knew his hour had come, so he provided a direct answer to the high priest’s question. He replied, “I am.”&nbsp;This has a <em>double meaning</em>. He is saying, “I am the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Blessed (the Son of God)”&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;“I am the I AM.”</p>

<p>If he had stopped there, they would have crucified him. But he doesn’t stop there. Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”&nbsp;Caiaphas knew what this meant. This was a reference to the vision Daniel had of the end times. By using the title “the Son of Man,”&nbsp;Jesus was pointing to a <em>divine-human</em> figure prophesied in Daniel.</p>

<p>Daniel 7:13-14 says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice verse 64 of Mark 14: “<em>You have heard his blasphemy</em>.”&nbsp;But what exactly did they hear? Notice they didn’t hear him use the words “I am God.”&nbsp;However, what they heard was <em>equally</em> obvious that he was claiming to be God.</p>

<p>POINT #3: JESUS IS <em>INDIRECTLY</em> IDENTIFIED AS GOD</p>

<p><strong>(A) Jesus’&nbsp;Indirect Claims for His Deity</strong> - <strong>ATTRIBUTES</strong> (He has the characteristics of God)</p>

<p>Jesus in the New Testament is described by the <em>same</em> attributes as the God of the Old Testament.</p>

<table class="table" style="margin-bottom: 1rem">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th scope="col">GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</th>
			<th scope="col">CLAIM</th>
			<th scope="col">JESUS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)</td>
			<td>SHEPHERD</td>
			<td>I am the good shepherd. (John 10:11)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalm 75:7)</td>
			<td>JUDGE</td>
			<td>And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:31-33)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)</td>
			<td>FIRST AND LAST</td>
			<td>I am the first and the last. (Revelation 1:17)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>The LORD is my light. (Psalm 27:1)</td>
			<td>LIGHT</td>
			<td>I am the light of the world. (John 8:12)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11)</td>
			<td>SAVIOR</td>
			<td>This is indeed the Savior of the world. (John 4:42)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. (Isaiah 42:8)</td>
			<td>GOD'S GLORY</td>
			<td>Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:5)</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

<p><strong>(B) Jesus’&nbsp;Indirect Claims for His Deity</strong> - <strong>ACTIVITIES</strong> (He acts as if he is God)</p>

<table class="table" style="margin-bottom: 1rem;">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th scope="col">ACTION</th>
			<th scope="col">SCRIPTURE REFERENCE</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>Forgave Sins</td>
			<td>Jesus said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven!” In response, the scribes said, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-11)</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Gave Commandments</td>
			<td>Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another” (John 13:34). Furthermore, Jesus was fond of saying, “You have heard it said... but I say to you...” (Matthew 5).</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Requested Prayer in His Name</td>
			<td>He said, “Whatever you ask <em>in my name</em>, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:13-14). If Jesus is not God, then this would be the strangest thing.</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

<p><strong>(C) Jesus’&nbsp;Indirect Claims for His Deity</strong> - <strong>ADORATION</strong> (He is worshiped as God)</p>

<p>On multiple occasions, Jesus also receives adoration (or worship) as if he is God. For instance, the magi worship him (Matthew 2:11), his disciples worship him after he calms the storm (Matthew 14:33), the blind man worships him after he heals him (John 9:38), and the women at the tomb worship him after his resurrection (Matthew 28:9).</p>

<p>All of these people worshiped Jesus without him giving one word of rebuke. This only makes sense if Jesus thought he was God. In fact, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, he said, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve”&nbsp;(Matthew 4:10). Yet he received worship!</p>

<p><strong>(D) Jesus’&nbsp;Indirect Claims for His Deity</strong> - <strong>ADDRESS</strong> (He is referred to as God by others)</p>

<p>Jesus is repeatedly addressed as God in the New Testament. Paul says, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, <em>who is God</em> over all, blessed forever”&nbsp;(Romans 9:5).</p>

<p>Peter says, “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness <em>of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”</em>&nbsp;(2 Peter 1:1). See also Titus 2:13. When we look at the New World Translation, we find that its authors make a very deceitful change to the text. In fact, they know it’s deceitful. Let me show you.</p>

<p>2 Peter 1:1 in the NWT says, “Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and <em>the</em> Savior Jesus Christ.”&nbsp;In this verse, it sounds like there are <em>two</em> people being referred to: <em>our</em> God and <em>the</em> Savior Jesus Christ. But jump down to verse 11. Second Peter 1:11 says, “In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom <em>of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”</em>&nbsp;Now how many people are being referred to? Just one.</p>

<p>But if you understand the original Greek text, you will see that these phrases are almost identical, with the word “God”&nbsp;being exchanged for the word “Lord.”&nbsp;Yet in the first, they make it about two, not one. They add a definite article “the”&nbsp;in front of the word “Savior.”&nbsp;There is actually a rule in Greek that guarantees that this kind of construction is about one person, not two. It is called the <em>Granville Sharp Rule</em>.</p>

<p>John says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word <em>was God”</em>&nbsp;(John 1:1). But the NWT says, “the Word was <em>a god [theos]</em>.”&nbsp;They will tell you that there is no definite article [ho theos], thus it must be translated <em>a god</em>. However, if you skip down to John 1:6 in the NWT you will see that they don’t follow their own rule. It reads, “There was a man sent from God [theos], whose name was John.”&nbsp;Here there is no definite article either. But they don’t translate it <em>a god.</em></p>

<p>Thomas affirmed that Jesus is God in an amazing affirmation (John 20:27-29). John writes, “Then he said to Thomas, ’Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.’&nbsp;Thomas answered him, ’<em>My Lord and my God</em>!’&nbsp;Jesus said to him, ’Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’”</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses will say that Thomas was talking to <em>two people</em>. He turned to Jesus and said “my Lord”&nbsp;and then turned to the heavens and said “my God.”&nbsp;However, the text actually says, “Thomas answered <em>him</em>, ’My Lord and my God!’”&nbsp;In addition, this is almost the identical construction of Psalm 35:23. And David is referring to one person, Jehovah!</p>

<p><strong>(E) Jesus’&nbsp;Indirect Claims for His Deity</strong> - <strong>ASSOCIATION</strong> (He is equally associated with God)</p>

<p><em>John 10:27-30</em> - Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. [28] I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of <em>my hand</em>. [29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of <em>the Father’s hand</em>. [30] <strong>I and the Father are one.”</strong></p>

<p>Jesus is not saying that the Son and the Father are <em>one person</em>. They are distinct persons. Jesus is saying that the Son and the Father are <em>one nature</em>. Both have the divine nature!</p>

<p>POINT #4: COMMON OBJECTIONS TO JESUS'&nbsp;DEITY</p>

<p><strong>(A) <em>Objection #1:</em> Jesus Denied Being God in Mark 10:17-18</strong></p>

<p><em>Mark 10:17-18</em> - “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ’Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’&nbsp;[18] And Jesus said to him, ’Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’”</p>

<p>Of course, there is a world of difference between denying that He is God and merely <em>asking a question</em>. Jesus is not denying his deity. In fact, Jesus seems to be asking if this person realizes the implications of what he is saying. What he is asking is, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call me good? Are you saying that I am God?”&nbsp;As we have already seen above, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd.</p>

<p><strong>(B) <em>Objection #2:</em> God the Father Is Greater than Jesus in John 14:28</strong></p>

<p><em>John 14:28</em> - Jesus said, “You heard me say to you, ’I am going away, and I will come to you.’&nbsp;If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”</p>

<p>Here Jesus is saying that he is <em>subordinate</em> to the Father. He is not referring to the divine nature. He is only talking about position (or office).</p>

<p>To answer this objection fully, one must have a proper understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is not that three <em>gods</em> are one <em>god</em>, or that three <em>beings</em> are one <em>being</em>. That would entail a contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity is that one <em>God</em> is three distinct <em>persons</em>. You can think of one <em>triangle</em> having three distinct <em>corners</em>. The three persons share one divine nature.</p>

<p><strong>(C) <em>Objection #3:</em> Jesus Did Not Know Some Things in Mark 13:32</strong></p>

<p><em>Mark 13:32</em> - Jesus said, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”</p>

<p>This sounds like Jesus is not omniscient. But we know God is omniscient. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. This is a classic argument used by Muslims and JWs.</p>

<p>But the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus does not entail a logical contradiction either. Orthodox Christianity holds that when the second person of the Trinity became incarnate, He added a human nature (he didn’t <em>subtract</em> anything from His divine nature). Therefore, we are correct in saying that Jesus is <em>fully</em> (or truly) God in His divine nature and <em>fully</em> (or truly) human in His human nature.</p>

<p>When skeptics ask a similar question, “Was Jesus tempted?”&nbsp;they think they have trapped the Christian since the Bible says that Jesus was tempted and that God cannot be tempted. However, the informed Christian can easily respond by breaking the question into two different questions. First, can Jesus be tempted <em>in His divine nature</em>? No! Second, can Jesus be tempted <em>in His human nature</em>? Yes, he was tempted, but he didn’t succumb to temptation.</p>

<p>At this point it should be <em>clear</em> that Jesus (and his followers) thought he was God. And there are no good reasons from Scripture to think that he’s <em>not</em> God.</p>

<p>Why does it matter that Jesus is God? Well, Jesus’&nbsp;substitutionary atonement was accepted for one reason: God accepts only His own righteousness. The righteousness of a man or an angel is <em>insufficient</em> to hold up to the holy and perfect standard of God’s righteous law. Nothing outside of an act of God can save mankind from spiritual bondage and death. Jesus (the God-man) was the only suitable sacrifice because He was the righteousness of God. That is why it matters.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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%2Fwitnessing-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-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: Update on Kim Davis’s Requested Accommodation
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/update-on-kim-davis-s-requested-accommodation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It looks like the request described in <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/09/the-law-doesnt-say-you-must-quit-your-job.html" target="_blank">Eugene Volokh’s legal analysis</a> and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/09/kim-daviss-request-an-important-clarification.html" target="_blank">Ryan Anderson’s article</a> has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-from-jail-plus-more-on-her-requested-accommodation/" target="_blank">enacted</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Footnote: ...Plaintiffs’&nbsp;marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County”&nbsp;rather than “Kim Davis”&nbsp;appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.] The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in <em>Obergefell</em> and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Kim Davis’s name has been replaced with “Rowan County,”&nbsp;so clearly this was a reasonable step that was easily taken without burdening the state. But now Volokh has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-from-jail-plus-more-on-her-requested-accommodation/" target="_blank">clarified</a> that Davis is asking for these two things in particular:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>the licenses would be issued, as a matter of Kentucky law, under the authority of someone other than Davis or the County Clerk, for instance the County Judge Executive or a deputy clerk who was willing to put his name on them, and</li>
	<li>the licenses reflected that accommodation, by including the name and office of the authorizing person (again, the Judge Executive or deputy clerk or whoever else) instead of Davis’s name and office.</li>
</ol>

<p>Davis’s objection to the federal judge’s order—and the licenses and certificates issued pursuant to that order—is that the licenses and certificates are still being issued (in her view) under her ostensible authority, even though Davis has not authorized them.</p>

<p>This accommodation is somewhat broader than the one I originally discussed in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/" target="_blank">my post Friday</a> (which was just removing her name from the licenses and certificates, and possibly replacing it with “Rowan County Clerk”). She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,”&nbsp;and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority. It’s possible that these demands go a bit too far for the Kentucky RFRA (as I noted in my post, the more burdensome a requested accommodation is, the less likely it is that a court will grant it), though it’s hard to tell, given that RFRAs are written in general terms, and a lot of the line-drawing questions are left for judges to make on a case-by-case basis. Still, the accommodation doesn’t seem tremendously burdensome, or that different from what’s already being done under the judge’s order, so it’s possible that this is what will happen.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This changes the reasonableness of the request somewhat, though Volokh still thinks it doesn’t seem burdensome.</p>

<p>I want to reiterate what I said in an earlier post: Even if Davis has a legal case under Kentucky’s RFRA, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s wise to pursue it rather than resign (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience#.W6cS3RNKijQ" target="_blank">here</a> for more on this), and it certainly doesn’t mean turning this into a political spectacle is a good idea. Because the future of religious freedom in this country matters, my goal over the last week has merely been to clarify some key points about this situation that many people seem to be missing:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Employee requests for religious accommodations are not outrageous; they are available and are granted, even to public officials.</li>
	<li>The laws of many states (including Kentucky) have conscience protections. State RFRAs vary, but <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/how-rfra-works.html" target="_blank">in general</a>, if someone’s sincere beliefs are being burdened, exemptions can be granted if there’s a reasonable alternative that doesn’t harm the government’s “compelling interest.”</li>
	<li>Even if you strongly disagree with Kim Davis’s concern, her requested exemption may indeed meet the requirements of Kentucky’s RFRA.</li>
	<li>You don’t need to agree with Kim Davis’s concern in order to support her receiving an accommodation; RFRAs are there to protect people with whom the majority disagrees. In keeping with the values of our country, we ought to support reasonable accommodations for people’s consciences whenever possible, even if we personally find their <em>concern</em> unreasonable.</li>
	<li>You don’t need to disagree with Kim Davis receiving an accommodation in order to think she’s not handling this situation the way she should.</li>
	<li>Ultimately, Davis’s goal is not to prevent anyone from getting married; it’s only to remove herself from being the authority authorizing those marriages. (This means her goal is <em>not</em> to impose her views on people trying to obtain licenses, though that was the unintended consequence while no licenses were being issued.) The question of whether or not her requested accommodation would cause material harm to a “compelling government interest”&nbsp;(the requirement for denying an accommodation) remains to be seen. It will need to be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/" target="_blank">weighed by a judge</a>. There’s no reason to oppose it if it meets Kentucky’s RFRA standard.</li>
</ol>

<p>Widespread understanding of these points would ease tensions both now and in the future.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fupdate-on-kim-davis-s-requested-accommodation" 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%2Fupdate-on-kim-davis-s-requested-accommodation" 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%2Fupdate-on-kim-davis-s-requested-accommodation" 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: Building a Protein by Chance
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/16/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The origin of life is a mystery that has plagued origin of life researchers trying to find a naturalistic explanation. Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, said, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”</p>

<p>These are very telling words from an atheist. Of course, when Crick speaks of the beginning of life from non-life as almost a miracle, he is speaking of the incomprehensible improbability of getting the first life by chance.</p>

<p>What exactly are some of these conditions that had to be satisfied? Allow me to demonstrate. But to do this, you need to understand a little bit of biology.</p>

<p>All living things are made of cells. The simplest forms of life have only a single cell, while human beings have over one hundred trillion cells. Next, all cells are made of proteins. Proteins perform specific functions in each of our cells. Some act like tiny machines, while others act as structural components. Finally, each protein is made of a chain of amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. They join together into long chains that eventually fold into the functional protein.</p>

<p>Scientists believe the simplest form of life has a minimum of 250 to 400 proteins, and each protein is made of (on average) 300 to 400 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids that make up all of life.</p>

<p>What I would like to do is calculate the probability of building one <em>functional</em> <em>protein</em> with only 150 amino acids by chance alone. But right out of the gate we encounter our first problem. It turns out that amino acids come in two forms: left-handed and right-handed. However, all of life is composed of <em>left-handed</em> amino acids. If one right-handed amino finds its way into your amino acid chain, then our protein is ruined. This is a well-known problem in biology called the <em>chirality problem</em>.</p>

<p>You might be thinking, what’s the probability of getting 150 left-handed amino acids in a row? Given that the odds of getting a left-handed amino acid are 50%, the probability of getting 150 left-handed amino acids is (½)<sup>150</sup> or 1 chance in 10<sup>45</sup>. This is the same probability of flipping a coin 150 times in a row and getting heads every time.</p>

<p>There’s another problem. Imagine you get all 150 left-handed amino acids in one place. You still need to bond them together with peptide bonds. However, not all bonds are peptide bonds. In fact, molecular bonds are grouped into two categories: peptide and non-peptide. The odds of getting a peptide bond are also 50%. Therefore, the probability of getting 149 peptide bonds between adjacent left-handed amino acids is (½)<sup>149</sup>, or again 1 chance in 10<sup>45</sup>. This is the same probability of flipping a coin 149 times in a row and getting heads every time. We could call this the <em>bonding problem</em>.</p>

<p>But wait, there’s more. The final problem is even more daunting than either the chirality problem or the bonding problem. It’s called the <em>sequence problem</em>. Amino acids are like a 20-character chemical alphabet. Each amino acid must be in a <em>specific order</em>, or we don’t get an amino acid sequence that folds into a functional protein. So, the specific order of the individual amino acids matters. Information scientists refer to this as specified complexity, or specified information.</p>

<p>At each site you have 20 different amino acids to choose from. When you do the math, there are 10<sup>195</sup>&nbsp;<em>total</em> possible ways one can construct a protein composed of 150 amino acids. The question is, how many of those arrangements are actually functional? Doug Axe at Cambridge University has determined that the probability of getting a <em>functional protein </em>from all of the total possible proteins is 1 in 10<sup>74</sup>.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. Using the letters G, O, and D, you can create 27 possible three-letter words. However, only four make an actual meaningful sequence (i.e. DOG, GOD, GOO, ODD). That means if you put these letters in a bag and drew three at random, the odds of picking an <em>actual</em> three-letter word out of all the possible three-letter words are approximately 1 in 7.</p>

<p>Taking these three problems together, we can calculate the probability of building our very modest functional protein to be 1 in 10<sup>164</sup>. Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins.</p>

<p>Here is an analogy to help you appreciate this incomprehensible improbability. Imagine I put all the elementary particles in the universe in a jar—that is, every proton, neutron, and electron goes into a universe-sized jar. Next, I mark them all blue except for one green particle. Finally, I blindfold you, put a gun to your head, and ask you to pick out the green particle, or I pull the trigger.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The odds of picking the green particle while blindfolded are 1 in 10<sup>80</sup>. Of course, the odds of picking <em>any </em>particle are the same. However, it is vastly more probable that you would pick a blue, <em>life-prohibiting</em> particle than the one, green, <em>life-permitting</em> particle.</p>

<p>To make this analogy even more accurate, you would have to pick that green particle, <em>twice in a row</em>, blindfolded. If you indeed picked the green particle twice in a row, the rational person should conclude that you cheated. You peeked. You designed the outcome for your survival. Design is the best explanation. In the same way, the best explanation of the origin of the first protein and of life is a Designer.</p>

<p>Is it any wonder that the famous atheist, Antony Flew, upon learning about this information came to believe in God? In a letter in the August-September issue of Britain’s <em>Philosophy Now</em> magazine, Flew wrote, “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbuilding-a-protein-by-chance" 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%2Fbuilding-a-protein-by-chance" 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%2Fbuilding-a-protein-by-chance" 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: Reality Doesn’t Change Because Exodus Closed
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/reality-doesn-t-change-because-exodus-closed
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Can sexual orientation change? Many people say no. They believe homosexuals are born that way and, consequently, sexual attractions <em>can’t</em> change. In fact, someone at a recent event this month asked me whether the closing of Exodus International proves this very point.</p>

<p>Exodus was an umbrella network that connected many organizations that sought to help those with unwanted same-sex attraction. Alan Chambers, its President, closed the organization after 35+ years, citing a change in his views on the effectiveness of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).</p>

<p>That’s proof, I’m told, that SOCE don’t work. Chambers, after all, could not overcome his own same-sex attraction. He was also in the best position to witness the effectiveness of ministries involved in SOCE. Why would he close Exodus if he knew reorientation therapies were successful?</p>

<p>I don’t know Alan, nor am I criticizing him (in fact, I really like his name), but his closing Exodus doesn’t prove SOCE don’t work.</p>

<p>Even if it were true that Alan attempted to change his same-sex attraction and it didn’t work, that would only prove one thing: Alan didn’t experience any change. That’s all. It’s just his experience. It doesn’t prove that no one can change or that no one has ever changed.</p>

<p>Imagine the President of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) shuts down that organization, goes on Oprah Winfrey’s network, and confesses he’s still an alcoholic and hasn’t experienced any measurable change in his addictions. What would that prove? It wouldn’t prove that AA never helped anyone overcome their addiction. It wouldn’t prove that no one has ever overcome alcoholism, either on their own, through AA, or through another program. It wouldn’t prove that ex-alcoholics have faked their success stories.</p>

<p>In the same way, Alan Chambers’&nbsp;decision to close Exodus doesn’t—and can’t—change reality: There are thousands of men and women who have overcome homosexuality (and yes, even had their attractions change). This can be known through at least three lines of evidence: an ancient report of change in the Bible (from the city of Corinth), the testimonies of thousands and men and women who have experienced change, and secular scientific research that found sexual orientation/attractions can change.</p>

<p>I’m not saying that sexual orientation change is easy, usually successful, or that we should force people to change. What I am saying is that <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/12/got-same-sex-attraction-things-can-change.html" target="_blank">change is possible</a> and nothing that Alan Chambers or Exodus International does can change 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%2Freality-doesn-t-change-because-exodus-closed" 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%2Freality-doesn-t-change-because-exodus-closed" 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%2Freality-doesn-t-change-because-exodus-closed" 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 Line between Rule of Law and Civil Disobedience
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/04/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage, stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, was ordered by a federal judge to resume her duty, refused to comply, and now is in jail for contempt of court. (Take a moment to read <a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/81601-explainer-the-kentucky-clerk-marriage-license-controversy.html" target="_blank">Joe Carter’s explainer</a> on this story to catch up.)</p>

<p>I’m still working through what I think about this situation. It’s difficult because there are so many issues involved and goods to weigh, and I’m still trying to separate my feelings about the unfairness of singling out Kim Davis (as opposed to <a href="http://www.paulchitwood.com/2015/09/03/clerk-kim-davis-jailed-for-refusing-to-compromise-her-faith/" target="_blank">other officials</a> who <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/kim-davis-shows-that-breaking-the-law-is-only-okay-when-progressives-do-it/" target="_blank">refuse to do their job</a>) from the question of what Kim Davis should do. To help you think through this, there���s a symposium discussing these issues over at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20151108082007/http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/28116" target="_blank">Breakpoint</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[B]ecause Davis is a government employee, it’s a complicated situation with many angles. Christians are divided on Davis’&nbsp;actions, and the response by authorities. At issue are questions about the nature of religious liberty, the duty of Christians in government, and what godly civil disobedience looks like.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here are a few excerpts from the symposium:</p>

<p>From Andrew Walker (this one most closely mirrors where I stand as of now):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court is where ultimate blame rests involving Kim Davis. Court rulings that are truly rooted in justice should seamlessly integrate into a state’s laws. Rulings should not circumvent the democratic process, pre-empt state action, and leave civil society in a state of fractious tumult. Unfortunately, that’s what <em>Obergefell</em> did, and now we’re seeing its disastrous effects in state jurisdictions such as Kentucky. That, and needless escalation in terms of incarceration, coupled with government inaction has brought us to the situation we’re in.</p>

<p>We must recognize the crucial difference between the religious liberty claims of private citizens and government officials. While government employees don’t lose their constitutional protection <em>simply</em> because they work for the government, an individual whose office requires them to <em>uphold</em> or <em>execute</em> the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a <em>result</em> of the law. It means the balancing test is different when it comes to government officials because of their roles as agents of the state. Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the law. When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted, he or she could work for change as a private citizen, engaging the democratic process in hopes of changing the questionable law.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From Shane Morris:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]e <em>do and should</em> discriminate when it comes to right and wrong, and natural law, which supersede the power of government, contrary to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html" target="_blank">what Judge David Bunning says</a>. This is the very concept that inspired the American Revolution, and a Civil Rights activist generations later from a Birmingham jail cell: There is a Law above the law. And any manmade law in contradiction to it is “no law at all.”</p>

<p>A Christian woman is in jail for upholding the definition of marriage set in place at creation against one just invented by Anthony Kennedy. I don’t feel comfortable telling her she’s wrong, or that she should just do her job. She’s standing on the side of reality, of natural law, and God, against a depraved fantasy.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From Michael Brown:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hat cannot be debated is that the national outrage against Kim Davis has nothing to do with her refusing to obey the law and everything to do with her Christian beliefs. Had she found herself on the opposite end of the conflict and had she stood for “gay rights,”&nbsp;refusing to obey a law that she felt discriminated against them, she would be praised from coast to coast.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I encourage you to read everyone’s full comments over at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20151108082007/http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/28116" target="_blank">Breakpoint</a>. At the end of the post, there are links to several articles from different viewpoints that I’ve also found helpful, and there are plenty more out there. <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-not-issuing-gay-marriage-licenses-causes-uproar-north-carolina-shows-better-way/" target="_blank">Ryan Anderson</a> recommends a way forward where beliefs are accommodated and licenses are still obtained. <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/kim-davis-political-prisoner-martyr/" target="_blank">Rod Dreher</a> comes down hard on Davis and warns her actions will bring about serious consequences for religious liberty. <a href="http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/in-which-i-paint-with-some-bright-yellows.html" target="_blank">Douglas Wilson</a> takes the opposite position, saying Davis should not back down.</p>

<p>This is not a simple issue. Rule of law is what makes a good society possible, and the value we place on it should be great—it should never be compromised as part of a regular strategy for getting what we want. (I suspect the fact that we don’t believe the other side feels this way is fueling a lot of the support for Davis’s actions.) But there is also a time and place for civil disobedience, grounded in a Law higher than man’s, against an unjust law. Determining where the line should be drawn between them is not a simple task, and it deserves careful thought.</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-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience" 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-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience" 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-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience" 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: My Goal in Every Conversation with Mormons
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 09/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/my-goal-in-every-conversation-with-mormons
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week some Mormon missionaries showed up at my door. I was unavailable at that moment, so we set up an appointment for them to come back next week. I’m looking forward to the conversation, but I don’t anticipate much impact... in that single conversation. After years of dialoguing with Mormons, I’ve learned to take it slow. Indeed, ex-Mormons will tell you that a patient approach is the best one.</p>

<p>Think about the Mormons you know. Most of them probably grew up in the LDS Church. Their parents are Mormons. Their family members are Mormons. Most of their close friends are Mormon. The LDS church plays a preeminent role in their life, touching every area. With this in mind, is it realistic to expect Mormons to abandon their faith after one or two conversations? Probably not. That’s an unrealistic goal.</p>

<p>Because of our love for LDS friends and family members, our <em>final</em> vision for their lives is that they come to know the true Jesus. But that’s not the goal of every <em>individual</em> conversation.</p>

<p>Recently, a friend shared that some Mormon missionaries had come knocking and she invited them into her home for conversation. After a second follow-up visit, she decided to cut things off. “Look, you guys aren’t going to change your views and I’m not going to change mine. So it’s pointless to continue meeting.”&nbsp;After just two conversations, what did she expect? Is it reasonable to think these young men would abandon not only their Mormon views, but their entire Mormon community as a result of two conversations?</p>

<p>If the goal of every conversation is conversion, you’ll find yourself frustrated and ready to move on. So don’t try to “close the deal”&nbsp;in every conversation. Instead, here’s a more realistic goal: put a stone in their shoe. What’s your reaction when you get a stone in your shoe? It bothers you. You can’t stop thinking about it until you take the shoe off and deal with the annoyance. The ultimate goal is to see our LDS friends come to Christ, but the goal of any individual conversation is to put a stone in their shoe. Give them one good thing to think about. And this approach isn’t just for Mormons, rather it’s a good general strategy with any unbeliever you talk with.</p>

<p>Understand that this approach takes time. Ask yourself if you’re willing to be patient. It may take years walking with your LDS or skeptical friends before you see them come to Christ. For some ex-Mormons, it takes Christians leaving stone after stone, year after year, before they’re ready to walk away from Mormonism. Hopefully, your perseverance means you’ll still be around, ready to walk them into God’s Kingdom when the time comes.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmy-goal-in-every-conversation-with-mormons" 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%2Fmy-goal-in-every-conversation-with-mormons" 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%2Fmy-goal-in-every-conversation-with-mormons" 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 or Persecution?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/prosperity-or-persecution-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I love Jesus, but sometimes He said troubling things. For example, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in Heaven”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:32-33). Deny Christ and you can be denied entry into Heaven. That’s harsh.</p>

<p>Fortunately, most American Christians need not worry. We like this verse because our trials aren’t too bad. We might be mocked by our friends, laughed at in class, or even lose our jobs for our faith. That’s the worst it usually gets, though.</p>

<p>Arab Christians, however, often face more dire circumstances. I know, because I go to the Middle East to train Egyptian believers in theology and apologetics each year. I just returned from a ten-day trip to Beirut, Lebanon where I continued to train potential church leaders in Egypt.</p>

<p>During the five years I’ve been going to the Middle East, Egypt has endured violent demonstrations, revolutions, and has had five Presidents. These periods of political instability have provided opportunities to persecute Egypt’s Christian minority. Many believers have been killed, their churches bombed or burned, and their pastors assassinated.</p>

<p>That’s not all. The Islamic State (ISIS) kidnapped and beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in Libya this past February. Shortly after a gruesome video of the killing emerged, several Egyptians I’ve worked with over the years visited the families of those martyred. They live in Al-Our, a city 150 miles south of Cairo. Although my friends went to comfort and serve those families, they were surprised to find their own faith was strengthened as a result of the visit.</p>

<p>The martyred men lived in brick, mud, and stone houses. Their income was meager so they traveled to Libya to find odd jobs and send money back to their families. While heading back to Egypt, they were ambushed, kidnapped, and eventually killed. The widows of these martyred men told my Egyptian friends that their prayer, at first, was for the release of their husbands. Once they realized there was no chance, their prayer changed. They knew ISIS was going to kill them unless they renounced their faith in Christ. So they pleaded to God, “Please give my husband the courage to stand firm in his faith and not deny Christ!”&nbsp;God answered that prayer. Those 21 Christians proclaimed the name of their Savior, Jesus, until they could proclaim it no more.</p>

<p>The widows told my friends that if one of the husbands had returned home because he had denied Christ, they would have been ashamed of him. Now, however, they were <em>grateful</em> that their men remained faithful to the end. My Egyptian friends who were there to help were overwhelmed by such great faith.</p>

<p>American Christians rarely face trials such as these. Nevertheless, Scripture says we’ll all experience difficulty in one way or another. That’s why I’m mystified by Christians who believe God will protect them from danger or save them from a storm. I find the opposite message in Scripture. God doesn’t promise us prosperity, but persecution. “Indeed,”&nbsp;Paul writes, “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”&nbsp;(2 Tim. 3:12). It’s virtually guaranteed.</p>

<p>Sadly, many Christians have a false expectation: God will protect them from harm. When they face storms or trials, they’re dumbfounded. Scripture says, though, we shouldn’t be shocked by such difficulty. “Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you”&nbsp;(1 Pet. 4:12).</p>

<p>It’s not that God doesn’t care about us. He loves us. His promise, though, is not that we won’t face persecution, but that He will always be with us and never forsake us (Matt. 28:20). He uses trials to develop our faith. James tells us to “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance”&nbsp;(James 1:2-3).</p>

<p>Despite the fact that our bodies will die one day, death will not be our end. Because Jesus overcame death, so will we. That’s why 21 Egyptian Christians, who were undoubtedly scared, still placed their hope in Christ. They knew their captors could only kill their body, but not their soul (Matt. 10:28). That gave them the courage to stay faithful even with a blade at their neck.</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-or-persecution-" 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-or-persecution-" 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-or-persecution-" 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 Resurrection Is the Tiebreaker
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-resurrection-is-the-tiebreaker-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This past month, I had the privilege of spending a weekend training young adults at Lakeshore Pentecostal Camp. In our last session together, we looked at the historical evidence for Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection. I always begin this talk by asking the Christians in the room to reflect on a question: What would happen if the bones of Jesus were discovered tomorrow? Imagine archaeologists find an ossuary—bone box—with Jesus’&nbsp;name on it, and they are able to say conclusively that these are the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. In this hypothetical scenario, should you walk away from your Christian faith?</p>

<p>The apostle Paul, writing to the church in Corinth, gives us a definitive answer. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied&nbsp;(1 Cor. 15:12-19).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul’s argument is clear: If Jesus has not been raised, then seven disastrous consequences inescapably follow. If Christ has not been raised, (1) Christian preaching is in vain, (2) Christian faith is in vain, (3) Christians are false witnesses about God, (4) Christian faith is futile, (5) Christians are still in their sins, (6) Christians who have died are lost, and (7) those who hope in Christ are utterly pitiable since their hope ends with this life.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Paul puts it all on the line. Without Easter—the resurrection of Jesus—there is no Christianity. Thus, Paul reveals an explicit way to—at least in principle—falsify Christianity. If Jesus <em>did not</em> rise from the dead, Christianity is false and Jesus was actually a <em>liar</em>, more accurately described as a false prophet, or a <em>lunatic</em>, no different than the mental patient in the psych-ward who thinks he’s the messiah. Conversely, if Jesus <em>did</em> rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and this miraculous event confirms Jesus’&nbsp;radical claim to be <em>God</em>.</p>

<p>Christianity is like no other religion in that its central claim is <em>testable</em>. This cannot be said of any other religion. Most religions have some sort of internal experience that is taken to be a confirmation of its own veracity. We could call this an <em>internal test</em>.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Let me give you a few examples. If a sincere seeker reads the Book of Mormon and feels “the burning in the bosom,”&nbsp;this should be received as confirmation that God is revealing to them that Mormonism is true.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Likewise, if you read the Qur’an and get the overwhelming sense that it is the greatest book, containing the greatest suras, ever written, then you should take that subjective experience to mean that the Qur’an is from God and Islam is true.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The Christian also claims to have an inward experience of God. Paul, writing to the Church in Rome, says, “The Spirit Himself <em>testifies</em> with our spirit that we are God’s children”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:16). This same notion is echoed in the classic Easter hymn written by Alfred Ackley titled <em>I Serve a Risen Savior</em>. Within the chorus, we sing the beautiful words, “you ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.”&nbsp;This is certainly a precious truth that every Christian holds dear. However, that’s not the <em>only</em> reason we know He lives.</p>

<p>Notice that Mormonism, Islam, and Christianity cannot all be true. The law of non-contradiction does not leave that option available. So how are we to adjudicate between religious experiences?</p>

<p>Christianity provides a “tiebreaker,”&nbsp;what we can call an <em>external test</em>. That is to say, the external evidence surrounding the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and origin of the disciples’&nbsp;belief in the resurrection point powerfully to one conclusion: <em>Jesus rose from the dead</em>.</p>

<p>Christian faith does not rely solely on an individual’s internal, subjective experience. Christianity uniquely offers external, objective evidences that add to—and do not negate or take away from—the internal spiritual experience. So not only do I experience Christ living in my heart, but I also have been persuaded by the evidence to the conclusion that He lives. This tiebreaker should also force people of other religions to re-evaluate their internal experience.</p>

<p>Someone might be thinking that reason and evidence run counter to faith, so that the more evidence you have, the less faith you need. From this perspective, evidence is actually an assault on faith. Philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out that if this were true, then the best thing that could happen to Christianity would be for the bones of Jesus to be discovered. This way Christians could exercise more faith in believing in His resurrection.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>However, this concept of faith being blind is simply mistaken. Paul doesn’t encourage a faith that rejects evidence. On the contrary, he links the truth of Christianity to a singular historical event that can be tested by reason and evidence. Apologist and author Sean McDowell quips, “Biblical faith is not belief <em>in spite</em> of the evidence, but belief <em>in light</em> of the evidence.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection, far from undermining faith, actually <em>substantiates</em> it.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Douglas Groothuis, <em>Christian Apologetics</em> (Westmont, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2011), 529.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">This idea of an internal test versus an external test was taken from <em>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><em>Doctrines and Covenants</em>, Section 9, Verse 8. “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and <em>if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you</em>; therefore, you shall <em>feel</em> that it is right.”&nbsp;(Emphasis mine.)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">The Heifer (Al-Baqarah), Sura 2:23. “If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant, then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if you are truthful.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Greg Koukl, “<a href="http://www.str.org/articles/faith-and-facts#.VdIR3lNVhBc" target="_blank">Faith and Facts</a>.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, <em>Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists</em> (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2010), 21.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-resurrection-is-the-tiebreaker-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%2Fthe-resurrection-is-the-tiebreaker-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%2Fthe-resurrection-is-the-tiebreaker-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: Kim Davis’s Request: An Important Clarification
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/kim-davis-s-request-an-important-clarification
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On Saturday, I posted an <a href="/w/the-law-doesn-t-say-you-must-quit-your-job" target="_blank">explanation of Kim Davis’s legal situation</a> by Eugene Volokh, wherein he says Davis was asking for “a cheap accommodation that... a state could quite easily provide.”</p>

<p>This point is still being missed by many, so it’s worth another clarification. Ryan Anderson <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html" target="_blank">explains</a> at the New York Times:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Because each marriage license issued by the clerk’s office bore her name and title, Ms. Davis concluded that her religious beliefs meant she could not have her office issue licenses to same-sex couples. So she had the office stop issuing them entirely.</p>

<p>Ms. Davis felt she had to follow her conscience. And whether or not we share her Christian faith, and its particular positions about issuing civil marriage licenses, is beside the point.</p>

<p>That, after all, is what religious freedom and religious accommodations are all about: creating the space for citizens to fulfill their duties, as they understand them, to God—regardless of what the rest of us think. Of course, religious freedom and accommodations aren’t absolute. Federal anti-discrimination law requires a reasonable accommodation of religious belief where it does not place undue hardships on the employer. And Kentucky, like many other states, provides additional protection against unnecessary government burdens on religion.</p>

<p>So it was incumbent upon the government to try to work out a solution.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s the key point:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Ms. Davis wasn’t trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses at all; she just didn’t want her name or title on the paperwork. That’s why she wouldn’t allow her deputies to issue the licenses.</p>

<p>Kentucky accommodates conscience for other licenses. Why not marriage? Yet Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued a mandate telling all county clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples without exception. When asked to call a special session of the Legislature to try to work out a reasonable accommodation, he said it could wait until January.</p>

<p>That’s why Ms. Davis ended up in court. But it shouldn’t have gotten to the point where this county clerk was being hailed as either <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/outside-courthouse-kim-davis-is-seen-as-a-villain-and-a-hero.html?_r=0" target="_blank">a hero or a villain</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s worth reading <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html" target="_blank">Anderson’s op-ed</a> in full. Once again, Davis is not objecting to issuing marriage licenses, only to having her name on them. This means the proposed accommodation would not have inconvenienced people seeking to get marriage licenses—certainly less so than the actions (or rather, inaction) of <a href="https://dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me/" target="_blank">this Dallas County judge</a> who refused to perform any marriages back in 2012:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them.</p>

<p>“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,”&nbsp;Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ’I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’&nbsp;And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Accommodations like this one can be, and are, made by states for public officials. Regardless of what Kim Davis <a href="/w/the-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience" target="_blank">should have done</a> after her situation passed the point of being ordered by a judge to issue licenses, it’s looking more and more to me like the governor escalated things beyond what was necessary.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkim-davis-s-request-an-important-clarification" 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%2Fkim-davis-s-request-an-important-clarification" 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%2Fkim-davis-s-request-an-important-clarification" 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: Quick Thought: Is the Father Greater than the Son?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/04/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-is-the-father-greater-than-the-son-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This is a very common objection you will hear from Jehovah’s Witnesses when they come to your door. They will cite a verse like John 14:28, where Jesus says, “You heard me say to you, ’I am going away, and I will come to you.’&nbsp;If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”</p>

<p>Here is an explicit admission from Jesus of an inequality between him and the Father. From this admission, Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude the inequality is in God’s nature. Namely, the Father is God and Jesus isn’t. However, this assumes what needs to be proved. We need to ask, how is the Father greater than the Son?</p>

<p>This passage can be understood another way that makes sense of the whole of Scripture. Jesus is saying that he is subordinate to the Father. That is to say, the Father is greater in office, not in his nature.</p>

<p>Here is how I illustrate this with Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the biblical marriage relationship (which the JW agrees with), the husband and wife have different roles. Not only that, but the husband has a greater office than the wife. After all, he is the head of the family (Eph. 5:23). This might be controversial to secular society, but it shouldn’t be to a Jehovah’s Witness. So, in one sense, the husband is greater than the wife. However, in another sense, husbands and wives are equal because they both have the same human nature. They are equal in nature, but unequal in roles.</p>

<p>The marriage relationship is a dim reflection of God’s being. The co-equal, co-eternal Persons of the Trinity are one in divine nature. However, the Son submits to the Father in taking on human flesh and giving his life on the cross.</p>

<p>Furthermore, this makes sense of John 10:27-30. Jesus said: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. [28] I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. [29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. [30] I and the Father are one.”</p>

<p>Many of us jump right to verse 30. But don’t miss the significance of verses 28 and 29. Whose hand are the sheep in? Are they in the Son’s hand, or are they in the Father’s hand? Verse 30 solves the dilemma. The Son and the Father are one is divine nature; therefore, they are in God’s hand.</p>

<p>Scripture must be taken as a whole. “I and the Father are one”&nbsp;and “the Father is greater than I”&nbsp;must be understood together. A proper understanding of the Trinity makes 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%2Fquick-thought-is-the-father-greater-than-the-son-" 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%2Fquick-thought-is-the-father-greater-than-the-son-" 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%2Fquick-thought-is-the-father-greater-than-the-son-" 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 Resurrection Was a Real Event in History
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/21/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-resurrection-was-a-real-event-in-history
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I say Christianity is true, I’m not merely saying it’s meaningful to me personally, I’m saying it accurately represents the truth about reality. And there’s nothing more central to Christianity than the idea that <a href="/w/did-jesus-really-exist-" target="_blank">Jesus</a> died on the cross, removing the guilt that separated us from our perfect God by taking the punishment we deserved on Himself, and was resurrected, <a href="/w/what-does-christ-s-resurrection-mean-for-us-" target="_blank">restoring us</a> to a joyful relationship with God who is the very standard of goodness, truth, and beauty.</p>

<p>No resurrection, no Christianity.</p>

<p>Where does this leave the truth seeker? Fortunately, though miracles have a supernatural cause, the evidence of the effect is available for our scrutiny just as the evidence for any historical event is available to us, and so I offer this brief outline of an argument:</p>

<p><strong>1. The disciples and early Christians believed in an actual, physical resurrection, according to the first-century historical evidence.</strong></p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">(Please note that at this point, I’m only arguing for what the disciples <em>believed</em>, not for whether or not it’s <em>true</em>.) Consider what Paul wrote in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:12-19&amp;version=NIV" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:14</a> (his first-century authorship is generally uncontested): “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”&nbsp;Both the context of this passage and the Jewish concept of resurrection support the idea that Paul was referring to a bodily resurrection and not merely a “spiritual”&nbsp;one. (See also “<a href="/w/acts-points-to-a-physical-resurrection" target="_blank">Acts Points to a Physical Resurrection</a>.”)</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">So the Christians considered the resurrection to be an actual, bodily event that was central to their faith. Indeed, as Paul asserts, without that resurrection there <em>is</em> no faith.</p>

<p><strong>2. The resurrection was central to Christian teaching early on and was not a later addition.</strong></p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">There’s a pre-biblical creed recorded in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:1-7&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:3-5</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now...</p>
</blockquote>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">The technical phrase “for I delivered to you... what I also received,”&nbsp;along with the phrases “and that... and that... and that”&nbsp;indicate, according to the conventions of the time, that Paul is reciting a creed and this is not his original writing. This creed places the atonement and the resurrection at the center of the Christian faith and is not Pauline material. In fact, it can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus—probably to the ministry of Peter and James, who are mentioned specifically in the creed (James is mentioned in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:1-7&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">v. 7</a>).</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">If the crucifixion <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/april-3-ad-33" target="_blank">happened in AD 33</a>, Paul’s conversion happened in approximately AD 36-38. Three years later (39-41), he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James (see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal%201:18-19&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Galatians 1:18-19</a>), so it’s probable that when they discussed the gospel then, this creed was passed on to Paul. (The fact that Peter and James are mentioned specifically in the creed indicates it probably came from their area.) Since the creed was already formulated when it was given to Paul, this means it dates back to earlier than AD 39-41. And of course, the beliefs that inspired the creed predate even the creed. Again, this time frame is <a href="https://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/gary-habermas-on-the-pre-pauline-creed-of-1-cor-15/" target="_blank">accepted by critics</a> and Christians alike. Some date the creed even earlier.</p>

<p><strong>3. The disciples experienced something.</strong></p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">You must agree that the disciples experienced <em>something</em>. Whatever that something was, it changed them from a group of people who deserted Jesus and began to disperse after His death to bold proclaimers of His resurrection.</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">What happened to change their minds? They claimed it was seeing the resurrected Jesus. Were they trying to perpetrate a hoax? This is extremely unlikely, for nobody would go through torture and death (as most of them did) for something they <em>knew</em> to be a lie. So the disciples were convinced. Were they fooled by someone or something, or did Jesus actually rise from the dead?</p>

<p><strong>4. Naturalistic explanations fail.</strong></p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">Different naturalistic explanations have been offered to explain the disciples’&nbsp;experience. Those explanations have either been debunked or do not explain the evidence as adequately as does the resurrection. For example:</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<p style="margin-left: 40px;">“<em>Jesus faked His death (or fainted), and did not really die on the cross</em>.”&nbsp;This theory is impossible since if a man were to only pretend to be dead on a cross, he would have to discontinue pushing himself up and down—the action <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf" target="_blank">enabling him to breathe</a>. However, as soon as he did that, he would, of course, not be able to breathe and would be dead anyway.</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p style="margin-left: 40px;">“<em>The disciples [or some other party] stole the body</em>.”&nbsp;We are back now to the idea that the disciples sincerely believed the resurrection to be true, so it’s highly unlikely they stole the body. Additionally, had anyone else stolen the body (the Jews or the Romans), they (the body-stealers) could have easily produced a body and put an end to the unrest that was resulting from the birth of the church. This church had its start in Jerusalem where critics had a reason to stop it and the means by which to do so if any body still existed. They did not produce a body, and the church continued to grow.</p>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;">The other contending naturalistic explanations likewise fail to sufficiently account for the available historical data (see <a href="http://www.equip.org/article/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-hallucination/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://chab123.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-clinical-review-of-psychiatric-hypotheses-for-the-biblical-story-of-easter/?utm_content=buffer1f76d&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">here</a> for responses to the hallucination hypothesis). Instead, the weight of the evidence lies with the resurrection, and rational people should always side with the weight of the evidence—even if they don’t like what they find there.</p>

<p>(For more information, see the work of <a href="http://www.garyhabermas.com/" target="_blank">Gary Habermas</a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157910908X/104-9444339-2063153?v=glance&amp;n=283155&amp;s=books&amp;v=glance" target="_blank">this book</a> by an Orthodox Jewish man who, though he has a different idea about the meaning of the resurrection, is convinced by the evidence it actually occurred in history.)</p>

<p><em>This is an update of an essay originally posted on <a href="https://apologetics315.com/2010/04/essay-the-historical-event-of-the-resurrection-by-amy-hall/" target="_blank">Apologetics 315</a> as part of a series titled “<a href="https://apologetics315.com/2010/04/essay-series-is-christianity-true/" target="_blank">Is Christianity True?</a>”</em></p>
</div>

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


title: A Secular Argument for Intrinsic Human Value
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/04/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-secular-argument-for-intrinsic-human-value
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m skeptical of the possibility of convincing people who don’t believe in God that human beings have intrinsic value (see “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/atheism-and-universal-human-rights#.XOQzI1NKhQI" target="_blank">Atheism and Universal Human Rights</a>”&nbsp;for more on why I’m skeptical). But Wesley J. Smith keeps insisting it’s possible, and I can’t help but hope he’s right when he says things like <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/atheism-and-universal-human-rights#.XOQzI1NKhQI" target="_blank">this</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Happily, human exceptionalism does not require belief in a transcendent God, or indeed, spiritual allusions of any kind if we understand that what matters morally is not the capacities of the individual—which, after all, are transitory—but our intrinsic natures as human beings—which are innate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If we can convince people our value comes not from the abilities we’re expressing at a particular moment in time but from the kind of being we are—and that’s a big “if”&nbsp;that Smith doesn’t make a case for in his following argument, though you can read an argument for it <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm" target="_blank">here</a>—then a case for universal intrinsic human value can be made.</p>

<p>From Wesley J. Smith’s “<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/more-than-in-gods-image" target="_blank">More than ’In God’s Image’</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A]s recent headlines about Planned Parenthood and the push for assisted suicide demonstrate, now is the time to defend intrinsic human value...</p>

<p>A belief in human exceptionalism... does not depend on religious faith. Whether we were created by God, came into being through blind evolution, or were intelligently designed, <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/what-clarence-thomas-meant" target="_blank">the importance of human existence</a> can and should be supported by the rational examination of the differences between us and all other known life forms.</p>

<p>After all, what other species in known history has had the wondrous capacities of human beings? What other species has been able to (at least partially) control nature instead of being controlled by it? What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species has true freedom? Not one...</p>

<p>Perhaps the most important distinction between the fauna and us is our moral agency. The sow that permits the runt of her litter to starve is not a negligent parent, but a human mother doing the same would be branded a monster. The feline that plays with a fallen baby bird before consuming it is not being sadistic; she is acting like a cat! But any human who tortures an animal is rightly seen as pathological.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of his article <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/more-than-in-gods-image" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are All Sins Equal to God?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-all-sins-equal-to-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It is very common among Christians to hear that all sins are equal. But is that really true? Are all sins equal to God?</p>

<p>The answer is, yes and no! If we are comparing one sin to another, then the Bible makes it clear that not all sins are considered equal by God. This is actually made clear from Jesus’&nbsp;own teaching. First, Jesus testifies that there are greater sins (and, by extension, lesser sins). Standing before Pontius Pilate, Jesus says, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the <em>greater sin”</em>&nbsp;(John 19:11). Not only does God regard some sins as greater and some lesser, but Jesus tells us that there is a <em>greatest sin</em>. Jesus states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”&nbsp;(Matt. 12:32b).</p>

<p>It follows that if there are degrees of sins, then there must be “weightier matters of the law”&nbsp;(Matt. 23:23). In fact, we are explicitly told that there is a “great and <em>first</em> commandment”&nbsp;(Matt. 22:38). So it seems that all sins are not same to a Holy God; some are a greater offense to Him.</p>

<p>However, in another sense, all sin is equal. All sin <em>is</em> the same in the sense that any one sin will separate you from God (James 2:10). Maybe a better way to put it is that any sin has the same <em>consequence</em> of separating us from God. The wages of sin, any sin, is death (Rom. 6:23). It only takes one. That is bad news for every person that has ever drawn breath. The good news is that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2).</p>
</div>

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


title: Don’t Trust God to Protect You from Pain
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/22/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I wrote <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-you-will-suffer#.WrpYF5MbMXo" target="_blank">earlier this year</a>, an experience of suffering can be very disorienting to Christians who are trusting God to protect them from pain. This is not the kind of trust God has called us to have, and though most of us know this intellectually, I think this is something that has to be learned through experience. What will you cling to when your hopes for God’s provision seem to fail? What does it really mean to trust in God’s provision? You will struggle with these questions.</p>

<p>The last line of this quote from Kevin DeYoung’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Almost-Forgot-Rediscovering/dp/0802458408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1440195627&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+truth+we+almost+forgot&amp;pebp=1440195630005&amp;perid=1VQ8AWHX6ARYQJBNY02W" target="_blank"><em>The Good News We Almost Forgot</em></a> is a crucial truth you need to learn as a Christian. Either suffering will teach this to you, or suffering will drive you away from God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>All of this theology is moving us to trust. Because God created everything out of nothing, and because He still sustains His creation by His providence, and because the God who did and does all this is our Father by virtue of our union with Christ—because of all this, we can count on our God.</p>

<p>He will turn to good whatever adversity He sends me. The Bible is not naïve about suffering. Trusting in God’s provision does not mean we expect to float to heaven on flowery beds of ease. This is a “sad world”&nbsp;we live in, one in which God not only allows trouble but at times sends adversity to us. Trust, therefore, does not mean hoping for the absence of pain but believing in the purpose of pain.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Keep repeating that last sentence to yourself until it reshapes your soul’s expectations, enabling you to focus your trust on something solid and unshakeable: God’s goodness, sovereignty, and love for you through purposeful pain.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain" 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 Doesn’t Say You Must Quit Your Job
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/05/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-law-doesn-t-say-you-must-quit-your-job
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A common response to the Kim Davis situation (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience#.W6cS3RNKijQ" target="_blank">yesterday’s post</a>) is to say, “If you can’t do your job, you need to quit.”&nbsp;Perhaps that’s the way it should be in some cases, but it’s important to know that’s not what the law demands, apparently not even for public officials.</p>

<p>Eugene Volokh explains “the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII)”&nbsp;in “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/" target="_blank">When Does Your Religion Legally Excuse You from Doing Part of Your Job?</a>”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,”&nbsp;meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers—for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties—then the employer must accommodate them...</p>

<p>Thus, for instance, in all the cases I mentioned in the numbered list above, the religious objectors got an accommodation, whether in court or as a result of the employer’s settling a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. Likewise, the <a href="http://ia601705.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">EEOC is currently litigating a case</a> in which it claims that a trucking company must accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious objections to transporting alcohol, and the court has indeed concluded that the employer had a duty to accommodate such objections...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Volokh says Kentucky’s RFRA allows for religious exemptions for elected officials:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Title VII expressly <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e" target="_blank">excludes elected officials</a>. But Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials... Nothing in them exempts accommodation claims by elected officials...</p>

<p>The terms of these RFRAs actually seem to offer greater protection for claimants—to deny an exemption, the government must show not just “undue hardship”&nbsp;but unavoidable material harm to a “compelling government interest.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He then applies the law to Kim Davis as a public official, saying he thinks “she’d have a good case”&nbsp;under state law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]t’s very likely that (1) the Kentucky RFRA, by its terms, would apply to religious exemption claims brought by elected officials, and (2) it would provide at least the protections offered to ordinary employees by the Title VII religious accommodation regime, and possibly more...</p>

<p>[B]esides her losing claim in the federal lawsuit, it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis’s objection, it appears... is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses <em>with her name on them</em>, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage...</p>

<p>Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please read the rest of “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/" target="_blank">When Does Your Religion Legally Excuse You from Doing Part of Your Job?</a>”&nbsp;The existence of RFRAs doesn’t mean one must <em>always</em> litigate rather than quit (that decision requires <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-line-between-rule-of-law-and-civil-disobedience#.W6cS3RNKijQ" target="_blank">wisdom and prudence</a>), but it corrects a knee-jerk reaction I see happening out there that assumes one must <em>always</em> quit. That’s not how America works. The way we’ve worked this out in the past is by using the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s compelling interest (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/how-rfra-works#.W6cUHRNKijQ" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/rfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle#.W6cUOhNKijQ" target="_blank">here</a>). If a reasonable accommodation is possible, it should be, and often is, given.</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-doesn-t-say-you-must-quit-your-job" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-law-doesn-t-say-you-must-quit-your-job" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-law-doesn-t-say-you-must-quit-your-job" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/31/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology—Part 2</strong></p>

<p><strong>By Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon</strong></p>

<p><a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1">Read part 1 here</a></p>

<p>Since the birth of the church, no Christian authority—no theologian, no church council, no denominational confession, no seminary—ever hinted that homosexual behavior was morally legitimate. Now congregations across the country are becoming “gay friendly”&nbsp;at an alarming rate, convinced that for two millennia we’ve all simply misunderstood our Bibles.</p>

<p>Organizations like The Reformation Project (TRP) are hosting sophisticated seminars in major cities training activists in revisionist, pro-gay theology and sending them out as missionaries, of sorts, to “reform”&nbsp;the church.</p>

<p>In our last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> we began our critique of that trend by looking closely at the central biblical texts addressing homosexuality. We discovered that those verses consistently trade on a common-sense observation about the world that is central to human flourishing: Human beings are gendered creatures.</p>

<p>From the beginning, God designed man to function sexually with woman in a life-long union. Jesus’&nbsp;summary of God’s plan was unambiguous: one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime (Matt. 19:4-6). Any sexual behavior outside of this kind of relationship—fornication, adultery, bestiality, rape, homosexuality—subverts God’s purpose and is uniformly condemned as rebellion against God.</p>

<p>The new theology claims otherwise. Scripture does not denounce all homosexual behavior, they say, only abusive or exploitive sex. Since the “Christian gay relationship”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> TRP advocates is loving and committed, it doesn’t fall under the Scriptural ban.</p>

<p>This is no small matter. If the new theology is mistaken, multitudes of practicing homosexuals who self-identify as Christian are being led to believe they will inherit the Kingdom when in fact they are destined to perish forever.</p>

<p>We dealt with TRP’s training material talking points regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, and Romans 1 in our last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em> and found their arguments fraught with false-starts and missteps. There’s one final set of passages to look at, though, before moving on to TRP’s other concerns.</p>

<h2>Lost in Translation?</h2>

<p>Talking Point #9 addresses Paul’s so-called “vice lists,”&nbsp;a catalog of behaviors the apostle says places any so-called Christian on the outside of the Kingdom:</p>

<p>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Also, in 1 Tim. 1:9-11, Paul lumps “homosexuals”&nbsp;together with other “ungodly sinners”&nbsp;whose behavior is “contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.”</p>

<p>According to TRP, “These lists don’t address LGBT<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> people, but cases of pederasty, abuse, and prostitution.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> They admit that Paul’s combination of Greek words <em>malakoi</em> and <em>arsenokoitai</em> (rendered “effeminate”&nbsp;and “homosexuals”&nbsp;here) <em>does</em> denote male homosexual sex, but probably only “role-differentiated”&nbsp;encounters between “older men and boys (what we would call pederasty), or between master and slaves.”&nbsp;Modern-day gay Christians who don’t engage in exploitive forms of sex are not the target of Paul’s reproach, they say. Further, rendering <em>arsenokoitai</em> as “homosexuals”&nbsp;is misleading since the English word didn’t even exist before the 1892.</p>

<p>Are they right?</p>

<p>First, don’t be distracted by the claim that the English word “homosexual”&nbsp;was only recently created. It’s irrelevant. Clearly, same-sex behavior was common in Paul’s day, as TRP readily acknowledges. The translators simply chose the contemporary term they thought described the specific ancient activity Paul had in mind. The important question is whether the English word “homosexual”&nbsp;captures the meaning of Paul’s Greek rendering. It does.</p>

<p>In these vice lists, Paul coins a new term—<em>arsenokoitai</em> (translated “homosexual”)—by combining two words, <em>arsenos,</em> for “male,”&nbsp;and <em>koiten</em>, meaning “to bed.”&nbsp;<em>Arsenokoitai</em> literally means “bedders of males”&nbsp;or “men who bed with males.”</p>

<p>Why this combination of words? Because these are the very words found in the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament regularly used by the Apostles—to describe the homosexual behavior explicitly forbidden in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> In fact, ancient Jews used the Hebrew phrase, <em>mishkav zakur</em>—“lying with a male”—to denote male-to-male sexual contact. No one familiar with the Law would have missed Paul’s meaning.</p>

<p>Second, there is nothing in the words <em>arsenos</em> or <em>koiten</em>, nor in anything in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, that even hints that Paul’s condemnation is limited to “exploitive”&nbsp;homosexual acts. This is pure fancy. The words <em>paiderastai</em> (“lover of boys”), <em>paidomanēs</em> (“man mad for boys”), or <em>paidophthoros</em> (“corrupter of boys”) would have served Paul’s purpose perfectly if that were his intention. It wasn’t. Rather, these passages—given the context and <em>arsenokoitai’s</em> origin—communicate an absolute prohibition of any form of homosexual sex.</p>

<p>Ironically, while TRP dispenses assurances that Christians are allowed to be practicing homosexuals, Paul’s grave warning says just the opposite: “<em>Do not be deceived</em>. Neither effeminate... nor homosexuals... will inherit the Kingdom of God”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 6:9).</p>

<h2>Inspecting the Fruit</h2>

<p>TRP’s Talking Point #1 says, “Experience shouldn’t cause us to dismiss Scripture, but it can cause us to reconsider our interpretation of Scripture.”&nbsp;In principle we agree with this point, and good examples can be offered to defend it. But what kind of “experience”&nbsp;does TRP have in mind here that might disqualify an interpretation? The feelings of hurt and the damaging consequences of a teaching or doctrine, they suggest.</p>

<p>“You will know them by their fruits,”&nbsp;Jesus taught. “Every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit”&nbsp;(Matt. 7:16-17).</p>

<p>The view that the Bible prohibits all homosexual behavior, TRP points out, has caused “serious harm in LGBT people’s lives”—family turmoil, rejection, guilt, shame, depression, illegal drug use, even suicide. This kind of “bad fruit”&nbsp;is a clear sign that we need to reassess our view of homosexuality, they argue.</p>

<p>There are at least two problems with TRP’s case. First, their reasoning suggests that any unpleasantness, difficulty, anguish, or even tragedy—like suicide—qualifies as “bad fruit”&nbsp;<em>in the sense Jesus had in mind</em>. If so, all sorts of immoral behavior could be justified when holiness leads to hardship. Virtually any command of God could be annulled.</p>

<p>Denying fleshly, sinful desires means dying to oneself, Jesus taught. That’s always difficult, unpleasant, and inconvenient—bare minimum. Sometimes it means significant sacrifice and suffering. Jesus promises an array of temporal woes for those who follow Him faithfully: persecution, tribulation, family division, even death. Is this bad fruit? By TRP’s criteria it would be, yet Jesus calls such burdens blessings (Matt. 5:10-12).</p>

<p>Second, and more serious, TRP has turned Jesus’&nbsp;teaching upside down. This passage does not vindicate them; it condemns them.</p>

<p>The TRP material never actually quotes the teaching in question, so let’s look at it. The whole point of Jesus’&nbsp;lesson is the warning He begins with: “Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves”&nbsp;(v. 15).</p>

<p>Be careful, Jesus cautions. Be on the alert. Dangerous people will infiltrate your ranks unrecognized because they’ll look just like true sheep in many ways. How do we distinguish fleece from fur? “You will know them [the wolves, the false teachers in your midst] by their fruits. Every good tree [good teacher] bears good fruit, but the bad tree [false teacher] bears bad fruit.”</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;teaching here is not ambiguous, veiled, or complex. He’s giving a sober warning, so His words are clear. The “bad tree”&nbsp;represents false teachers in the midst of the flock (v. 15). The good fruit is doing the will of the Father (v. 21). The bad fruit is practicing lawlessness (v. 23). Nothing complicated here.</p>

<p>There is no suggestion anywhere in this passage that “bad fruit”&nbsp;is the kind of harm or distress described by TRP. “Fruit”&nbsp;for Jesus is not the <em>consequence</em> of a teaching (turmoil, anguish, hardship, self-loathing), but the <em>conduct</em> promoted by the teacher. Any Christian advocating immorality is a wolf within the fold, denounced by Christ in the harshest terms: “I never knew you. Depart from Me!”&nbsp;(v. 23).</p>

<p>So here is our question. In this discussion about homosexuality and the Bible, who in our midst is teaching Christians to practice lawlessness, those encouraging sexual restraint or those championing homosexual indulgence?</p>

<p>The Bible says nothing good about homosexuality, as we’ve seen, but rather condemns it at every turn. Paul warns that no unrepentant homosexual will inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9). It’s virtuous for TRP to be concerned about the anguish LGBT people experience. It’s vice, though, to justify the immoral behavior at the root of their problem. According to Jesus, <em>that</em> is bad fruit. According to Jesus, that is evidence of wolves in our midst.</p>

<h2>Something New Under the Sun?</h2>

<p>TRP’s talking point #2 says, “Sexual orientation is a new concept—one the Christian tradition has not addressed.”&nbsp;Since the concept of sexual orientation was unknown to the biblical authors, they suggest, and since those writers didn’t understand same-sex attraction as it’s understood today—committed, monogamous love between social equals—then their comments simply are not relevant for gay Christians in our churches.</p>

<p>In their defense, TRP cites two 1st century sources, the Roman philosopher, Musonius Rufus, and the Greco-Roman orator, Dio Chrysostom. These men describe sexual adventurers who, unsatisfied with conventional heterosexual carnality, indulge in same-sex encounters to satisfy their excessive sensual cravings. It was this excess the biblical authors condemned, TRP claims, not homosexuality itself.</p>

<p>This maneuver is typical of TRP’s method: find an ancient writer describing an extreme example of homosexual conduct, then assume this radical behavior alone was the subject of the Bible’s censure.</p>

<p>TRP’s approach is flawed and self-serving. Connecting Rufus’&nbsp;and Chrysostom’s observations to Paul’s intentions in the epistles or the Mosaic Law is completely unjustified. All scriptural evidence points in the opposite direction. Every biblical text prohibiting homosexual behavior does so in absolute terms. All homosexual conduct is condemned, not just certain species of it (master-slave, man-boy, excessive lust, etc.).</p>

<p>The Bible categorically and unequivocally prohibits all sensual behavior outside of a married man/woman union. No exceptions. Consult any passage—Leviticus 18 or 20, the vice lists in 1 Cor. 6 or 1 Tim. 1, Romans 1. <em>No text gives any hint of any exemptions</em>. The authors have every opportunity to qualify their comments, <em>but they never do</em>.</p>

<h2>Coerced Celibacy?</h2>

<p>What, then, are Christians with same-sex attraction to do to remain godly? Is celibacy their only option—a lifetime of denying their pressing sexual desires? No, TRP says, this is not what God demands.</p>

<p>“Celibacy is a gift,”&nbsp;we read in Talking Point #3, not a mandate. “Jesus says celibacy can only be accepted by those to whom it is given (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul says that, while he would prefer everyone be celibate like him, ’each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that’&nbsp;(1 Cor. 7:7).”&nbsp;Since celibacy should not be forced on those who don’t have the gift, there must be a legitimate alternative for gay Christians.</p>

<p>This appeal neglects an important distinction: the difference between sexual purity and celibacy. Sexual purity is God’s command for every believer in every circumstance. Paul “solemnly warns”&nbsp;all Christians to “abstain from sexual immorality”&nbsp;(1 Thess. 4:3-6). This applies to the married and unmarried alike.</p>

<p>Unmarried Christians—both heterosexuals and those with same-sex attraction—are commanded to abstain from all forms of sex. That’s not celibacy. It’s simple sexual purity. Married couples are also to be sexually pure in a way appropriate to their situation (note Prov. 5:15-20).</p>

<p>Celibacy, on the other hand, is more than merely abstaining from sex. It’s a life wholly devoted to God. Singleness allows a believer to dedicate his time, talents, and resources completely to Kingdom concerns, unfettered by the demands of marriage and family (1 Cor. 7:32). Celibacy <em>entails</em> sexual abstinence since marriage is the only place sexual desires may be satisfied, <sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> but it is <em>more</em> than mere abstinence.</p>

<p>The requirement of purity applies to all Christians, incidentally, <em>regardless of their gifting</em>. Some are gifted with celibacy and their unsatisfied sexual desires are not a distraction. Others are celibate by circumstance<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> and must make the best of it, in spite of unsatisfied sexual desire.</p>

<p>The simple fact is, many are “forced”&nbsp;into singleness. It’s not always the result of the gift Jesus and Paul had in mind. The moral standard is still the same, regardless. Those permanently single, by accident or design, must still remain sexually pure. Not having the “gift”&nbsp;does not release any Christian from the requirement of holiness. Christians with same-sex attraction must shoulder a burden every other single Christian must also bear.</p>

<h2>Complementarity, Not Kinship</h2>

<p>TRP’s “Talking Point #4”&nbsp;says, “The Bible does not teach a normative doctrine of gender complementarity.”&nbsp;We’ll explain what that means, but first a warning: Fasten your seatbelts.</p>

<p>Scripture, TRP is claiming, is actually silent on the idea that males were made by God as the appropriate sexual complement to females (the “normative doctrine of gender complementarity”). Rather, “the focus in Genesis 2 is not on the complementarity of male and female, but rather on the similarity of male and female, over and against the created animals. The ’one flesh’&nbsp;union spoken of in Genesis 2:24 connotes not physical complementarity, but a kinship tie.”</p>

<p>The one-flesh union then, has nothing to do with men and women being designed to physically fit together (complementarity) since, “There are simply no texts in Scripture that address the most common way that anatomical complementarity is defined: the ’fittedness’&nbsp;of penis and vagina.”</p>

<p>Rather, it’s referring to their kinship as members of the <em>same species</em>. Since two men or two women are kin in that sense, they are allowed to enter into a “one flesh”&nbsp;union that fits God’s design. “Jesus’&nbsp;discussion of Gen. 2,”&nbsp;TRP offers, “focuses the discussion on <em>a particular sort of kinship”</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added], i.e., husband/wife kinship. Same sex unions would be another legitimate type, in their view.</p>

<p>This, to put it bluntly, is nothing short of willful blindness.</p>

<p>Eve <em>was</em> a suitable helper for Adam because she was human, not animal—true enough. But that is not the whole of it. God also said, “Be fruitful and <em>multiply and fill the earth”</em>&nbsp;(Gen. 1:28). Complying with this command requires more than a species kin relationship. It requires the “male and a female”&nbsp;genders mentioned in the verse right before it. Indeed, the reproductive system is the only human bodily function that requires <em>uniting with a human being of the opposite sex</em> to fulfill its purpose.</p>

<p>When a man leaves his parents, he cleaves to—becomes one flesh with—his <em>wife</em> (Gen. 2:24), not just to another human he is “kin”&nbsp;to. This is the kind of one-flesh union God had in mind, the only union capable of fulfilling the “be fruitful and multiply”&nbsp;creation mandate. That’s why <em>there is not a single instance in Scripture</em> where a pair of men or a pair of women are described in a “one-flesh”&nbsp;union.</p>

<p>And pardon us for asking the obvious, but do we really need a Bible verse to enlighten us that sexual organs are designed by God to fit together? Please.</p>

<p>Finally—and decisively, we think—the Gen. 2:24 “one flesh”&nbsp;reference appears in another vital passage about marriage that erases any possibility of ambiguity about God’s intended meaning. In Eph. 5:22-32, Paul cites heterosexual, man/woman, husband/wife marriage as a picture of the mystery of Christ and His bride, the church. The analogy only works if gender differences are inherent to marriage. Kevin DeYoung explains:</p>

<p>The meaning of marriage is more than mutual sacrifice and covenantal commitment. Marriage, by its very nature, requires complementarity. The mystical union of Christ and the church—each “part”&nbsp;belonging to the other but neither interchangeable—cannot be pictured in marital union without the differentiation of male and female... Homosexuality simply does not fit with the created order in Genesis 1 and 2.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<h2>Of Eunuchs and Men</h2>

<p>Finally, TRP’s “Talking Point #5”&nbsp;says, “The New Testament points toward greater inclusion of gender and sexual minorities, including those who do not fit neatly within binary categories.”</p>

<p>As evidence for this claim, they note that eunuchs were sexually different and thus barred from entering God’s assembly under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, though, eunuchs seem to be fully accepted as members of the Christian community under the New Covenant (note Acts 8). Therefore, they say, we have a biblical precedent for inclusion of sexual “others”&nbsp;today, including homosexuals.</p>

<p>Yes, the Ethiopian eunuch’s physical abnormalities (not <em>sexual</em> differences, but <em>anatomical</em> differences) were no barriers to him entering the Kingdom. It’s a stretch beyond belief, though, to characterize this as a “greater inclusion of gender and sexual minorities.”&nbsp;It’s nothing of the kind.</p>

<p>The eunuch’s acceptance into the Kingdom tells us nothing of God’s attitude towards “sexual minorities,”&nbsp;TRP’s euphemism for those with unconventional sexual appetites and/or gender confusion.</p>

<p>Philip was sent by the Spirit to the Gaza Road to respond to a gentile genuinely seeking the true God based on the limited light he’d been given. Nothing can be inferred from this encounter about God’s interest in expanding the church’s sexual diversity.</p>

<p>God’s grace is given to all who put their trust in Him, regardless of sexual appetite. But grace does not leave sinners in sin. Even after condemning homosexuality and other sexual sin, Paul writes, “Such <em>were</em> some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 6:11). That’s the lesson of the Ethiopian eunuch: forgiveness and transformation, not celebration of sexual diversity.</p>

<p>TRP has advanced a battery of biblical and cultural arguments meant to undermine confidence in two millennia of church teaching on homosexuality and marriage. At the end of the day, though, the straightforward truth of Scripture still shines through with clarity.</p>

<p>This revisionist attempt should not surprise us, however. In Paul’s final missive to the church he warned his own disciple, Timothy, that...</p>

<p>...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myth. (2 Tim. 4:3-4)</p>

<p>TRP and those who follow its lead have succumbed to the same temptation the Church has faced for millennia: conforming to culture. God’s plan for sex and marriage is built into the structure of the world He made. Since the beginning of time this has been obvious to everyone, even those without Bibles.</p>

<p>Yes, times change, but reality does not. And God’s Word does not. It abides forever, telling us the truth, protecting us from error, shielding us from harm.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Available in enhanced digital form at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">We think this is a contradictory notion, but we’ll let it stand now for the sake of this discussion. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">All Scripture quotations are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">LGBT stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">This and other citations are taken from the Reformation Project D.C. Conference 2014 Program. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Respectively, “meta <strong>arsenos</strong> ou koimethese <strong>koiten</strong> gyniakeian,”&nbsp;and “hos an koimethe meta <strong>arsenos koiten</strong> gynaikois.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband,”&nbsp;1 Cor. 7:2. Note here that Paul identifies a <em>single</em> provision for avoiding sexual immorality—heterosexual marriage. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">In Matt. 19:12, Jesus identifies three reasons for celibacy. Only one is voluntary. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Kevin DeYoung, <em>What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?</em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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: Hard Case of Abortion in Egypt
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/hard-case-of-abortion-in-egypt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Egyptian Christians are typically pro-life. Many, however, struggle with being consistent, especially in the case of rape. This is a vexing problem in any part of the world, but it becomes more complex in Egypt. Part of the problem is the unique circumstances created by Islam, particularly in some rural areas of Upper Egypt (far <em>south</em> of Cairo).</p>

<p>For example, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she is faced with a dilemma. Adoption is not allowed in Islam, so she can’t carry the child to term and then ask a loving couple to raise her son or daughter. Orphanages exist in Egypt, but my contacts there tell me the conditions are horrendous. The other option—to parent the child—is also problematic because both a raped woman and her child are treated like trash. Many times people try to kill her if she doesn’t have an abortion. If they succeed, both mother and child lose their life.</p>

<p>It’s this situation that troubles many pro-life, Arab Christians. Shouldn’t a pregnant woman have an abortion when her life and the life of her unborn child is in jeopardy? If she doesn’t have an abortion, both she and her child die. If she has an abortion, then only the child loses his life. It’s a greater good that one lives than two die.</p>

<p>In the past (although I can’t find the specific post), I think I conceded that abortion could be allowed in such a scenario. I mistakenly compared this situation to an ectopic pregnancy. In this life-threatening condition, the child is growing in a location (e.g. fallopian tube) not suitable to gestate a child. If the pregnancy is not stopped, the growing child will rupture the fallopian tube, cause bleeding, infection, and the death of the mother. Both mother and child lose their life. The alternative is to terminate the pregnancy (resulting in the death of the child) to save the life of the mother.</p>

<p>Typically, pro-lifers agree that medical action is morally appropriate in an ectopic pregnancy. The reasoning is based on the greater good. It’s better that one person should live (the mother) than two persons should die (both mother and child). The child is going to die no matter what course of action is taken (indeed, the child often dies even before medical action is taken because its life can’t be sustained without implanting in the endometrial lining). There’s currently no medical procedure where we can transplant a child from the fallopian tube to the uterus. Therefore, it’s a greater good to preserve one life when it’s impossible to preserve two.</p>

<p>While I agree with the moral reasoning of taking medical action in an ectopic pregnancy, I think I was wrong to compare it to the situation women face in Egypt when they are raped and become pregnant. Admittedly, there is some similarity. In both cases, having an abortion would result in one person surviving, and doing nothing likely results in two persons dying. That’s where the parallels end, though.</p>

<p>There are some key differences. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the child is going to die as a result of a medical problem. His or her death is certain. The child conceived through rape, though, has the possibility of living. Although wicked people might attempt to kill the mother and child, this is not an inevitable outcome. The would-be killers might not find out about the pregnancy, may not care enough to kill, or the mother might run to seek help from people who would care for her and her child.</p>

<p>There’s a second difference. No one is morally culpable when a child dies as a result of an ectopic pregnancy. However, intentionally killing a healthy child (albeit under dire circumstances) is morally problematic.</p>

<p>Consider the following hypothetical situation (this is the “Trot Out the Toddler”&nbsp;tactic for those familiar with this approach). A terrorist breaks into your home and demands you murder a two-year-old child sitting on your sofa. If you don’t, he will kill you <em>and</em> the child. Would you do it? Are you justified in murdering an innocent child to save your life? I submit it would be immoral to use a child as a shield to protect yourself.</p>

<p>The woman facing pressure from Muslim culture to abort or be killed faces a similar moral dilemma. I don’t think abortion would be the right thing to do.</p>

<p>I’m not saying I would come down hard on a woman who chose abortion under such a circumstance. I think I would understand if a woman made that choice. But I believe the consistent pro-life view would be to not abort. Perhaps she could flee and seek Christians who would take her in and provide her with shelter. That would give her and the child a chance to live.</p>

<p>Besides, trying to preserve your life at all costs (especially by killing an innocent child) doesn’t reflect a Christian worldview. It presumes that this life (this side of the grave) is the only life that matters and that the afterlife is not real. The Christian worldview, though, rejects that notion. Yes, our earthly lives matter, but they are merely a precursor of more significant things to come.</p>

<p>Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:28). After all, Jesus reminds us 10 verses later, “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:39). Difficult words, to be sure, but true nonetheless.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhard-case-of-abortion-in-egypt" 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%2Fhard-case-of-abortion-in-egypt" 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%2Fhard-case-of-abortion-in-egypt" 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: Stand in the Fortifying Love of God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/26/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/stand-in-the-fortifying-love-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We all need to meditate more on the love of God—especially now. By “meditation,”&nbsp;I don’t mean what people in our culture usually mean by that word. Christian meditation isn’t an emptying of the mind but a <em>filling</em> of the mind with truth. Here’s how Tim Keller describes it in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Experiencing-Awe-Intimacy-God/dp/0525954147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1440448707&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=prayer&amp;pebp=1440448713581&amp;perid=076DF6PYYX1EPXW8PHH0" target="_blank"><em>Prayer</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Meditation is likened to tree roots taking in water [in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+1&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Psalm 1</a>]. That means not merely knowing a truth but taking it inside and making it part of yourself. Meditation is spiritually “tasting”&nbsp;the Scripture—delighting in it, sensing the sweetness of the teaching, feeling the conviction of what it tells us about ourselves, and thanking God and praising God for what it shows us about him. Meditation is also spiritually “digesting”&nbsp;the Scripture—applying it, thinking out how it affects you, describes you, guides you in the most practical way. It is drawing strength from the Scripture, letting it give you hope, using it to remember how loved you are. To shift metaphors, meditation is taking the truth down into our hearts until it catches fire there and begins to melt and shape our reactions to God, ourselves, and the world. [See <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/10/how-to-turn-your-theology-into-communion-with-god.html" target="_blank">here</a> for more from Tim Keller on Christian meditation.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>With that definition in mind, listen to these wise <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2015/08/20/love-our-shelter-in-the-cultural-storm/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+wordpress/trevinwax+(Kingdom+People)&amp;utm_content=Netvibes" target="_blank">words from Trevin Wax</a> on what will enable us to continue to stand when the culture opposes us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you fail to get this truth deep down into your heart, if you fail to recognize God’s unfailing, unchanging love for you no matter your circumstances, you will not be able to represent Him well in exile.</p>

<p>The only way you will ever be able to withstand the hatred of the world is if you are immersed in the love of God.</p>

<p>The only way you will ever be able to live without the approval of others is if you are assured of God’s approval of you in Christ.</p>

<p>The only way you can stand against the world when everyone is jeering you is when you know God is there, cheering you on, calling you His beloved child.</p>

<p>Unless we are overcome by the love of God, we will be overcome by the fear of man.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How can you meditate on the love of God? First, <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist#.VduGWdNViko" target="_blank">read the Bible</a>. You can’t mediate on the love of God if you haven’t seen <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/05/what-does-gods-love-look-like.html" target="_blank">the love of God</a>. Think about the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2077&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">events</a> God brought about from Creation until today in order to bring about the redemption of His people. Think of Jesus’&nbsp;<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/05/this-is-the-kind-of-culture-christianity-creates.html" target="_blank">life and death on the cross</a> for us. Read about your <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/09/union-with-christ-a-crash-course/" target="_blank">union with Christ</a>. Memorize <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+1-2&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Ephesians 1-2</a> to see how God, in His grace and through the “kind intention of His will,”&nbsp;brought you to Himself. Recount the ways He has provided for you in the past, and thank Him for each one.</p>

<p>Immerse yourself in the truth of God’s love, let it take root in you, and then stand.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Seventh Planned Parenthood Video: Ordinary, Everyday Evil
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/20/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The latest <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/08/19/the-7th-planned-parenthood-video-4-faqs/" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood video</a> is so evil I’m having trouble handling it.</p>

<p>A former StemExpress tech tells of her supervisor playfully making an aborted baby’s heart start beating again. Of having to cut the baby’s face open in order to get the prized brain ordered by researchers. Was the heart still beating when they did that? Maybe. It’s unclear. Thankfully, there’s no video of either of these things. But you do see a live baby moving on a tray, and that’s enough.</p>

<p>Or, at least, it <em>should</em> be enough.</p>

<p>I can’t stop thinking about the people doing these jobs day in and day out. And of those who watch the videos and either <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb085dacbb970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb085dacbb970d" target="_blank">yawn</a> or continue to defend Planned Parenthood. And of how entwined this industry is with the medical community. I just heard that parents who go through IVF can <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html" target="_blank">sign a consent form</a> to donate their leftover embryonic children to research. Now that I’ve seen what Planned Parenthood is doing, I can’t help but think: Are IVF doctors getting compensated by researchers for providing them with embryonic human beings? Are they pushing parents to create more children so they’ll be able to provide researchers with more and get more benefits in return? This doesn’t seem like an outlandish speculation anymore. There’s money to be had selling human beings.</p>

<p>How far does this go? How much of our entire society is connected to this barbarity? What are we letting happen all around us, every day?</p>

<p>It’s a horror to realize what I should have always known to be true: There was no special evil in Nazi Germany. The human heart is evil. Either the norms of a society keep the evil human heart in check, or they give permission for that evil to be unleashed. But it’s there. In every society. Waiting.</p>

<p>The doctors in the Planned Parenthood videos seem like normal people because they <em>are</em> normal people. It’s normal for human beings to take their cues about proper behavior from the people around them. Everyone around you is cutting babies’&nbsp;faces off like it’s no different morally from using the copy machine? Well then, it must be normal and okay! How did people shuffle papers for Nazis in thousands of offices? This is how. This is how an entire culture loses its ability to see the evil right in front of its nose. All it sees are regular people, working in ordinary offices, doing something everybody knows about, and surely something so commonplace couldn’t be evil, right? Meanwhile, the evil spreads its tentacles into multiple areas of life (economics, medicine, etc.) until we’re convinced we can’t manage without it. We have so many reasons to keep it around, you see. Like slavery.</p>

<p>We need to rip this evil out of the fabric of our society. Because it’s so intertwined with our way of life, it may rip some things we’ve come to regard as comforts out with it. We may lose some opportunities for research. We may have more children than we were expecting. We may have less control over designing our dream lives. But take a step back for one minute and look at the baby moving on the tray. <em>Look at it!</em> This is the moral cost of those “comforts,”&nbsp;and it is dark and ugly evil. I pray we are not yet too far gone to see it.</p>
</div>

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


title: If the Qur’an Is True, Then It’s False
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/12/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-the-quran-is-true-then-it-s-false
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Conservative estimates put the number of Muslims on Earth at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world" target="_blank">1.6 billion</a>. That’s about one-quarter of the world’s total population. By 2030, that number is expected to grow to <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/27/2-2-billion-worlds-muslim-population-doubles/" target="_blank">2.2 billion</a>. The Muslim mission field is huge. The question Christians need to be asking is, <em>how do we reach them with the gospel?</em></p>

<p>This task is actually more daunting than it might first appear. Ask anyone who has done extended work evangelizing Muslims, and they will tell you that it can seem next to impossible. This is because they have so much to lose. When a Muslim converts to Christianity, he could be disowned by his family, friends, and community. In addition, from an Islamic perspective he would be committing the unforgivable sin of <em>shirk</em>, which is punishable by death.</p>

<p>If we are to be effective in our approach to witnessing to Muslims we need to be strategic. Approaching them with a Bible verse usually won’t cut it. They have already written off the parts of the Bible that conflict with the Qur’an, citing corruption in the transmission of the New Testament text. We need a better way.</p>

<p>One strategy I have in my mind when I speak to Muslims is try to <em>demonstrate</em> from their own holy book—which they trust as God’s infallible and uncorrupted revelation—that they shouldn’t trust their holy book. Allow me to elaborate.</p>

<p>If you open up the Qur’an to Sura 5 titled “The Gospel of Jesus: Guidance and Light,”&nbsp;you will read the following:*</p>

<p>[5:46] And in their footsteps We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: <strong>We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light,</strong> and conformation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. [5:47] <strong>Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.</strong> If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah has revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. [Emphasis mine.]</p>

<p>First, take note that the Qur’an actually says that Allah is responsible for sending Jesus and the “the Gospel,”&nbsp;referring to what we call the New Testament. Each was given to confirm “the Law,”&nbsp;referring to the Old Testament. In describing “the Gospel”&nbsp;we are told that it contains “guidance and light.”&nbsp;From just this verse, I think we are meant to conclude that God has multiple revelations and that these revelations can be used to confirm each other. For example, the New Testament confirms the Old Testament.</p>

<p>Second, in the very next sentence the Qur’an affirms that “The People of the Gospel,”&nbsp;referring specifically to Christians, should “judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”&nbsp;That is to say, Christians should judge by what’s in “the Gospel.”&nbsp;Here the author, Mohammed, is inviting Christians to judge his words by the New Testament. He believes that “the Gospel”&nbsp;and his words, the Qur’an, are in agreement. This makes perfect sense in light of the verse we just looked at. In essence, Mohammed is saying that just as the Gospel confirms the Law, which came before it, the Gospel will confirm the Qur’an, which is coming after it.</p>

<p>There is a problem here that Christians and Muslims both recognize: The New Testament <em>conflicts</em> with the Qur’an on a number of central doctrines. The Christian, who takes Mohammed at his word and <em>judges</em> the Qur’an by the New Testament, is forced to conclude that Mohammed got it wrong.</p>

<p>What does the Muslim say to this? The Muslim’s answer is quite simple. The Qur’an is God’s infallible, uncorrupted word; therefore, “the Gospel”&nbsp;must have been corrupted. Here’s the unstated presupposition: If the New Testament differs with the Qur’an, then it’s the New Testament that must have it wrong.</p>

<p>However, when the words of the Qur’an were being written down, Mohammed was communicating that the New Testament and the Old Testament are reliable. In his words, they are “sent”&nbsp;from Allah, they “confirm”&nbsp;each other and contain “guidance and light.”&nbsp;So up until that time in history, “the Gospel”&nbsp;and “the Law”&nbsp;that Mohammed was working from were not corrupted. If they were already corrupted, then his words don’t make any sense. He wouldn’t ask Christians to judge anything by a corrupted book. This leads us to conclude that the corruption must have taken place <em>after</em> the Qur’an was written (620-632 AD).</p>

<p>Here’s the problem, and it’s a big one. The manuscript evidence we have gathered from <em>after</em> the Qur’an was written completely agrees with the manuscript evidence we have from <em>before</em> the Qur’an was written. That is to say, the New Testament around at the time of Mohammed is identical to the text we have today. It’s the same text. Even Bart Ehrman, who estimates that there are around 400,000 variants of the New Testament text, affirms that we essentially know what the originals contained. Therefore, whatever was true about the New Testament at the time Mohammed wrote the Qur’an is <em>still</em> true of the New Testament today.</p>

<p>Therefore, if the Qur’an is true, then what Mohammed said about the New Testament is also true. Mohammed instructs Christians to judge the Qur’an by what is in the New Testament. Ironically, if you do this you find that the Qur’an hopelessly contradicts what “Allah has revealed”&nbsp;in the New Testament. For example, the New Testament teaches that Jesus died on a cross for the sins of the world and then rose from the dead three days later. Conversely, the Qur’an says that Jesus was never even crucified on a cross and, thus, had no need for a resurrection from the dead. The Christian is forced to conclude that the Qur’an is in error. Therefore, by the Qur’an’s own standard, if the Qur’an is true, then the Qur’an is false.</p>

<p>*Taken from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s English translation of the Qur’an</p>

<p>I owe the formulation of this argument to Dr. James White, director of <a href="http://www.aomin.org/" target="_blank">Alpha and Omega Ministries</a>. You can see Dr. White develop this argument <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag7VYU3Evt4" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-the-quran-is-true-then-it-s-false" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-the-quran-is-true-then-it-s-false" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-the-quran-is-true-then-it-s-false" 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: Quick Thought: Don’t Give Up Your Christian Convictions
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-don-t-give-up-your-christian-convictions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s no need to change your religious convictions in order to treat people you disagree with like any other person that you respect. That’s why I’m mystified by the trend of some Christians to abandon their Christian theology and adopt pro-gay theology, then go back to the Bible to try and reinterpret the biblical passages to make them sound gay-affirming.</p>

<p>The proper thing to do when you realize your stereotypes are mistaken is just to see this group of people as people who are made in the image of God, who are kind, thoughtful, and have hopes and dreams just like everybody else, and treat them with dignity and respect. Yet, this is exactly what I don’t see happening very often.</p>

<p>You don’t have to abandon your biblical theology, adopt pro-gay theology, and try to reinterpret the biblical text to become gay-affirming simply because you’ve now had a shift in your attitude towards gays and lesbians. Have your shift occur, because those who identify as gay or lesbian are deserving of dignity and respect, and leave it at that. Keep your theology. Don’t give up your Christian convictions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/give-up-your-stereotypes-not-your-christian-convictions" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</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%2Fquick-thought-don-t-give-up-your-christian-convictions" 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%2Fquick-thought-don-t-give-up-your-christian-convictions" 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%2Fquick-thought-don-t-give-up-your-christian-convictions" 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: Communicate a Pro-Life Argument in Two Minutes or Less
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/23/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/communicate-a-pro-life-argument-in-two-minutes-or-less
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a helpful video from <a href="http://prolifetraining.com/" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you were asked to develop a pro-life argument that could be communicated in two minutes or less, could you do it? Could you make a case that a secular person would accept—a person who doesn’t want religious arguments for the pro-life view? I’m going to show you how to do that.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="h-iJQ92BwTU" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h-iJQ92BwTU?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/07/19/how-to-make-a-pro-life-argument-in-2-minutes-or-less/" target="_blank">Justin Taylor</a>)</p>
</div>

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


title: Can You Argue Someone into the Kingdom?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-you-argue-someone-into-the-kingdom-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sometimes when a person discovers I teach apologetics, they say, “You can’t argue someone into the Kingdom.”&nbsp;They’re aware of the arguments for God’s existence, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. These arguments, they claim, address the head, but not the heart. That’s why they can’t lead anyone to a saving faith in Jesus.</p>

<p>As a professional apologist who makes arguments and teaches others how to argue... I wholeheartedly agree. That’s right, you can’t argue someone into the Kingdom. Guess what? You can’t love someone into the Kingdom either. You can’t serve enough, preach enough, or pray enough to get someone into the Kingdom. That’s because whether or not someone trusts Christ is not dependent upon us. It’s up to God. The Holy Spirit is the One who draws people to Himself. God is the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).</p>

<p>Can God use acts of love towards an unbeliever to reach them? Yes. Can God use our prayers to bring someone to faith? Sure. Can God use our service to others to save them? Absolutely. God can use any means to save people. Therefore, He can even use arguments—yes, <em>arguments</em>—to bring someone into the Kingdom.</p>

<p>He’s done that a lot, in fact. The Apostle Paul routinely <em>argued</em> with people in the hall of Tyrannus, at Mars Hill, and in the marketplace. He “reasoned with them... giving evidence that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead... and some of them were persuaded”&nbsp;(Acts. 17:2-4).</p>

<p>God still uses arguments to draw people to Himself today. In a recent trip to Missouri, I was the main speaker for two one-week-long camps. During that time, I spoke to over 800 junior high, high school, and college students, many who were not Christian. The leadership—believe it or not—wanted an apologetics theme—a week devoted to teaching and training youth how to love God with their minds. At the beginning, I taught foundational issues like our identity as ambassadors and how to properly interpret Scripture. As the week progressed, I shifted towards more apologetic issues like understanding relativism, tactics in defending the faith, and reasons why we can trust the Bible. There were also question and answer sessions each day for students to formally ask questions as well as informal fireside-chat type meetings.</p>

<p>Thursday night, the evening before the students return home, is often the “altar call”&nbsp;night for many camps. The speaker usually delivers a passionate and emotional sermon-like presentation combined with a formal invitation to follow Christ.</p>

<p>That’s not what happened, though. Since this was an apologetics camp and I’m an apologist, I decided to end the week with a case for the resurrection of Christ. I wanted to explain to students that we have powerful evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. My goal was to make the week crescendo to this climactic presentation of the case for the resurrection—the crux of Christianity.</p>

<p>As always, I asked the Holy Spirit to help me convey the significance of the resurrection. I told students that if Jesus rose from the grave, that’s the most important event in history. It proves Jesus is who He said He was, that Christianity is true, that you will be resurrected and brought before God to account for your crimes against Him. Was I passionate? Of course. Was I emotional? Yes, but it wasn’t mere emotion. I presented the plain facts, the evidence for the resurrection, and allowed students to ponder the implications.</p>

<p>Here’s what happened. Although I didn’t invite people to make a decision, people still made decisions. Dozens of students committed to follow Christ that night. A youth pastor even showed me a picture of one of his students getting baptized in the lake at midnight.</p>

<p>Students responded the same way the following Thursday when I gave the same presentation to the next group. Except this time, after my presentation, students came up to the stage to publicly display their commitment to follow Christ. It was a powerful demonstration of God’s power to draw people to Himself.</p>

<p>Can you argue someone into the Kingdom? Yes, but it’s not the arguments alone that are sufficient. It’s the Holy Spirit who draws people to Himself. God, though, uses arguments (and/or love, service, prayer, etc.) as a means to an end—<em>His</em> end of saving souls.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-argue-someone-into-the-kingdom-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-argue-someone-into-the-kingdom-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-argue-someone-into-the-kingdom-" 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: Moving People from Offense to the Truth
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 08/04/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/moving-people-from-offense-to-the-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Oftentimes, when you disagree with someone’s views—particularly their religious and moral views—the person will take offense. When that happens, don’t get bothered or irritated. Just ask a question: “Why are you offended?”&nbsp;When they respond with some version of, “You think I’m wrong,”&nbsp;gently remind them this is precisely what they think of your view(s) as well. And I also quickly add that I am not in the least bit offended when they think my views are wrong. Why not? Because I want the truth. If my views about Christianity or some current social issue are wrong, I want to know.</p>

<p>In fact, a crucial indicator of my closest friends’&nbsp;love for me is their willingness to speak the truth to me. Do you know who loves me most? My wife. And can you guess who offends me more than anyone else? That’s right, my wife. Sometimes, while driving on California’s frenzied freeways, my wife will lean over and gently correct me. “Honey, you really shouldn’t yell lethal threats at other drivers.”&nbsp;It’s a risky move because my first response is often offense. “That guy was tailgating me!”&nbsp;But as she continues to gently speak truth to me and I slowly remember my goal to pursue truth in all areas of life, I open up to the truth of her words and the error of my ways. It often takes awhile but I (usually) come to see that my wife’s truth-telling is evidence of her deep love for me.</p>

<p>In the same way, sharing the truth with our non-Christian friends is evidence of our love for them. Assure your friends you’re not trying to unnecessarily offend them. Make it clear the pursuit of truth, in love, is your motivation. Defuse their defensiveness by suggesting you could possibly be wrong in your views too.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> If you can help your friends see that love and truth are not mutually exclusive, you can ensure that a potentially offensive discussion is a productive one.</p>

<p>Once they’re convinced you care, bring truth front and center. Gently ask, “Would you want to know if you were wrong? Would you want to know if your beliefs were false?”&nbsp;If they answer yes, they’re probably ready to hear more of the truth.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Some Christians get nervous at the suggestion we could be wrong. But there is no need for worry. First, to suggest we could <em>possibly</em> be wrong is not the same thing as suggesting we are <em>probably</em> wrong. Logically speaking, it’s <em>possible</em> Christianity is false. However, we have good reason to think it’s true and therefore have nothing to fear. Second, it models for the non-Christian the kind of open-mindedness we desire from them. When people sense you are open and fair-minded, they are more likely to engage in conversation. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmoving-people-from-offense-to-the-truth" 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%2Fmoving-people-from-offense-to-the-truth" 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%2Fmoving-people-from-offense-to-the-truth" 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: Praying the Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/24/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/praying-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Crossway published a terrific little book on prayer that can have a big impact on your prayer life. Donald S. Whitney’s book, <a href="http://smile.amazon.com/Praying-Bible-Donald-S-Whitney/dp/1433547848/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1437667718&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=donald+s+whitney" target="_blank">Praying the Bible</a>, is under 100 pages. It’ll take no time to read, but it’ll give you plenty of practical, insightful counsel on how to enrich your prayer life by praying through Bible passages. Whitney says that this is how we can learn a biblical way of praying and it provides fresh content for our prayers so that it doesn’t become routine and dull. Praying the Psalms is how we learn to pray, he states. The Psalms are the Bible’s prayer book so it’s a particularly good place to start. Praying Scripture keeps us engaged in prayer in a more meaningful and motivating way than the routines we tend to get into.</p>

<p>The book (let me say again, it’s under 100 pages) walks through the method so it’s easy to grasp how it’s done. To supplement the book, Crossway has a <a href="https://www.crossway.org/blog/2015/07/video-6-reasons-to-pray-the-bible/" target="_blank">five-day email series</a> of videos featuring Whitney teaching and modeling how to pray the Bible.</p>
</div>

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


title: Indirect Claims Jesus Is Jehovah
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/indirect-claims-jesus-is-jehovah
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I sometimes get requests from people asking us to create more resources for talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but until now, we haven’t had anyone on staff who had the experience and knowledge necessary for this. Now that <a href="http://www.str.org/training/speakers/tim-barnett" target="_blank">Tim Barnett</a> is on board here at STR, I think we’ll be seeing more on this topic in the future.</p>

<p>Here’s a brief video from Tim on indirect claims Jesus is Jehovah (see the series this came from—<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ6Pf5ZDSCk" target="_blank">Part 1</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP9o_m7sLI4" target="_blank">Part 2</a>):</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="_lXjQEMBjG8" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_lXjQEMBjG8?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>You can see a comparison between the titles given to both Jehovah and Jesus in article form <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/jesus-is-jehovah#.Vc6MGVNViko" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Do Not Fear Them
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/14/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-not-fear-them
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>We should never expect a fair shake, nor whine when it is not given. We are not to play the victim. That is disloyalty to Christ.</em></p>

<p>Lately I have had to fight my impulse to be discouraged and worried about the future. Recent developments in our culture can be overwhelming. It’s going to be even more of a challenge raising Biblically-grounded children in a society that tells them continually to be their own masters. I wonder how our freedom to dissent according to our religion and conscience might be restricted. How much worse will it get? Am I the only one who’s fighting discouragement? What is happening here?</p>

<p>There’s a simple answer to that question. There’s a simple explanation for why we often feel out-matched and out-maneuvered at every turn, a simple reason why the scoreboard always seems to read the same thing: Lions 10, Christians 0. Listen to Jesus:</p>

<p>A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household. (Matthew 10:24 ff)</p>

<p>Jesus warned us in advance. This is exactly how our Savior was treated, and this is exactly what He said our lot would be.</p>

<p>We should never expect a fair shake, nor whine when it is not given. We are not to play the victim. That is disloyalty to Christ. “Followers of Christ flinch at times from the pain of wounds and the smart of slights,”&nbsp;Os Guinness wrote, “but that cost is in the contract of the way of the cross... No child of a sovereign God whom we can call our Father is ever a victim or in a minority.”</p>

<p>This is why Jesus finished His comments with, “Therefore, do not fear them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.”</p>

<p>Listen carefully to those last words: “Do not fear them.”&nbsp;Jesus is with us. And He promises a final day of reckoning. As one person put it, “There is a justice, and one day they shall feel it.”&nbsp;But even ultimate victory should not be our concern.</p>

<p>If you want to know how I fight off discouragement, consider these words of Alan Keyes that I have posted in my study: “It is not for us to calculate our victory or fear our defeat, but to do our duty and leave the rest in God’s hands.”</p>

<p>At STR we measure our legitimacy by faithfulness and obedience to Christ, who alone will bring the increase. The most important gauge of our success will not be our numbers or even our impact, but our fidelity to Jesus.</p>

<p>Every day STR stands steadfast, training ambassadors for Christ to go into the field. We show up for the debate, we provide the resources so that you can answer the call.</p>

<p>When the odds are against us, we do not quit or even slow down. We stand firm. We do not fear the opposition, we do not whine, or pout, or play the victim. We take what comes our way, hold our heads high, and stay engaged. Because of Jesus’&nbsp;promise, we are of good cheer:</p>

<p>These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-not-fear-them" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-not-fear-them" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-not-fear-them" 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: Two Things to Remember When Discussing Creation with Other Christians
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-things-to-remember-when-discussing-creation-with-other-christians
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month I had the opportunity to speak to hundreds of high school students at Hume Lake Christian Camp in California. One of the sessions was titled <em>Ask Me Anything</em>. On this particular occasion, many of the questions related to science and faith. In fact, one question kept coming up: How should we understand the creation account in Genesis 1?</p>

<p>There are few conversations between Christians that generate as much heat as those concerning creation. It seems like there are as many interpretations of Genesis as there are Christians. Depending on which view you hold, you might be labeled a “fundamentalist,”&nbsp;a “compromiser,”&nbsp;or even a “heretic.”&nbsp;I’ll let you decide which theory goes with each label.</p>

<p>When it comes to this issue there are two key principles that all Christians should keep in mind. The first principle is that Christians gather truth about creation from two sources: general revelation and special revelation. <em>Nature</em> is God’s general revelation and <em>Scripture</em> is God’s special revelation. God communicates through both sources of revelation, and both need to be studied and interpreted.</p>

<p>This leads to the second principle: everyone interprets. The interpretation of nature is called <em>science</em> whereas the interpretation of Scripture is called <em>hermeneutics</em>. Of course, these are interpreted in very different ways by using the tools within each discipline. We interpret the Bible using principles of hermeneutics and we interpret nature using the principles of the scientific method.</p>

<p>In his systematic theology, Dr. Norm Geisler writes, “For whenever there is a conflict between an interpretation of the Bible and a current understanding of God’s natural revelation, priority should generally be given <em>to the interpretation that is more certain.”</em></p>

<p>Some of you might be thinking, “That can’t be right, Tim. Doesn’t Scripture always trump science?”&nbsp;Technically, that’s not the right question. In fact, that would be a fundamental mistake bordering on a category error. We need to be careful not to pit Scripture against science, or nature against hermeneutics, since they are on different levels. In creation debates, we are talking about our interpretation of Scripture and our interpretation of nature. God’s two revelations, nature and Scripture <em>always</em> agree. It’s our <em>interpretation</em> of Scripture and our <em>interpretation</em> of nature that may conflict. And when they do, it follows that one (or both) of our conflicting interpretations is wrong. Consequently, we should give priority to the interpretation that is more certain.</p>

<p>Geisler continues, “God has revealed Himself in His Word and in His world... The problem is what we do when they seem to conflict. It is too simplistic to conclude that the Bible is always right and science is wrong. Of course, the Bible is always right, but our interpretation of it is not.”</p>

<p>Here’s an example from history to help drive home this point. Some interpretations of the Bible would have us believe that the Earth sits stationary while the planets and Sun revolve around it. This is known as <em>geocentricism</em>. After all, the psalmist writes, “The Lord reigns; He is robed in majesty, the Lord is robed; He has put on strength as His belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved”&nbsp;(Psalm 93:1; cf. 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 96:10). He also says, “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved”&nbsp;(Psalm 104:5). Ecclesiastes 1:5 echoes, “The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”&nbsp;Now, surely these (and many other passages like them) should not be taken literally, right?</p>

<p>Well, you may be surprised to learn that some great theologians of the past interpreted these verses in a straightforward manner. Listen to the words of Martin Luther:</p>

<p>“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must... invent something special, and the way he does it must be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”</p>

<p>Notice Luther’s argument. It is “Holy Scripture that tells us”&nbsp;the Earth does not move; therefore, heliocentricism is false. But virtually everyone nowadays believes that the Earth moves around the Sun. Does that mean the Bible was wrong? Certainly not! What it means is that Luther’s interpretation of the Bible was wrong. In fact, our interpretation of nature helped us better understand what the Bible says. This is a significant point that should not be overlooked.</p>

<p>No matter what your view of creation, I think keeping these two principles in perspective will help you generate more light than heat while discussing your view of creation. Always remember, when it comes to creation we have two sources of revelation to consider, and both must be interpreted.</p>

<p>The Q&amp;A time with the students affirmed for me the hunger that our young people have for answers to their deepest questions. This optional <em>Ask Me Anything</em> session was slated for 45 minutes. However, it lasted over two hours. The work I’m doing at Stand to Reason is fulfilling a significant need. Please continue to pray for me as I do my best to equip the next generation with answers.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-things-to-remember-when-discussing-creation-with-other-christians" 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%2Ftwo-things-to-remember-when-discussing-creation-with-other-christians" 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%2Ftwo-things-to-remember-when-discussing-creation-with-other-christians" 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 Planned Parenthood Videos: Organ Donations and Euphemisms
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The horrific nature of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos has overwhelmed me. You can view videos <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU" target="_blank">one</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw" target="_blank">two</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo" target="_blank">three</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8" target="_blank">four</a> (along with the full, unedited footage) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/centerformedprogress/videos" target="_blank">here</a>. No, I shouldn’t say you <em>can</em>. You should. You must. This is what we’re currently allowing, and it must be seen. The abortion industry has been hiding behind a curtain of euphemisms for so long that even you, pro-lifer, have become somewhat accustomed to its existence. Let these videos shake you back into reality.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/how-should-we-use-graphic-images#.XK4cRRNKijQ" target="_blank">As with other social movements to correct injustices</a> in the past (e.g., slavery and civil rights), images can reveal truth, playing a key role in helping us understand with our minds things that would otherwise only be a vague idea to us. As the ancient Roman poet Horace said, “Less vividly is the mind stirred by what finds entrance through the ears than by what is brought before the trusty eyes.”&nbsp;This, I think, will be the most important result of these videos, regardless of what comes of the legal accusations against Planned Parenthood.</p>

<p>You can read about <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/30/10-quick-important-developments-on-the-planned-parenthood-scandal/" target="_blank">10 Quick, Important Developments on the Planned Parenthood Scandal</a> and learn a little about the legality and ethics involved in supplying fetal body parts to research facilities <a href="http://erlc.com/article/explainer-what-you-should-know-about-fetal-tissue-donation" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<h2>What’s Morally Different about These Organ Donations?</h2>

<p>Leaving aside the morality of abortion itself for a moment, why should anyone object to Planned Parenthood supplying organs to research facilities? What makes the donation of these organs morally different from a mother’s donation of her baby’s organs after the child’s tragic death? The difference can be found <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU" target="_blank">in the doctor’s words</a> explaining what makes the giving of <em>these</em> human organs possible:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that [researchers want these], so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The organs are requested by the research facilities while the healthy organ “donor”&nbsp;is still living, and then the wanted organs are obtained by carefully crushing the organ owner to death. This changes the moral picture.</p>

<h2><strong>The Legal Step That </strong>Needs <strong>to Be Taken</strong></h2>

<p>The heart of the moral problem with Planned Parenthood’s organ donations (again, leaving aside the morality of the abortion on its own) needs to be legally addressed: No individual or organization should be legally allowed to donate organs if they’re responsible for the death of the organs’&nbsp;owner. Period.</p>

<p>If there’s a beneficial transaction to be had from the death of a human being, then you can’t be allowed to participate in that transaction if you’re the one bringing about that human being’s death. (This applies whether you’re personally directly benefiting or the person you’re donating <em>to</em> is directly benefiting; for in the second case, the one who directly benefits is likely to return the favor with indirect benefits to encourage more donations—i.e., more <em>killing</em> to facilitate more giving.) To allow such a thing incentivizes killing and will inevitably lead to abuses.</p>

<p>If we’re going to talk about legal steps that need to be taken, this seems like it should be one of the first.</p>

<h2>When Abortion Doctors Drop Their Euphemisms</h2>

<p>As the doctor in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8" target="_blank">fourth video</a> picks through the baby parts, she says, “It’s a baby,”&nbsp;and announces, “Another boy!”&nbsp;Planned Parenthood workers may tell women to their faces that it’s up to them whether the “clump of cells”&nbsp;inside them is a baby, but this is how the doctors talk behind their backs. They speak the plain truth. They speak of human organs. They speak of genders. They speak of babies.</p>

<p>My prayer is that these videos will break the spell of the abortion industry’s insidious euphemisms.</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-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms" 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-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms" 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-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms" 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 Nature of Moral Obligations: Moral Incumbency
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 07/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-incumbency
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In discussions of morality, we often use phrases like “John ought to do X”&nbsp;or “John ought not to do Y.”&nbsp;But what is this oughtness we refer to? What can be said of it to help us better understand the nature of morality? The oughtness of a moral obligation is what philosophers call incumbency, and as we explore the nature of moral incumbency, four observations arise that seem to resist naturalistic explanations.</p>

<p><em>First, the incumbency of moral obligations demands something from us and binds us to something.</em> Moral obligations have an external force that presses in on us and compels us to act or refrain from acting in certain ways. We may be more acutely aware of this invisible demand when we’re alone. For example, imagine I’m at a convenience store to purchase a Snickers candy bar, and the lone cashier informs me he has to use the restroom in the back of the store and subsequently departs from the cash register. Prior experience informs me this convenience store has no security cameras, and a quick observation helps me to determine no one else is in the store and no cars are in the parking lot. At this point a temptation to take the Snickers without paying for it may come rushing into my mind. However, the temptation is accompanied by a second experience, an awareness of what I ought to do. My awareness of an obligation not to take what does not belong to me presses in on me with such force that it compels right action. Therefore, I stand at the counter with my Snickers, waiting for the cashier to return.</p>

<p>The objector may claim that not everyone experiences this incumbency. But what follows from this? Certainly my experiences or feelings are irrelevant to the actual state-of-affairs. My claim is not that the experience of moral incumbency is universally felt, but that one’s incumbency to moral obligations obtains in the actual world.</p>

<p><em>Second, moral obligations are unconditional imperatives.</em> They’re incumbent upon us whether we desire them or not, agree to them or not, or recognize them or not. There’s no opting out of our moral obligations. We simply must obey. And no one thinks you are excused if you choose not to fulfill them. Indeed, we’re justified in considering such a person to be morally reprehensible or deficient and deserving of punishment.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> This is why fathers who don’t desire and consequently refrain from paying child support are called “dead-beat dads”&nbsp;and sent to jail.</p>

<p><em>Third, this incumbency applies not only to one’s actions but to the underlying motives as well.</em> I may have an obligation to help a little old lady across the street, but my obligation reaches deeper than just the action itself. I also have an obligation to be properly motivated in doing so. If I help the old lady across the street because I believe we ought to take care of weaker individuals in society or because I believe she has dignity and value in virtue of her being a human being, I am properly motivated. However, if I’m motivated by a desire to get some money from her in the end, I would be considered morally repugnant. Thus, moral obligations make demands not only on the observable action but on the unobservable motive as well.</p>

<p><em>Finally, moral obligations place demands on us prior to any action.</em><sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> It is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to be in the midst of action to experience the incumbency of obligations. We may simply reflect on a given behavior and experience the demands of our moral obligation. I reflect for a brief moment on the act of child abuse, and I am immediately aware that I ought to refrain from such behavior.</p>

<p>So what is the naturalist to make of moral incumbency? It would seem such a feature of moral obligations do not fit a naturalistic view of reality. Moral obligations have an invisible external force that makes demands not only on our actions but on our motives as well, and those demands come into play prior to any action. At the same time, such obligations may be counterproductive to our good. If naturalism is true, it would be very difficult to account for the fact of moral incumbency.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I will expand on the notion of deserved punishment in tomorrow’s post. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, <em>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 166. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-incumbency" 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-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-incumbency" 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-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-incumbency" 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 Evolution so Widely Believed?
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A common question that comes up after I give my talk titled <em>Why I Am Not an Evolutionist</em> is, “If there are so many good scientific arguments against evolution, why is it so widely believed?”</p>

<p>I recently came across an <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed/" target="_blank">article</a> by Dr. William Lane Craig where he responds to this exact question. In his brilliant response he makes two key observations, which I will highlight here.</p>

<p>First, Dr. Craig points outs that the mainstream acceptance of the theory of evolution is not for <em>scientific</em> reasons; it’s accepted for <em>philosophical</em> reasons. More specifically, it’s believed because of a commitment to methodological naturalism. Craig says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I think the short answer is that it’s the best naturalistic theory we’ve got. If, as a result of methodological naturalism, the pool of live explanatory options is limited to naturalistic hypotheses, then, at least until recently, the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution driven by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection was, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, “<em>the only game in town</em>.”&nbsp;[Emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Methodological naturalism simply means that scientists must assume philosophical naturalism—only natural causes exist—when doing science. Of course, this assumption excludes all supernatural explanations <em>a priori</em>. Therefore, for anyone holding to methodological naturalism, creationism and intelligent design are not on the table as possible explanations. Even if all the <em>scientific</em> evidence pointed away from evolution and towards intelligent design, they would still need to cling to the theory of evolution because it’s the only possible <em>naturalistic</em> explanation. It’s the only game in town.</p>

<p>Second, Craig offers a helpful reminder. He says, “It’s helpful to remind ourselves that the word ’evolution’&nbsp;is an accordion word that can be expanded or contracted to suit the occasion.”</p>

<p>Evolution is an equivocal word. This means that it can have more than one meaning. For instance, it can mean anything from simple, biological change over time—change in allele frequency—to universal, common descent of all organisms from a single, common ancestor. The former is accepted by virtually everyone, including the staunchest young earth creationist. The latter, on the other hand, has many highly qualified biologists questioning whether the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations is up to the task.</p>

<p>So when the question arises as to why evolution is so widely believed, we need to find out what the questioner means by <em>evolution</em>. In one sense, evolution is believed because it’s true; organisms change over time. In another sense, it’s believed because it’s the only theory in play given their commitment to methodological naturalism.</p>

<p>Craig concludes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So while evolution in an innocuous sense is well-established, belief in evolution in [other senses] is not universal among scientists, and the dominance of neo-Darwinism heretofore is due to the constraints of methodological naturalism and the want of a better naturalistic alternative.</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-evolution-so-widely-believed-" 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-evolution-so-widely-believed-" 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-evolution-so-widely-believed-" 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: Belief in God, Evidence, and the Human Heart
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/belief-in-god-evidence-and-the-human-heart
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if he found himself standing before Him after his death. Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ’Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> For Russell, it all came down to the evidence. The implication here is that given enough evidence, Russell would have believed. But is it really that simple? Does belief in God <em>merely</em> depend on evidence?</p>

<p>This past month I had the opportunity to join Brett Kunkle and a group of high school students on an apologetics mission trip to the University of California at Berkeley. This one-week trip trains students to defend their faith and gives them an opportunity to do so in real-life discussions with atheists and other non-Christians. In fact, atheists are invited into the classroom to give the students their best shot.</p>

<p>One of the atheists we brought in raised a challenge similar to Russell’s: if God exists, why isn’t there more evidence for His existence? This is a fair question that demands a thoughtful response. One such response came from Blaise Pascal, the brilliant French mathematician and philosopher. Pascal believed that there is <em>sufficient</em> evidence for anyone who honestly seeks after God with all his heart:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself, which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Pascal makes it clear that the amount of evidence is not the issue. The evidence that God provides is always adequate for its task. The issue is with the <em>desires</em> of the human heart. Therefore, the problem is not with God; the problem is with us.</p>

<p>God does not want to coerce anyone into a relationship with Him. Consequently, that is exactly what too much evidence would do. Certainly God could have written ’YAHWEH’&nbsp;in the stars or stamped ’Made by God’&nbsp;on every atom in the universe, but this would only force God into our lives and eliminate the possibility of genuinely seeking Him with all our hearts.</p>

<p>Speaking through His prophet Jeremiah, God promises, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart”&nbsp;(Jer. 29:13).<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Many years later, Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, repeats this truth by stating, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened”&nbsp;(Matt. 7:7-8).</p>

<p>Bertrand Russell’s response is very telling. He assumed, as many people do today, that knowledge of God is <em>only</em> an evidence issue; if you reach a certain amount of evidence, then you will believe. This is simply not true. Consider the Pharisees’&nbsp;response to Jesus healing the paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda. After being confronted with the incredible evidence that Jesus miraculously healed a man, who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years, the Pharisees “were seeking all the more to kill him”&nbsp;(John 5:18). Instead of allowing this powerful evidence to lead them towards God, they hardened their hearts and were driven away from Him.</p>

<p>Therefore, belief in God is not only an evidence issue; it is also a heart issue. The evidence exists, but you must seek God with all your heart. Sadly, most people desire to suppress the evidence for God. The apostle Paul makes this point in his letter to the church in Rome:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-20).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul does not mince words. Everyone clearly perceives the evidence. It is the wicked human heart that refuses to accept the evidence. While it is certainly true that there is not <em>overwhelming</em> evidence that would force a person to believe that God exists, there is <em>enough</em> evidence to bring any genuine seeker, who seeks with all his heart, into a belief in the Almighty God.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Leo Rosten, “Bertrand Russell and God: A Memoir,”&nbsp;The Saturday Review, February 23, 1974, 26. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Blaise Pascal, Pensées (New York: E.P. Dutton &amp; Co., Inc., 1958), 118. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">All Bible references are taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbelief-in-god-evidence-and-the-human-heart" 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%2Fbelief-in-god-evidence-and-the-human-heart" 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%2Fbelief-in-god-evidence-and-the-human-heart" 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 Nature of Moral Obligations: Moral Guilt
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 07/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Persons who do not fulfill their moral obligations are subject to adverse judgment. If I choose to refrain from a morally obligatory act, I am guilty. But let’s distinguish between two types of guilt. First, guilt may be thought of in terms of a subjective emotion moral agents experience when they fail to fulfill their obligations. The failure results in deep ethical pain or discomfort. Feelings such as regret, remorse, or resentment may accompany one’s moral failings.</p>

<p>While an account of guilty feelings may be useful, for my purposes I will only concern myself with a second sense of guilt. In this sense, guilt refers to an objective state-of-affairs. In virtue of an agent’s moral failings, he has done something wrong, and as such, deserves appropriate blame and just punishment. The guilty person in this sense may not recognize or admit guilt, but the objective fact of their guilt remains nonetheless. Guilty feelings may or may not accompany the agent’s actions, but they’re not necessary in order to levy some punishment against an objectively guilty person.</p>

<p>Indeed, punishment is one of the things that distinguishes the rational ought from the moral ought. I may have a rational obligation to hold that 2 + 2 = 4, but if I fail to live up to it I’m not subject to punishment. However, if I fail to fulfill my moral obligation not to abuse young children, then appropriate punishment seems clearly justified. Rational wrongs require a correction of the error, while moral wrongs require the correction, or punishment, of the person.</p>

<p>We turn again to naturalism for an accounting of this feature of moral obligations. The naturalist may explain the existence of guilt with some kind of evolutionary account that claims it has survival value for the human species. Moral guilt compels continued cooperation among persons, and as a result, human beings are able to pass on their genes to the next generation. However, such an account only works by reducing obligations to feelings that somehow connect to patterns of action that help us survive. But remember, our primary concern is not with guilt feelings but an objective state of guilt resulting from a failure to fulfill moral obligations. Indeed, guilt feelings may not be absurd in a naturalistic world, but moral obligations that have no survival value would be absurd in such a world. Thus, moral guilt is another feature of morality that seems to resist naturalistic explanations.</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-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Religions Are Not All Basically the Same
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/11/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/religions-are-not-all-basically-the-same
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Historian Rodney Stark explains why the theology of God in different religions produces very different religions. All religions cannot basically be the same because their gods are not the same; some religions don’t even have a deity. The kind of god one believes in determines whether or not morality is part of the religion (some religions have no moral guidelines) and whether or not we are meant to have relationship with the deity. Some gods, as conceived by various religions, just are not capable of being moral or having a relationship with human beings. Stark explains in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1434749195&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=rodney+stark+how+led+to" target="_blank"><em>For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Whether religions generate moral culture depends greatly upon their image of God. Not only are divine essences unable to issue commandments; they cannot sustain any concept of “sin.”&nbsp;The Tao does not advise humans to love one another, nor does the “First Cause”&nbsp;tell us not to covet another’s spouse. Paul Tillich’s “ground of our being”&nbsp;is not a being and consequently is incapable of having, let alone expressing, moral concerns. Only Gods—conscious supernatural beings—can desire our moral conformity. Even that is not sufficient. Gods can lend sanctions to the moral order only if they are responsive and dependable—if they are concerned about, informed about, and active on behalf of humans. Moreover, to promote virtue among humans, Gods must themselves be virtuous—they must favor good over evil. Finally, Gods will be more effective in sustaining moral precepts, the greater their scope—that is, the greater the diversity of their powers and the range and duration of their influence. Besides lacking scope, the many Gods of polytheistic systems are often not conceived of as responsive and dependable, or as necessarily favoring good over evil. Among the Indians of the Northwest Coast, the Gods (such as they were) did not concern themselves with morality, and magic dominated ritual life. Aside from those involved in ascetic sects, most Greeks and Romans believed that their Gods could hear their pleas, but that they mostly didn’t listen and didn’t care. Aristotle taught that the Gods were incapable of real concern for humans—lust, jealousy, and anger, yes, but never affection. Such Gods may require propitiation, and it may sometimes be possible to bargain with them for favors. But they are not to be counted on, and it is quite uncertain that it is even wise to attract their attention. Indeed, the Gods of Greece and Rome (and of polytheisms in general) sometimes kept their word, and sometimes they provided humans with very valuable rewards. But they often lied and did humans great harm for very petty reasons...</p>

<p>It may have been worthwhile to periodically offer such Gods a sacrificial animal or two (especially since the donors feasted on the offering after the ceremony), but they were not worth more. Consequently, they could not ask more. In contrast, the immense Gods of the monotheisms ask much more and get it. In return for the otherworldly rewards they promise, and to enable humans to avoid the terrible punishments they threaten, these Gods uniformly impose sets of demands. And all of these sets include extensive codes of human conduct, not only toward the sacred, but toward one another...</p>

<p>Recently, a substantial body of anthropological and experimental evidence has been assembled to explain that variations in the importance placed on ritual precision reflect differences in the capacities attributed to the supernatural agents to which (or whom) the rituals are directed. When, as in the case of magic, the supernatural agent is an unconscious entity or is a supernatural creature of very limited capacity (such as a demon or an imp), it will be assumed that each ritual must be performed with extreme precision because the supernatural agency lacks the capacity to know the intent of those performing the ritual and is unable to overlook errors in ritual performance. As Justin Barrett put it, ritual precision is required in dealings with “dumb gods.”&nbsp;This same logic applies, if to a somewhat lesser extent, to religions based on Gods of limited scope. They, too, may take note not of the intent of rituals but only of their execution. Indeed, there is a substantial element of compulsion in interactions with small Gods, as well as with the creatures that are sometimes invoked by magic (see the introduction). Here, too, the rituals must be perfect; otherwise the supernatural agent will not find them binding. In contrast, the omnipotent Gods of monotheism are thought to be fully aware of the intentions of the supplicant. Consequently, rituals are far less important, and precision is barely an issue when humans deal with Gods conceived of as all-seeing—if the priest errs, Jehovah knows what was meant, and the efficacy of a prayer does not hinge on precise adherence to a sacred formula.</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%2Freligions-are-not-all-basically-the-same" 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%2Freligions-are-not-all-basically-the-same" 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%2Freligions-are-not-all-basically-the-same" 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 Church and Slavery
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/17/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-church-and-slavery
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a recent <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/religions-are-not-all-basically-the-same#.W6cW6BNKijQ" target="_blank">post</a>, I quoted historian Rodney Stark extensively about how religions are not all the same. The different theologies of god in the world religions produce very different kinds of moral systems—some religions have no moral features at all. Consequently, monotheism, and Christianity in particular, was uniquely capable of theologies of God and humanity that made slavery incompatible with faithfulness. It was only when the Bible was corrupted by unchristian motivations that it was perverted to excuse an evil and sinful institution. From the beginning of the church, Christianity developed theology that condemned slavery. The church in the American South and other Christians throughout history who used the Bible to justify their bigotry and enslavement of human beings were the tragic exceptions to the rule. Their abuse of the Bible stood against the broad and historical understanding of what Christians believed the Bible taught about the equality and intrinsic value of every human being, not matter their race.</p>

<p>Some excerpts from Rodney Stark’s book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1434749195&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=rodney+stark+how+led+to" target="_blank"><em>For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Antislavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome and were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently “lost”&nbsp;from history until recently...</p>

<p>Except for several early Jewish sects, Christian theology was unique in eventually developing an abolitionist perspective...</p>

<p>As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians. Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe...</p>

<p>The first shipload of black slaves [arrived in Portugal in the 15th century], and as black slaves began to appear farther north in Europe, a debate erupted as to the morality and legality of slavery. A consensus quickly developed that slavery was both sinful and illegal... The principle of “free soil”&nbsp;spread: that slaves who entered a free country were automatically free. That principle was firmly in place in France, Holland, and Belgium by the end of the seventeenth century. Nearly a century later, in 1761, the Portuguese enacted a similar law, and an English judge applied the principle to Britain in 1772. Although exceptions involving a single slave servant or two, especially when accompanying a foreign traveler, were sometimes overlooked, “beyond a scattering of servants in Spain and Portugal, there were very few true slaves left in Western Europe by the end of the sixteenth century”...</p>

<p>The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen...</p>

<p>In 1787 the Quaker-inspired Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery was headed by Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, two of the most respected and influential living Americans. Not to be outdone, many Christian groups and luminaries took up the cause of abolition, and soon abolitionist societies sprang up that were not associated with a specific denomination. But, through it all, the movement (as distinct from those it made sympathetic to the cause) was staffed by devout Christian activists, the majority of them clergy. Indeed, the most prominent clergy of the nineteenth century took leading roles in the abolition movement...</p>

<p>Moreover, as abolition sentiments spread, it was primarily the churches (often local congregations), not secular clubs and organizations, that issued formal statements on behalf of ending slavery. The outspoken abolitionism expressed by Northern congregations and denominational gatherings caused major schisms within leading Protestant denominations, eventuating in their separation into independent Northern and Southern organizations...</p>

<p>[A] virtual Who’s Who of “Enlightenment���&nbsp;figures fully accepted slavery... It was not philosophers or secular intellectuals who assembled the moral indictment of slavery, but the very people they held in such contempt: men and women having intense Christian faith, who opposed slavery because it was a sin.</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%2Fthe-church-and-slavery" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-church-and-slavery" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-church-and-slavery" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Clever Tactic to Take on Tough Questions—Mentoring Letter August 2015
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-clever-tactic-to-take-on-tough-questions-mentoring-letter-august-2015
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Disagree with the Christian on this and you disagree with Christ. That’s why this should be your first line of response when answering this query.</em></p>

<p>A while back I stumbled upon what I think is a clever way of dealing with certain types of challenges that I face as a follower of Christ. I thought I’d pass it on to you hoping you’d find it useful, too.</p>

<p>For example, I used it recently with the culturally tricky issue of same-sex marriage.</p>

<p>I’d received a note from a dad whose daughter was in a competition where she knew she’d be asked her view on this issue—an obvious attempt to disqualify anyone who doesn’t toe the politically correct line on homosexuality. He wanted my opinion on the safest way to answer the question, “What do you think about same-sex marriage?”&nbsp;and still be faithful to Jesus.</p>

<p>Since Jesus said we should be innocent, but shrewd, I worked out a response I think satisfies both requirements: “Since I am a follower of Christ, my view on marriage is the same as Jesus’&nbsp;view, one He made clear in Matthew 19: One man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. So, on the definition of marriage, I stand with Jesus.”</p>

<p>You get the point. Disagree with the Christian on this and you disagree with Christ. That’s why this should be your first line of response when answering this query. Since Jesus still has credibility with most people, this puts the opposition in a bind.</p>

<p>Here’s the general principle: Pit the challenger against Jesus whenever you can.</p>

<p>That was my approach when I faced off with New Age “guru,”&nbsp;Deepak Chopra, a few years ago for a national TV debate on Lee Strobel’s Faith Under Fire. I knew it would be a mistake to match my credibility with Chopra’s. He was world famous. I was the local boy from LA. In a “Chopra vs. Koukl”&nbsp;matchup, I was outgunned.</p>

<p>There was someone else on my side, though, who had a lot more firepower than either of us: Jesus of Nazareth. If I could position the debate as Chopra vs. Jesus (“Dr. Chopra says this, but Jesus says that”), I knew I would fare much better in the eyes of the viewing public.</p>

<p>Once again I put this basic principle into play: Pit the challenger against Jesus. Step aside whenever you can and let Jesus shoulder the responsibility, so to speak, for His own claims. It really helps balance the scales.</p>

<p>This move is especially important when dealing with the most offensive detail of our message—which is also the central claim of the Gospel—that Jesus is the Savior for the world, the only one capable of rescuing us from judgment and restoring us to relationship with the Father.</p>

<p>The necessity of Jesus for salvation was one of the specific issues I had to address with Dr. Chopra. He tried to make me look narrow-minded and bigoted, but I simply kept taking him back to Jesus, a religious leader he’d already said he admired.</p>

<p>It’s no accident that the most important part of our message is also the most offensive. That’s why it’s vital we let Jesus carry the load here when we can. His view is crystal clear for anyone willing to take notice. And it’s the same message repeated by every biblical writer that Jesus personally trained to carry His message after Him.</p>

<p>To help you make this point with power, I assembled a little booklet called “<a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK109" target="_blank">Jesus the Only Way—100 Verses</a>.”&nbsp;It documents precisely what Jesus and His disciples taught about religious pluralism. You’ll find nine different lines of reasoning clearly showing that none of them thought that all spiritual roads lead to God. Rather, everyone needs Jesus. When this volatile issue comes up, you’ll have a ready reference allowing you to let Jesus speak for Himself. Some of the claims are explicit, some are implicit, but they all point the same way: one way.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-clever-tactic-to-take-on-tough-questions-mentoring-letter-august-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-clever-tactic-to-take-on-tough-questions-mentoring-letter-august-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-clever-tactic-to-take-on-tough-questions-mentoring-letter-august-2015" 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 Government Isn’t Neutral on Personhood
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-government-isn-t-neutral-on-personhood
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK125" target="_blank"><em>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em></a>, Frank Beckwith explains why the government’s position on fetal personhood is not neutral:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[In the <em>Roe v. Wade</em> decision,] Justice Blackmun argues that since experts disagree as to when life begins—when and if the fetus becomes a human person—the Court should not come down on any side. But contrary to his intent, Blackmun fails in his argument to establish government neutrality. When the state leaves the choice of pregnancy termination solely to the individual, it affirms that the fetus is not worthy of state protection and therefore can be discarded without requiring any public justification. Whatever one may think of this public policy, it certainly is not neutral...</p>

<p>Imagine you are back in the nineteenth century and the Court is confronted with the issue of enslaving African-Americans. Suppose in the name of state neutrality that it delivers the opinion that it takes no stand on the issue. On that basis it allows white Americans to own blacks as property. The Court may verbally deny taking any position on this issue, but its allowance of slavery is actually morally equivalent to taking a side—that African-Americans are not human persons. Likewise, the Court’s verbal denial of taking a position on fetal personhood is contradicted by its conclusion that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right and that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution.</p>

<p>By permitting abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, abortion-rights advocates have <em>decided</em>, for all practical purposes, when full humanness is attained. They have deemed this moment to occur at birth. Despite their claim that “no one knows when life begins,”&nbsp;abortion rights advocates act as if protectable human life begins at birth. Thus, far from being neutral, the Court’s opinion in <em>Roe</em> affirms a particular perspective on what constitutes a human person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If one is not sure whether or not fetal human beings are persons, the only rational, responsible thing to do is to <em>not</em> kill them. You can read philosopher Peter Kreeft’s explanation as to why this is the only morally permissible option for those who are skeptical about fetal personhood <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/08/07/dont-know-what-a-fetus-is-here-are-your-options/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>But there’s no need to be skeptical about fetal personhood, because <em>every</em> human being is a person, as Kreeft also <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm" target="_blank">explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Surely the correct answer [to how “person”&nbsp;is to be defined] is that a person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts. Why is one able to perform personal acts under proper conditions? Only because one is a person. One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person.</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%2Fthe-government-isn-t-neutral-on-personhood" 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-government-isn-t-neutral-on-personhood" 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-government-isn-t-neutral-on-personhood" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Living as Expatriates
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/living-as-expatriates
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As Christians, our place in the culture has changed, and there has been a lot of talk recently about how we should proceed from here. I like what Tom Gilson has to say about <a href="https://stream.org/christians-today-expatriates-not-exiles/" target="_blank">how we should view ourselves</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Claiming that we are exiles mistakes our mission. For if an exile has any mission at all, it’s to get back to the homeland, and do what needs to be done <em>back there</em>... “Exile”&nbsp;does not accurately describe who we are, nor does it identify what we’re about, as we live our lives in a postmodern culture... We are not <em>exiles</em> from Christendom. We are <em>expatriates</em> from heaven.</p>

<p>An expatriate is a person living for a time outside his own country to accomplish some plan or purpose. The term encompasses students and businessmen, diplomats and missionaries.</p>

<p>Our country indeed seems less like home than it once did. It’s becoming foreign to us. But that fact does not make us exiles, waiting here for the chance to return home—that is, to a more Christian-friendly America—so that we can get to work once we’re safely there. Instead, like expatriate students or diplomats, we’re here on mission <em>right here and now</em>. We long for no other home; none but heaven, and when [we] get there our mission will have been accomplished. For now we are exactly where we belong, at the time and place where God put us.</p>

<p>“Expatriate”&nbsp;evokes... a quiet, patient sense of duty. You are far from home for a season with a job to do. It will demand discomfort and sacrifice. You might never be recognized for it, at least in this life. All this is true...</p>

<p>Let’s discuss what it means to be expatriates, here on purpose and on a mission, for as long as God leaves us here. We may not be at home, but we’re right where He wants us. And we’ve got work to do.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of Gilson’s <a href="https://stream.org/christians-today-expatriates-not-exiles/" target="_blank">article</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fliving-as-expatriates" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fliving-as-expatriates" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fliving-as-expatriates" 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 Nature of Moral Obligations: Sociability
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 07/10/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-sociability
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reflection on moral guilt (see <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/07/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt.html" target="_blank">yesterday’s post</a>) leads us to discover another feature of moral obligations. Moral guilt seems to alienate people from one another.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> If one fails to live up to one’s obligation to uphold the laws of the land, alienation from individuals or even from a group of individuals will ensue. For example, someone who takes innocent life will experience alienation from that person’s loved ones, maybe a spouse or child. Such persons will be angry and may direct hatred toward the murderer. In addition, the murderer will be alienated from society-at-large and subsequently locked away. However, such alienation can be alleviated. Moral guilt can be removed by forgiveness from the appropriate party. Implicit in this discussion is the social nature of moral obligations.</p>

<p>The instantiation of moral obligations is internally related to personhood. Moral obligations only obtain between persons. In contrast, we don’t have obligations to inanimate objects. If I see a piece of wood lying on the ground, I’m not necessarily obligated to refrain from taking a hammer to it and breaking it into pieces. The proponent of naturalism may reply that if the piece of wood in question were part of someone’s house, then I would be obligated not to destroy it, and thus, I would be obligated to an inanimate object. However, my obligation obtains only <em>in virtue</em> of that piece of wood’s relationship to a person. My obligation is not to the wood itself but to the person, namely the owner of the house to which the wood is attached.</p>

<p>The proponent of naturalism may respond in a second way, arguing we have moral obligations to non-persons because we have obligations to creatures in the animal kingdom. We are obligated to care for and not harm animals. My first response is a question: Are we obligated to animals in the same way we’re obligated to human persons? The answer must clearly be no. Certainly there is a distinction between killing an innocent cow to eat and killing an innocent human to eat. If hungry packs of wolves were killing deer populations in a particular region of woods, would we send in the military to intervene? No. Indeed, we refer to such action as killing but refrain from using moral terms like murder. However, when we see human genocide, the world community recognizes an obligation to act.</p>

<p>Secondly, if our supposed obligations to animals are unlike our obligations to other persons, maybe they’re not obligations at all. Given a theistic framework, our moral obligation to care for animals is not an obligation to the animals themselves but rather an obligation to the <em>personal</em> Creator who brought them into existence and has charged human persons to rule over and be good stewards of His created order.</p>

<p>The social nature of moral obligations makes sense of the first feature, moral incumbency. Imagine a teenager who is preparing to play scrabble. She opens the box containing the scrabble board and tiles and proceeds to dump the pieces on the kitchen table. However, her attention is quickly diverted by the sitcom playing on the living room television. She wanders in that direction. Now imagine that she returns to the kitchen table and discovers the following words formed by scrabble tiles: “Take out the trash.”&nbsp;If the teenager comes to discover the words were formed by her chance dumping of the pieces on the table, there would be no moral incumbency behind this command. However, if she discovered this was her dad’s humorous way to communicate his commands, the incumbency of her moral obligation to obey dad would press in on her. Thus, moral obligations obtain when there are at minimum two persons involved.</p>

<p>But one more thing must be said. Imagine this teenage girl discovered it was not dad who arranged the tiles but rather her six-year-old brother. The moral incumbency would not come into play because the younger brother is not a person with the requisite authority to make such commands. Thus, a moral obligation has incumbency when a command is issued by an <em>appropriate</em> authority.</p>

<p>Again, we turn to the naturalist for an account. How do moral obligations that arise by a chance collision of atoms obtain in the actual world? How would naturalism account for moral obligations, with their requisite social nature, in virtue of purely material and non-social processes? Impersonal forces cannot give rise to personal ones. Moreover, how could non-rational physical processes be the basis of authority for moral obligations? Thus, another feature of morality further presses in on the naturalist because given naturalism, there’s no appropriate personal authority to ground moral obligations.</p>

<p>Given these four features of morality—<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/07/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-immateriality-.html" target="_blank">immateriality</a>, <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/07/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-incumbency.html" target="_blank">incumbency</a>, <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/07/the-nature-of-moral-obligations-moral-guilt.html" target="_blank">guilt</a>, sociability—what’s the best explanation? Naturalism can’t provide adequate ontological grounding for morality. Our moral obligations go much deeper than naturalism’s accounting. So, if moral obligations can’t be properly grounded in a nonreligious view of the world, then we should move in the direction of a theistic worldview that offers us a much more plausible explanation.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Robert Merrihew Adams, <em>Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics</em> (New York: Oxford Press, 1999), p. 239. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;���</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-nature-of-moral-obligations-sociability" 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-nature-of-moral-obligations-sociability" 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-nature-of-moral-obligations-sociability" 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 Fruit of Relativism Is Naked Power
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/30/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-fruit-of-relativism-is-naked-power
content:
            <div> 
		<p>More disturbing than the fact that a new <a href="/w/only-one-question-what-is-marriage-" target="_blank">definition of marriage</a> is now the law of the land is the way in which this transformation was accomplished. The actions of the Court <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/here-are-the-11-most-devastating-quotes-from-john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/" target="_blank">do not respect</a> the Constitution as a document containing principles the justices are obliged to recognize and conform their decisions to. As evidence, see what <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/elena-kagan-2009-there-is-no-federal-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/" target="_blank">Justice Kagan said in 2009</a> when asked, “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?”</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p329" target="_blank">Answer</a>: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There was no constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2009, but suddenly there is in 2015. How does this happen? The answer is found in the way the justices (and many in our culture) interact with texts. Decades of true-for-you-but-not-for-me relativism and language-and-reason-killing postmodernism have taken their toll. The words of the Constitution, rather than having an objective meaning that constrains the justices, are merely used by those justices to consecrate whatever they <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/here-are-the-11-most-devastating-quotes-from-john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/" target="_blank">personally think is good for society</a>. All one must do is say the words “<a href="/w/a-marriage-riddle" target="_blank">Fourteenth Amendment</a>,”&nbsp;attach them to a social reform, and voilà! A new right! In this case, the right to make the government change its <a href="/w/what-is-marriage-from-a-policy-perspective-" target="_blank">definition</a> of marriage to <a href="/w/now-we-wait-for-the-ruling" target="_blank">suit your preferences</a>.</p>

<p>What would a method of governing driven by the personal opinions of those in power and unrestrained by objective laws mean for our society? Consider <a href="https://www.michaelnovak.net/news/caritapolis-a-new-global-vision-for-catholic-social-thought" target="_blank">what Michael Novak wrote</a> last year about what relativism invites:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If we do not agree that some things are [objectively] true and others false, that some actions are just and others unjust, then we doom ourselves to relativism, or even worse, nihilism. By that door, <em>the thugs</em>, those willing to use the most awful violence, enter the nation, set the rules, concentrate all power in their own hands, and rule with ruthlessness. And if we do not agree that the difference between truth and falsehood, and between justice and injustice, is to be decided by <em>evidence</em> (not the desires of the thugs) as to what is real and what is good—then we have no protections against tyranny and torture.</p>

<p>Proponents of relativism in the West are, therefore, playing with fire, since regimes built solely on relativism, without any possibility of appealing to evidence and fair judgment, dwell under the wild desires of stark, naked power. In the Kingdom of Relativism, where truth no longer exists and only power matters, the thugs most willing to use brute power move into positions of leadership, and the finer spirits, concerned about such niceties as evidence and argument, are driven first into exile, and eventually to prison. Against false imprisonment these cannot shout, “Injustice!”&nbsp;For to this claim the thugs reply, “That’s just your opinion.”&nbsp;And one cannot say, “These charges are false!”&nbsp;For there is no longer any such thing as “true”&nbsp;or “false.”&nbsp;It is now power, power alone, that speaks. [<a href="https://twitter.com/BethanyJenkins/status/614874475981611008/photo/1" target="_blank">HT: Bethany Jenkins</a>]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Any hint at rule by power instead of laws is a precedent that should disturb <em>everyone</em>. Do not think the people in power will always be on <em>your</em> side. When they eventually are not, how will you restrain them? How can you appeal to the Constitution if the Constitution is whatever those with power over you say it is? How can there be justice if the words of laws constrain no one who is in power? There is nothing solid and objective for us to appeal to against injustice when relativism reigns. Relativism kills argumentation and gives birth to taunting, ridicule, and power moves.</p>

<p>If you are celebrating the Supreme Court’s actions this week, take care. If relativism, not law, reigns, your rights are only as secure as your ability to keep your people in power.</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-fruit-of-relativism-is-naked-power" 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-fruit-of-relativism-is-naked-power" 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-fruit-of-relativism-is-naked-power" 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: Jim Crow Comparisons Are Not Apt
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/05/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/jim-crow-comparisons-are-not-apt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I watched a conversation on one of the morning political talk shows today that was disturbing. The discussion was about religious freedom in the aftermath of the same-sex marriage ruling. Both people, on opposite sides of the marriage issue, agreed with religious freedom to dissent. But how they defined that was significant.</p>

<p>The SSM advocate heartily agreed that Christians have a right to disagree with the ruling, but he proscribed that freedom to the private realm and church. Churches have a right to teach what they wish with no repercussions. Individuals can believe what they want. But this freedom ends once a Christian enters the public square. Once a Christian enters the business world, they cannot discriminate. And he compared the <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/rfra-is-not-jim-crow#.VZq48xNViko" target="_blank">efforts to protect religious freedom in business to Jim Crow laws</a>, exceptions to the law that allowed discrimination and bigotry to continue.</p>

<p>There is no comparison to Jim Crow laws. So-called Christians who found ways to continue their unjust discrimination despite equal protection laws had no sound basis in the Bible or in Christian history. Bigotry had no widespread precedent in the teaching of the church in any place or at any time. Their use of the Bible was the exception, not the rule. In fact, the abolition movement came from Christian churches—and reaches back to the very beginning of Christianity and throughout history. The civil rights movement came from the churches and challenges those Christians who abused the Bible to excuse their racism and abuse of human beings. I watched the movie Selma a couple of days ago. It shows how support for civil rights was based in the church and supported across racial and denominational groups. The bigots were the exception in Christianity, not the rule.</p>

<p>Marriage between a man and a woman, on the other hand, has sound basis in the Bible and has been the universal teaching of the church at all time and in all places. It has been the rule of teaching.</p>

<p>Comparisons to the civil rights movement have very powerful persuasive power. But the comparison is unfair.</p>

<p>The First Amendment provides for the religious freedom of individuals to practice their religion in the public square. It’s an individual right, not just a right given to churches. It’s a right at all times, not just in private. This is how the man on TV this morning gave lip service to religious freedom but actually was in favor of restricting it.</p>

<p>Christian bakers and photographers have a right to follow their religious conscience in their businesses. They are not required by the Constitution to leave their religion at their front door once they step into their business. They do not discriminate against individuals of any kind. They do not want to participate in events that their religion says are wrong. This has sound basis in Christian teaching and is in no way similar to Jim Crow laws that were hideous violations of the Bible’s admonition that all people have equal value.</p>

<p>There’s a shift in the way the First Amendment is understood and being applied that actually undermines it. Rather than protecting religious freedom of individuals, the new interpretation will restrict religious freedom. Religion is being pushed from the public square and relegated to private, personal belief and churches. This isn’t the robust, free public square our Founders had in mind.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjim-crow-comparisons-are-not-apt" 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%2Fjim-crow-comparisons-are-not-apt" 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%2Fjim-crow-comparisons-are-not-apt" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/30/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology Part I</strong></p>

<p><strong>By Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon</strong></p>

<p>The scene was familiar: a church filled with joyful Christians, singing well-known hymns, praising God with arms outstretched, enjoying beautiful, bountiful fellowship with each other.</p>

<p>There was one significant difference, though, between this gathering and one you probably attend. All the participants were either homosexual or “gay affirming.”&nbsp;Plus, they’re on a mission to change your mind and your congregation’s theology about homosexuality.</p>

<p>It’s being called a new Reformation, but this is a reformation we do not need. These people are organized, serious, and single-minded—and you need to be ready for them, because and they are coming to your church.</p>

<p>The Reformation Project (TRP), founded by Matthew Vines, is one of a number of organizations<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> in this movement hosting conferences around the country.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Their mission: “We are dedicated to training LGBT<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity through the teaching of the Bible.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>TRP’s statement of faith is standard Evangelical fare, including a commitment to “the inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God... the Triune God... [Jesus’] death for our sins, His resurrection and eventual return... and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.”</p>

<p>Their conferences engage all the relevant Scriptures and standard challenges to the gay-friendly view. Drawing from the writings of legitimate scholars, they teach the conferees hermeneutics and theology combined with tactically clever and rhetorically compelling talking points. Then they role-play the responses in a winsome and attractive way. It’s essentially a Stand to Reason for revisionist pro-gay theology.</p>

<p>TRP’s approach adds a clever twist, though. Vines knows that an appeal to Scripture alone will not convince today’s Christian. Believers also need a subjective prod.</p>

<p>To make his view most appealing, then, Vines wants to make sure every non-gay-affirming Christian has a pleasant encounter with a gay person, especially a “gay Christian”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup>—to overcome what might be called the “ick”&nbsp;factor—the discomfort many feel about homosexuality chiefly because they have no gay family or friends.</p>

<p>This personalized approach is powerful. It’s easy to stigmatize and demonize the unfamiliar. Even stalwart fundamentalists, though, frequently change their view once they discover, for example, a family member identifies as gay.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<h2>“Not that Kind of Homosexuality”</h2>

<p>The current revisionist approach seeks to simplify an apparently complex textual issue by making a single, uncomplicated point: <em>The kind of same-sex behavior condemned in the Bible is not what modern-day LGBT Christians practice.</em></p>

<p>This is the “cultural distance argument,”&nbsp;the claim that ancient same-sex behavior was exploitive, abusive, and oppressive—completely unlike the caring, committed, covenantal unions promoted by gay Christians today. Scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality, then, apply only to the harsh and unjust practices, not to loyal, loving, same-sex intimacy.</p>

<p>Author Kevin DeYoung sums up the revisionist approach nicely in his recent critique:</p>

<p>The issue was not gender (whether the lovers were male or female), but gender roles (whether a man was overly feminized and acting like a woman). The issue was not men having sex with men, but men having sex with boys. The issue was not consensual same-sex sexual intimacy, but gang rape, power imbalances, and systemic oppression. The revisionist case can take many forms, but central to most of them is the “not that kind of homosexuality!”&nbsp;argument. We can safely set aside the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual behavior because we are comparing apples and oranges: we are talking in our day about committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships, something the biblical authors in their day knew nothing about.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Thus, on this view the Bible does not prohibit homosexuality <em>per se</em>, only abusive <em>forms</em> of homosexuality like pederasty, master-slave exploitation, promiscuity, rape, victimization, etc.</p>

<p>We have two general responses to this claim before we address the biblical case directly.</p>

<p>First, this conclusion is based on a selective use of the historical evidence from ancient Near East culture. Examples of exploitive sexuality abound in the literature, to be sure. However, a variety of non-abusive homosexual practices show up in the record, too—including all of the “loving”&nbsp;variations we witness today (except, notably, “gay Christians”). There are even references to nascent notions of what we would now call “sexual orientation.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>As it turns out then, in the ancient Near East “committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships”&nbsp;<em>did</em> exist, in addition to the exploitive forms. Why, then, presume the biblical texts merely forbid the second, but not the first? By what logic can biblical passages be said to inveigh only against the “abusive”&nbsp;practices and not homosexual conduct itself?</p>

<p>Second, Scripture nowhere makes this not-that-kind-of-homosexuality distinction. There’s not the slightest hint in any biblical passage that condemnation of homosexuality is based on—and therefore limited to—coercive or oppressive, same-sex activity. Instead, the Scripture consistently makes a different point, <em>one emphasized with every passage in question</em>. To see that point clearly, though, we need to go back to the beginning.</p>

<h2>“From the Beginning...”</h2>

<p>Two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth based an argument about marriage on a simple observation about the created order: Humans are made male and female. They are gendered. When confronted with the revisionist teaching on marriage of His own day, Jesus said:</p>

<p>Have you not <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs/?t=nas&amp;ll=g&amp;sn=314">read</a> that He who <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs/?t=nas&amp;ll=g&amp;sn=2936">created</a> them from the <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs/?t=nas&amp;ll=g&amp;sn=746">beginning</a> made them male and female and <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs/?t=nas&amp;ll=g&amp;sn=3004">said</a>, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate&nbsp;(Matt. 19:4-6).<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Jesus answered a question about divorce by going back to the beginning, to God’s original intention for marriage: one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. That was Jesus’&nbsp;view.</p>

<p>Contrary to common assertion, then, Jesus <em>did</em> have something to say about homosexuality. From the beginning God had designed, intended, and endorsed marriage and sex (“one flesh”) solely for long term, monogamous, heterosexual unions. Indeed, gendered human bodies reflect that purpose: men and women designed to <em>function</em> together, to <em>fit</em> each other physically in a complementary way.</p>

<p>Simply put, the man was made for the woman and the woman was made for the man. Reject that function and replace it with another, and you reject God’s own good purpose for sex.</p>

<p>Sam Allberry, himself a Christian managing same-sex attraction, put it this way: “What was going on with Adam and Eve explains what has gone on ever since. The perfect ’fit’&nbsp;between the two of them is the foundation for every human marriage since. The account is not just about their union, but every marriage union.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Not surprisingly, then, the six sexual activities prohibited in the Bible—adultery, fornication, rape, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality—each involve sex with someone other than one’s spouse. This point deserves repeating: <em>All forms of sex condemned in Scripture have a common characteristic: sex other than between a husband and his wife</em>.</p>

<p>Jesus spelled out the natural, normal sexual/marital relationship with crystal clarity. Inside marriage, sex is sacred; outside marriage, it is defiled. God gives sexual freedom only to husbands with wives—not to friends or co-workers, not to casual dates, not to long-term sweethearts, and not to same-sex partners in any kind of relationship—exploitive and abusive, or loving and committed.</p>

<p>Man was made to function sexually with a woman, and a woman with a man, to accomplish a natural purpose—“be fruitful and multiply”—that could not be fulfilled in same-sex unions.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> This was God’s intention “from the beginning.��&nbsp;It was the way God wanted it. It is still the way it’s supposed to be. And this is the theme we find—explicit or implicit—with every passage condemning homosexuality: <em>man abandoning the natural function of God’s purpose for sex.</em></p>

<p>It’s time now to look at those passages.</p>

<h2>A Tale of Two Cities</h2>

<p>TRP conference “Talking Point #6”&nbsp;characterizes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> this way: “Sodom and Gomorrah involved a threatened gang rape, not... loving relationships based on mutuality and fidelity.”&nbsp;According to Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV), the cities’&nbsp;residents “were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and the needy.”&nbsp;Jude’s reference in verse 7 to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after “different flesh”...“likely refers to the attempted rape of non-human beings, angels.”</p>

<p>On TRP’s take, then, homosexuality itself was not a problem, only sexual violence and social injustice. Are they right? Of course, the above explanations are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. Here’s the key question, though: Does the biblical record indicate that homosexuality was a factor <em>at all</em> in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?</p>

<p>Three observations make it clear that the revisionist approach is not an adequate explanation.</p>

<p>First, there was no rape, only an expressed <em>intention</em> that was not fulfilled. Thus, according to the revisionist view, God annihilated two entire cities in part because a gang of ruffians hoped to sexually assault two men they never actually touched. This seems odd. It’s hard to believe that merely <em>attempting</em> a crime—even one as despicable as rape—would bring annihilation. I think we can eliminate that option.</p>

<p>Second, Jude 7 says, “Sodom and Gomorrah <em>and the cities around them</em>... indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh”&nbsp;(<em>sarkos heteras</em>). Yes, sex with angels would be strange, but there is absolutely no indication the men of Sodom—or even Lot—knew the visitors were angels. Further, the strange-flesh sex was happening in neighboring cities as well. More angels? Doubtful. The “strange flesh”&nbsp;that appealed to the sexual appetites of the men of that region clearly was not angelic flesh. Eliminate that option, too.</p>

<p>Third, nothing that happened at Lot’s house that night could have been the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah—neither attempted gang rape, nor sex with angels, nor anything else that took place that evening. Why? Because God had sent the angels to visit judgment <em>before</em> those incidents ever happened: “We are about to destroy this place, because their outcry <em>has become</em> so great before the Lord that the Lord <em>has sent us</em> to destroy it”&nbsp;(Gen. 19:13).<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>Something terrible had been going on for so long in the those two cities and beyond that God’s judgment was a <em>fait accompli</em> before the angels even arrived—meant as a vivid example of Divine wrath towards any people tempted to mimic their godless habits.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> What was this behavior? Both Peter and Jude tell us clearly.</p>

<p>Peter says Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men,”&nbsp;and, “by what he saw and heard... felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds”&nbsp;as they “indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> Jude says that those who, in the entire region of Sodom and Gomorrah, “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”</p>

<p>The sin, therefore, was some kind of ongoing, <em>sensuous</em> behavior Lot <em>saw and heard</em> in which men, driven by corrupt desire contrary to right principle, rejected what was proper in order to pursue flesh that was odd, unusual, abnormal and “strange.”&nbsp;There is only one characteristic of Sodom’s assailants that fits this description: their homosexuality. Curiously, neither Peter nor Jude even hint at any other problem, meaning sexual sin eclipsed everything else.</p>

<p>The references to <em>strange flesh</em>, to the <em>corruption</em> of their sensuality, to actions <em>contrary to right principle</em>, and to a pursuit of fleshly appetites in a way <em>not proper</em>, all signal an abandonment of God’s expressed purpose for sex established in His original, created order emphasized by Jesus. In this, they <em>despised His authority</em> by exchanging the proper for the perverse, triggering the most severe judgment anywhere in biblical history outside of the flood.</p>

<p>Wait, revisionists interject. Ezekiel never mentions homosexuality. Correct, he doesn’t use that word. He uses another. Ezekiel says they “committed <em>abominations</em> before Me<del cite="mailto:Ocean%20Wilson" datetime="2015-05-19T12:50">,</del>” (16:50), the very word used of homosexuality in our next passage.</p>

<h2>“Old”&nbsp;vs. “New”</h2>

<p>In “Talking Point #7,”&nbsp;TRP material states, “The prohibitions of Leviticus do not apply to Christians... The New Testament teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled the Law... which is why it’s many rules or regulations have never applied to Christians.”</p>

<p>Of course, both of these statements are true as far as they go. The New does supersede the Old, including a number of peculiar regulations that seem only for Jews during that unique era (constraints on mixing wool and linen together come to mind).<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> But we have to be careful here.</p>

<p>Though the Mosaic Law has never applied to Christians the way it applied to Jews in the theocracy, it would be a serious mistake to conclude that none of the prohibitions in the Law have any moral relevance for believers today. Yes, Christ fulfilled the Law, but perversion is still perverse, and wickedness is still wrong, whether it be adultery, rape, incest, or bestiality—or any of a number of evil acts all condemned by Moses in the “old”&nbsp;Law.</p>

<p>Does the fact that “Christ is the end of the Law”&nbsp;liberate us now from every moral constraint? Of course not, and I know TRP would agree. That’s why their points about “New”&nbsp;vs. “Old”&nbsp;are irrelevant to our issue. The real question about homosexuality is this: Do the Mosaic prohibitions of same-sex behavior reflect <em>temporal provisions for Jews in the theocracy</em>, or do they reflect <em>universal moral concerns for everyone?</em> Let’s look at the passages in question:</p>

<p>Leviticus 18:20-23 “You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech... You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it... it is a perversion.”</p>

<p>Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”</p>

<p>Pay close attention to the context here. The “abomination”&nbsp;of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 is grouped with condemnation of adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality. Keep reading and you’ll see that this grouping is no accident. These were the <em>very behaviors</em> that brought judgment on the Canaanites to begin with (18:24-26)—people who also were gentiles “not under the Law.”&nbsp;Nevertheless, <em>this did not exonerate them</em>. They still were “spewed out”&nbsp;for their wickedness.</p>

<p>Note also that the prohibition of homosexual behavior is unqualified—no exceptions for loving, consensual, committed relationships. And both participants were punished here (20:13)—unlike rape where only the abuser was penalized (Deut. 22:25-26)—so this passage couldn’t merely be prohibiting coercive, abusive sex.</p>

<p>Whenever a man lies with another man the way he should be lying with a woman, something is terribly wrong. He is exchanging the first for the second. He is rejecting the woman who was “fit”&nbsp;for him for a man who was not. Once again, the created order is subverted—God’s original purpose for sex is distorted and corrupted. The result: a “detestable act.”</p>

<p>The point of citing Leviticus on homosexuality, then, is not to impose Torah requirements on New Testament believers. Rather, it’s to show that any behavior twisting or maligning God’s original intention for sex is evil in any era.</p>

<p>This exact point is made with crystal clarity in our next passage on homosexuality—found in a New Testament epistle written to Christians under the new order.</p>

<h2>Reconstructing Romans</h2>

<p>In Romans 1, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep-seated rebellion against God resulting in unqualified condemnation. New interpretations cast a different light on the passage, though.</p>

<p>Under TRP’s “Talking Point #8”&nbsp;we find: “The same-sex behavior Paul condemns is characterized by lustfulness, disrespect, and selfishness, not love and commitment.”</p>

<p>This, to put it mildly, is pure invention. Even a cursory reading of the passage reveals that Paul is not discussing the <em>conditions</em> under which homosexuality is practiced, but the practice <em>itself</em>. This passage is worth quoting at length:</p>

<p>For since the creation of the world [God’s] invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God<del cite="mailto:Ocean%20Wilson" datetime="2015-05-19T13:01">,</del> or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.</p>

<p>Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.</p>

<p>For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;<del cite="mailto:Ocean%20Wilson" datetime="2015-05-19T13:03">,</del> for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. (Rom. 1:20-28)</p>

<p>The same theme <em>implicit</em> in the earlier passages is <em>explicit</em> here. The Greek word <em>kreesis,</em> translated “function”&nbsp;in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to <em>BAG</em>, the standard Greek language lexicon, the word means “use... relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>Paul is not talking about natural <em>desires</em> here; he is talking about natural <em>functions</em>. He’s talking about plumbing. He is not talking about what one <em>wants</em> sexually or the <em>nature</em> of the sexual relationship (abusive, exploitive, unloving, etc.), but how human beings are built to <em>operate</em>. Our bodies are intended by God to function in a specific way sexually. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.</p>

<p>This point is unmistakable when one notes precisely what homosexual men abandon according to verse 27. Paul says the error of homosexuality is man forsaking the “natural function <em>of the woman</em>.”&nbsp;He abandons the <em>female</em> built by God to be man’s sexual complement. He rejects the sexual companion God designed for him. Thus, he abandons God.</p>

<p>Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is what Paul calls a “degrading passion”&nbsp;(v. 26).</p>

<p>Note the other words Paul uses of same-sex behavior (including, notably, lesbianism): a lust of the heart, an impurity that is dishonoring to the body (v. 24); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); unnatural (v. 26); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).</p>

<p>There’s only one way the point of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God, which is precisely Paul’s point. According to the apostle, homosexual behavior (among other sins) is evidence of active, persistent, willful rebellion against the Creator (v. 32). For those defending their homosexuality, God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse”&nbsp;(v. 20).</p>

<p>There is not the slightest hint in any of what Paul writes in Rom. 1 that he restricts his condemnation of homosexuality to “same-sex behavior... characterized by lustfulness, disrespect, and selfishness, not love and commitment.”&nbsp;That is fabrication. Homosexual conduct is wrong because it rejects the natural sexual complement God has ordained for man: a woman. That was Paul’s view, and if Paul’s, then God’s view, too.</p>

<p>Scripture follows an unmistakable pattern regarding homosexuality. God establishes a certain sexual order, then man rebels, rejecting it for something else. He goes after strange flesh. He beds a man the way he’s supposed to bed a woman. He exchanges God’s truth for a lie, abandons the natural function of the woman, and burns with unnatural desire towards other men.</p>

<p>The revisionist “reformation”&nbsp;has more to say on the Bible and homosexuality. We will answer those points in <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/the-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-2-solid-ground-september-2015#.V82V_KOZORt">Part 2 of this series</a>.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">E.g., Soulforce, the Gay Christian Network, and The Marin Foundation. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">The conference that co-author Alan Shlemon attended in Washington, D.C. had more than 300 attendees. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">LGBT stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">This and other citations are taken from the Reformation Project D.C. Conference 2014 Program, unless specified otherwise. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">I think this phrase is misleading, so I’ve added scare quotes in this instance. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Two of the theological leaders of this movement, Evangelical ethicist David Gushee and theologian James Brownson, have family members who identify as gay or lesbian. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Kevin DeYoung, <em>What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?</em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 80. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">For details, see DeYoung, 83-86, citing, among others, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed., <em>Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Ancient Documents</em> (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">All Scripture quotations are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Sam Allberry, <em>Is God Anti-Gay?</em> (United Kingdom: Good Book Co., 2013), 15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Current reproductive technologies notwithstanding. Medically subverting God’s purpose does not nullify it. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Find the full account in Gen. 18:16-19:29. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">See also Gen. 18:20. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Gen. 18:17-19, 2 Pet. 2:6, Jude 7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">2 Pet. 2:7-10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Deut. 22:11. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, <em>A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature</em>, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 885-6. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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%2Fa-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-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>
            
          


