# articles

title: When Does Life Begin?
topic: Bioethics
author: Melinda Penner
date: 01/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-does-life-begin-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When does life begin? It’s not really as hard to answer that question as many think.</p>

<p>I think virtually every fair-minded person would agree that self-directed growth and activity is a sign of life, and now a recent scientific study has revealed that embryos <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/17222/" target="_blank">direct their own growth</a>.</p>

<p>Labs can stimulate and force mere clumps of cells to grow. But scientists have now observed that embryos in petri dishes grow and develop normally on their own. In other words, the embryos determine their own activity apart from the mom’s body. It isn’t the mother’s body directing embryonic activity; the embryo determines that itself.</p>

<p>Embryos have limited energy to continue to develop, and of course the mom’s womb is needed to provide the nutrition embryos need to continue what they do on their own.</p>

<p>It’s unfortunate that the study conducted to learn this information used frozen embryos that then ultimately died. It should be apparent now that embryos are not clumps of cells to be experimented on, but living human beings who should not be exploited for science.</p>

<p>And more so, it’s conclusive that life begins at conception.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-does-life-begin-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-does-life-begin-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-does-life-begin-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Call to Faithfulness from Os Guinness
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-call-to-faithfulness-from-os-guinness
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Os Guinness gives a sobering call to faithfulness in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Impossible-People-Christian-Struggle-Civilization/dp/0830844651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1484962448&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=impossible+people" target="_blank">Impossible People</a></em>. After describing the persecution followers of Christ are suffering in the world today (“false charges, assaults, mutilation, rape, religious cleansing, murder, bomb blasts, beheadings and even crucifixions, all because they will not renounce the name of Jesus”), he says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And what of us in the West? Are we showing that we too are prepared to follow Jesus and his authority at any cost? When an imperceptible bow would have saved Daniel’s three friends, they defied King Nebuchadnezzar’s idolatry at the threat of being burned alive. When simply closing a window and drawing his curtains could have saved Daniel himself, he chose to risk the lions rather than mute his allegiance to God. When a mere whiff of incense would have saved their lives, early Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as lord rather than Jesus and were made human torches or the evening meal for wild animals. When it seemed quixotic to take on the emperor, the empress and all the empire, Athanasius took his stand for truth <em>contra mundum</em> (against the world) and was exiled five times for his faithfulness. When he was told he was arrogant or out of his mind to follow his conscience and defy the consensus of tradition, Martin Luther stood firm in the face of the fiery stake that had cremated Jan Hus before him. When his closest friends urged him to save himself for the important work of his future scholarship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer chose to reenter Hitler’s lair and ignore the looming specter of the gallows...</p>

<p>[M]any Western Christians are caving in weakly before the challenges of our own times, such as the general seductions and distortions of modernity, the particular temptations of the sexual revolution or a failure to appreciate the implacable hostility of the forces against us—and so blunting our witness and denying the lordship of Jesus and the authority of the Scriptures. It is time, and past time, to turn this situation around and take a stand worthy of our Lord—before the cock crows and we are left with the bitter regret that our brothers and sisters around the world stood firm and paid with their lives, but our generation in the West betrayed our Lord in such a pitiful way.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If Jesus is worth a painful death, is He not worth an uncomfortable life? A demotion at work? A loss of social standing? We’re all going to need to figure out how to seek our life and joy primarily in Jesus—through prayer, Bible reading, and church fellowship—so that the loss of anything else, whether it be job, friends, family, or possessions, will seem a small thing by comparison. Take a few minutes to think about <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/how-and-why-to-make-habits-not-just-resolutions#.WIK6ErYrJR0" target="_blank">a specific habit you can create</a>, starting today, in order to intentionally pursue 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%2Fa-call-to-faithfulness-from-os-guinness" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-call-to-faithfulness-from-os-guinness" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-call-to-faithfulness-from-os-guinness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Planned Parenthood’s “3%” Statistic
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-explanation-of-planned-parenthoods-statistic
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortion makes up only 3% of their services is back <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/" rel="" target="_blank" title="">in the news</a> again. The video below gives the context needed to understand that statistic. (If you’d like to see some of the same arguments in written form, see Joe Carter’s “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/planned-parenthoods-most-misleading-statistic#When:2017-01-24T06:10:00+00:00" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood’s Most Misleading Statistic</a>.”)</p>

<p>The video doesn’t mention this, but it also seems relevant to me that the money Planned Parenthood makes from abortion accounts for <a href="http://ijr.com/2015/09/432907-planned-parenthood-revenue-abortion-percent-total-federal-lummis/" target="_blank">25% of their total revenue</a>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="qtgqxvaV-8U" 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/qtgqxvaV-8U?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%2Fan-explanation-of-planned-parenthoods-statistic" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-planned-parenthoods-statistic" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-planned-parenthoods-statistic" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Tell the Truth and Leave the Results up to God
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/31/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/tell-the-truth-and-leave-the-results-up-to-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Have you ever felt frustrated because your efforts to share your religious convictions with a friend or family member were going nowhere? I know exactly how you feel. In fact, one of my friends recently asked me for tips or suggestions for her situation. Her friend had abandoned the Christian faith, and she felt that nothing she said made a difference. After giving her some suggestions that pertained to her unique relationship with her friend, I offered her some perspective that I hope might help you too, if you find yourself feeling frustrated.</p>

<p>Whenever you share your faith with someone, try to remember your responsibility is to tell them the truth, not make them believe what you believe. I like how Mother Teresa put it: “God has not called me to be successful. He has called me to be faithful.”&nbsp;It’s not your job to convince someone of your point or get them to convert to Christianity. It’s your job to present the truth in a persuasive and gracious way and then leave the results up to God. Don’t be committed to the end result, but rather to your part of the equation. Your job is simply to be an ambassador of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), and it’s up to the Holy Spirit to convict people of sin, change their hearts and minds, and bring them to repentance.</p>

<p>Having this mindset can help you in three ways.</p>

<ol>
	<li>It will help you to not feel as frustrated. If it’s not your job to get people to repent or change their mind, you won’t feel bad when they reject God’s message you’re communicating.</li>
	<li>It helps you focus on becoming a more effective ambassador for Christ, as Scripture has called you to be. Think about how you can improve. At Stand to Reason, we often say that ambassadors need to be effective in three areas: <a href="http://www.str.org/about/ambassadors-creed" target="_blank">knowledge, wisdom, and character</a>. Make it your goal to become better in those three areas.</li>
	<li>It places the responsibility—and the credit—where it belongs: with God. Not only are you not at fault for a person’s unbelief, but you’re also not credited for a person’s salvation. This helps prevent guilt and pride.</li>
</ol>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I’m not talking about being a jerk for Jesus. If you come across as harsh, offensive, or condescending, then you’re not doing your job at being an effective ambassador for Christ. Remember, you still do something—represent Jesus and communicate the Gospel. If you’re faithful to carry out your part of the equation, then you don’t need to take a person’s rejection of your message personally. Leave the results up to 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%2Ftell-the-truth-and-leave-the-results-up-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%2Ftell-the-truth-and-leave-the-results-up-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%2Ftell-the-truth-and-leave-the-results-up-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: Pensées - Short Thoughts on Various Topics
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/pensees-short-thoughts-on-various-topics
content:
            <div> 
		<p class="text-align-center"><em>There’s a lesson to be learned from using vignettes like these. Sometimes all it takes is a short reflection or a briefly explained insight to put a stone in someone’s shoe, gently prodding them to see things from a different perspective.</em></p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;In 1662, a remarkable mathematician and Christian thinker named Blaise Pascal passed on, leaving a loosely organized collection of reflections written in defense of his Christian convictions. It was published posthumously under the title <em>Pensées</em>, which simply means “thoughts.”</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Sometimes it takes pages and pages to develop a concept well. Other times a short vignette will do. In the next two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> I will share with you a selection of “thoughts” I have gathered over the years addressing a wide range of issues relevant to your role as a Christian ambassador.</p>

<p><strong>Unbelievable Unbelief</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The skeptic says, “If God would only show Himself to me in some dramatic, miraculous way, then I’d believe in Him.” This kind of person overestimates himself, I think. Even miracles can be denied or dismissed.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; During Jesus’ passion week in Jerusalem, He was called to nearby Bethany because His friend Lazarus was dying. By the time Jesus arrived, Lazarus was gone. In a dramatic scene Jesus called him forth from the tomb alive, still wrapped in burial clothes.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This was a spectacular miracle performed in public for all to see. What was the response of the Jewish leaders? They decided to kill Jesus. “This man is performing many signs,” they said. “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (Jn. 11:47-48).</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But Jesus wasn’t the only one they needed to eliminate. They also had to get rid of another piece of evidence: Lazarus. “But the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus” (Jn. 12:10-11).</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead of falling to their knees in response to this obvious display of Messianic power, the leadership conspires to kill the very man whose public resurrection was proof positive of their error. I call this “unbelievable unbelief.”</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you think if God just did a miracle it would change a person’s rebellious heart? Don’t count on it. Jesus said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (Lk. 16:31).</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As one wag put it, a skeptic with such an experience would not seek God, he’d seek a psychiatrist. Oh so true. The sun melts butter…but it hardens clay.</p>

<p><strong>Love Needs an Education</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In Philippians 1:9-10, Paul prays that our love as Christians will abound in “real knowledge and all discernment.” The Apostle knows that love needs an education before it will actually approve what is excellent (v. 10).</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is, “love” can inadvertently approve what is evil. It happens all the time, e.g., Christian parents of gay children who think loving their child means full acceptance of—even celebration of—their sinful behavior. Only “real knowledge and discernment” will protect us from having our personal feelings distort our moral judgments. Even emotions like love should be theologically informed. Paul makes it clear elsewhere (1 Cor. 13:6) that it’s actually a lack of love to rejoice in what is unrighteous.</p>

<p><strong>"Forced" to Be Parents</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;A new challenge to the pro-life view is the claim that restrictions on abortion actually force women to become parents against their will. This, of course, sounds like an unconscionable intrusion of government into our private lives.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;I agree, no one should be forced to <em>become</em> a parent against her will, but this is not the situation we face with abortion. If the unborn is a human being, then pregnant women <em>already are</em> parents. It’s morally self-evident that no parent should escape her responsibilities by killing her unwanted children. The only legitimate way to escape from already being a parent is through adoption.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Clearly, the issue isn’t unwanted parenthood. If the unborn is a human being, the woman already <em>is</em> the child’s mother. She should not be permitted to take his life just because she doesn’t want to continue being a parent.</p>

<p><strong>How God “Hears” Prayers</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How can God hear all our prayers at once? This is what children ask, but the question comes up with adults, too. The answer is easy, though.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;God doesn’t learn our requests by listening to them.&nbsp; Since God is omniscient—He knows everything, including our prayers before we pray them—He gains no information when we pray. He has always known what our prayer would be. Having always known, He’s also always known how He would respond. The purposes of His will regarding the prayer have been eternally established.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prayer is not just an empty ceremony, though. God’s knowledge of our prayer depends on the fact that we pray. If we don’t pray, then there is no prayer for God to have known in advance. He only knows our prayers beforehand because we actually choose to pray them in the future. That’s why, even with a God who knows everything—including our prayers in advance—prayer still matters.</p>

<p><strong>When to Hold and When to Fold</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How do we know when to stick to our guns on an idea and when to change our view? Here’s what I suggest: Hold to your view only as tenaciously as the evidence permits. &nbsp;Be gracious at all times.&nbsp; And be humble to change your view when the evidence warrants that.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Here’s what I mean. There are some ideas I’ve researched and thought through very carefully. &nbsp;I can lay out my case for anyone to consider. Though it’s always possible for me to be mistaken, still, I have a confidence because I can defend my convictions with good evidence. Because I’ve done my homework, I will not surrender those views easily.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On things I haven’t thought out, though, I am provisional. I may have opinions, but I’m not going to defend them aggressively. I’ll say, “This is my thinking right now and here are my reasons, but I could be wrong. I need to do some more work on this. What do you think?”</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It’s good to get in the habit of saying, “I could be mistaken.” Look at the other point of view as honestly as you can. Is there merit in the idea? Is there error in your own thinking or a misapplication of a verse? Have you been blind to something that seems obvious to everyone else? Keep going back to the reasons, but don’t be afraid to keep your eye out for something you haven’t considered.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dogmatism results when we cling to our views without proper justification. It’s not an attractive way to represent Christ. Worse, we may end up vigorously defending a view that’s false.</p>

<p><strong>Rubber Crutches</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; When people ask me, “Isn’t Christ just a crutch?” I have a simple reply. I tell them, “You’re right. Christ is a crutch, but you’ve asked the wrong question.” No one faults a lame person for using a crutch. Lame people need crutches. The real question is, “Am I lame?”</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact is, everybody leans on something. As a Christian I lean on Jesus, because He’s a crutch that can hold me. What about you? The real issue is not whether you’re leaning on a crutch. Everybody does. The real question is, “Can your crutch hold you?”</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;When I was a kid and someone told a dumb joke, we’d say, “That’s as funny as a rubber crutch.” The point is “rubber crutches” aren’t funny. As it turns out, though, a lot of people are leaning on crutches that will never hold them.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What’s your fancy? What is it that makes your life work for you? A relationship? A career? A bank account? Your health? Power? Each of those is a rubber crutch. If what you’re depending on for security and significance can be here today and gone tomorrow, then you’re in trouble. You’re leaning on a rubber crutch. And that’s not funny.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, the Christian leans on Christ. Call it a crutch if you want, but our crutch can hold us. A Christian is someone who admits his deep need. He knows he’s broken in many ways, and needs help.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;When you finally come to your senses and realize you’re deeply broken, Christ isn’t “just” a crutch—He’s life support system.</p>

<p><strong>Double Standard on the Problem of Evil</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If the truth were known, we do not judge disasters based on unprejudiced moral assessment, but rather on what is painful, awkward, or inconvenient for us. We don’t ask, “Where is God?” when our pleasure comes at the price of another’s pain (e.g., when our adultery destroys a marriage and the lives of the children involved).</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The reason is we don’t want God sniffing around the darker recesses of our own evil conduct. Instead, we fight intervention when any evil that God allows brings us personal benefit. We don’t really want Him stopping us from hurting others; we only cry foul when He doesn’t stop others from hurting us.</p>

<p><strong>Are All Religions Equally Good?</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The concept that all religions are basically good is flawed because it doesn’t pay enough attention to the end product. Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;There is a serious philosophical problem with saying that all religions are equally good in an ultimate sense. Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife and a whole bunch of other things can’t all be correct at the same time. Someone must be mistaken.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If issues of religion have eternal consequences, then errors in thinking are infinitely tragic. To rephrase Karl Marx, <em>false</em> religion is the opiate of the people. It soothes, but does not cure.</p>

<p><strong>God in Man’s Image?</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If we were to invent a god, what would he be like? If we fashioned a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities and human proclivities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he’d cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody’s perfect. And this is the kind of god many religions seem to produce.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us. He makes moral demands we can’t live up to, then threatens retribution if we don’t obey. Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is this the kind of god we would invent? Is He the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled, closed our eyes, hid our faces, and turned our backs?</p>

<p><strong>Were You Ever an Unborn Child?</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg. Does it make sense, though, to talk about yourself before you were born? Did you turn in your mother’s womb or kick when you were startled by a loud noise? Did you suck your thumb? Were those your experiences or someone else’s?</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed <em>you</em>.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is why abortion is tragic. It kills more than a human body. It kills a valuable human being.</p>

<p><strong>I’m Just a Little Sinner</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Those who think they’re “basically good” should do a little math. Counting only the sins you committed from age ten to sixty—just those fifty years—how many sins would you have committed if you only sinned ten times a day?</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a very modest figure, by the way, ten sins a day. Keep in mind we’re not talking about just murder, pillaging, stealing and the like, but all manner of offense against God including the attitudes of your heart, and motives as well as actions.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So what’s the sum? Sinning just ten times a day for 50 years amounts to 182,500 infractions of the law. What judge would let you off with that kind of a rap sheet? And that is a best-case scenario.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Basically good? No chance.</p>

<p><strong>Is Abortion a Holocaust?</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jews recoil at the use of the word “holocaust” to describe legalized abortion. To them it’s an offense to the memory of six million Jews who perished under the Third Reich. The Jewish Holocaust was obviously more heinous than the same amount of abortions would be.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Think about that for a minute, though.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Notice first that this objection depends for its force on a tacit denial that the unborn are fully human. If they are, who would say that taking the life of a youngster (in this case very young) is not the moral equivalent of taking the life of an adult? Generally, we are <em>more</em> shocked when a young life is taken, though both old and young are equally valuable in virtue of their shared humanity.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There does seem to be a sense, though, in which the evil of the Nazi Holocaust was compounded by the circumstances under which it was done. Aborted human beings die relatively quickly and, by comparison, with little or no mental anguish. (This is certainly not always true, but that’s another issue.) Jews, on the other hand, were treated like animals—terrorized, persecuted, raped, beaten, and then eventually murdered.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;The Nazi holocaust was worse than the abortion holocaust, not because the unborn are not human, but because of the barbaric conditions under which Nazis eliminated those they no longer valued. Both are unspeakably evil, purely based on the number of human lives sacrificed. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, though, the evil is compounded by the circumstances under which it was done.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Clearly not all holocausts are equal. Some are more egregious due to the additional suffering, loss, and assault on human dignity they entail. Still, the destruction of 3,000 unborn children each day in America for over 40 years is a holocaust of significant magnitude since valuable human beings are being wantonly destroyed.</p>

<p><strong>Are Our Lives Our Own?</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is life a gift with a transcendent purpose to be fulfilled, or do we own ourselves and have the right to do with our bodies whatever we please? It’s a crucial element that is usually left out of the assisted-suicide debate.&nbsp; Are our lives our own?</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This question can be answered in part with a little reflection. Why do we feel compelled to talk someone out of suicide? Why try to dissuade them? The reason is that we have an intuitive sense that life has transcendent purpose. We’re so sure of this that we try to stop people from killing themselves and “wasting” their lives.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A life can only be wasted if it has a purpose that is never fulfilled. If there is no purpose in life, there is no tragedy when an infant is still-born, or when terrorists take out a nursery, or when high school students are killed in a plane crash, even though they all die “before their time.”</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Notice that the notion of “untimely” death here has no relation to a person’s own subjective goals. The goal of a suicidal person is to die, a purpose he fulfills if he takes his life. An infant who dies unexpectedly has no goals or aspirations of her own. Yet in both cases we have this nagging suspicion that something is wrong.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Our sense of tragedy lies in our conviction that these people did not fulfill some larger purpose in life, one bigger than their own temporal wants and desires. If such a purpose exists—and our intuitions suggest it does—then our lives are not our own to do with as we please.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; God has made it clear we are not the masters of our own lives. Our existence is not a thing we own, but a sacred life we are entrusted with. The commandment “Thou shall not murder” forbids us to take an innocent human life. It applies to taking our own lives and not just lives of others.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There’s a reason for this. The fifth commandment was given not because murder violates personal liberty by taking something that belongs to someone—his life. That’s covered in the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” Instead, it prohibits the unwarranted destruction of a human being because he’s made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Murder is primarily a crime against God.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Our lives are not our own, they’re a gift with a purpose to be fulfilled.</p>

<p><strong>Freedom and Rationality</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Here’s an argument against naturalistic determinism based on the relationship between free will and rationality.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Free will makes rationality possible. If there is no free will, then no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. One could never adjudicate between a good idea and a bad one. He’d only believe what he does because he’s been predetermined to do so. Arguments wouldn’t matter.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;That’s why it’s odd to hear someone try to argue for determinism. If he’s right, then his conviction is not really based on reasons—on the merits of the view itself—but rather on prior conditions that cause his belief. He’s determined to believe in determinism, and we’re determined to believe in freedom.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;So, oddly enough, if there is no free will, no one could ever <em>know</em> it, since they could never conclude such a thing based on reasonable deliberation. Instead, their belief would be a result of circumstance completely beyond their rational control.</p>

<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;There’s a lesson to be learned from using vignettes like these. Sometimes all it takes is a short reflection or a briefly explained insight to put a stone in someone’s shoe, gently prodding them to see things from a different perspective.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Many of your interactions will be with people you’ll see again since you’re in relationship with them. This means that much of your effort will be in planting and nurturing rather than in harvesting.</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;As a Christian ambassador, be prepared to take small steps, engaging someone over time. Offering little tidbits like the ones above is a great way to get them thinking and, hopefully, move them towards Jesus.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>

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


title: Sin and Transforming Grace in Openness Unhindered
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 01/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/sin-and-transforming-grace-in-openness-unhindered
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I read Rosaria Butterfield’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Openness-Unhindered-Thoughts-Unlikely-Identity/dp/188452799X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1485394739&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=openness+unhindered" target="_blank">Openness Unhindered</a></em> not long ago, and <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/interview-rosaria-butterfield-openness-unhindered-further-thoughts-unlikely-convert-sexual#.WIlXebYrJR0">Greg interviewed her</a> on the podcast. I was quite taken by her book because it’s a book about the astonishing and life-upending nature of the Gospel that any believer can benefit from. And there are lessons from Butterfield’s life and conversion experience that are helpful guides in engaging others who are not open to God about the Gospel.</p>

<p>Butterfield was a lesbian for many years, deeply involved in the LGBTQ community advancing that agenda, until she met a local pastor and his wife who befriended her over time, loved her, and lived out their Christianity in front of her. She was engaged by their love that reflected God’s love for her. Through that crack in the door, the Holy Spirit worked in her. She describes her conversion as a train wreck because it upended literally every aspect of her life and career. And once the Holy Spirit began His good work in her, He continued it. And it’s that work in every believer that is also instructive in this book.</p>

<p>We forget sometimes, long after we’ve begun walking with Jesus, how revolutionary His work in us is. Butterfield draws from Paul’s ministry described in Acts 28:30-31 to illustrate the amazing work of grace. Paul was changed when He met Jesus and he proclaimed the Gospel boldly and unhindered. That grace is the work of the Spirit in believers that affects every nook and cranny of our being to make us like Jesus. It’s simply the transforming work of the Spirit.</p>

<p>Butterfield points out the often-missing link between sin and grace—repentance. She goes on to describe repentance in a way that often is given short shrift in modern evangelicalism. She points out that there’s a significant difference between admitting and confessing. Confession isn’t practiced much in church anymore. But confession is what digs down deep into the manifold ways sin harbors in our hearts and brings grace and transformation as we follow Jesus. And it’s transformed lives of Christians that will attract skeptics and critics who are normally resistant to thinking about Christianity because Christians will reflect the beauty of God and His goodness.</p>

<p>The pastor and his wife who befriended Butterfield for two years before her conversion became friends with her. They welcomed her into their home, shared meals, never compromising or hiding their Christian convictions, but also not making that the only topic. They didn’t make being a lesbian an issue in their friendship with her, though they never compromised. This kind of friendship and community is what lent credibility to Christianity and helped her be open, despite herself, to considering the truth they placed their trust in.</p>

<p>Alan Shelmon on STR’s speaking staff encourages us as Christians to befriend people and let that friendship be the context of loving and sharing God’s grace. Alan points out, and Butterfield makes this point, that being gay isn’t the issue, so it’s not the issue we should focus on. All of us are rebels against God. Our pride and sin of all types in every one of us is what keeps us from peace with God. So in the context of friendship and love we share the Gospel for all people. We don’t treat gay people any differently than any other friend because they all need the same thing we do—grace and mercy through Jesus. Butterfield notes that she was converted out of unbelief, not homosexuality. She no longer is a lesbian, and she in no way compromises on the biblical model of human sexuality, but her point is that sin is the common human problem, whatever the details are for each person.</p>

<p>She also writes about the importance of community for LGBTQ people. She describes the strength of that community and the safety she found there. And she points out that the Bible describes the body of believers as being this kind of community, but this practice has become weak among Christians and congregations. She encourages congregations to practice hospitality, welcoming people, taking time with them, opening our lives to them. This is another way Christians can be more attractive to the world. Community is something many people are lacking in our fractured world. But look at the books of Acts and the strong community among those early Christians. This is something Christians can do to stand out in the world and welcome people, to build relationships that give us trust and context to share the Gospel in a compelling way.</p>

<p>I really loved <em>Openness Unhindered</em> because it’s a book about sin and transforming grace in a believer’s life. It’s a challenging book because it encourages believers to go deep into grace with the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. That work is never done in the life of a believer. There’s real depth of thought that deserves to be read and considered by Christians so that grace transforms us and our communities in a way that reflects God’s beauty and goodness, which will make us ambassadors and salt and light in this dark world.</p>
</div>

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


title: Give ’Em Heaven in Practice
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/12/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/give-em-heaven-in-practice
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I often end the weekly broadcast by saying, “Give ’em Heaven.”&nbsp;You might recall maybe a year or so ago I talked on the air about this whole idea of giving people Heaven. I began wondering: in my own life, was this was just a slogan, or was I actually giving Heaven to the people around me?</p>

<p>I began to think about whether I give Heaven to those that are closest to me. Of course, the people closest to me are my immediate family, my wife, and my daughters. Then I asked myself the question: even though I recite this slogan at the end of every show, and I try to be gracious and give my callers Heaven, and I’m on my best behavior when I’m at an event, when I’m at home, what is my behavior like? Would my daughters say that Papa gives them Heaven—that they can expect a little piece of Heaven when Papa gets home? Can my wife say that?</p>

<p>The minute I started asking that question, that’s when I realized I was in trouble. If you asked the question of yourself, I suspect you’d have a similar answer. I realized that the best people in my life don’t get my best behavior, and I wanted to do something about that. What I could have said was, “I want to be better to my family,”&nbsp;or, “I want to give my family more Heaven.”&nbsp;But it’s so general. So I thought, what are the particular action guides that might result in them having a little bit more of Heaven from Papa? I thought very particularly about that, and I asked myself, “What would be the time of day when I am most likely to be a little crotchety or ornery?”</p>

<p>Easy answer: when I get up in the morning, everybody’s bustling to get off to school, and things sometimes get a little behind. It’s easy for me to use harsh words. Who wants harsh words in the morning? That’s not a good way to start the day, and it’s not giving them Heaven if Papa’s giving harsh words. Even if there’s a circumstance that needs attention—things are going too slowly, beds need to be made, lunches, whatever—that doesn’t mean there have to be harsh words.</p>

<p>Another time of day that’s hard for me—when I get home. When Papa comes on the scene at the end of the day, what do I want my family to experience? I want them to experience something positive from me. I made a commitment that when I get up in the morning and when I come back from work at night, those are the triggers to remind me to keep harsh words from coming out of my mouth.</p>

<p>When I get up in the morning, I remind myself of that resolution, and for the next 45 minutes or so until everybody’s gone, I just have to focus in that time to make sure there are no harsh words during that time. When I drive up in the driveway, there’s my reminder, “Okay, Greg, walk in the house, and for the first 30 minutes, no harsh words.”&nbsp;Whatever needs to be dealt with can either can be dealt with later if there are problems, or it has to be dealt with in kindness and grace. And that actually should be the requirement all the time, but it’s easier to make these kinds of changes when I think of specific situations.</p>

<p>Here’s another practical example. This takes me back a number of years, but there was someone that I worked with that I had a hard time with. I just had a hard time not being judgmental of this individual. Actually, he was a good man, but it was just one of those things, and I found myself being critical of him. I thought to myself, “The devil is probably tempting me—and I’m giving in to this impulse to be critical of him—so that it makes it harder for us to work together.”&nbsp;So I decided that every time I felt critical toward this individual, I was going to pray for him.</p>

<p>Every time he popped up in my mind and I wanted to find fault, instead I would pray for him. It was practical, I had a real concrete reminder, and as a result, this guy got prayed for a lot. Plus, I quit feeling critical in my heart toward him. I wasn’t focusing on getting rid of the critical attitude; I was focusing on a behavior that I could be successful with at specific points in time.</p>

<p>I can use the slogan, “Give ’em Heaven.”&nbsp;We can talk about the kind of people we should be in generalities. But we’re more likely to actually make changes when we think of specific ways, specific people, and specific situations in our lives where we can give a little bit of Heaven.</p>

<p>[Adapted from an STR podcast transcript.]</p>
</div>

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


title: Four Things You Can Do When Someone Challenges Your Faith—February Mentoring Letter 2017
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/01/2017
source:
https://www.str.org/w/four-things-you-can-do-when-someone-challenges-your-faith-february-mentoring-letter-2017

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Have you ever felt “the big chill”? It’s the term I use for the cold shiver that runs up your spine when you’re confronted with what seems at first glance to be a persuasive challenge to your Christian convictions, that terrible suspicion that begins to settle in your bones that the challenger has a point. And it seems convincing. And it shakes you.</p>

<p>I have those moments, too, and they’re not fun. Over the years, though, I’ve learned a simple, practical system to deal with the “chill”&nbsp;and I want to pass it on to you. It’s not especially clever or novel—thoughtful people have been using it for ages. But it works well to sort things out and help you get to the truth of the matter.</p>

<p>First, don’t panic. Don’t let the problem overwhelm you before you’ve had a chance to carefully assess it. There are almost always answers to these issues that are within reach if you pause, take a deep breath, then apply some thought to the matter.</p>

<p>Next, take a moment to reconnoiter. Get the lay of the land, so to speak. What exactly are you facing? What is the substance beyond the rhetoric that may be making the challenge look more compelling than it is? That takes two steps.</p>

<p>Here’s step one. <em>Clarify the claim</em>. Ask, “What’s the big idea?”&nbsp;What is the point the challenge is meant to persuade you of? That there is no God? That Jesus never existed? That the Bible is not reliable? That Christianity is false? Whatever it is, get a clear fix on that point since it’s the bridge to the next step.</p>

<p>Step two is to add the word “because”&nbsp;after the big idea. “There is no God because...”&nbsp;or “The Bible is not reliable because...”&nbsp;etc. The point here is to now <em>get a fix on the reasons</em> that allegedly support the big idea. Make a list of them.</p>

<p>Don’t rush this step. Sometimes it takes a little work to sift through the rhetoric to uncover the specifics. Don’t be surprised if, when you look closer, there’s nothing there but noise. It happens. No real reasons, just bluster.</p>

<p>These two steps—clarifying the claim, then listing the reasons for it—allow you to quickly summarize the whole challenge—the basic point and the rationale behind it. If there’s more than one claim, then take each challenge individually. This is important: Deal with one point at a time.</p>

<p>Finally, with the full argument in view <em>do an assessment</em>. Simply ask if the reasons offered legitimately support the big idea. An easy way to do this is to link the reasons with the basic claim by using the word “therefore.”&nbsp;This step of assessment can be difficult (if the argument is a technical one) or it can be incredibly simple. Let’s look at some examples.</p>

<p>Take the claims, “Christians are hypocrites,”&nbsp;or, “Religion causes violence and suffering in the world,”&nbsp;or, “Belief in God is a crutch.”&nbsp;Each is meant to implicitly undermine our confidence in Christianity (i.e., “Christianity is false <em>because</em> Christians are hypocrites”). And these challenges seem all the more forceful since—on my take at least—these statements are each true in some measure. Even so, do they justify the (implied) big idea that Christianity is false? Let’s see. Consider our assessment:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Many Christians are hypocrites, <em>therefore</em> Christianity is false.</li>
	<li>Religion causes violence, <em>therefore</em> Jesus’&nbsp;view of the world must be wrong.</li>
	<li>Belief in God satisfies an emotional need, <em>therefore</em> God doesn’t exist.</li>
</ul>

<p>Hmmm. None of these work, do they? When stated clearly, these challenges all turn out to be conclusions that simply do not follow from the evidence.</p>

<p>These charges—even when true (and many are not true, but that’s a different problem)—may tell us something about anthropology or sociology or even psychology, but they tell us nothing at all about God or Jesus or Christianity. The reasons do not support the big idea. There’s nothing to fear here.</p>

<p>So there it is. When you feel the big chill—when you’re shaken by a conversation, or an article, or a presentation that challenges your core convictions—don’t panic. Instead, use the system. First isolate the claims. Second, list the reasons. Third, do the assessment. You’ll be amazed at how effective this simple tool can be.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-things-you-can-do-when-someone-challenges-your-faith-february-mentoring-letter-2017" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-things-you-can-do-when-someone-challenges-your-faith-february-mentoring-letter-2017" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-things-you-can-do-when-someone-challenges-your-faith-february-mentoring-letter-2017" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Great Evil Begins with Respect for Evil Ideas
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/22/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/great-evil-begins-with-respect-for-evil-ideas
content:
            <div> 
		<p>While speaking at Princeton many years ago, Wesley J. Smith called the university to account for hiring Peter Singer with his horrendous views on infanticide. In the clip below, he describes how Singer’s views track closely with ideas common in 20th-century Germany—ideas that led to unspeakable atrocities. And yet, “[Nazi] Dr. Brandt was hanged at Nuremberg, and Peter Singer is teaching at Princeton! I find that remarkable and appalling!...I would hope that the faculty of this university would think quite carefully before it does such a thing again.”</p>

<p>How does great evil happen? This is how. It begins with respect for evil ideas.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="0LaDp2HXqW4" 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/0LaDp2HXqW4?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%2Fgreat-evil-begins-with-respect-for-evil-ideas" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgreat-evil-begins-with-respect-for-evil-ideas" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgreat-evil-begins-with-respect-for-evil-ideas" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Christianity Offers Our Culture
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/18/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-christianity-offers-our-culture
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Tim Keller has a post on “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-we-need-to-learn-from-early-church#When:2017-01-06T06:00:00+00:00" target="_blank">What We Need to Learn from the Early Church</a>.”&nbsp;How is it that the church grew so dramatically at the very time when the culture was so hostile towards it? Keller names three reasons:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>Christians were called into a <em>unique ’social project’</em>&nbsp;that both offended and attracted people...</li>
	<li>Christianity offered a <em>direct, personal, love relationship with the Creator God</em>...</li>
	<li>Christianity offered <em>assurance of eternal life</em>.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>These are the same things we ought to offer our hostile culture today:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The earliest church was seen as too exclusive and a threat to the social order because it would not honor all <em>deities</em>; today Christians are again being seen [as] exclusive and a threat to the social order because we will not honor all <em>identities</em>.</p>

<p>Yet the early church thrived in that situation. Why?</p>

<p>One reason was that Christians <em>were</em> ridiculed as too exclusive and different. And yet many were drawn to Christianity <em>because it was different</em>. If a religion isn’t different from the surrounding culture—if it doesn’t critique and offer an alternative to it—it dies because it’s seen as unnecessary. If Christians today were also famous for and marked by chastity, generosity and justice, multi-ethnicity, and peacemaking—would it not be compelling to many? Ironically, Christians were “out of step”&nbsp;with the culture on sex to begin with, and it wasn’t the church but the culture that eventually changed.</p>

<p>Another reason Christianity thrived was because it offered things no other culture or religion even claimed to have—a love relationship with God and salvation by free grace. It is the same today. No other religion offers these things, nor does secularism. Nor can the “spiritual but not religious”&nbsp;option really capture them either. These are still unique “value offers”&nbsp;and can be lifted up to a spiritually hungry and thirsty population.</p>

<p>The early church surely looked like it was on the “wrong side of history,”&nbsp;but instead it changed history with a dogged adherence to the biblical gospel. That should be our aspiration as well.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I take that last sentence to mean it should be our aspiration to have a dogged adherence to the biblical Gospel, expressing all aspects of what it means to follow Christ, <em>not</em> that our aspiration should be to change history by using the biblical Gospel as a tool. The Gospel and our life in Christ are not means to an end. Rather, they are our focus. God may use our faithfulness to grow the church dramatically, as He did in the first three centuries, or He may not. That’s up to Him. But one thing is for sure: we would be fools to place changing our society above the Gospel, adjusting aspects of Christianity in order to fashion a religion we think would be more appealing to our culture. That’s not how God worked then, and according to <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/main-ingredient-church-growth#.WIA-tLYrJR0" target="_blank">this study</a>, it isn’t how He works now.</p>

<p>We have one job: be faithful, no matter the cost. God does beautiful things with 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%2Fwhat-christianity-offers-our-culture" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-christianity-offers-our-culture" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-christianity-offers-our-culture" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Unique Understanding and Unique Hope for Transgender People
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/unique-understanding-and-unique-hope-for-transgender-people
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a Christian with same-sex attraction, Sam Allberry has thought deeply about Christianity and sexuality. I value his insights. (If you’d like to learn from him, start <a href="/w/sexuality-identity-sin-and-denying-ourselves-to-follow-christ" target="_blank">here</a> with a fairly brief lecture.) In “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-christianity-alone-offers-transgender-persons#When:2017-01-10T06:00:00+00:00" target="_blank">What Christianity Alone Offers Transgender Persons</a>,”&nbsp;he explains that we Christians can offer transgender people both unique understanding and unique hope:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>While much of the thinking around transgender issues today is flawed, the pain experienced by those with gender dysphoria is all too real. We of all people should appreciate why, for we of all people understand the true depth of what’s wrong with this world. Our churches should be the places people feel most safe trying to articulate their own sense of not being right...</p>

<p>As well as offering a uniquely deep understanding, we can point people to a uniquely solid hope. We all experience the curse of the fall in bodily ways. But the answer to the problems in our body—along with the answer to any of our problems—is never going to be found in ourselves. Whatever we might do to our bodies to overcome perceived problems, we’ll never be able to fix what truly lies beneath our self-alienation. We can alter our appearance; we can correct much of what we think to be wrong. But we will never find the real freedom we so deeply crave. Nothing we can do to our bodies will help us to feel that we’re our true selves—at least not in a lasting way.</p>

<p>No, the only answer to our experience of brokenness in our bodies is found in the ultimate brokenness of Christ’s body. He experienced the ultimate affliction. His was the body most reviled by others. And the ultimate dysphoria ever experienced was when he “who had no sin”&nbsp;was “made sin for us”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor.%205.21" target="_blank">2 Cor. 5:21</a>). Talk about being in the wrong flesh. Yet he went through all of that for us. He experienced ultimate brokenness so that we would never have to.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-christianity-alone-offers-transgender-persons#When:2017-01-10T06:00:00+00:00" target="_blank">here</a>. You can listen to Greg’s interview with Sam Allberry on “How the Church Can Support Christians with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction”&nbsp;<a href="/w/interview-sam-allberry-how-the-church-can-support-christians-with-unwanted-same-sex-attraction" 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%2Funique-understanding-and-unique-hope-for-transgender-people" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funique-understanding-and-unique-hope-for-transgender-people" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funique-understanding-and-unique-hope-for-transgender-people" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Humility Is Needed to See Jesus
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/05/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/humility-is-needed-to-see-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I was reading Luke, it struck me how crucial humility is to seeing and loving goodness (and therefore, Jesus). No one who’s trying to maintain an image of perfection will be comfortable around Jesus, for in order to sustain the illusion in the face of real perfection, they must either justify themselves or denigrate Him. Only those who are humble and honest about their own sin can stand to be around, let alone love, someone who is truly good.</p>

<p>The more I read the Gospels, the more I see that humility is the key to living the Christian life. It’s the key to loving well. It’s the key to being loved. It’s the key to seeing God. It’s the key to representing Christ to others. It’s how to avoid contempt, and lack of prayer, and lack of love for the lost, and lack of gratitude. It’s the main characteristic the Pharisees lacked, and it’s the one that led to all of their sins of rebellion against Christ and their lack of compassion for humanity. It’s the defining characteristic of the incarnation (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+2%3A1-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Phil. 2:1-11</a>), the unique beauty of Christianity.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seek humility! See it in Jesus. Know it, love it, pray for it, embrace it, live by 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%2Fhumility-is-needed-to-see-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhumility-is-needed-to-see-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhumility-is-needed-to-see-jesus" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Paul’s Solution to the Problem of the Unevangelized Is the Gospel
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/paul-s-solution-to-the-problem-of-the-unevangelized-is-the-gospel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This week I have been re-reading the book of Romans during my devotional time. This entire letter is a wellspring of life-transforming theological truth. This time through I noticed something that I hadn’t before. Paul directly addresses the question, <em>what about those who have never heard the Gospel?</em> Romans 10 begins,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:1-4).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul tells us his desire is that these people be saved. But who are these people? Well, he says these are people with a zeal for God. They are <em>devoted</em>. They have <em>passion</em>. But Paul says this zeal isn’t enough, because <em>it is not according to knowledge</em>. In other words, they are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. Their zeal for God needs to be <em>based on truth</em>.</p>

<p>Paul calls these people <em>ignorant</em>. However, this isn’t merely childish name-calling. Paul is saying these people lack some important information about salvation. Specifically, they do not know the righteousness of God that comes through Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>These people have <em>never heard</em> of Jesus’&nbsp;redeeming work. They don’t know that they must put their faith in Jesus to be saved. So what is Paul’s solution? He doesn’t argue that these people are really “anonymous Christians”—saved by Christ without even knowing it. He doesn’t argue that God counts their ignorant zeal for God as meritorious for salvation. No, Paul’s answer is to replace their soul-condemning <em>ignorance</em> with the life-saving <em>information</em>. He explains <em>how</em> to be saved:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”&nbsp;For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”&nbsp;(Rom. 10:9-13)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to Paul, salvation comes by <em>believing in Jesus Christ</em>. In light of what Paul has just said, he asks a heartfelt question to the Christians in Rome: <em>what about those who have never heard this good news?</em></p>

<p>Paul asks,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”&nbsp;(Rom. 10:14-15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How can people call on Jesus if they have not believed? The answer is, they can’t. How are people going to believe in Jesus if they have never heard to him? The answer is, they can’t. How are they going to hear the good news if no one tells it to them? The answer is, they won’t.</p>

<p>Paul’s line of thinking is clear and straightforward. If no one is sent to these people, then there will be no one to preach the good news. If no one preaches to these people, then they will not hear the good news. If these people do not hear the good news, then they cannot believe. And if they do not believe, then they cannot be saved.</p>

<p>In sum, Paul tells us that the people who have never heard the Gospel need to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. There is no other means of salvation. By the way, this is consistent with Peter’s testimony. He says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”&nbsp;(Acts 4:12).</p>

<p>As an apologist, it is fascinating to me how Paul responds. He doesn’t launch into a discussion of God’s fairness or justice at this point. He doesn’t talk about middle knowledge. He doesn’t try to defend God’s actions or character. Rather, in the context of talking about people who have not heard the Gospel, Paul’s solution is to get them the Gospel.</p>
</div>

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


title: Did Old Testament Men Treat Their Wives Like Property?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-old-testament-men-treat-their-wives-like-property-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Every once in a while, I’ll hear someone throw out the idea that men in the Old Testament treated their wives like property as if it’s an obvious, accepted fact. I’m not convinced it’s true. Granted, I’m sure there were some men who did, just as there are terrible husbands now; but in the main, the passages I read in the Bible about husbands and wives don’t look at all like men viewing their wives as property. Here are a few verses that come to mind.</p>

<p>The first is a law in Deuteronomy:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken. (Deut. 24:5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>By law, a newly married man had to be free for <em>a year</em> in order to “give happiness to his wife.”&nbsp;It seems significant that the stated goal is to make the <em>wife</em> happy. For a <em>year</em>. By <em>law</em>. If women were considered property, I could imagine a law saying the <em>husband</em> should be free to enjoy his wife for a year, but not one saying he should be free to make <em>her</em> happy for a year. And the fact that this was a law means it was a society-wide value. The whole society would have to be behind this in order for it to work—in order for a man to stay at home for a year, bringing happiness to his wife.</p>

<p>Next, look at Song of Solomon—an entire book of the Bible dedicated to a relationship between a man and a woman.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You have made my heart beat faster, my sister, my bride;</p>

<p>You have made my heart beat faster with a single glance of your eyes.</p>

<p>With a single strand of your necklace.</p>

<p>How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride!</p>

<p>How much better is your love than wine...(4:9-10)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And the woman is given equal time in this book:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He has brought me to his banquet hall,</p>

<p>And his banner over me is love...</p>

<p>My beloved is mine, and I am his...(2:4, 16)</p>

<p>I was asleep but my heart was awake.</p>

<p>A voice! My beloved was knocking;</p>

<p>Open to me, my sister, my darling,</p>

<p>My dove, my perfect one!...</p>

<p>I arose to open to my beloved;</p>

<p>And my hands dripped with myrrh,</p>

<p>And my fingers with liquid myrrh,</p>

<p>On the handles of the bolt...(5:2-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, there’s no hint here that the man views the woman as his property. Neither do we find such a view in the description of the “excellent wife”&nbsp;in Proverbs 31; rather, we see respect, honor, and appreciation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[H]er worth is far above jewels.</p>

<p>The heart of her husband trusts in her,</p>

<p>And he will have no lack of gain...</p>

<p>She considers a field and buys it;</p>

<p>From her earnings she plants a vineyard...</p>

<p>Strength and dignity are her clothing,</p>

<p>And she smiles at the future.</p>

<p>She opens her mouth in wisdom,</p>

<p>And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue...</p>

<p>Her children rise up and bless her;</p>

<p>Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:</p>

<p>“Many daughters have done nobly,</p>

<p>But you excel them all.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s reasonable to expect that the literature and Law that served as the foundation of their society (i.e., the Old Testament) both shaped and reflected the values of that Old Testament society.</p>

<p>There are also examples of individual men who don’t fit the wives-as-property narrative. I often think of the kindness of Hannah’s husband towards her when she was unable to have children:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Elkanah her husband said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep and why do you not eat and why is your heart sad? Am I not better to you than ten sons?”&nbsp;(1 Sam. 1:8)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And listen to this interaction between Boaz and Ruth:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Boaz replied to her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know. May the Lord reward your work, and your wages be full from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge...” Then he said [after Ruth expressed a desire for marriage], “May you be blessed of the Lord, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence.”&nbsp;(Ruth 2:11-12; 3:10-11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One might object, “But men paid a ’bride price’&nbsp;for their wives!”&nbsp;True, but it certainly doesn’t follow that they believed they <em>bought</em> their wives and thought of them as property. The money paid by a man to a woman’s parents proved the man valued her and could take care of her (this seems similar to an engagement ring today), and it expressed indebtedness to the parents.</p>

<p>We see this practice when Jacob works for many years in order to earn the right to marry Rachel:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.”...So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her. (Gen. 29:18-20)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It was his love for Rachel that compelled him to serve her father for seven years. This does not come across as a misogynistic business transaction. Consider, also, this interaction between Rebekah and her parents when Abraham’s servant sought to bring her home as a bride for Isaac:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]hey said, “We will call the girl and consult her wishes.”&nbsp;Then they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?”&nbsp;And she said, “I will go.”&nbsp;Thus they sent away their sister Rebekah and her nurse with Abraham’s servant and his men...[S]he became [Isaac’s] wife, and he loved her...(Gen. 24:57-59)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Throughout the Bible, we see interactions like this as a rule, not as exceptions (though, of course, there are exceptions of bad behavior, just as there are today). All verses in the Old Testament (particularly in the Law), since they come from a culture unfamiliar to us, ought to be interpreted in light of passages like the ones quoted above. There’s a tendency for people to jump to the worst possible interpretation of everything, but that isn’t fair to the text. The sense I am left with after reading the Bible as a whole is that men loved and appreciated their wives, just as they do today.</p>
</div>

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


title: Tips for Discussing Abortion Online
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/tips-for-discussing-abortion-online
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In light of the <a href="http://time.com/4625127/planned-parenthood-defund-paul-ryan-obamacare/" target="_blank">recent announcement</a> that the GOP is going to defund Planned Parenthood, many have taken to social media to air their thoughts about abortion. As a result, people on both sides of this issue are entering into debate online. These discussions often generate more heat than light given the nature of the topic and the impersonal format of instant messaging.</p>

<p>Yesterday, I found myself reading a very long back-and-forth exchange on Facebook. Trying to bring the conversation to a close, one person wrote,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]he argument is over. Your position and attitude has done nothing but put a greater distaste in my mouth for Christians in general and pro-lifers with no room for any thinking outside of their own bubble. Good luck.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let this response resonate for a second. God forbid that someone should be turned away from Christ based on an offensive attitude from His followers. Our message is offensive enough; we don’t need to <em>add</em> offense to it. Let me be clear, I’m not saying whether or not this particular reaction was justified. Sometimes the message <em>alone</em> is enough to upset people, and they confuse the offense of the <em>message</em> with the <em>messenger</em>. Nevertheless, this should be a serious warning to all of us—myself included—to take extra care in these discussions.</p>

<p>Not all online conversations about abortion end this way. Many are quite productive. We just need to be <em>extra</em> careful that our readers don’t misinterpret our words and our tone. I’ve read many social media posts that are true—they correspond with reality—but appear to lack compassion for the person they are talking to. <em>This</em> issue requires both: truth and compassion.</p>

<p>I want to offer <em>three</em> tips to help make our online conversations about abortion more effective. Each tip corresponds to an essential attribute of an ambassador for Christ. Before we comment on that <em>next</em> abortion post, let’s remember these three things.</p>

<p><em>First</em>, confidently communicate and defend the pro-life argument. The case against abortion can be summarized as a simple syllogism.</p>

<p>It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.</p>

<p>Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.</p>

<p>Therefore, abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>If the first two statements—the premises—are true, then the last statement—the conclusion—follows logically and inescapably. As pro-life ambassadors, we need to be able to <em>defend</em> the pro-life case using science and philosophy. When you’re using an online format, the more succinct the defense, the better.</p>

<p>Pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf is the master at this. He can explain why he is pro-life in less than 40 seconds. <a href="https://youtu.be/mG6zulqxzlw?t=23m33s" target="_blank">Here it is</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I am pro-life because the science of embryology teaches us that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. You didn’t <em>come from</em> an embryo; you once <em>were</em> one. And there’s no ethical difference between that embryo you once were and the adult you are today that justifies killing you back then. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are <em>not</em> good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Each sentence is important and relies on facts from science and careful philosophical thinking. If you want to be a persuasive pro-life ambassador, then equip yourself with an accurately informed mind.</p>

<p><em>Second</em>, stay focused on the pro-life argument. When talking about abortion, it’s easy to get sidetracked. Don’t get pulled away on rabbit trails. Instead, stay focused like a laser on bringing the discussion back to the premises of the pro-life argument.</p>

<p>Being an effective pro-life ambassador requires wisdom. Wisdom means not responding to some comments. It means spotting unstated assumptions. It means using carefully selected questions instead of statements. In sum, wisdom entails having a game plan <em>before</em> entering into an online discussion, and then sticking to that game plan.</p>

<p><em>Third</em>, carefully read your messages before you send them. This isn’t merely to avoid embarrassing spelling and grammar mistakes. We don’t want an aggressive tone to shroud our life-affirming message. We care about <em>all</em> human life, born and unborn. So we read and then <em>re-read</em> our online posts. We are on the lookout for any <em>words</em> that might insult or demean, and any <em>tone</em> that might offend. The latter is harder to detect. This might require a third-party’s critical eye.</p>

<p>We need to remember that our character matters in online discussions. It is very easy to forget that you are talking to an intrinsically valuable human being, made in the image of God, when sitting in front of a computer screen or staring into your smartphone. We are prone to <em>type</em> messages we wouldn’t dare <em>say</em> to a flesh-and-blood person standing in front of us. Here is a general rule: if you wouldn’t <em>say</em> it face-to-face, don’t <em>type</em> it.</p>

<p>Remember, if we are going to type messages about respect and dignity for <em>all</em> human life, then we need to do our best to show respect to the person we are engaging. Many abortion supporters feel like we value unborn humans more than born humans. Having an attractive character can help change that. During the time of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Whom you would change, you must first love. And they must know that you love them.”&nbsp;The next time you debate abortion online, ask yourself if the people you’re talking to truly <em>know</em> that you love them.</p>

<p>There it is: knowledge, wisdom, character. Happy posting.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-for-discussing-abortion-online" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-for-discussing-abortion-online" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-for-discussing-abortion-online" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Naturalistic Evolution Is True, People Are Not Equal
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/04/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I find it odd when I refer to an atheist’s worldview and he adamantly denies he has one. This sense that “worldview”&nbsp;is an insult has&nbsp;puzzled me for quite a while; why would atheists think it’s an insult to have a consistent, coherent view of reality? As I’ve talked to them more about this, I think I may have finally figured out why many of them view the term “worldview”&nbsp;so negatively, and it has to do with their identity as atheists.</p>

<p>At the root of atheism (i.e., the rejection of God) is an attempt to throw off outside constraints in order to construct a life of one’s own choosing—that is, to become one’s own god. (An atheist might not put it in terms of becoming “a god,”&nbsp;of course, but I think he would agree with the idea.) What I’m finding is that getting out from under God’s authority isn’t enough for the people I’ve talked to. It turns out that even the idea that one of their beliefs (e.g., “there is no God”) might entail other beliefs they didn’t specifically and individually choose on their own is seen as a sort of outside constraint on their thinking.</p>

<p>But the truth is, we are <em>all</em> constrained by reality, and it’s our job to discover what that reality is and submit to it—not piece by piece, but as a whole, noting how the parts relate to each other, and reasoning from one to the next. If reality is coherent, an acknowledgement of reality in one area (say, the idea that we evolved and were not created by God) will necessarily affect our understanding of reality in another area (say, the idea of universal human rights). Rather than being two completely separate ideas, they’re related to each other in a coherent worldview.</p>

<p>It’s not an accident that people who identify as atheists share many views besides a belief that God does not exist; it happens because a great many <a href="/w/atheism-more-than-just-a-non-belief" target="_blank">views</a> flow out of the idea that there is no God and the material world is all there is. Rather than denying this, atheists would do well to think carefully through their worldview—their coherent view of reality—to make sure all their pieces fit together and, as a whole, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Truth-Principles-Secularism-Substitutes/dp/0781413087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1483598169&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nancy+pearcey" target="_blank">match the reality</a> they see around them.</p>

<p>If they do this, I think they will find that some of their cherished ideas just won’t fit into the “no God”&nbsp;puzzle. I was reminded of this when I saw this <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316117/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&amp;me=" target="_blank">quote from Yuval Harari</a> in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Impossible-People-Christian-Struggle-Civilization/dp/0830844651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1483598834&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=impossible+people" target="_blank"><em>Impossible People</em></a>, wherein he comments on the idea in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>According to the science of biology, people were not “created.”&nbsp;They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be “equal.”&nbsp;The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a directly created soul, and that all people are equal before God. However if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation, souls, what does it mean that all people are created “equal”? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. “Created equal”&nbsp;should therefore be translated “evolved differently.”&nbsp;[Read more of the quote in context <a href="http://www.words-and-dirt.com/words/quotes-10-21-2015/" target="_blank">here</a>.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Equality and universal human rights come from Christianity, not atheism. There is nothing in atheism that could undergird those ideas (as atheists on this blog <a href="/w/atheism-and-universal-human-rights" target="_blank">have themselves said</a>). Worldviews matter, they lead to myriad consequences, and everyone has one. Make sure you think through yours—and its implications—carefully.</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-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Pro-life Persuasion Always Succeeds
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/pro-life-persuasion-always-succeeds
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been teaching the art of pro-life persuasion for over a decade, training students how to make a case against abortion, debating teachers and audiences at secular universities, and leading pro-life mission trips to equip believers to defend unborn children. I have a lot of experience. That’s why, when I came across a student half my age at UCLA several months ago, I was ready to show him how much I knew and how wrong he was. I unleashed all my knowledge, experience, and clever arguments against his view. But I totally failed. I didn’t convince him of the pro-life view. That’s right. I didn’t change his mind one bit.</p>

<p>Let me be clear. I’m not trying to make myself out to be the best or even one of the best pro-life thinkers out there. I know my view and can defend it, but I’m no scholar. I’m not a professional debater either. Still, I’ve heard just about every defense for abortion and have engaged hundreds of abortion-choice advocates on the subject. I know their reasoning and know many effective responses that have worked in the past.</p>

<p>None of that mattered when I met Kyle (not his real name). Why? Because of reality. In the real world, every time someone uses reason and evidence in a persuasive, yet gracious way, it doesn’t always convince someone.</p>

<p>What does this mean?</p>

<ul>
	<li>It means you’re not a failure. Chances are you have tried to change someone’s mind and have not succeeded. Your <em>attempt</em> may have failed, but <em>you</em> are not a failure. There’s no one who can always change a person’s mind, so don’t feel bad. Even Jesus—the Son of God—couldn’t convince some people to believe Him. He even performed miracles in front of others and was still unable to persuade people.</li>
	<li>It means people aren’t robots. Robots are computers that, when given a specific input, always produce the same output. Humans, though, have souls and (contrary to materialistic thinking) can reason independently of physical, audible, and visual stimuli. In other words, they have free will. Even if you have a brilliant point, it may not seem brilliant or even matter to the person you’re talking to.</li>
	<li>It means we need to remember that our job is to be faithful, not successful. We’re <em>not</em> commanded to ensure a particular outcome. That’s God’s job. We’re simply called to present the truth in a persuasive, yet gracious manner. We leave the results up to God. Just do your part by being a winsome and gracious ambassador for Christ and let the Holy Spirit do His part. Even if you persuasively and graciously share the truth and the person rejects your point, I’d still say you succeeded 100%. Why? Because you are responsible for your part of the equation—telling people the truth, and God is responsible for His part—changing hearts and minds.</li>
</ul>

<p>My concern is that some believers have an unrealistic view of theologians, philosophers, or apologists. They see them as extraordinary persuaders and consequently are hesitant to take part in discussions with non-believers because they think the expert could have done better. People often say to me, “Alan, if you were just there, I know you could have said something to change their mind.”&nbsp;The reality is, I often say things that have no positive effect. From a human perspective, I fail all the time.</p>

<p>I’m not trying to dismiss the significance of my preparation. I recognize I’ve studied at universities and have trained for this work. I have experience talking to a lot of people who don’t share my convictions. What I want people to understand is that even though I’m trained in the art of persuasion, I often don’t succeed at persuading others.</p>

<p>That’s why I judge myself on my ability to be an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), not on the results. I ask myself, <em>How did I do at presenting the truth in a persuasive, winsome, and gracious way?</em> If I’ve succeeded at achieving that goal, I’m happy with what I’ve done. I may not be satisfied with the outcome (if they didn’t change their mind), but at least I was faithful to my Sovereign.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-persuasion-always-succeeds" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-persuasion-always-succeeds" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-persuasion-always-succeeds" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 “Worldview”
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/10/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-explanation-of-worldview-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In light of my recent <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/if-naturalistic-evolution-true-people-are-not-equal#.WHSGzLYrJR0" target="_blank">post</a> on atheists objecting to the idea that they have a worldview, here’s Sean McDowell with some food for thought on what a worldview is:</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="2l6tgPsOeUA" 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/2l6tgPsOeUA?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%2Fan-explanation-of-worldview-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-explanation-of-worldview-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-explanation-of-worldview-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Four Problems with Evolutionary Morality
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/four-problems-with-evolutionary-morality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Evolution and morality don’t mix.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> That was the conclusion I arrived at in a recent research paper I wrote for my master’s degree. Yet, many evolutionary naturalists do not want to give up morality. Instead, they attempt to <em>ground</em> morality in naturalistic evolution. This is fraught with serious difficulties. Taken altogether, these form an insurmountable case against evolution as the foundation of morality.</p>

<h2>Evolutionary Naturalism Cannot Get an “Ought”&nbsp;from an “Is”</h2>

<p>Science describes the way the natural world <em>is</em>, it doesn’t tell us how it <em>ought</em> to be. This is where evolutionary morality faces a widely recognized problem. Namely, it cannot produce an “ought”&nbsp;from an “is.”&nbsp;Normative rules cannot be derived from empirical facts. In fact, Nobel Prize winning biochemist Jacques Monod writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the greatest problems of philosophy is the relationship between the realm of knowledge and the realm of values. Knowledge is what “is”&nbsp;and values are what “ought”&nbsp;to be. I would say that all traditional philosophies up to and including communism have tried to derive the “ought”&nbsp;from the “is.”&nbsp;This is impossible. If it is true that there is no purpose in the universe, that man is a pure accident, you cannot derive any ought from is.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The problem stems from trying to deduce a moral <em>duty</em> from a scientific <em>description</em>. Darwinian evolution may be able to <em>describe</em> past behavior, but it lacks the resources to <em>prescribe</em> future behavior. As Greg Koukl puts it, “One question can never be answered by any evolutionary assessment of ethics: <em>Why ought I be moral tomorrow?”</em><sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Any response <em>assumes</em> an objective standard beyond the natural world.</p>

<h2>Evolutionary Morality Keeps Evolving</h2>

<p>Evolution is arbitrary and could have evolved differently; therefore, the same is true of evolutionary <em>morality</em>.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> In fact, it is possible that morality could have evolved in the <em>opposite</em> direction. Consequently, those behaviors that are praised as virtuous would be immoral, and those that are vices would be moral.</p>

<p>Philosopher Michael Ruse and biologist E. O. Wilson describe how things could have evolved differently.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Suppose that, instead of evolving from savannah-dwelling primates, we had evolved in a very different way. If, like the termites, we needed to dwell in darkness, eat each other’s faeces [sic] and cannibalize the dead, our epigenetic rules...would be very different from what they are now. Our minds would be strongly prone to extol such acts as beautiful and moral. And we would find it morally disgusting to live in the open air, dispose of body waste, and bury the dead.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, evolution does not provide a stable foundation for morality <em>in the future</em>. Since evolution is a process of change, morality must also change. <sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Apologist Frank Turek asks, “If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft, and murder are considered moral?”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>This reveals the absurdity of trying to ground morality in naturalistic evolution. What is morally prohibited <em>today</em> could be morally obligatory <em>tomorrow</em>. And this evolution wouldn’t be morally <em>better or worse</em>, it would only be morally <em>different</em>. For example, in the distant future, slavery may function well in the perpetuation of the human species in the struggle for survival. As a result, enslaving other human beings may become moral. To avoid this conclusion, one must smuggle in a transcendent moral standard that evolution just doesn’t provide.</p>

<h2>Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality Away</h2>

<p>Evolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are <em>fitness directed</em>, not <em>truth directed</em>. That is, we come to hold moral beliefs based on what confers a survival advantage and not on what corresponds to reality.</p>

<p>Given that evolutionary morality is fitness-oriented, not truth-oriented, many naturalists have questioned the <em>existence</em> of morality. Moral realism is the view that there are objective, mind-independent <em>moral facts</em>. Unfortunately, Darwinism does not explain how there could be moral facts; rather, it attempts to explain how humanity has come to <em>mistakenly</em> believe in moral facts.</p>

<p>Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson understand this. They state, “Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Ruse and Wilson continue, “Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends...Ethics is produced by evolution <em>but not justified by it</em>, because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> (Emphasis added.)</p>

<p>Ruse and Wilson do not believe this is a problem for their view. They state, “The way our biology enforces its ends is by <em>making us think</em> that there is an objective higher code, to which we are all subject...Because <em>we think</em> that ethics is objectively based, we are inclined to obey moral rules.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> (Emphasis added.) Naturalistic evolution acts as a con artist tricking people into thinking that morality is real. So the act of rape <em>itself</em> isn’t morally wrong. Rather, our genes have tricked us into <em>thinking</em> rape is wrong.</p>

<p>Therefore, evolutionary naturalism does not explain the <em>existence</em> of morality. Rather, it explains why <em>we think</em> morality exists when it actually doesn’t. So the evolutionary approach is not really an explanation of morality; it is a <em>denial</em> of morality. It only explains the illusion of morality.</p>

<h2>Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral Beliefs</h2>

<p>Charles Darwin was rightly skeptical about the possibility of rationality given naturalistic evolution. He writes, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Of course, this would include <em>moral</em> convictions.</p>

<p>On an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. After all, if we hold our moral beliefs because of the fitness conferred by the resulting behavior, then it appears that we would have had those beliefs whether or not they were true.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> Minimally, this means we could never <em>know</em> whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts. Given the genesis of our moral convictions, we are left with <em>moral skepticism</em>.</p>

<p>For the naturalist, each of these problems poses a serious challenge. However, taken together, this case is unassailable. Rather than deny morality, the naturalist should deny naturalism. The theistic worldview makes sense of transcendent morality and avoids the problems we have discussed.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">For the purpose of this article, by evolution, I am specifically referring to evolutionary naturalism. That is, naturalism combined with neo-Darwinian evolution.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Jacques Monod, <em>Chance and Necessity</em> (London: Collins, 1971), 110.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, <em>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998),162.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Paul Copan, “My Genes Made Me Do It: Is Ethics Based on Biological Evolution?,”&nbsp;<em>Enrichment Journal Blog,</em> April 24, 2014, accessed November 21, 2016, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201404/201404_024_Genes_ Made_Me_Do_It.cfm.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Michael Ruse and Edawrd O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,”&nbsp;in <em>Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement,</em> ed. James E. Huchingson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1993), 311.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Frank Turek, <em>Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case</em> (Carol Stream, IL: NavPress, 2014), 102.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Frank Turek, “Evolution Cannot Explain Morality,”&nbsp;<em>Cross Examined Blog</em>, July 1, 2008, accessed December 1, 2016, http://crossexamined.org/evolution-cannot-explain-morality.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ruse and Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,”&nbsp;310.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid., 311.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Charles Darwin, <em>The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin</em>, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Mark D. Linville, “The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism,”&nbsp;in <em>Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objections</em>, ed. Paul Copan and William Lane Craig (Nashville, TN: B&amp;H Publishing, 2009), 62.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&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%2Ffour-problems-with-evolutionary-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-problems-with-evolutionary-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffour-problems-with-evolutionary-morality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Rosaria Butterfield Interview with Greg Koukl
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/16/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/rosaria-butterfield-interview-with-greg-koukl
content:
            <div> 
		<h2>Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ</h2>

<p>Greg Koukl: One of the things that we seek to be effective at Stand to Reason is taking the message that has been entrusted to us, and speaking it in a way that makes sense to the fallen world that we are sharing that message with. Lately, that’s become much more difficult than it has in the past because of the changing culture and the ideas that are aggressively pushing back at our convictions in one way or another. That’s why I’ve been looking forward to this conversation this hour with Rosaria Butterfield. She is the author of two books. The first one is <em>The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert</em>. The second one is, <em>Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ</em>.</p>

<p>She is a former tenured professor of English. I hear a chuckling in the background, remembering her past. I can tell you’re going to be a good-natured conversationalist right from the beginning Dr. Butterfield.</p>

<p>Rosaria Butterfield: Oh, good. I hope to be that and it’s a pleasure and a privilege to have this conversation with you tonight.</p>

<p>Greg: Thanks so much. Let me get your bio out of the way, because it’s not just your bonafides that are important, but other details of your life that I think are going to make this conversation so valuable to our audience. You’re a former tenured professor of English and women’s studies at Syracuse University. You are now married to Kent Butterfield, a Reformed Presbyterian pastor. You’re a homeschool mom, an author, and a speaker.</p>

<p>You describe your own conversion to Christ as a train wreck. Maybe we can start out by having you explain the particular life circumstances that made your conversion to Christ so dramatic in a certain sense.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. I was a “true believer”&nbsp;before I was a true believer. That’s certainly part of it. When I started exploring the Bible, I was doing so because I wanted to tear it down. I was soon to be tenured professor, and my tenure book and all of my credentials were pretty much in the bag. I wanted my next book to be something that really mattered to me. I was starting a book on the religious right from a lesbian feminist point of view. Because quite frankly, people who run radio shows like yours just terrified me. I really didn’t understand why you wouldn’t leave consenting adults alone. I was reading the Bible in order to dismantle it.</p>

<p>I had written an op-ed in a New York newspaper that was entitled, “The Promise Keeper’s Message Is a Threat to Democracy.”&nbsp;That op-ed got a lot of feedback, it generated a lot of heat. One of the responses came from Ken Smith, the pastor then of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It really was, and even is to this day is, the kindest letter of opposition I had ever received.</p>

<p>Greg: Was it unusual at that time for you to received any kind letters from Christians in opposition?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: I would say I certainly would have lots of people say they were praying for me, and I thought I knew what that meant but I really didn’t. I didn’t really have anybody who was willing to engage me personally.</p>

<p>Greg: Did the announcement of prayers for you sound patronizing?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Patronizing and just foolish. I would just think, “Don’t waste your time. Do something else. Knit socks. Do anything.”&nbsp;Really, I just didn’t believe that any of this was true. I found it threatening the way that Christians would use what I thought was an ancient book to condemn me and my girlfriend, and everything else.</p>

<p>Greg: Just to be clear here, you mentioned condemn you and a girlfriend. You were living as a lesbian with a lesbian partner, right?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right, that is correct. It was just really hard to argue that she and I were anything but good citizens, good caregivers, and good neighbors.</p>

<p>Greg: Loving people.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah, yeah. I was working on this book. When Ken wrote me that letter, I thought, “Great. This is like an unpaid research assistant.”&nbsp;This guy wants to talk to me and I certainly know that I don’t know what I need to know so this is a match made in heaven.</p>

<p>Greg: Yeah, so to speak.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: So to speak, right, yeah. That began a two-year friendship really of Ken bringing the church to me. We would meet weekly, and he and his dear wife Floy, and I became very good friends. Something powerful changed. I’ll tell you, it didn’t change overnight. I read through the Bible about seven times. I wrestled with everything from its internal hermeneutics, to its canonicity, to its questions of authority. I was really wrestling with the idea, that very audacious idea really, that this book has a birthright and a progeny totally different from every other book on the planet. In the process of that, a very simple thing happened and that’s that the Bible got to be bigger inside me than I was. That’s when everything changed.</p>

<p>Greg: When I think about this, I get goosebumps just hearing what you have to say, and of course you express it so well in both of your books, this transformation. What I like about your saga, this journey that you describe so well, is that it’s the journey of a very real person from a very, very dark place, that when you were there, didn’t seem dark to you. Would that be a fair way of putting it?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: I loved my life. I think for many years after, even after my conversion, it was hard not to be sentimental about some of the qualities, some of those things that went into my life. I think that’s helpful for people to remember. One of the reasons Christians are struggling with how to steward the Gospel in a world that has falsely declared sexual orientation to be a true moniker of personhood is because sometimes we look out and we say, “Wow, my neighbors who identify as lesbian are the nicest neighbors I have.”&nbsp;I think we need to remember that there is a distinction between lives that are blessed by God’s common grace and therefore good, and that they do good things in the world. They’re good doctors, they’re good neighbors, they’re good friends.</p>

<p>I think that it helps for Christians to really understand those terms a little better. Because if Ken Smith had just come up to me and said, “You’re a sinner. You’ve got big problems and Jesus has a perfect plan for your life,”&nbsp;I would have laughed, I think.</p>

<p>Greg: This issue is for many people is just a big yuck factor that’s involved. When we actually engage with gays and lesbians, many times we discover they’re not as yucky as we thought once we get to know them as people. This has a powerful, in a certain unfortunate sense, impact on us to think more favorably of the lifestyle because we are thinking more favorably of the individual.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. If I can back you up a little bit, I try to avoid some of the language that you just used in that question. I really don’t like using the language that would suggest that there is such a thing as a gay person, or a lesbian person, or a bisexual person. Personhood is defined in Genesis 1:26-27, “We are image bearers of the holy God.”&nbsp;There are certainly people who struggle daily with unchosen homosexual desire, but they’re really not a separate category of personhood. Although that very much is what the LGBT rights movement wants you to believe.</p>

<p>Greg: Right. I’m very sensitive. I thank you for that reflection and at Stand to Reason, we are very sensitive about the language issues characteristically. Sometimes you end up using language that communicates even though it’s not really the best chosen word. Help me out here, Rosaria. How do you characterize this group of people that you were so closely associated with for so long as a group?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: That I identified with, but I what say is, my neighbor who identifies as a lesbian, because I’m respecting that I am accepting that person right where she is. As a Christian, my job is to steward well the ideas of the world and the people who inhabit those ideas. My job is to steward well even if that means giving people a little bit of a gentle pushback. The category of sexual orientation was really invented in the 19th century. It’s not a biblical category. The Bible talks about homosexuality as a verb, what people do, not a noun, who people are. That’s really important.</p>

<p>We are image bearers of a holy God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. We have a soul that will last forever. We have a gendered body. We are male or female, and that will last for eternity, whether that eternity takes us to the new Jerusalem or suffering in Hell. Those are non-negotiable ideas from the Bible. In the 19th century, Freud developed a theory that what he thought distinguished human beings from other higher mammals, sexual desires that were separate from the desire to procreate, and that those separate desires had different objects of desire, and that’s what made people different. People were gay, lesbian, bisexual, and that’s what mattered most. Then very quickly after that, the sexual orientation moved from a category mistake in the 19th century to an idol. That’s part of why people sometimes don’t understand why there’s that relationship between the abortion rights movement and the LGBT rights movement. It’s because sexual autonomy is a designing moniker of personhood.</p>

<p>Then in the 21st century, we have a situation where sexual orientation is considered a civil right. If the idols are not destroyed, they will become absolutely at the center of everything that that culture stands for.</p>

<p>Greg: You also mention in one of your books about what you call, “The prosperity gospel about sexuality,”&nbsp;the idea that sexuality is a human right for human pleasure, and whatever makes you happy sexually. If I’m getting your sense of it right, whatever makes you happy sexually, you have a divine right to pursue.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. Again, back to being good stewards of ideas, here Christians need to be able to explain why knowing that sexuality is teleological is important and not psychological. That’s crucial. I’ve had people say, “Wow, Rosaria you are really arrogant. How dare you say that sexual orientation is a category mistake?”&nbsp;What I like to say to that point, I’m happy to be rebuked and I’m happy to, it’s a reflection what’s in the mirror. I struggle with all kinds of things, but it’s a category mistake. Some of us were alive with Pluto was a planet. Nobody’s arguing that there isn’t a celestial mass out there called Pluto. We’re just saying that we put it in the wrong category.</p>

<p>Greg: That’s right. That’s a good way of putting it.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: The same is true for this. Nobody is denying that people, real people, people we love, our sons, our daughters, our neighbors, our coworkers—we’re not saying that there aren’t people who have a deep and abiding attraction and affinity, and even a desire that moves into lust and everything else for members of the same-sex. The Bible is saying that doesn’t mean that that’s a separate category of personhood. That’s part of why this whole category of gay Christianity is so dangerous for the church, when the church embraces it. This is true whether it’s the gay Christianity that asserts celibacy, or the gay Christianity that advocates for gay marriage. Some people will say those are two different things. Theologically speaking, they’re not very different at all.</p>

<p>Greg: On this point, I think about Jesus’&nbsp;comment in a Matthew 19 about marriage. You can just take His statement not as the inspired reflections of the Son of God, the incarnate Son of God, but just as a reasonably intelligent human being, who’s making an observation about the way reality is structured. Human beings are made male and female from the beginning. This is the way we’ve been. It turns out that human beings are gendered and that’s just a fact about the way the world is. I think it’s what you called, “Gender and sexuality essentialism.”</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg: This is the fact of the matter and the foundation we start from. Of course, that’s not the direction the world is going right now and this is something that we’re up against. Before we go to break here very quickly, I want to ask you, go back quickly to Ken and Floy when they took you under their wing for a couple of years. I think this is instructive to our listeners because I think the rank and file people who listen to a show like this want to be useful for Christ, we want to be faithful to the truth, and we want to be generous and gracious to those who disagree. But we don’t know always exactly what it looks like to be generous and gracious on one hand, because others may have a different definition of what that looks like, and to be faithful to the truth on the other. I think that the behavior of Ken and Floy towards you for those first two years was an example of a way of building bridges and being able to communicate. Can you say just a little bit about that?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right, absolutely. One of the things that we had was regular set time together. Ken and Floy gave me not spare time, but pricey time. We met for dinner once a week for two years. They made that commitment to me. We would meet at my house, we would meet at their house. We would talk about everything and the-</p>

<p>Greg: At your house, would that include your partner too?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: That’s funny. It never did include my partner at the time. It did include some other members of the LGBT community who were friends of mine. My partner at that time had no interest in my research project, but some of my friends were gracious. A friend of mine who identified as transgendered, and this person is biologically male, but dressed as a female and took female hormones to be chemically castrated. I call her, “Jill”&nbsp;in the book. Actually, I call her “J”&nbsp;in the book. She even came to church with me on more than one occasion. Ken was extremely helpful in some issues in that situation. Ken and Floy were very conservative Christians in their 70s, their late 70s, who befriended me and modeled for me what it means to be a Christian family. They were willing to talk honestly and openly with me about matters of life, politics, and faith. They always made it clear to me that they accepted me right where I was. They just didn’t approve.</p>

<p>Greg: Did the issue of your sexual behavior come up very often or was that a sidelined issue when they focused more on you as an individual?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah, that was definitely a sideline issue. In fact, it only would come up if I would was really being feisty about something and was pushing the envelope. No, Ken always said that he never thought that my calling myself a lesbian, living as a lesbian was my biggest sin. He always knew that my unbelief was my biggest sin. He was just not going to be taken off course by me.</p>

<p>Greg: That’s great. I have to go to break right now, but when we come back I want to pick it up right there. Because this manner of approach to those who identify as gay or lesbian is a great model. I want to explore that just a little bit more when we come back.</p>

<p>Break</p>

<p>Greg: My guest is Rosaria Butterfield, a former professor of English in women’s studies at Syracuse University and has, in many ways, an unlikely journey from that role. She was a pro-feminist, pro-LGBTQ activist and is now a committed follower of Christ. I did mention you were married to Kent Butterfield, a Reformed Presbyterian Pastor. I do not want to make it sound like yours is a success story because you went from a lesbian to a heterosexual, rather than because you went from a non-Christian to a follower of Christ. You see the distinction.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right, absolutely. Yeah, because we are called as followers of Christ to fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. That’s true whether we struggle with same-sex attraction or not. I didn’t stop feeling like a lesbian when I became a Christian. What I realized was that Jesus is alive and He is who He says He is. My feelings did not change immediately. The mortification of sin is a very deep and painful, and rigorous, and daily, messy business. We’re not talking about behavior modification, not even close.</p>

<p>Greg: As I was reading through <em>Openness Unhindered</em>, you actually spent a lot of time talking about that. I’ll be honest, as a straight married male, as a Christian follower struggling with sin, I actually was encouraged as a disciple of Christ by your application of JohnOwen about the struggle with the flesh. There’s much in your book that really has to do with being a follower of Christ. You may want to say more about that in a moment, but I wanted to return to this. Just a reflection that I had, based on the conversations that you had with Ken and Floy those first two years that they did not focus in on your homosexuality, but focused in on your rebellion to God in general.</p>

<p>I’m curious what you think of this advice, but I know that sometimes in conversations when Christians engage with others, one of the first questions that’s asked is, “What do you think of homosexuality?”</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah, that’s crazy.</p>

<p>Greg: It’s meant to, I think, polarize the conversation and pigeonhole the Christian as a certain kind of person. Here’s what occurred to me as a good response and I’d like to get your thoughts. “You know what? It doesn’t matter what I think about homosexuality because homosexuality is not even the issue.”&nbsp;If you are a prodigal, far from home, running from your Father, it does not matter what city you go to. What matters is that you return to your Father.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right, absolutely. I would say we didn’t spend, really, Ken and Floy, and I did not spend two years talking about my rebellion. We talked about the Bible because I was writing this book and I wanted to dismantle the Bible. I wanted them to tell me why they didn’t think I was dismantling it. We talked about Scripture and then we talked about life. One of the things that Ken and Floy modeled to me is that Christians need to be earthly good to their unbelieving neighbors, and they need to be available to be earthly good to their unbelieving neighbors. I live in North Carolina now. It gets to be 40-degrees and people act as though they’re freezing, but where I lived in Syracuse, New York, a blizzard is a serious thing. Certainly, I wasn’t a member of this church, but there wasn’t a major snowstorm that happened in those two years that one or the other of them didn’t call and see how I was, see if I still had power, see if I needed anything. They really modeled being a Christian for me. We talked about Scripture, we worked through the Scriptures. In the process, they modeled for me how a Christian family lives.</p>

<p>Greg: The one thing that I caught from your description of your prior life is that hospitality and community are a huge part of the experience that you had in the LGBTQ community.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Absolutely. I tell people that I honed the hospitality gift that I use today as a pastor’s wife in my queer community. This was in the 90s when the AIDS virus had just taken hold, when various Latin nouns became household words from the medical profession. It was a community given to seeing hospitality as something that moves out into the community, that welcomes people into their homes. I was really intrigued that these Christians had a similar household. In my house, the LGBT community, somebody’s home is open every night of the week just for fellowship, or food, or just to come between you and suicide, or you and depression. That’s just normal. I was amazed when I was at Ken and Floy’s house that their house was a lot like mine. People just walked in, sat down, and poured a cup of coffee.</p>

<p>Greg: If they had not been like that, do you think they would have had the impact on your life, humanly speaking at least, that they had?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: No, I don’t believe that if I hadn’t really felt loved and valued, known and listened to, and if they didn’t live in a way that was sacrificial, open, and caring, that I would have given them the time of day.</p>

<p>Greg: Loved, and valued, and listened to. I hope our listeners are catching those words because they’re key to relationships like you had with Ken and Floy. I want to go back to this, another thing I think a lot of people are wondering about and it’s not news to you, that in the transition, you became a follower of Christ at some point. You committed your life to the Lord, and yet you wrote, “I still felt like a lesbian in my body and heart.”&nbsp;I’m reading, “That was I felt, I felt my real identity, but what is true identity.”&nbsp;Here, I think you began to touch on the distinction between what, at least for me, was a confusing way of putting it, maybe you can flesh it out for us, the difference between a real identity and a true identity.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah, those are words fairly common in continental philosophy. They were terms that were in my vocabulary, but they’re a bit specialized and I can see how they would be confusing. The biblical terms would be, “I felt my identity in the flesh. I felt my identity in the flesh because I had practiced it.”&nbsp;That’s the reality of sin. Sin practiced sears your conscience, it harms your soul, and it makes you long for the very thing that will kill you. The Bible talks about that in terms of the flesh.</p>

<p>Greg: That would be analogous to real identity, is that right?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: That’s real identity.</p>

<p>Greg: Subjective, if you want to put it that way. The one subjective identity. They’re constructed identity.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: I think in Scriptural terms, we see that all believers are in a war between their real identity or what Galatians talks about as the flesh. What’s important to remember is that unbelievers don’t have that struggle. Unbelievers just have the flesh. They don’t have the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>Greg: I had a friend once who said before he was a Christian, he’d never struggled with temptation. No struggle, you just give in.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: You just enjoy it, yeah. You just do what seems right.</p>

<p>Greg: I wonder if we can linger at this point just a little bit, because I thought this was among the best parts in your book in <em>Openness Unhindered</em> where you talk about this struggle. Here, you’re developing ideas from the great puritan John Owen. You’re contrasting two kinds of understandings about the sanctification process. We are in a struggle, and it’s a battle, to mortify the flesh, and this goes on the rest of our lives. It’s true for us as heterosexuals with our sin, but somehow we seem to think, if somebody with same-sex attractions who identifies as a lesbian or gay become a Christian, that struggle should end if it was a genuine conversion. Talk to us a little bit about that process.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. It’s so unfair, and it’s so unkind, and it’s so uncharitable, and it’s so unbiblical, but it really comes from a theology that misunderstands Romans 7. I think that if in your theology, you don’t see in Romans 7, a converted Paul struggling with indwelling sin, then you have no category for indwelling sin. What we need to remember is that we have to deal with sin on at least three levels. We have the original sin that distorts us. For years, I said I was a lesbian because that was a true reflection of my feelings of same-sex attraction. Only after becoming a Christian did I realize that what I called being a lesbian was really a distortion of who I am, not a reflection of it. Original sin distorts us, it distorts all of us.</p>

<p>Greg: That’s the category you’re talking about earlier.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: It’s an important category, yes. Sin distracts us. It takes us off course. We weren’t looking for it. It was looking for us, Genesis says. We weren’t intending, but it found us. Then indwelling sin manipulates us and it took a while for me to realize that my lesbianism was indwelling sin, and it was indwelling sin because I had practiced it for so long. Indwelling sin manipulates you. For me, it was a very painful reality that there was a war inside, that between the indwelling sin of my lesbian desire and my union with Christ that was new, small, and nascent, but growing.</p>

<p>Greg: We see in Romans 7 and Galatians 5 that battle. For me to realize that, it was both comforting and challenging, because on the one hand, there’s this battle. That’s par for the course as a follower of Christ in a fallen world, living in a fallen self with indwelling sin. At the same time, it means that I have to be committed to an active battle with that fallenness and that indwelling sin that is meaning to captivate me and capture me.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: That’s right. It also means a very decisive turning away from the idols that protect that indwelling sin. That’s very practical. When I say that, I’m not being theological and being very practical. It means that there are TV shows you can never watch, and CDs you could never listen to. It’s a decisive turning, a decisive submission, and a decisive reorientation to Christ-shaped living. And even to some Christians that makes you look like a fanatic, but you must do these things if you’re struggling with an indwelling sin like I was.</p>

<p>Greg: You wrote about repentance being a daily thing, an ongoing thing, and not just an act that you did back when you turned to Christ. Repentence is a constant act of turning away and having the grace to do it. This is where the nuts and bolts that sometimes gets hard to figure out, doesn’t it Rosaria?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: It does. That’s why we need a community of believers. That’s why the best thing for somebody struggling with same-sex attraction is not some program in your church, but it’s the Body of Christ where everybody is repenting. They’re doing so in a pretty transparent way. They’re not coming to church pretending that they’re all cleaned up. The other thing that people like me need is fellowship that is organic, and spontaneous, and regular. Not a fellowship meal the third Lord’s Day of the month. That doesn’t cut it. That’s a starvation diet of community.</p>

<p>Greg: Again, this is the kind of fellowship that was with genuine community that you experienced with the LGBTQ community. Spontaneous and organic.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. When people tell me that their children are lost to the LGBTQ community, I’ll tell you, that’s a hard community to leave. Because it’s a well-honed community. It’s a community of people who have spent decades working together to bear one another’s burden. It’s a community without boundaries and walls, which already probably to some of the listeners are thinking, “That sounds like hippies. I can’t live like that.”&nbsp;I think that I’m not in any way recommending that we just take a model that is unbiblical and apply it to our lives, but rather that we reinvest in what the Bible means to be good neighbors.</p>

<p>Greg: The irony is that what they have done in a certain sense is taken what is true in human beings [a desire for community, to belong], that is biblical, and they have leveraged that for strengthening their communities. If we were doing regular, organic, spontaneous communities, interacting, holding each other, providing a safe place to be, and in a sense reaffirming our own convictions with each other, our communities would be as strong for Christ as those.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: I think you’re right, because if we really live as the family of God, the watching world would see that. It would be irresistible. People are dying of loneliness. People in our churches, people in our neighborhood. It’s an agony to see so many lonely people. If the church really had an understanding of itself as a family and a deep committed calling to draw others into that, that would change everything.</p>

<p>Greg: My guest, Rosaria Butterfield, author of <em>The Secret Thoughts of An Unlikely Convert</em> and <em>Openness Unhindered</em>. We’ll be back with our final segment together in just a moment.</p>

<p>Break</p>

<p>Greg: Rosaria, I’ve got so many more questions I want to ask. Let me just fire a couple of things out and get your feedback on these. There were two statements I want to offer to you to respond to that are on opposite sides of the spectrum. The first one is what a counselor once told you, a Christian counselor, “Change your message.”</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yes, she did.</p>

<p>Greg: We’ll get your response. Then on the other side, there is this concept of “pray away the gay,”&nbsp;which I think reflects a misunderstanding about some things that we’ve just been talking about. Why don’t you respond to each of those, if you could.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah, that was a very intense moment. I was about to speak at a large conservative church. There was a person on staff at that church who wanted to meet with me. She came in and closed the door, and said, “I want you to change your message.”&nbsp;I said, “I come in the Gospel of peace.”&nbsp;She said, “I want you to change your message.”&nbsp;I said, “I stand in Christ alone.”&nbsp;She said, “I want you to change your message.”&nbsp;I said, “I stand on 2,000 years of Christian tradition.”&nbsp;She said, “I want you to change your message.”&nbsp;I said, “What exactly would you like me to say?”&nbsp;She said, “I would like you to say that it is your opinion that homosexuality is a sin.”</p>

<p>Greg: She wants you to relativize it in other words.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. I said, “Sweetheart, I am not smart enough to have that opinion. That is 2,000 years of not just church teaching, but of the biblical witness.”&nbsp;Then she went on to say, “Oh come on, Rosaria. We’re talking about six pesky little verses.”&nbsp;That’s when I said, “The problem is that it’s not that you and I are standing in the forest looking at trees differently. The problem is that you and I are not standing in the same forest. I don’t know what else to say. You’re not even in the same forest.”&nbsp;The Bible is a unified revelation. You could no more take six verses out then you could go to an art museum, take a famous Persian tapestry, clip out six threads and say, Nothing’s changed. Jesus came to fulfill this Scripture so that it could remain a unified biblical revelation.</p>

<p>Greg: Another concern about that is that it’s not just stray sayings. These things are tied through with the nature of human sexuality. Back to Matthew 19, human beings are gendered creatures and they’re that way because God made them that way, and all of these verses follow from that fact. This is tied into the way reality is structured.</p>

<p>On the other side of the spectrum then, you have those who think that if you’re just a good enough Christian, then all of these other temptations are going to be gone. The “pray the gay away”&nbsp;approach.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Yeah that’s right. I was recently speaking at a large Christian college and spoke with many students afterwards, and had many students come and say, Please pray for me. I’m struggling with homosexuality. What I always say to people is, “Let’s use language that’s going to help us. Are you struggling with lust? Let’s deal with that. Are you struggling with lack of contentment about singleness? Let’s talk about that.”&nbsp;It’s a very defeatist approach. It’s a very overwhelming thing. I don’t support those ministries that psychologize homosexuality. There are two reasons in the same way that I don’t support ministries that endorse gay Christianity. I would say they both have a low view of sin.</p>

<p>Both gay Christianity and psychological therapy that move towards what they call “Orientation change”&nbsp;have a low view of sin. Often they look at homosexuality as a behavior to be modified rather than a sin to be mortified. That’s a big deal to a Christian. To have a low view of sin means you have a low view of grace. It’s not a small thing.</p>

<p>Greg: If somebody’s struggling with anger though, sometimes anger has a foundation in a relationship where you’re interpreting something one way, and by working through that misunderstanding, then the anger begins to dissipate so you don’t struggle with it at all or as much.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: I’m not as anti-therapy as I sound. I do believe that people should have the right to seek therapy for various struggles as they see it and as their pastors and counselors see it.</p>

<p>Greg: You just don’t want to reduce it to a therapy issue when it’s really a moral issue. Is that what you’re saying?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Right. I think too often then it tends to look at homosexuality diagnostically, constitutionally, and developmentally. It sets up parents to be the evil causation of all of this. You had an overbearing mother or an absent father. I think those are assumptions that have really been harmful to parents, who are grieving and not understanding how their child raised in their Christian home now identifies as a gay man or a lesbian woman. That’s why I think it’s very helpful to go back to Romans 1 and to realize that homosexuality is part of the Fall.</p>

<p>Some would say, “We’re born this way.”&nbsp;Now sometimes people meant that ontologically. Sometimes there’s a way to understand that biblically. Biblically, we’re all born this way [with sin], one way or the other. We are all born with a propensity, and a very predatory propensity I might add, to make idols out of our sexual desires that are unholy, unhealthy, and unwarranted. We all do that.</p>

<p>Greg: Romans 1 is speaking to that very thing.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: It speaks very powerfully. In fact, I think it defines homosexuality as an ethical outworking of original sin. That means we’re all born that way in one way or the other.</p>

<p>Greg: We just have a minute to go here about. Again, so much more on my plate I’d love to chat with you about. I think people are wondering how have you been received now by your former community? Folks can go on YouTube and you’re all over YouTube giving lectures and answering questions, and God bless you for that. How are you being received in general?</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: At the time, you can imagine how painful this was for my students, for my colleagues, for my ex-partner. I had co-authored the first domestic partnership policy at Syracuse, which was the policy forerunner for gay marriage. People really lost an advocate, and a friend, and a professor, and a colleague. Can you image how terrible it would be to be a graduate student who had traveled internationally to work with me in queer theory and now I’m not teaching in that field anymore? Your whole career is destroyed. One of the realities, and I want to be very frank about that, is that to be a Christian, I had to betray all the people I loved. I hurt them and that was painful, and hurt people act like hurt people. When you’re grieving without Christ, that is a very painful thing.</p>

<p>Greg: Hurt people act like hurt people. That’s great. I’m writing it down right now because it’s a great aphorism. Because it explains things, it explains in many ways the pushback that we get. You also said, “There’s no good answer to a bad question.”</p>

<p>Rosaria, thank you so much for bearing your life before us in your books, the wonderful books, <em>The Secret Thoughts of An Unlikely Convert</em>, which is your first book about your journey. The second one, which is a discipleship-oriented book for any Christian, but especially for those struggling with sexual sin. That book is titled, <em>Openness Unhindered</em>. Both by Rosaria Butterfield.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for your kindness, for your hard work, and for your durability out there in a challenging world.</p>

<p>Rosaria B.: Thank you for your 26 years of a radio ministry, of this quality and candour. You clearly have God’s blessing and a good amount of chutzpah, which is a good combination.</p>

<p>Greg: I appreciate that. All the best to you Rosaria and God keep you and your continued work.</p>

<p>Listen to the podcast interview <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/interview-rosaria-butterfield-openness-unhindered-further-thoughts-unlikely-convert-sexual">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%2Frosaria-butterfield-interview-with-greg-koukl" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frosaria-butterfield-interview-with-greg-koukl" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frosaria-butterfield-interview-with-greg-koukl" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: France Decides to Protect Women from Their Conscience
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/16/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/france-decides-to-protect-women-from-their-conscience
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On today’s <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/valuing-children-down-syndrome#.WFSsoaIrJR0" target="_blank">podcast</a>, Greg discusses an article by George Will about a French court’s decision to uphold the banning of an ad created to take away the fear mothers have of having a baby with Down syndrome, and hopefully persuade them not to kill their child in the womb.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies at 49.7 per 100,000 births. In approximately <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836?dopt=AbstractPlus" target="_blank" title="www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov">90 percent</a> of instances when <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9788556" target="_blank" title="www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov">prenatal genetic testing</a> reveals Down syndrome, the baby is aborted...</p>

<p>In 2014, in conjunction with World Down Syndrome Day (March 21), the Global Down Syndrome Foundation prepared a two-minute video titled “Dear Future Mom”&nbsp;to assuage the anxieties of pregnant women who have learned that they are carrying a Down syndrome baby. More than 7 million people have seen the video online in which one such woman says, “I’m scared: What kind of life will my child have?”&nbsp;Down syndrome children from many nations tell the woman that her child will hug, speak, go to school, tell you he loves you and “can be happy, just like I am—and you’ll be happy, too.”</p>

<p>The French state is not happy about this. The court has ruled that the video is—wait for it—“inappropriate”&nbsp;for French television. The court upheld a ruling in which the French Broadcasting Council had banned the video as a commercial. The court said the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ve been struggling to think of what kind of commentary I need add to that. It’s nakedly obvious that if something is disturbing people’s consciences, it might be an indication that something <em>wrong</em> has been done. Labeling that “likely-to-disturb-the-conscience”&nbsp;action a relativistic “personal life choice”&nbsp;is a poor attempt to cover up the previous admission that there is indeed a moral dimension to this action—a “disturbing”&nbsp;one, in fact.</p>

<p>The court’s statement doesn’t just equate legality with morality (a common mistake in an age of relativism); it actually places legality <em>above</em> morality by first recognizing the disturbed reaction of the conscience (i.e., the moral dimension of the act), and then purposely hiding the moral fact (i.e., that killing a child with Down syndrome is wrong) from people because, after all, the action is <em>legal</em>. They’re intentionally suppressing knowledge of the morality in order to maintain the legality, and that is a very dangerous way to run a country.</p>

<p>I’ll stick with the time-honored tradition of pressing the morality to <em>change</em> the legality.</p>

<p>You can read the rest of George Will’s article <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-to-be-spared-from-guilt/2016/12/02/2d5adc2c-b7ed-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.9a028097abea&amp;wpisrc=nl_opinions&amp;wpmm=1" target="_blank">here</a> and watch “Dear Future Mom”&nbsp;below. If your conscience is disturbed by it, please share its moral truth with others before they make the same mistake, and praise God for the <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned#.WFS4d6IrJR0" target="_blank">unbelievably merciful grace</a> He offers you in love.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="Ju-q4OnBtNU" 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/Ju-q4OnBtNU?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%2Ffrance-decides-to-protect-women-from-their-conscience" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrance-decides-to-protect-women-from-their-conscience" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrance-decides-to-protect-women-from-their-conscience" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: No, Dr. Janssen, Human Beings Are Not Trying to Find God
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/21/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-dr-janssen-human-beings-are-not-trying-to-find-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>During a long drive home from a recent speaking event, I decided to listen to an episode of the <em>Unbelievable</em> podcast. <a href="https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Should-modern-biology-make-us-rethink-theology-Luke-Janssen-vs-Fuz-Rana" target="_blank">This episode</a> featured Fuz Rana, biochemist with Reasons to Believe, and Luke Janssen, professor at McMaster University. The question under discussion was, “Should modern biology make us rethink theology?”</p>

<p>Early on in the conversation, Janssen said something that caught my attention. Here’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1j1z9hB2QE&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">what he said</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the things that I often hear Christians say is that all humans have rebelled against God. They’ll emphasize this is true for all humans. But if we look at our collective human history, we see tons of evidence of humans trying to <em>find</em> God. I mentioned all those different religions and religious features of the human species in every chapter of human history trying to find and understand the great Being. It’s one of the strange things that defines what it means to be human. We are a religious species.</p>

<p>We’ve been actively and desperately trying to figure out the great Being and doing this largely on the flimsiest of data. And by that, I mean things like our life experiences, and discussions with our neighbors, chats around the campfire, some private mediation, and even the few glimpses that a few rare individuals will claim to have had of God...</p>

<p>My point being, we haven’t rebelled against God. We’ve actually been trying desperately to <em>find</em> God. And even today, now that we have the Scriptures and Jesus has appeared on Earth, I really don’t see outright active rebellion against God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The reason Janssen hears Christians say that all human beings, apart from Christ, are in active rebellion against God <em>is because that’s exactly what the New Testament teaches</em>. In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, <em>who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 1:18). The active suppression of the truth about God is active rebellion against Him.</p>

<p>But this is hardly an isolated verse. Paul goes on to write, “For <em>if while we were enemies</em> we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). Later in the same letter, Paul writes, “For the mind that is set on the flesh <em>is hostile to God</em>, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7). Scripture is clear on this point. Apart from Christ, human beings are enemies of God. They are rebels who are hostile to God.</p>

<p>But what about all of this evidence that human beings are trying to find God? Janssen wants us to consider “all those different religions and religious features of the human species in every chapter of human history trying to find and understand the great Being.”&nbsp;Here Janssen makes a terrible mistake.</p>

<p>Janssen takes the <em>fact</em> of many different religions throughout human history and concludes that this means human beings are trying to find God. However, the apostle Paul tells us the reason why there have been so many different religions throughout human history.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Rom. 1:21-23)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Verses 22-23 explain the history of religious invention. Human beings, who know the true God, <em>exchange</em> that truth for a lie. Rather than honor and give thanks to the true God, they invent a god in their own image to worship. God isn’t just <em>rejected</em>. He is <em>replaced</em>. Human beings cannot live without expressing religious devotion. It’s the way our Creator made us. But that does not mean evidence of religious devotion is evidence of people seeking after the true God. On the contrary, Paul says that religious devotion to false gods is evidence of <em>darkened</em> hearts that are in rebellion against God.</p>

<p>Janssen says, “We have been actively and desperately trying to figure out the great Being and doing this largely on the flimsiest of data.”&nbsp;Again, this is exactly the opposite of what Paul tells us. He says, “For what can be known about God <em>is plain to them</em>, <em>because God has shown it to them</em>. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, <em>have been clearly perceived,</em> ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. <em>So they are without excuse”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 1:19-20).</p>

<p>What Janssen calls the “flimsiest of data,”&nbsp;Paul calls the clearest of data. In fact, Paul goes even further. He says that the knowledge of God is clear enough from the created world that all men are <em>without excuse</em>. No one will be able to stand before God on the Day of Judgment and tell God that He didn’t provide enough evidence, or that the evidence He did provide was too flimsy. What can be known about God is plain to everyone because God has shown it to everyone through all that God has made. <em>This</em> knowledge of God holds mankind accountable.</p>

<p>Janssen makes it sound like the reason people haven’t found God is that they haven’t got enough information about Him. Paul says that everyone is given enough knowledge of God, but they choose to suppress it. This <em>rejection</em> of God leads to the <em>invention</em> of various false religions.</p>

<p>Janssen tries to tell us that all these different religions exist because honest seekers are desperately trying to <em>find</em> God. But Paul tells us that these religions exist because rebellious people are desperately trying to <em>escape</em> 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%2Fno-dr-janssen-human-beings-are-not-trying-to-find-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%2Fno-dr-janssen-human-beings-are-not-trying-to-find-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%2Fno-dr-janssen-human-beings-are-not-trying-to-find-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Should You Talk to a Friend Who’s Gay?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/09/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-should-you-talk-to-a-friend-who-s-gay-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was asked on an <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/strask-december-5-2016#.WEr4BqIrJR0" target="_blank">#STRask podcast</a>, “How should you talk to a friend who’s gay?”&nbsp;I would answer the question in two different ways, depending on who that particular person is.</p>

<p>If they are a non-believer who identifies as a gay man or woman, then the way I would talk to them is the way I would talk to any other non-believer—whether they’re a Muslim, whether they identify as gay, whether they’re Mormon, or whether they’re just an atheist or a skeptic. I would simply present to them the Gospel in the clearest possible way I can because that’s what ultimately matters. That’s their main problem.</p>

<p>Even if the gay man abandoned homosexual activity and adopted heterosexuality, that still wouldn’t reconcile Him with God, which is his biggest problem. His eternal destiny would still be in jeopardy because whether you’re a heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant to the question of whether you have been pardoned for the crimes you’ve committed against God. All of us have committed crimes against God that we need forgiveness for. That’s why I say, if it’s a non-Christian, the way you should talk to them would be to present the Gospel to them. If they’re a friend of yours, be a friend just like you would to your heterosexual friends. Befriend them and let them know about the Gospel.</p>

<p>Now if they claim to be a Christian and they’re identifying as a gay man, lesbian, or bisexual, meaning that they are engaging in ongoing homosexual behavior or ongoing homosexual lusting, then I would say, once you claim to be a Christian, you now fall under the authority of Scripture and the commands the Bible has for how you should live. That, by the way, applies to all Christians, gay or straight. Anyone claiming to be a Christian is required to submit to the authority of Scripture. If you’re talking to a person like that, my suggestion would be to try to encourage them to do what they can to obey the commands of Christ and to follow the Scriptures. That’s what I would do with any Christian friend who is leading a life in contradiction to Scripture.</p>

<p>In either of these cases, you treat the gay friend the same way you would a heterosexual friend in similar circumstances. Neither one of my suggestions, whether you’re talking to a non-Christian who’s gay or to a Christian who’s gay, is any different for any other person. If they’re gay and non-Christian, present the Gospel. If they are a Christian, then encourage them to live righteously according to the commands of Scripture.</p>

<p>[Adapted from an #STRask podcast transcript.]</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-should-you-talk-to-a-friend-who-s-gay-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-should-you-talk-to-a-friend-who-s-gay-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-should-you-talk-to-a-friend-who-s-gay-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/24/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/nine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many people think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ in the fourth century, but a look at quotes from the early church fathers shows this is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. In my mentoring letter this month, I offered <a href="/w/did-the-council-of-nicea-invent-the-deity-of-christ-" target="_blank">a short list of quotations</a> to demonstrate that the early church believed Jesus is God. Now I’d like to make the argument <em>even stronger</em> by offering thirty-six quotations from nine different early church fathers. All of these quotations predate the Council of Nicea.</p>

<p><strong>Polycarp</strong> (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his <em>Letter to the Philippians</em> he says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and <strong>the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ</strong>, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven <strong>who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ </strong>and in his Father who raised him from the dead.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Ignatius</strong> (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father <strong>and of Jesus Christ our God;</strong> even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life <strong>through the blood of God</strong> you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, <strong>God in man</strong>, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>For <strong>our God, Jesus the Christ</strong>, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished <strong>when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life</strong>.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>For <strong>our God Jesus Christ</strong> is more visible now that he is in the Father.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise</strong>, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: <strong>the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered,</strong> who for our sake endured in every way.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Justin Martyr</strong> (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And that <strong>Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God</strong>, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order <strong>to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts</strong>.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as <strong>deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ</strong>.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>The Father of the universe has <strong>a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God</strong>. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin...<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that <strong>He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God</strong>.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Melito of Sardis</strong> (died c. AD 180) was the bishop of the church in Sardis.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—<strong>God put to death!</strong>...[I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—<strong>because they slew God</strong>, who hung naked on the tree...This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Irenaeus of Lyons</strong> (AD 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that <strong>He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth</strong>. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man...He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that <strong>He was very God</strong>, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King</strong>, according to the will of the invisible Father.<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living</strong>, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>

<p>Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and <strong>His essence, that He is God</strong> (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man...[W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Clement of Alexandria</strong> (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, <strong>He alone being both, both God and man</strong>—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal...The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher <strong>that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends</strong>.<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup></p>

<p>For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, <strong>the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe;</strong> because He was His Son, and the Word was in God...<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Tertullian</strong> (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist. He said,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since <strong>Christ is also God</strong>.<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup></p>

<p>Thus <strong>Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God</strong>, as light of light is kindled...That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, <strong>and the two are one.</strong> In this way also, as <strong>He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God</strong>, He is made a second in manner of existence—<strong>in position, not in nature</strong>; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in <strong>His birth God and man united</strong>.<sup id="fnref:24"><a href="#fn:24">24</a></sup></p>

<p>Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; <strong>by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other </strong>, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that <strong>they are distinct from each other.</strong> This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, <strong>as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit</strong>. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: <strong>it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction;</strong> because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, <strong>but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole</strong>, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.”&nbsp;In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.”&nbsp;Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,”&nbsp;thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that <strong>they are distinct in personality</strong>?<sup id="fnref:25"><a href="#fn:25">25</a></sup></p>

<p>As if in this way also one were not All, in that <strong>All are of One</strong>, <strong>by unity (that is) of substance</strong>; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; <strong>yet of one substance</strong>, and of one condition, and of one power, <strong>inasmuch as He is one God</strong>, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, <strong>under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost</strong>.<sup id="fnref:26"><a href="#fn:26">26</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Hippolytus of Rome</strong> (AD 170-235) was a third-century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also <strong>the Logos is God, being the substance of God</strong>.<sup id="fnref:27"><a href="#fn:27">27</a></sup></p>

<p>For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, <strong>God the Word</strong> with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, <strong>not emptied of divinity</strong>; but as, while in Hades, <strong>He was in essential being with His Father</strong>, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.<sup id="fnref:28"><a href="#fn:28">28</a></sup></p>

<p>For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before <strong>God the Word</strong>.<sup id="fnref:29"><a href="#fn:29">29</a></sup></p>

<p>Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that <strong>God the Word came down from heaven</strong>, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name...He now, coming forth into the world, <strong>was manifested as God in a body</strong>, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, <strong>though demonstrated as God</strong>, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And <strong>He who as God</strong> has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.<sup id="fnref:30"><a href="#fn:30">30</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Origen</strong> (AD 185-254) was another early Christian theologian. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and <strong>was incarnate although God</strong>, and <strong>while made a man remained the God which He was</strong>.<sup id="fnref:31"><a href="#fn:31">31</a></sup></p>

<p>Seeing God the Father is invisible and <strong>inseparable from the Son</strong>, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,”&nbsp;as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation”&nbsp;of the Father (the term “prolation”&nbsp;being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated”&nbsp;and He who was “prolated”&nbsp;are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, <strong>or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist</strong>...How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, <strong>although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father</strong>; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence<em>.</em><sup id="fnref:32"><a href="#fn:32">32</a></sup></p>

<p>For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, <strong>do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him</strong>. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.”&nbsp;And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. <strong>But when we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth</strong>, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.<sup id="fnref:33"><a href="#fn:33">33</a></sup></p>

<p>Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, <strong>but without any beginning</strong>, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.<sup id="fnref:34"><a href="#fn:34">34</a></sup></p>

<p>But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. <strong>Because His generation is as eternal</strong> and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, <strong>but by His own nature</strong>.<sup id="fnref:35"><a href="#fn:35">35</a></sup></p>

<p>And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”&nbsp;<strong>For who else was “He which is to come”&nbsp;than Christ?</strong> And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, <strong>that the Savior is also God</strong>; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, <strong>no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent</strong>.<sup id="fnref:36"><a href="#fn:36">36</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>**Nearly all of the above early writing can be read at <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">Early Christian Writings</a>.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Polycarp, <em>Philippians</em>, 12:2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 0.0. (This is the Greeting.)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 1.1.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 7.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 18.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 19.3.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Romans</em>, 3.3. Holmes, <em>AF</em>, 229.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Smyrnaeans</em>, 1.1. Holmes, <em>AF</em>, 249.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ignatius, <em>Letter to Polycarp</em>, 3.2. Holmes, <em>AF</em>, 265.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 128. Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, <em>Ante-Nicene Fathers</em>, I:264.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 36. <em>ANF</em>, I:212.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 63. <em>ANF</em>, I:229.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Justin Martyr, <em>First Apology</em>, 63. <em>ANF</em>, I:184.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 126. ANF, I:263.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Melito, 5.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies</em>, 3.19.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies</em>, 4.6.7.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies,</em> 1.10.1.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies</em>, 4.5.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies, 3.21.4.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></em></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Clement of Alexandria, <em>Exhortation to the Heathen</em>, 1.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">Clement of Alexandria, <em>Exhortation to the Heathen</em>, 10.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23">Tertullian, <em>Treatise on the Soul</em>, 41.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:24">Tertullian, <em>Apology</em>, 21.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:24">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:25">Tertullian, <em>Against Praxeas</em>, chapter 9.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:25">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:26">Tertullian, <em>Against Praxeas</em>, chapter 2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:26">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:27">Hippolytus, <em>Refutation of All Heresies</em>, 10.29.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:27">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:28">Hippolytus<em>, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23.</em><a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:28">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:29">Hippolytus<em>, Against Plato, Section 3.</em><a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:29">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:30">Hippolytus<em>, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17.</em><a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:30">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:31">Origen, <em>De Principiis</em>, Preface, 4. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:31">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:32">Origen<em>. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:32">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:33">Origen<em>, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:33">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:34">Origen<em>, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:34">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:35">Origen<em>, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:35">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:36">Origen<em>, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:36">&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%2Fnine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-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%2Fnine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-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%2Fnine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-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: Are All Sins Equal in God’s Sight?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 12/20/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-all-sins-equal-in-god-s-sight-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://michaeljkruger.com" target="_blank">Michael Kruger</a> is doing an excellent blog series titled “Taking Back Christianese.”&nbsp;He recently addressed the “all-sins-are-equal”&nbsp;claim that is oft-repeated in Christian circles. He <a href="http://michaeljkruger.com/taking-back-christianese-6-all-sins-are-equal-in-gods-sight/" target="_blank">highlights three main problems</a> with this view:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>First, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the <em>effect</em> of sin with the <em>heinousness</em> of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous.</p>

<p>Second, the Bible differentiates between sins. Some sins are more severe in terms of impact (<a class="bibleref" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Cor%206.18/" target="_blank" title="1 Cor 6:18">1 Cor 6:18</a>), in terms of culpability (<a class="bibleref" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Rom%201.21-32/" target="_blank" title="Rom 1:21-32">Rom 1:21-32</a>), and in terms of the judgment warranted (<a class="bibleref" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/2%20Pet%202.17/" target="_blank" title="2 Pet 2:17">2 Pet 2:17</a>; <a class="bibleref" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark%209.42/" target="_blank" title="Mark 9:42">Mark 9:42</a>; <a class="bibleref" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/James%203.1/" target="_blank" title="James 3:1">James 3:1</a>)...</p>

<p>Third, although all people are sinners, the Bible makes it clear that some are more holy than others. The Bible has the category of the “righteous”&nbsp;person who is singled out by God as notably different (see my article on that subject <a href="http://michaeljkruger.com/is-anyone-more-holy-than-anyone-else-the-missing-category-of-the-righteous-man/" target="_blank">here</a>).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Christians need to think carefully about this issue and how we communicate about it, especially in a culture that is more than happy to co-opt our own statements and claims in order to justify sin. In <a href="http://michaeljkruger.com/further-reflections-on-the-belief-that-all-sins-are-equal-its-more-widespread-than-you-think/" target="_blank">a follow-up post</a>, Michael Kruger illustrates how widespread this view may be. As you read through the Twitter posts he highlights, you’ll notice how people use this Christianese phrase to “flatten out”&nbsp;sin, attempting to make individual sins indistinguishable from one another and therefore insulate certain sins from any appropriate moral judgments. Of course, if people think that all sin is “equal,”&nbsp;then in their minds there is no basis for the church to highlight the immorality of the gay lifestyle over and against other sins. For them, Christians are being hypocrites because we have our own sins that we struggle with as well.</p>

<p>And that’s just one reason why Christians need to make careful distinctions regarding this issue and think biblically about it. As Kruger concludes, “big theological differences are usually captured in just such minor details.”</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-in-god-s-sight-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-in-god-s-sight-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-in-god-s-sight-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Be Content in Suffering
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/18/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-be-content-in-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Marshall Segal has some <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/love-the-life-you-never-wanted" target="_blank">good words to say</a> about facing a life that isn’t what you hoped for:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The reality is that all of us can imagine something better for ourselves than our circumstances today. The greater reality is that, if you love and follow Jesus, God always writes a better story for you than you would write for yourself. The “better”&nbsp;is based on this: God himself is the best, most satisfying thing you could ever have or experience, and, therefore, fullness of life is ultimately found not in any earthly success or relationship or accomplishment, but in your proximity to God through faith.</p>

<p>The dark side of this good news is that you may have to walk through pain, disappointment, rejection, and suffering for seventy or eighty years. The brighter (and prevailing) side says God never makes a mistake in choosing good for you. Everything you experience—expected or unexpected, wanted or unwanted, pleasing or painful—is God’s good plan to make you his own (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2010.27%E2%80%9329" target="_blank">John 10:27-29</a>), to give you himself forever (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps%2016.11" target="_blank">Psalm 16:11</a>), and to use your life to reveal himself and his glory to the world around you (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isa%2043.25" target="_blank">Isaiah 43:25</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Cor%2010.31" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:31</a>)...</p>

<p>What is the secret of joy and contentment in the face of whatever life brings? It’s centering and anchoring our joy and contentment in Christ, rather than in life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of “<a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/love-the-life-you-never-wanted" target="_blank">Love the Life You Never Wanted</a>.”</p>

<p>I’ve spent a lot of time over the years reading about Christians who suffered, trying to figure out how they persevered; and the trust Paul expresses in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+4%3A11-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Philippians 4:11-13</a> (referred to by Segal in the last paragraph above) <em>is</em> the common denominator I found:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That kind of trust doesn’t come from nowhere. Leading up to that passage, Paul says, “I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things.”&nbsp;It’s out of that <em>love</em> expressed in chapter 3 that he concludes with the passage of confident trust in chapter 4.</p>

<p>In other words, the people who are content in suffering, the people who persevere, are the people who love Jesus. The difficult details of our lives are working to create this love for Jesus by directing our eyes towards Him and proving Him to be faithful, but we needn’t wait for difficult circumstances. I spoke briefly <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/do-you-convey-sense-your-love-jesus-your-apologetics#.WC9JfKIrJR0" target="_blank">here</a> about how to cultivate our love for Christ by looking at Him—who He is and what He’s done for us. I think we all need to get much more serious and <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/strengthen-the-basics-in-2015#.WC9J3qIrJR0" target="_blank">intentional</a> about doing 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%2Fhow-to-be-content-in-suffering" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-be-content-in-suffering" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-be-content-in-suffering" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If Morality Comes from a “Good” Society, We’re in Trouble
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-morality-comes-from-a-good-society-we-re-in-trouble
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I came across this tweet by someone who is worried about the state of our nation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’ve always believed there is no such thing as the inherent goodness of people. Morality comes from a good &amp; just society. I’m scared.</p>
- Kumail Nanjiani (@kumailn) November 11, 2016</blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<p>I can sympathize with a person being scared by this. If there is “no such thing as the inherent goodness of people,”&nbsp;but instead morality must come from “a good and just society,”&nbsp;then he has reason to be scared. If the goodness we desire is not inherently in people, and there is no moral standard higher than society, how could “goodness”&nbsp;ever reign in a society? Society is <em>people</em>. And if society determines goodness, and society is people, and people aren’t inherently good, how could there even <em>be</em> any goodness?</p>

<p>He needs the hope of an objective goodness that’s higher than people/society. If there isn’t one, his fear should probably be greater than it is.</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-morality-comes-from-a-good-society-we-re-in-trouble" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-morality-comes-from-a-good-society-we-re-in-trouble" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-morality-comes-from-a-good-society-we-re-in-trouble" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Medical Accuracy of John’s Description of Jesus on the Cross
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-medical-accuracy-of-john-s-description-of-jesus-on-the-cross
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the clip below, J. Warner Wallace says the medical accuracy of John’s account of Jesus’&nbsp;death on the cross is evidence this is the testimony of an eyewitness.</p>

<p>This argument would be relevant both to people who buy into the “<a href="https://carm.org/swoon-theory" target="_blank">swoon theory</a>”&nbsp;(i.e., Jesus didn’t really die on the cross) and to those who think the entire scenario was invented at a later date.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="yi147A1TBqg" 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/yi147A1TBqg?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: In Conversations On Cultural Issues, Get to the Root of the Worldview
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/16/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/in-conversations-on-cultural-issues-get-to-the-root-of-the-worldview
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As the cultural debate over issues like transgenderism increases and you’re drawn into conversations with friends and family, this is a great opportunity to move the debate back a few logical steps to the fundamental worldviews behind the divide.</p>

<p>Katherine Kersten clarifies the root of the division in an <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/12/transgender-conformity" target="_blank">article</a> over at First Things:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The transgender crusade is closely linked to the recent crusade for same-sex marriage. Both spring from the same philosophical source—a decisive shift in our society’s idea of the nature of the human person.</p>

<p>The Judeo-Christian vision, which shaped Western civilization for 1,600 years, holds that God created man—body and soul—with purpose and meaning in an ordered universe. But the post-Christian worldview fast replacing it has no place for God, and perceives no purpose in nature. Christian man has become “psychological man”&nbsp;and the soul has become the self, in the words of Philip Rieff. The free-floating self—unconstrained by reality—is now believed to forge its own “identity”&nbsp;through a creative assertion of will.</p>

<p>Post-Christian man views his body as a tabula rasa—a canvas on which to express his identity and exert his will. In fact, the more contrary to nature one’s new self is, the more “authentic”&nbsp;it can claim to be. The recent mania for tattoos and piercings is a case in point. The desire to be free of the human condition and its limitations has ancient roots. It has taken Gnostic form in both the ancient and modern worlds. The Gnostic impulse rejects physical reality as evil. It seeks a higher, hidden knowledge—available only to an elite—in its quest for personal salvation. Animated by this knowledge, the Gnostic approach creates a kind of magical reality that refuses to admit conditions that resist the human will.</p>

<p>Today’s transgender crusade can be seen as the latest manifestation of this denial. It is <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/why-same-sex-marriage-can%E2%80%99t-afford-to-be-tolerant#.WCun86IrJR0" target="_blank">inherently authoritarian</a>, as other latter-day Gnostic projects have been, because it has to be. Nature and common sense oppose it. In the “Gnostic dream world,”&nbsp;as Eric Voegelin once put it, “non-recognition of reality is the first principle.”&nbsp;Critics who persist in drawing attention to reality must be discredited or silenced. Otherwise, the Gnostic fantasy world crumbles. [Link added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A person’s position (if he’s thinking consistently) on the cultural debate over transgenderism depends on his view of the human body, which, in turn, depends on his view of God (including the question of whether or not He exists). Because of this, every conversation you have about this issue is a chance for you to glorify God by pointing to Him with your arguments. Questions like, “Do you think our bodies are meant to be used in a particular way—why or why not?”&nbsp;can help you move the conversation to the question of God’s existence, character, and purpose. Here are a few advantages to this approach:</p>

<ol>
	<li>It helps you get a better understanding of where your friend is coming from.</li>
	<li>It helps your friend think through his own beliefs more carefully by helping him connect dots (e.g., atheism and transgenderism) within his own worldview that he may not have connected before.</li>
	<li>It moves the debate away from a symptom of his worldview to the root of that worldview.</li>
	<li>It moves the conversation to the subject of God Himself—the topic we most want people to think about.</li>
</ol>

<p>For more on how to get to the root of a worldview, draw out its implications, and point to the reality of the true God, see Nancy Pearcey’s <em><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods#.WCvtJKIrJR1" target="_blank">Finding Truth</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%2Fin-conversations-on-cultural-issues-get-to-the-root-of-the-worldview" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fin-conversations-on-cultural-issues-get-to-the-root-of-the-worldview" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fin-conversations-on-cultural-issues-get-to-the-root-of-the-worldview" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Aren’t the Apostle Paul’s Sexual Ethics Outdated?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/14/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/aren-t-the-apostle-paul-s-sexual-ethics-outdated-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At a recent presentation where I gave the Bible’s position on same-sex relationships, someone asked me, “How do we know that most of Scripture about homosexuality that Paul wrote still applies to us today, as our culture and society are different from his?”&nbsp;Here’s how I answered the question.</p>

<p>First, if the argument is that Paul’s sexual ethics are outdated and can be safely ignored in today’s times, then this would lead to an absurdity. We could ignore virtually <em>any</em> moral proscription mentioned in the New Testament. Nothing Paul said would apply to us today. After all, our culture and society are allegedly different from his.</p>

<p>Second, Paul’s comments about homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10) are hardly culture bound. His teaching is consistent with all of Scripture, throughout every period of biblical history. Genesis, for example, teaches that God made male and female and commanded them to unite and form a one-flesh union (Gen. 2:18-25). They were also commanded to be fruitful and multiply, something only possible with the complementarity of the sexes. In fact, the male-female pairing is the only arrangement of people described in Scripture that can form a one-flesh union. No other pairing or group of people is ever described in this way.</p>

<p>The Mosaic Law also included a prohibition of same-sex behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In other words, from the creation of humanity through the time of Moses, Scripture has been consistent regarding sexuality. It is only to occur between a married man and woman.</p>

<p>Jesus later restated (and upheld) the Genesis creation account of male-female complementarity (Matthew 19:3-9). Not only did He quote the relevant parts of Genesis, He added His own words: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”&nbsp;In other words, Jesus believed male-female marriage was a God-ordained institution.</p>

<p>So when Paul mentioned that homosexuals were engaged in sin (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10), he was speaking consistently with what Scripture taught in every era of biblical history. This was not something that merely reflected his culture or own thinking.</p>

<p>Third, Paul grounded the prohibition of homosexual behavior in the created order, indicating this was not a culture-bound concern. Romans 1:26-27 was written in the context of a creation narrative. Paul argued that God made creation in a certain way that makes His divine attributes evident from what is made. Men and women, in particular, are natural compliments of one another and are intended to sexually function with each other. Homosexual sex violates the natural design of male-female coupling. That’s why Paul argues such behavior is symptomatic of rebellion, and consequently, sin.</p>

<p>Paul’s sexual ethics on homosexuality, therefore, are consistent with the rest of Scripture and, therefore, relevant to us today. Dismissing Paul’s teaching is dismissing the inspired word of God and the purpose of marriage God has ordained since the creation of the world.</p>
</div>

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


title: New Ontario Law Denies Reality of Parentage
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/03/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/new-ontario-law-denies-reality-of-parentage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>News out of <a href="https://world.wng.org/2016/11/ontario_turns_parenting_into_a_group_affair" target="_blank">Canada</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Children in Ontario, Canada, may now have up to four legal parents, none of which must be birth parents, under a bill <a href="https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/29/ontario-passes-law-giving-equal-parenting-rights-to-same-sex-couples/" target="_blank">passed</a> by the legislature Tuesday.</p>

<p>Under the All Families are Equal Act, same-sex couples or a group of up to four adults who agree to have a child, whether through a surrogate mother or artificial insemination, will be legally viewed as parents without any adoption process. They simply must sign a contract to co-parent before the child is conceived...</p>

<p>Yasir Naqvi, Ontario’s attorney general, <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2016/11/ontario-passes-law-ensuring-equal-rights-for-all-parents-and-children.html" target="_blank">applauded</a> the vote in a statement, saying the act will ensure “that all kids are treated equally by recognizing the legal status of their parents no matter if their parents are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and no matter if they were conceived with the help of assisted reproduction.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The point of the bill is to make sure the state recognizes “the legal status of the parents,”&nbsp;however the children were conceived. Except the reality is that said children were ultimately conceived by actual <em>parents</em>—a man and a woman. Not technology. Not four people. Not two people of the same sex. Signing a contract before conception does nothing to change the reality of the man and the woman who <em>actually</em> brought the child into existence.</p>

<p>My comments are not meant to say adoptive parents are not real parents. Adoption is a wonderful thing, and it’s something that <em>should</em> be legally recognized by the state. Rather, it’s to point out that the bill (and the language being used to promote the bill) obscures reality and lessens the government’s responsibility to respect the family as a pre-political institution not under the control of the state. When the government legalizes an adoption, it is submitting itself to the truth that the connection between parents and child is real, meaningful, and not subject to the whim of the state or anyone else. Children can’t be separated from their parents and then joined to new ones without the proper, official legal action. The parents have natural rights that can’t be violated by the state because those rights existed <em>before</em> the state and weren’t created by the state. But now that the Ontario government has given itself the power to legally <em>ignore</em> the natural rights of the parents who created the child by not requiring adoption, it is effectively no longer answering to a reality above itself on this matter.</p>

<p>Look at the headline of this <a href="https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/29/ontario-passes-law-giving-equal-parenting-rights-to-same-sex-couples/" target="_blank">article</a>: “Ontario passes law giving equal parenting rights to same-sex couples.”&nbsp;But this is <em>not</em>&nbsp;“equal parenting rights,”&nbsp;as if these couples (or groups of four) were having children and being denied the right of having their parentage recognized.* <em>A child is only created by a man and a woman</em>. Parentage laws should apply equally to all <em>parents</em>, not non-parents.</p>

<p>Here’s a quote from that article:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Parents deserve this respect. This is something a long time coming. Human rights should be given to all people and this is a great success,”&nbsp;he said.</p>

<p>Under Bill 28, same-sex parents no longer have to adopt their own children.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What on earth? Adopt their <em>own children</em>? In what sense are those children “their own”&nbsp;if <em>not</em> through adoption? <em>A child is created by a man and a woman</em>. Can you not see that a whole new meaning has been given to the words “their own children”? A meaning that is disconnected from reality? And is there really a “human right”&nbsp;to have the government recognize your desired “reality”&nbsp;rather than submit itself to <em>actual</em> reality? And what of the rights of the actual birth parents? And what of truth? To automatically legally ignore the birth parents of the child and replace them with unrelated people who signed a contract is to <em>lie</em>.</p>

<p>I promise you, no good comes from the government lying about reality.</p>

<p>Carl Trueman recently said in a <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/11/the-travails-of-lieutenant-marty" target="_blank">post worth reading</a>, “We have now become whoever and whatever we happen to think we are, and the world needs to be remade in a manner that plays to our fantasies.”&nbsp;Legally remaking reality will require extensive and unprecedented governmental intervention. And <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/same-sex-marriage-wont-be-enough#.WEIPzqIrJR0" target="_blank">none</a> of this is <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/inherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-marriage#.WEIPraIrJR0" target="_blank">unforeseen</a>. The union of a man and a woman is unique and has unique consequences—it creates children. Same-sex unions cannot do this. The second we decided to pretend marriage had nothing to do with the unique properties of the man/woman union, we started down a road whose only outcome is an increasing amount of legislation and term redefinitions to try to make two unlike things the same.</p>

<p>*Perhaps you are thinking, “But when a woman has a baby, the law presumes her husband is the father of the child. The government doesn’t do tests to confirm he is actually the father in that case, so doesn’t equality demand that it have the same rules for same-sex couples and automatically record the spouse as the other parent?”&nbsp;Here we’re back to the problem I explain at the end of the post: the two types of unions are <em>inherently different</em>, and the difference is relevant to the issue. There’s quite a big difference between presuming the husband is the father, something that might not be true, and asserting something that is <em>most definitely</em> untrue—i.e., that a <em>woman</em> is the father.</p>
</div>

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


title: Did the Council of Nicea Invent the Deity of Christ?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/18/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-the-council-of-nicea-invent-the-deity-of-christ-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Can I be honest with you? Some statements get me frustrated. I can usually keep my cool when people say things I disagree with, but this statement puts me over the top. I am sick and tired of people claiming that the Council of Nicea (c. AD 325) <em>made</em> Jesus into God.</p>

<p>This is a claim that you will hear from both cultists and skeptics. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for making this claim. In their publication <em>Should You Believe in the Trinity?</em> they write, “Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> On this view, Emperor Constantine <em>invented</em> the deity of Christ in the fourth century.</p>

<p>This view was also propagated to millions of people in the bestselling book <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>: “Jesus’&nbsp;establishment as ’the Son of God’&nbsp;was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea...By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Given the enormous popularity of <em>The Da Vinci Code,</em> this belief has become fully ingrained into the consciousness of the rank-and-file.</p>

<p>How should we respond to this claim? I have a two-pronged approach. First, I ask a question: How did you come to that conclusion? This is the second Columbo question in Greg Koukl’s book <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316" target="_blank"><em>Tactics</em></a>. It is one thing to make a historical claim, but it is another thing to back it up with historical facts. And this often-recited claim <em>lacks</em> any kind of historical support.</p>

<p>At this point, don’t be surprised if the person who raised the challenge cannot answer your question. The fact is, most people in our culture make claims they are not equipped to defend. This is <em>not</em> the time to insult; this is the time to inform. The person who made the claim is deeply misinformed, and you now have the opportunity to correct him. This leads to the second prong of your response.</p>

<p>Second, I look at the facts. This is the <em>Just the Facts Ma’am</em> tactic. Quite often we can correct a person’s false beliefs by appealing to the facts. When answering questions about what happened in the past, it is a good idea to consult reputable historians. In his book <em>Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code,</em> agnostic historian Bart Ehrman writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus’&nbsp;divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine...Quite the contrary: everyone at the Council - in fact, just about every Christian everywhere - already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to <em>understand</em> Jesus’&nbsp;divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? <em>Those</em> were the issues that were addressed at Nicea, not whether or not Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus’&nbsp;divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, <em>and had been from the early years of the religion.</em> [Emphasis added.]<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>So belief in the deity of Jesus existed since “the early years of the religion.”&nbsp;Just how early? The New Testament is full of references to the deity of Christ. Certainly Paul (Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:5-8), Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and John (John 1:1; 8:58; 20:28) believed that Jesus is God.</p>

<p>However, to show that Christians believed in the deity of Christ <em>before</em> the Council of Nicea, you can also consult the early church fathers. The person claiming that Nicea invented the deity of Jesus will be surprised to learn that the earliest church fathers <em>explicitly</em> affirmed the deity of Christ. Here is a small sample.</p>

<p>Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians, he writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven <strong>who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ </strong>and in his Father who raised him from the dead.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and another disciple of John. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, <strong>God in man</strong>, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>For <strong>our God, Jesus the Christ</strong>, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was a Christian apologist of the second century. He boldly states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And that <strong>Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God</strong>, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order <strong>to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts</strong>.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of what is now known as Lyons, France. Irenaeus studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that <strong>He was very God</strong>, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>...<strong>Christ Jesus our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King</strong>, according to the will of the invisible Father.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, <strong>He alone being both, both God and man</strong>...<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist writing around a century after John. He said,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since <strong>Christ is also God</strong>.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also <strong>the Logos is God, being the substance of God</strong>.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before <strong>God the Word</strong>.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>All of these church fathers wrote over a century <em>before</em> the Council of Nicea supposedly invented the deity of Jesus. So here is my question: If the early church fathers explicitly affirmed Jesus’&nbsp;deity before Nicea, then how can anyone claim that it was an invention at Nicea?</p>

<p>The facts overwhelmingly confirm that the deity of Christ was <em>not</em> invented at Nicea. In fact, this belief was birthed out of the original disciples’&nbsp;close interaction with Jesus. Consequently, Jesus’&nbsp;words and actions led the disciples to the only reasonable conclusion: <em>Jesus is God</em>. And this belief was passed down through church history.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Watch Tower, <em>Should You Believe in the Trinity?,</em> (Halton Hills, ON: Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society, 1989), 8.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Dan Brown, <em>The Da Vinci Code,</em> 253.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Bart Ehrman, <em>Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine</em>, 14-15.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Polycarp, <em>Letter to the Philippians</em>, 12:2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 7.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ignatius, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em>, 18.2.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 128.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Justin Martyr, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em>, 36.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies</em>, 4.6.7.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies,</em> 1.10.1.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Clement of Alexandria, <em>Exhortation to the Heathen</em>, 1.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Tertullian, <em>Treatise on the Soul</em>, 41.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Hippolytus, <em>Refutation of All Heresies</em>, 10.29.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Hippolytus<em>, Against Plato, Section 3</em><a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&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%2Fdid-the-council-of-nicea-invent-the-deity-of-christ-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-the-council-of-nicea-invent-the-deity-of-christ-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-the-council-of-nicea-invent-the-deity-of-christ-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Force Is Required to Override Belief in Reality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/22/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/force-is-required-to-override-belief-in-reality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A while back, <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/why-same-sex-marriage-can%E2%80%99t-afford-to-be-tolerant#.WDOe3aIrJR0" target="_blank">Matt Anderson wrote</a> about how the advancement of same-sex marriage would necessarily require a great deal of force to get people to comply. Since man/woman marriage naturally arises out of the <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue#.WDOhkKIrJR0" target="_blank">unique nature</a> of that union (in particular, its creation of children), any artificial change to the institution must be imposed on society against the dictates of reality, and that requires force.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/race-sex-and-marriage#.WDOig6IrJR0" target="_blank">Frank Beckwith wrote</a> the same thing about interracial marriage. The nature of marriage has <em>nothing</em> to do with race; it has only to do with sex—man plus woman. Therefore, when lawmakers artificially introduced a racial requirement into marriage, the change required the use of governmental force to override reality.</p>

<p>Now we’re being told to deny reality yet again in an article on <em>Slate</em>: “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/07/19/there_s_no_such_thing_as_a_male_body.html" target="_blank">What Is a ’Male Body’?</a>”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hen a transgender woman uses a women’s restroom there are still zero men—biological or otherwise—in that restroom. This is straightforward:  Transgender women are women; transgender men are men...</p>

<p>Most insidious, we use the same language that opponents of transgender people use, carelessly referring to women who are trans as having “male genitals”&nbsp;or being “born with a male body”&nbsp;or being “anatomically male.”&nbsp;This language is both factually wrong and dangerous.</p>

<p>There is plainly no one type of body that we could accurately label a “male body”...</p>

<p>It is a choice to refer to some bodies as male and some bodies as female, not a fact. Our genital characteristics are one component of who we are and do not define, medically or biologically, our sex...Our bodies are complex and dynamic, and if we classify people as male and female, such classifications should only be made based on a person’s gender identity...At the very least we have a responsibility to recognize that it is an ideological position—and not a scientific fact—to name someone’s body, genitals, or biology <em>male</em>.</p>

<p>In addition to being factually inaccurate, it is dangerous to refer to women who are trans as having “male bodies”&nbsp;and men who are trans as having “female bodies.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How much force will it take to “convince”&nbsp;people there’s no such thing as a biologically male body?</p>
</div>

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


title: Following Jesus to Compassion
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/following-jesus-to-compassion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You may have noticed a trend in my work this year: truth and compassion. I’m constantly using that language when I write and speak on topics ranging from Islam, abortion, homosexuality, and recently transgenderism. I often subtitle my talks “truth and compassion”&nbsp;or write about the importance of incorporating those elements into whatever I teach. Am I out of ideas? Do I lack originality? I don’t think so. Rather, I emphasize these two ideas because that’s what I see in Jesus’&nbsp;ministry.</p>

<p>The Gospel writers routinely describe Jesus as exhibiting a combination of truth and compassion. Whenever Jesus learns the truth about a person or situation, He is moved to compassion.</p>

<p>In Matthew 9:35-36, for example, Jesus is going through all the towns and villages, healing diseases and sickness, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. Matthew writes, “Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.”&nbsp;Notice the order. Jesus learns the truth <em>and then</em> is motivated by compassion. He sees that the people are distressed, dispirited, and like sheep without a shepherd and, <em>because of that truth,</em> He is driven to compassion.</p>

<p>We see another example in Luke 7, where Jesus comes upon a widow whose only son has died. This is a difficult situation for the widow since she has no husband and now her son—the other male in her life—has died. Luke writes, “When the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her, and said to her, ’Do not weep.’”&nbsp;Then, He raises her son from the dead. Notice again that when Jesus learns of the widow’s predicament, He is motivated to compassion. Truth leads Him to compassion.</p>

<p>I’ve found my own experience to follow a similar pattern. Whenever I learn the truth about someone, especially if his circumstances are dire, it evokes compassion in me. It’s that emotion that then affects <em>what I say</em> and <em>how I treat</em> that person. It doesn’t matter if he holds views that are contrary to mine. I’m still moved to care about him.</p>

<p>There are several advantages to this approach. First, it treats human beings as image-bearers of God that are inherently valuable and worth knowing. When we take the time to learn the truth about people we interact with, we’re more likely to be moved by compassion. That leads us to treat them like Christ: uncompromising in our convictions, but compassionate in our manner.</p>

<p>Second, it helps to prevent us from seeing other people as the enemy. When we’re ignorant of people’s lives, it’s easier to vilify them, especially if they’re espousing unbiblical views. When we learn the details of their life and struggle, we naturally become more sympathetic to their plight. The truth of their situation leads us to have compassion for them. We no longer see them as the enemy, but as image-bearers of God who desperately need the truth of the Gospel.</p>

<p>Third, it helps change culture’s impression of Christians. This is important because the world believes Christians are hateful, intolerant, and opposed to people on the “other side.”&nbsp;When we take time to hear someone’s story and are compassionate in our manner towards them, the world takes notice. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the world’s perception of believers is paramount, but it certainly doesn’t hurt to have the culture think positively about our faith.</p>

<p>That’s why truth and compassion influences my teaching so dramatically. I see it as an essential part of what we, as ambassadors for Jesus, are supposed to be like. This is especially true with controversial topics I address like Islam, homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion. Even though I teach that Muslims, homosexuals, and abortion-choice advocates espouse ideas that are hostile to the teachings of Jesus, I don’t want my training to instill a hostility towards them. I want believers to develop a compassionate heart that is eager to share the Gospel with anyone who doesn’t know Christ.</p>
</div>

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


title: I Am Not Being Persecuted
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/06/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/i-am-not-being-persecuted
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A friend recently asked me, “Do you feel persecuted?”&nbsp;He asked because he heard how people pester me about my views, send me hate mail, and threaten me. I didn’t think too long about my answer and just said, “No, not really.”</p>

<p>I suppose that, technically, I am persecuted. Because I follow Jesus and teach biblical views the culture opposes, many people get upset with me and make their feelings known. But because my experience pales in comparison to the persecution I’ve witnessed and read about, I hesitate to call it persecution.</p>

<p>For example, each year I teach Egyptian Christians in the Middle East. They face difficulty at every turn because they live in a country and culture that is dominated by Islam. They get mocked, insulted, and threatened. Their churches are attacked, burned, and blown up. They’re not free to build new churches or repair damaged ones (an exception being Egypt’s President al-Sisi, who pledged to repair churches after the August 2013 attacks on over 40 Christian churches and institutions). There’s no ACLU equivalent ready to jump to the defense of Christian minorities.</p>

<p>That’s persecution.</p>

<p>The apostle Paul described his own sufferings, many at the hands of his enemies.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. (2 Cor. 11:23-27)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That’s persecution.</p>

<p>The author of Hebrews, while recounting the tales of the heroes of the faith, also tells of some of their difficulties. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[O]thers experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (Heb. 11:36-38)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sawn in two? Yeah, that’s persecution.</p>

<p>I don’t want to place myself in the same category as these “heroes”&nbsp;of the faith. They’ve experienced a level of difficulty that I, as an American Christian, have not faced. And this is to say nothing of the violent persecution that believers will endure during the end times, described in the book of Revelation.</p>

<p>Whatever the case, persecution is considered a badge of honor. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you”&nbsp;(John 15:18-19). Being persecuted because of Christ is an honor because we identify with Him in His sufferings.</p>

<p>To be clear, not all hardship is persecution in the biblical sense (1 Peter 4:15). It’s only if we’re communicating Christ’s message with His manner. If we’re a jerk for Jesus, then it doesn’t count. If people mistreat you when you’re crass and condescending, that’s not persecution. That’s punishment. You’re getting what you deserve.</p>

<p>If you desire to live a godly life, though, then <em>you will be persecuted</em>. That’s what Scripture promises (2 Tim. 3:12). So rather than complain that I’m being persecuted, I’ll consider it pure joy whenever I face any trial (James 1:2-3). That’s because I’m sharing in the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 4:13).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-am-not-being-persecuted" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-am-not-being-persecuted" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-am-not-being-persecuted" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Biblical Prayers to Memorize
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/07/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-biblical-prayers-to-memorize
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Long ago, I heard Greg <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/devotion-not-quiet-time#.WEit9qIrJR0" target="_blank">recommend</a> praying <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+1%3A9-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Colossians 1:9–12</a>, and that has stuck with me. It really is quite an amazing little prayer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[S]ince the day we heard of [your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints], we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/devotion-not-quiet-time#.WEit9qIrJR0" target="_blank">what Greg has said</a> about it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Notice that when you pray this way the focus is entirely on God and His purposes. You ask for knowledge, wisdom, and understanding so you can honor and please God, bearing fruit in your daily walk. You ask for power so you can attain steadfastness and patience. You ask for joy in the context of thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s important to note that in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+1%3A3-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">the previous six verses</a>, Paul grounds this prayer to bear fruit squarely in “the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the Gospel.” In other words, it’s only because Jesus has <em>already secured </em>our salvation for us that we can bear fruit with joy and thanks, not fear. The Gospel, and the faith in Christ that’s central to it, always comes <em>before</em> our work, which is why it’s a great idea to pair this prayer with <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+3%3A14-19&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Ephesians 3:14–19</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These are good prayers to memorize! Do you have any favorite biblical prayers? I would love to hear them in the comments below.</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-biblical-prayers-to-memorize" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-biblical-prayers-to-memorize" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-biblical-prayers-to-memorize" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Three Reasons Why Jesus Came
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/14/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-reasons-why-jesus-came
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I walked through the crowded mall in search of some last minute gifts, I could hear the faint but recognizable words to my favorite Christmas carol: “Joy to the world, the Lord is come.”&nbsp;At that moment, I turned to my five-year-old daughter Julianna and asked, “What is the <em>real</em> reason for the season?”</p>

<p>Without missing a beat, she said, “Jesus!”</p>

<p>She was right. It’s <em>not</em> about bright lights, or decorated trees, or finding the perfect gift. It’s about Jesus. But what is it about Jesus? How <em>exactly</em> is Jesus the reason for Christmas? The answer to this question lies in the reasons <em>why</em> Jesus came to this world.</p>

<p>Rather than tell you why I think Jesus came, I’m just going to let Jesus speak for Himself. Moreover, these words are right off the lips of Jesus.</p>

<p>Contrary to popular belief, Jesus didn’t come to restore social justice or world peace. He didn’t come merely to heal the sick or clothe the naked. He didn’t even come simply to give us a good example for how to live morally upright lives.</p>

<p>He came for a <em>different</em> purpose.</p>

<p>So, why did Jesus come? I want to give you <em>three</em> reasons why Jesus was born in Bethlehem around 2000 years ago.</p>

<h2>Jesus Came to Give His Life as a Ransom for Many</h2>

<blockquote>
<p>For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This passage cuts to the heart of why Jesus had to come. He came to give His very life to save ours. He was <em>born into the world</em> so that He could <em>die for the world</em>. Paul says it this way, “But when <em>the fullness of time had come [that’s Christmas]</em>, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to <em>redeem</em> those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons”&nbsp;(Gal. 4:4-5).</p>

<p>Jesus redeems us. He pays our debt. But <em>how</em> does Jesus redeem us? He pays with His life. Our text says that Jesus came - that’s Christmas - to give His life as a ransom - that’s Easter. The payment demanded was His sinless life. And that ransom price was impossible for you and me to pay.</p>

<h2>Jesus Came to Call Sinners to Repentance</h2>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”&nbsp;(Luke 5:31-32)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We have a hard time thinking about our sin - our disobedience against a blazingly just and holy God - so Jesus uses an image we all understand. He talks about <em>physical</em> sickness. Specifically, He compares the sinner to the person who is physical ill and in need of a doctor.</p>

<p>We all know that sickness, like cancer, doesn’t just go away if we ignore it. If you have a treatable, yet lethal, form of cancer, and you don’t see a doctor for the cure, you will die. The doctor can only save you <em>if</em> you go to him.</p>

<p>In the same way, we are all sinners in desperate need of salvation, which only comes through repentance and faith in Jesus. Apart from Jesus, we will die in our sins (John 8:24). Only Jesus has the solution - the cure - to our sin problem.</p>

<p>Now that might sound very narrow. And that’s because <em>it is narrow</em>. But the truth is <em>always</em> narrow. My math students knew this very well. I used to be a full-time high school math and science teacher. If I were to ask my students for the cube root of 27, I would expect a very specific answer. Even though there are an <em>infinite</em> number of possible answers, only one is true. The <em>true</em> answer is 3. All other numerical answers (e.g. 4, 5, 6, 7) are false.</p>

<p>Jesus is the true solution to our sin problem. In fact, Jesus said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me”&nbsp;(John 14:6). Speaking about Jesus, Peter said, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved”&nbsp;(Acts 4:12).</p>

<p>Let me anticipate another possible objection. Someone might be thinking, “Well, Tim, maybe I’m like that healthy person who doesn’t need a doctor. I’m the righteous person who doesn’t need saving.”&nbsp;The problem with this belief is that it contradicts both Scripture <em>and</em> experience. The Bible says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”&nbsp;(Rom. 3:23). How many is <em>all</em>? It’s all.</p>

<p>But we also know this to be true <em>apart</em> from the Bible. We can’t even live up to our own standard of morality much less the standard of a perfectly holy God.</p>

<p>Remember the ransom has been paid. God has taken the <em>first step</em>. Now Jesus is calling sinners to <em>respond</em> to that act of grace. Jesus is inviting all people to turn to Him and put their trust in Him.</p>

<h2>Jesus Came to Give Eternal Life</h2>

<blockquote>
<p>“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”&nbsp;(John 3:16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now this is the greatest Christmas gift one can receive - the gift of eternal life. Jesus came to give eternal life <em>to whoever believes in Jesus</em>. Eternal life doesn’t come <em>automatically</em>. You don’t get eternal life like you get hair. It only comes once you put your trust in Jesus. You have to <em>believe in Him.</em></p>

<p>It’s natural to ask, what happens if I choose <em>not</em> to believe in him? Jesus doesn’t leave us hanging, He says, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe <em>is condemned already</em>, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God”&nbsp;(John 3:18).</p>

<p>What does Jesus mean by condemned <em>already</em>? The bad news is that we are all sinners and the wages of sin is death. God is an absolutely holy and just Being. He cannot allow sins to go unpunished. In fact, it would be <em>unjust</em> for God to allow sinners off scot-free.</p>

<p>There are <em>two options</em>: Either you can pay for your sins yourself or you can trust in Jesus’&nbsp;death for the payment of your sins. Reject God’s offer of salvation and you will endure eternal punishment. Accept God’s offer, and you will have eternal life (Matt. 25:46). It’s your choice. But, please know, there is no third option.</p>

<p>So why did Jesus come? Jesus tells us. He came to give His life as a ransom for sinners. He came to call those sinners to repentance. And Jesus came to give eternal life to anyone who would believe in Him.</p>

<p>This Christmas season, meditate on these precious theological truths. Allow the purpose of His coming to fill your heart with inexpressible and glorious joy. Joy to the world. The Lord is come.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-jesus-came" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-jesus-came" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-jesus-came" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Rid of the Myth of Religion
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/30/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/getting-rid-of-the-myth-of-religion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If we are to reject the “myth”&nbsp;of religion, as secularists suggest—and here I mean particularly and especially the “myth”&nbsp;of Christian religion—then we must reject the entire myth, that is, the whole story and everything that follows from the story.</p>

<p>We must reject the myth of human dignity and ultimate human purpose and <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/atheism-and-universal-human-rights#.WDTOuKIrJR0" target="_blank">inalienable human rights</a>—and to suffer the loss of gay rights and women’s rights and children’s rights and the right to an abortion and the right to speak and the right to be who we are and a whole host of favored privileges that all lose their basis if we are simply sophisticated animals.</p>

<p>We must reject the myth of free will (since there is no freedom in a naturalistic universe of physical cause and effect) and with that, therefore, the myth of reason and rationality (because both require freedom of the will), and also science, since it depends on those things to even get off the ground. We must reject the myth of an orderly universe that makes sense in some deep unified way, and science is lost once again.</p>

<p>We must reject the myth that the world is broken and the myth of a problem of evil, because there could be no brokenness unless there was a plan of how things should be and no genuine evil unless there is an ultimate good. And if no ultimate good, then no true virtues like kindness, respect, or tolerance, because the entire list of right things is gone along with the entire list of wrong things, like the vices of racism, sexual slavery, and ethnic cleansing.</p>

<p>And on and on. All myths. If the Christian myth must go, then everything that flows from the myth must go with it. One cannot discard the first and save the others. If, indeed, religion is a myth, then each of these things is a myth as well. We must grow up and accept that the universe is, as Richard Dawkins so aptly put it, a place of “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”</p>
</div>

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


title: Remember The Shack?
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/09/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/remember-the-shack-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Remember the book&nbsp;<em>The Shack</em>? Since it’s about to be released as a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL0yUbSS5Eg" target="_blank">movie</a>, you might want to refresh your memory a bit with this detailed&nbsp;<a href="http://www.challies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_Shack.pdf" target="_blank">review</a>&nbsp;by Tim Challies. (You can read a shorter version of his review&nbsp;<a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<p>And while you’re at it, don’t miss Trinitarian scholar Fred Sanders’s humorous&nbsp;<a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/the-shack-four-walls-four-reviews/" target="_blank">review</a>&nbsp;from five different perspectives, including kids’ book author and haiku artist:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My copy was free<br>
But I almost lost my mind<br>
Inside of the Shack.</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%2Fremember-the-shack-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fremember-the-shack-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fremember-the-shack-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Challenge: Our Souls Sleep until the Resurrection
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/16/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/challenge-our-souls-sleep-until-the-resurrection
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a&nbsp;<a href="http://wordonly.net/CI06.html" target="_blank">challenge</a>&nbsp;you might hear about our souls sleeping until the resurrection:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Psalm 146:4 says thoughts perish at death. This cannot refer to a body without the soul, since a physical body alone does not have thoughts. Only the soul has thoughts, and they perish….</p>

<p>Many other passages [such as Psalm 6:5 and 30:9] support soul sleep and do not make sense if only talking about the body….</p>

<p>This same message of an end of consciousness was evident when Adam sinned. God plainly told him he would return to dust (Genesis 3:19). Adam was not conscious before creation, and God made it clear he would return to that unconscious state. Thoughts occur in the brain, which stops functioning and starts decomposing at death. Thoughts perish at death, just as the Bible says so many different ways….</p>

<p>Solomon also supports soul sleep:</p>

<p><em>But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing; And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6,10</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>What do you think about this challenge? How would you respond? Tell us in the comments below, and then Tim will post his answer on Thursday.</p>

<p>[Update: View Tim's video&nbsp;<a href="http://www.str.org/blog/challenge-response-our-souls-sleep-until-resurrection#.WC3zS6IrJR0" id="" rel="" target="_blank" title="">response</a>. Explore past challenges&nbsp;<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/challenge-qa/" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-str-place-challenges#.WBKiw-ErJR0" 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%2Fchallenge-our-souls-sleep-until-the-resurrection" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchallenge-our-souls-sleep-until-the-resurrection" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchallenge-our-souls-sleep-until-the-resurrection" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: John Newton on Speaking the Truth for the Sake of Others
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/11/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/john-newton-on-speaking-the-truth-for-the-sake-of-others
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Greg quoted this passage from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/John-Newton-Disgrace-Amazing-Grace/dp/1433541815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478820097&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=from+disgrace+to+amazing+grace" target="_blank">John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace</a> on the <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/john-newton-doing-whats-right#.WCUCdeErJR0" target="_blank">podcast</a> today, and I thought it was worth posting here. Sometimes we’re tempted to hold back the truth because we care about others and don’t want them to feel hurt, upset, or uncomfortable; but if your goal truly is to <em>serve</em> the people you care about, that is not the way to do it. Newton says disguising the truth is “an affront to the majesty of God and an act of treachery to men”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At his first public service in St Mary Woolnoth on Sunday, December 19, 1779, Newton preached on Ephesians 4:15, “speaking the truth in love.”&nbsp;It was one of his most notable sermons as he set out his stall for his parishioners, beginning with an explanation of what he meant by the word “truth”:</p>

<p>The Bible is the grand repository of the truths that it will be the business and the pleasure of my life to set before you. It is the complete system of divine truth to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken with impunity. Every attempt to disguise or soften any branch of this truth in order to accommodate it to the prevailing taste around us either to avoid the displeasure or court the favor of our fellow mortals must be an affront to the majesty of God and an act of treachery to men. My conscience bears me witness that I mean to speak the truth among you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If disguising the truth is “an act of treachery to men,”&nbsp;then speaking the truth is part of what it means to serve them in love. And since love <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+3:16&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">involves sacrificing something of yourself</a> to serve others, in this case that means the sacrifice you may need to make is the pain you’ll feel when the truth upsets your loved ones. The sacrifice will be easier to make if you remember you’re doing it for their sake, <em>because</em> you 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%2Fjohn-newton-on-speaking-the-truth-for-the-sake-of-others" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjohn-newton-on-speaking-the-truth-for-the-sake-of-others" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjohn-newton-on-speaking-the-truth-for-the-sake-of-others" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Aren’t Boys and Girls Allowed to Be Boys and Girls?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-aren-t-boys-and-girls-allowed-to-be-boys-and-girls-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jonathan Last writes about “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160922164003/http://acculturated.com/gender-neutral-toys/" target="_blank">The Ridiculous Crusade for Gender-Neutral Toys</a>”&nbsp;in <em>Acculturated</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Over the years we’ve noticed that whenever a “non-gendered”&nbsp;toy is introduced into their habitat, the kids appropriate it along stereotypically gendered lines. Example: A few years ago there was a Rainbow Loom craze, where kids took tiny rubber loops and wove them into bracelets. Everyone was doing it. We bought thousands of the things for our kids. The girls wove bracelets that they collected and gave to their friends. The boy also wove bracelets—until he realized that he could use the rubber loops to weave a long elastic cord that he was then able to tie to a flexible piece of wood. He used the Rainbow Loom to build a workable bow. He never made another bracelet.</p>

<p>We never <em>taught</em> our kids any of this stuff. They just arrived at it on their own. Because—I understand that this is a radical concept—<em>boys and girls are different.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>And then Last points out a mysterious contradiction in our culture:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the oddities of modern life is that polite society currently insists that you are “born this way”&nbsp;if you are homosexual or misgendered. But when it comes to boys who like to play with swords and build fighter jets? For some reason, this is viewed as a societal construct that should be eradicated so that they’ll want to play with dolls.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why are transgender people encouraged to “be who they are,”&nbsp;but boys and girls in general are discouraged from being their respective sexes? Why is gender all-important when a person doesn’t want to be his gender, but merely an arbitrary (and undesirable) societal construct when he does?</p>

<p>When you see such a blatant contradiction, can you help but wonder what is really going on here? The only common ground between the two positions is a war against the natural order, and that is what our culture is obsessively seeking: At every turn we must declare ourselves to be our own highest authority; every constraint outside of our own wills must be repudiated. And so we find ourselves <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/it-s-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women#.WAGjipMrJR0" target="_blank">once again</a> facing our culture’s worship of autonomy. Let not God or even our own human nature rule over us; we are our own gods, and we answer to no one.</p>

<p>Subscribe <a href="http://www.str.org/subscriptions">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%2Fwhy-aren-t-boys-and-girls-allowed-to-be-boys-and-girls-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-aren-t-boys-and-girls-allowed-to-be-boys-and-girls-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-aren-t-boys-and-girls-allowed-to-be-boys-and-girls-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Answering the Galileo Myth
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/18/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-the-galileo-myth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month, I was speaking at the University of Toronto on the topic <em>Has Science Buried God?</em> The event was held in the medical science building, so it attracted a large number of science-minded atheists and skeptics. In fact, two of the former presidents of the Secular Alliance came out to hear what I had to say.</p>

<p>During my talk, I pointed out that modern science was birthed out of a <em>theistic worldview</em>. Therefore, far from being a science stopper, it was belief in an orderly God that was <em>the</em> modern science starter. I like how C. S. Lewis put it. He said, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Lawgiver.”</p>

<p>After my talk, we had a time of Q&amp;A. A young woman named Julianna was the first to put up her hand. “We aren’t going to agree on much,”&nbsp;were the first words out of her mouth. She asked, “If theism is a science starter, then why was Galileo persecuted by the church for doing science? This sounds like the exact opposite of what you’ve said.”</p>

<p>As Julianna was speaking, I could see other people in the audience nodding their heads in agreement.</p>

<h2>Just the Facts</h2>

<p>To answer this question, I had to get <em>all</em> of the facts on the table. There is a very popular view that science and religion are hostile enemies. However, most historians of science regard this as a <em>myth</em>. The idea that religion is at war with science is called the <em>conflict thesis</em>. Galileo’s mistreatment by the Roman Catholic Church is usually given as a case in point, but serious historians of science do not believe that this cultural icon supports the conflict thesis.</p>

<p>Julianna didn’t have <em>all</em> the facts. She knew Galileo did good science. She also knew the Church silenced Galileo because they didn’t like his conclusion. But she was missing important details of the account, which ultimately led to a misunderstanding of the story of Galileo.</p>

<h2>The Rest of the Story</h2>

<p>Julianna needed the rest of the story. Here’s what I told her.</p>

<p><em>First</em>, it was not the religious leaders who originally opposed Galileo. It was actually the <em>secular philosophers</em> who were committed to a philosophical view called Aristotelianism. This is a school of thought going all the way back to Aristotle. Aristotle believed the heavens were made of immutable, perfect spheres. Galileo’s observations challenged this belief.</p>

<p>Instead of starting with a prior commitment to Aristotelianism, <em>Galileo started by looking at the evidence.</em> Through his telescope, he observed sunspots that seemed to fly in the face of Aristotle’s perfect Sun. He also detected supernova—the explosion of a star—that strongly opposed the notion of Aristotle’s ’immutable heavens.’</p>

<p>Consequently, Galileo wasn’t principally attacking the Church. His observations challenged the reigning philosophy, which was believed by virtually everyone of his day. As a result, he received criticism from all fronts, not merely the Church.</p>

<p><em>Second</em>, one must remember the <em>historical context</em>. This was all happening during the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church already thought they were losing their authority. Since the Church was committed to Aristotelianism, they understood an attack on Aristotelianism to be an attack on the Church. And to make matters even worse, Galileo published his findings in Italian—the language of the common man—rather than in Latin, the language of the elites.</p>

<p><em>Third</em>, this story is often portrayed as the innocent Galileo being attacked by the Church. However, Galileo wasn’t so innocent. He was an instigator. He wrote a book called <em>Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal Systems of the World</em> in which he put the ideas of the Pope on the lips of a character he called <em>Simplicio</em>, which means simpleton or buffoon.</p>

<p><em>Fourth</em>, Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian, who believed that he was studying the works of God’s hand. He said, “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”&nbsp;This doesn’t fit the narrative that Christianity is against science.</p>

<p>Let me be clear, I’m not defending what the Roman Catholic Church did to silence Galileo. What they did was wrong. But they weren’t silencing Galileo merely because they were anti-science. In fact, the Church (along with the secular academy) thought they were defending science by silencing Galileo.</p>

<h2>A Warning</h2>

<p>The facts of this story should be a warning to the Church and the culture. In Galileo’s day, <em>Aristotelianism</em> was the philosophical framework by which all evidence had to conform. When Galileo challenged this idea with scientific evidence, he was persecuted for it. Today, <em>methodological naturalism</em>—the idea that only natural conclusions are permissible in science—is the philosophical framework by which all evidence must conform. And those scientists who challenge this notion are persecuted for it.</p>

<p>Just as Galileo’s evidence was ruled out because of Aristotelianism, the scientific evidence for a supernatural Creator and Designer of the universe and life is being ruled out because of methodological naturalism.</p>

<p>What can we all learn from what happened to Galileo? We all should be willing to follow the evidence where it leads <em>even if</em> it goes against the reigning paradigm of the day.</p>
</div>

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


title: If God Is Good, Why Is There Evil and Suffering?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/28/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-god-is-good-why-is-there-evil-and-suffering-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The topic of evil and suffering is something we all, eventually, <a href="/w/christians-you-will-suffer" target="_blank">will face</a> and must deal with—and I don’t mean merely intellectually; I mean personally. When real suffering finally hits you, you will either run to God or run away from Him. What you decide to do will depend on the theological understanding of God—who He is, what His purpose is for us, what we should expect from Him—that you develop now, <em>before</em> your crisis hits.</p>

<p>If God really is good, if He loves us, if He knows everything and is powerful enough to prevent any harm from coming to us, why do we suffer?</p>

<p>Below is a talk I gave at a <a href="http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/" target="_blank">Thinking Matters</a> apologetics conference in New Zealand a few years ago that addresses this question. For more on this topic, see my <a href="/w/if-god-is-good" target="_blank">review</a> of Randy Alcorn’s <em>If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil</em>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="3V2h-cU6HVs" 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/3V2h-cU6HVs?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%2Fif-god-is-good-why-is-there-evil-and-suffering-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-is-good-why-is-there-evil-and-suffering-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-is-good-why-is-there-evil-and-suffering-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Rescue—Why Did Jesus Come?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-rescue-why-did-jesus-come-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What follows is an excerpt from</em> The Story of Reality—How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important that Happens in Between. <em>In this part of the Story I answer the second of the two most important questions anyone could ever ask about the remarkable man from Nazareth: Why did He come? It is a question there is far too much confusion about, even for those who call the Story their own.</em></p>

<p>In just a few weeks most of us will be hovering over a gastronomical feast preparing to eat much more than we should, appropriately celebrating the generosity of God towards us that is much more than we deserve.</p>

<p>Not long after, we will celebrate the most sublime example of that generosity, the greatest reason for giving such hearty thanks just weeks before—God come down. God getting low. God <em>with</em> us. Emmanuel.</p>

<p>Christmas starts the story of Jesus, the greatest tale ever told. But it is not really a tale at all, because the story is a true one. It is the most important part of the true Story of Reality.</p>

<p>What follows is an excerpt from <em>The Story of Reality—How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important that Happens in Between</em>. In this part of the Story I answer the second of the two most important questions anyone could ever ask about the remarkable man from Nazareth: Why did He come? It is a question there is far too much confusion about, even for those who call the Story their own.</p>

<p>To answer that question I first want to tell what Jesus did not come to do. Then I want to tell you why He did come. It’s captured in the most important Christmas verse in the Bible you will never see printed on a Christmas card and you will never hear recited at a Christmas pageant. It tells of a rescue operation that formally started at Christmas, but ended in a dark event decades later. It tells the reason Jesus was born. It tells the reason God came down.</p>

<h2>The Rescue</h2>

<p>Now to our second question: What did Jesus come to do? Since there is more debate on this than there ought to be, we must first correct a misunderstanding. Sometimes knowing what Jesus did <em>not</em> come to do is almost as important as knowing what He <em>did</em> come to do, because a wrong understanding of the first can lead to confusion on the second.</p>

<p>So let us be clear. Jesus did not come to help us get along, or teach us to take care of the poor, or to restore “social justice.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> To some, this assertion is a bold stroke, since they have been told just the opposite. This is because there are many noble people who are drawn to Jesus for His moral excellence (as they should be). However, often their admiration of His civic virtue has distracted them from a more important matter.</p>

<p>Their mistake is thinking that Jesus came principally to teach us how to live a better life. He did not. God had already sent many before with the kind of advice we need to hear, and there was no point in His personally coming down merely to repeat what had already been said. No, Jesus came for a different reason.</p>

<p>What I am going to say next will come as a shock to some, but here it is. You can eliminate every single thing Jesus ever said in His life about the poor and social justice, and still you will not undermine His main message one bit. As severe as that may sound, this is precisely what one of Christ’s closest followers actually did.</p>

<p>The Gospel of John is the last biography written on Jesus, and it came to us from His last surviving Apostle, the “beloved”&nbsp;disciple John, a member of Jesus’&nbsp;intimate inner circle. Many think it the most elegant summary and most definitive statement of who Jesus was and what He came to do. Yet you can read from John’s first sentence to his last and you will not find a single word about helping the poor or restoring social justice. Not one. In John’s lone reference to the poor, Jesus is actually somewhat dismissive of them.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> That is not because He doesn’t care about them, but because He is comparing their situation with something far more important.</p>

<p>This observation about John’s account in itself seems enough to make the point about Jesus’&nbsp;focus, but let’s go a bit further. Jesus gave four major discourses—the Sermon on the Mount, the Bread of Life Discourse, the Olivet Discourse, and the Upper Room Discourse.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Only in the first does He mention the poor at all. Yet even here there are two qualifiers you must keep in mind.</p>

<p>First, in His Sermon on the Mount Jesus commends not the poor <em>per se</em>, but rather the poor <em>in spirit</em>. To them, He says, belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. There is a reason the Kingdom belongs to them—not because they are poverty stricken (their income is irrelevant to Jesus), but because they are morally broken and they know it.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> That is what “poor in spirit”&nbsp;means. Picture the tax collector in Jesus’&nbsp;parable—hardly a destitute man—beating his breast pleading, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> This man proclaiming his spiritual poverty goes away justified, Jesus says, while the Pharisee, whose spiritual arrogance clouds his genuine spiritual need, does not.</p>

<p>The second qualifier I want you to keep in mind about Jesus’&nbsp;comments on the poor is this. In the vast majority of cases where Jesus mentions the poor, He does so not to commend the poor as such, but to make a point about something else—hypocrisy, a widow’s generosity, Zaccheus’s repentance, the rich young ruler’s confusion, or a lesson about the afterlife.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Even when He mentions them, the plight of the poor simply was not the focus of Jesus’&nbsp;teaching.</p>

<p>Now, we must not conclude from this that Jesus didn’t care about the poor and so we need not care, either. He cared very much about them, and the Story has much to say about their situation. Do not miss, though, that He also cared about the rich and powerful. Jesus helped <em>everyone</em> and <em>anyone</em> who came to Him—poor beggar or prostitute, wealthy tax collector or Pharisee. The divide for Jesus was not between the poor and the rich, but between the proud and the repentant, regardless of income or social standing. Miss that, and you miss everything.</p>

<p>These are the facts we must face if we are to get Jesus right. “Social justice”&nbsp;is not the Gospel. It was not Jesus’&nbsp;message. It was not why He came. His real message was much more radical. Jesus’&nbsp;teaching—and the Story itself—focuses on something else. Not on the works of <em>Christians</em>, but rather on the work of <em>Christ</em>. That is what the Story teaches.</p>

<p>And so our question remains: Why did God come down? What was the reason He became a man? What did He come to earth to do? The Story tells us.</p>

<p>I want you to think for a moment about what the Story says about Christmas. Now when I say “Christmas,”&nbsp;I am not speaking of any of those things that usually come to mind when you think about the birth of Christ. I do not want you to think, for example, about shepherds or wise men or stables or mangers or anything like that. Those things all have their place, but they have nothing at all to do with my point.</p>

<p>I am talking about something in the Story you probably have never noticed. I want you to consider the most important Christmas verse in the Story that you will never see on a Christmas card, and you will never hear in a Christmas pageant because it is not in the accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;birth at all. In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the record of His life. Instead, you find it in a dark and foreboding passage that speaks of blood and sacrifice and death. It is a section of the Story recounting a ghastly, grisly system of slaughter where bulls and goats were bled out, their innocent lives forfeit on behalf of others who were the guilty ones.</p>

<p>Now, I think it is obvious to just about everyone that animals can never really pay for people at all. The system of sacrifice God gave to the Hebrews, as important as it was, served only as a kind of sop, a temporary measure to cover man’s moral wound for the moment. It would never do in the long run, and it was not meant to. No, man owes the debt, and in the long run man, not creatures, must pay. And only a sinless man—someone with no debt of his own—could cover the debt of another. And only a man who was more than a man could ever pay for the sins of multitudes.</p>

<p>And this brings us to the most important Christmas verse you will never hear on Christmas. Here it is:</p>

<p>Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings You were not pleased. Then I said, ’Here I am—it is written about Me in the scroll—I have come to do Your will, O God.’”&nbsp;(Heb. 10:5-7 NIV)</p>

<p>Note the opening words of this passage: “When Christ came into the world...”&nbsp;The Story is saying that on that first Christmas, in some incredible way the eternal Son of God in a baby’s body said to His Father, “Here I am. I will do as You have asked. I accept the body You have prepared for Me, the body that will bleed out in perfect payment for sin.”</p>

<p>And this is the answer to our question. This is why Jesus came to earth. God’s Son surrendered His sinless human self to be the future unblemished offering to perfectly and completely save sinners.</p>

<p>And this we do find in the birth narratives, everywhere. God tells Joseph that Mary “will give birth to a son, and you will give Him the name Jesus, because He will <em>save His people from their sins</em>.”&nbsp;In the field that first Christmas night the angel tells the shepherds, “Today in the town of David a <em>Savior</em> has been born to you. He is <em>the Messiah</em>, <em>the Lord</em>.”&nbsp;Zacharias prophesies over his son, the infant John Baptist, saying John would go prepare the way for “<em>the Lord</em>,”&nbsp;and “give His people the knowledge of salvation through <em>the forgiveness of their sins</em>.”&nbsp;Thirty years later John points at the <em>Lord</em> Jesus Christ and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God <em>who takes away the sin of the world</em>.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Each of these events echoes our unsung Christmas verse: “A body You prepared for Me.”&nbsp;The Lord. The Christ. The Savior. Emmanuel. God with us, who would die for us. The Lamb of God.</p>

<p>So, the Story tells us the precise reason the Son came to Earth. Not to teach love and peace and care for the poor, but to submit Himself to something unspeakably violent and brutal. That is why every crèche ought to have a cross hanging over it, because Jesus was born to die. And on this point Jesus speaks clearly:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.”&nbsp;(Jn. 3:17 NIV)</li>
	<li>“The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”&nbsp;(Lk. 19:10 NIV)</li>
	<li>“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”&nbsp;(Lk. 5:32 NIV)</li>
	<li>“I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative.”&nbsp;(Jn. 10:17-18 NASB)</li>
	<li>“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”&nbsp;(Matt. 20:28 NIV)</li>
</ul>

<p>I want you to think very carefully about Jesus’&nbsp;last statement, because there are three questions we must answer to understand His meaning. The first is, “What is a ransom?”&nbsp;Well, a ransom is the price paid to purchase a hostage or a slave, of course. A ransom buys a body. Second, “Whose body does Jesus buy with the ransom?”&nbsp;He buys those who are held hostage. He pays a price to purchase sinners, rebels, and slaves. Finally, “What is the price He will pay?”&nbsp;Jesus will buy bodies by surrendering His own body. “A body You prepared for Me.”&nbsp;He will sacrifice Himself to save others.</p>

<p>So, Jesus came to earth to save sinners. The statement is so common to our ears, it is easy to miss its significance. “Save”&nbsp;means to rescue from imminent danger. Jesus came to rescue us because we were in danger. What was that danger? What was Jesus rescuing us from? Here is the answer. Jesus did not come to rescue us from our ignorance or our poverty or our oppressors or even from ourselves. <em>Jesus came to rescue us from the Father</em>. <sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Remember, the King is angry.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> He is the One who is offended. He is the One who is owed. He is the Sovereign we have rebelled against, the Father we have disobeyed, the friend we have betrayed. And that is a dangerous place for us to be. 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;Later in the Story we learn, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>That is the bad news. And it is very bad news, to be sure. Yet, without the bad news, the good news is not good. And the good news is very, very good. Here it is: The Father has mounted a rescue operation. There has been an invasion.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> God came down. “A body You prepared for Me.”</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;life was filled with many extraordinary deeds, so many, one of His disciples wrote, the world itself could not contain the books needed to record them.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> But there are two very particular things Jesus did that were vital to the rescue.</p>

<p>First, Jesus lived the life we should live, but do not. We rebel; He submitted. We sin; He obeyed. We live for self; He lived for the Father. We falter; He succeeded. He had no hint of sin, no darkness, no shadow. As one has put it, “He remained free, uncontaminated, uncompromised.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> Jesus never failed, obeying even to the death. This no one has ever done. There was no one like Him.</p>

<p>Second, Jesus made a trade. He took His perfect life and He traded it for our rotten lives. He gets our badness—and the judgment and punishment that go with it. We get His goodness. We take His place, and He takes our place.</p>

<p>If that seems hard to imagine (and I understand completely if it does), let me offer something that might help. On a flight from Jacksonville to Miami I spoke with a dear Muslim woman about the differences between the God of Jesus and the God of Mohammed. I said that both were holy and both demanded we be holy, too, and there will be justice to pay because we are not. But on this issue of justice, I said, we come to an important distinction.</p>

<p>I asked the Muslim woman to imagine our plane being hijacked and the terrorists trying to drag her out onto the tarmac to kill her in front of cameras for all the world to see. I then asked her to imagine that I put my own body between hers and the attackers and said, “Don’t take her. Take me instead.”&nbsp;She said she could not imagine anyone doing that for her.</p>

<p>Yet this, I told her, is what God has done in Jesus. To satisfy justice, God came down. Not Allah; Yahweh. Not Mohammed; Jesus. God stepped out of Heaven and dwelt among us—“A body You prepared for Me”—and said to the Father, “Take Me instead.”&nbsp;That was the trade.</p>

<p>The trade took place on a small outcropping of rock outside the walls of ancient Jerusalem. It was called Golgotha, the place of the skull. We know it as Calvary, the place of the cross. It was the reason Jesus was born. It is the reason God came down.</p>

<p>Taken from <em>The Story of Reality</em> by Gregory Koukl. Copyright © 2017 by Gregory Koukl. Used by permission of Zondervan (www.zondervan.com). Available from Stand to Reason in December 2016.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/training/events" target="_blank">Find out where STR’s speakers will be teaching.</a></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">The term “social justice”&nbsp;is misleading. The poor only need justice if they have been wronged in some way. Otherwise, the Story teaches charity and mercy towards those in need. The view that all poor people are victims is a recent invention. It is not what Jesus taught, and it is not part of the Story.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">The single reference in John to the poor is found in Jn. 12:8: “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me.”&nbsp;(NIV)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Find the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7; the Bread of Life Discourse in Jn. 6; the Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24, Lk. 21, Mk. 13; and the Upper Room Discourse Jn. 13-17.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Jesus does make reference to the poor in Lk. 4:18-19: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”&nbsp;(NASB) Even here, though, it seems clear that, in light of the rest of the verse and everything that follows about Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on “the Gospel,”&nbsp;He is principally making reference to spiritual benefits, not material benefits.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">“God, have mercy on me, a sinner”&nbsp;(Lk. 18:9-14 NIV)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2-3), a widow’s generosity (Lk. 21:2-3), Zaccheus’s repentance (Lk. 19:8), the rich young ruler’s confusion (Matt. 19:21), a lesson about the afterlife (Lk. 16:20, 22).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">“And this we do find in the birth narratives...”&nbsp;Matt. 1:21 (NIV), Lk. 2:11 (NIV), Lk. 1:76-77 (NIV), Jn. 1:29 (NASB).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Jesus saves us from the Father, but His intention is not at odds with the Father since it was the Father who, out of love, sent Jesus to rescue the world in the first place.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">The point about the King being angry is developed earlier, in chapter 15 of <em>The Story of Reality</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">“Do not fear those who kill the body...”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:28 NASB), “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God”&nbsp;(Heb. 10:31 NASB)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">The idea that the incarnation is a kind of invasion of enemy-occupied territory comes from C.S Lewis in <em>Mere Christianity</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">“The world itself could not contain the books...”&nbsp;(Jn. 21:25 NASB)<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">“He remained free, uncontaminated, uncompromised,”&nbsp;John Stott, <em>The Cross Of Christ</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), 231.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&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-rescue-why-did-jesus-come-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-rescue-why-did-jesus-come-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-rescue-why-did-jesus-come-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When You Don’t Feel God’s Love, Look at the Cross
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/22/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-you-don-t-feel-god-s-love-look-at-the-cross
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Whoever has been through deep suffering is worth learning from. I’ve been reading <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Elliot" target="_blank">Elisabeth Elliot’s</a> book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Path-Through-Suffering-Elisabeth-Elliot/dp/0800724984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1476833928&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+path+through+suffering" target="_blank">A Path through Suffering</a></em>, and I recommend it to you. It’s arranged in short, devotional-type chapters, but even though it’s not a difficult read, the theology is rich, and you’ll find a lot of wisdom there from a woman who knows what it means to suffer.</p>

<p>In this excerpt from the book, a woman whose baby was stillborn explains how she could know God loved her, even though she didn’t feel it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“I could not feel the truth of God’s love for me at that time. What it felt like was that God had dealt me a cruel blow, as with a whip. But underneath all those raging emotions the truth lay. A lifetime of knowing Him had laid a strong foundation that quietly supported me...I knew with my mind and heart what went deeper than my pain—that Jesus showed us once and for all what He is like and what kind of love He has for us, by dying on the Cross. And that is fact. History. Nothing, no circumstance, no matter how hard or painful can change that. He has showed us His character once and for all. Our circumstances are not the window through which we understand His love, but rather we must view our circumstances through His love.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even when you can’t feel it, you can see it. Don’t go by your feelings. Look at the cross. There’s solid proof of His love there—not to mention His wisdom and sovereignty. If you missed <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/the-gospel%E2%80%99s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil#.WAa5iZgrJR0" target="_blank">this excerpt</a> from Derek Rishmawy’s “Gospel-Centered Defense against the Problem of Evil”&nbsp;when I posted it a few months ago, you should read it now. I’ve been thinking about how helpful it is ever since I read it. It’s exactly what we ought to meditate on when we’re going through suffering and can’t feel God’s 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%2Fwhen-you-don-t-feel-god-s-love-look-at-the-cross" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-you-don-t-feel-god-s-love-look-at-the-cross" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-you-don-t-feel-god-s-love-look-at-the-cross" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Addressing Abortion Columbo-Style
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/13/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/addressing-abortion-columbo-style
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“The government shouldn’t tell me what I can do with my own body.”</p>

<p>“Should the government be allowed to control your body concerning your two year old?”</p>

<p>“That’s different. That’s outside my body. Right now we’re talking about my uterus. The government shouldn’t tell me what I should do with my uterus any more than it should tell me I have to donate my liver or kidney.”</p>

<p>“On that I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the pro-life view. Pro-lifers are not asking you to give up your uterus. Pro-lifers are saying that the government should be able to protect a human being inside your body just like it does an infant child on the outside of your body.”</p>

<p>“But we’re talking about my uterus, not a human being like an infant.”</p>

<p>“I thought we were talking about what was <em>in</em> your uterus.”</p>

<p>“Okay, but that’s not a human being.”</p>

<p>“It isn’t? Then what is it?”</p>

<p>“Nobody knows. It’s just tissue.”</p>

<p>“Well then, let me ask you a few questions about this mysterious thing in your uterus. You agree, then that there is something inside the uterus of a pregnant woman, right?”</p>

<p>“Of course.”</p>

<p>“Is it alive?”</p>

<p>“Like I said, no one knows when life begins.”</p>

<p>“You didn’t answer my question. I asked if it was alive, not when does life begin. So let me ask another way. Is the thing inside of a pregnant woman’s uterus growing?”</p>

<p>“Yes, it’s growing.”</p>

<p>“Well, this is progress. How can it be growing if it’s not alive?”</p>

<p>“Hmm...Okay, you’ve made your point. It’s alive. It’s living tissue, part of my own body, and the government has no say over my tissue growing in my body.”</p>

<p>“In principle, I would largely agree with your point about the government, but I don’t think this tissue is part of your body.”</p>

<p>“Of course it is.”</p>

<p>“Did you ever watch CSI?”</p>

<p>“Sure.”</p>

<p>“When the forensic pathologist finds remains of a human body, how do they determine which person the remains belong to?”</p>

<p>“They try to do a matching DNA test.”</p>

<p>“Right. If the DNA from the tissue matches the DNA of a hair sample from a known individual, then, they know where the tissue came from.”</p>

<p>“Right.”</p>

<p>“So if someone took a DNA test of that piece of flesh growing inside of your body if you were pregnant, would its DNA match your DNA?”</p>

<p>“Well...no.”</p>

<p>“Then whatever is growing inside of your body is not part of <em>your</em> body, is it? It’s tissue from a different body. That’s why it has a different DNA.”</p>

<p>“I guess so.”</p>

<p>“What kind of foreign creature do you think would be growing inside of your uterus when you’re pregnant.”</p>

<p>“I don’t know.”</p>

<p>“Well then, let’s go back to the CSI illustration. If forensic pathologists found a piece of tissue at a crime scene, how would they know if that tissue came from a human being or from some other animal?”</p>

<p>“I guess they’d do a DNA test.”</p>

<p>“Yes, but it would be a different kind of DNA test than the first one. This one isn’t looking for a match with a <em>certain</em> individual, but with a <em>kind</em> of individual. What <em>kind</em> of creature did this sample come from? What kind of DNA “signature”&nbsp;does the sample have? It might be dog DNA, cat DNA, possum road-kill DNA, or possibly human DNA. So if we took a piece of tissue from that living thing growing in your uterus, what kind of DNA do <em>you</em> think it would have?”</p>

<p>“I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”</p>

<p>You don’t really have to be a scientist to know the answer to that question. Let me ask my question another way. What kinds of things naturally grow in a woman’s uterus?”</p>

<p>“You know, offspring.”</p>

<p>“So, if there is an offspring growing in a woman’s uterus, what kind of offspring is it? Could it be a dog, or a cat, or a possum offspring? What kind do you think?”</p>

<p>“I guess it would be a human offspring.”</p>

<p>“So we do know what’s growing inside your uterus when you’re pregnant, don’t we. It’s not a mystery. It’s not your tissue, but your human offspring. Someone else is in there—your unborn child. So now that we’ve solved that mystery, you think the government should be allowed to force you to protect your offspring when the child is outside of your body, but not when he’s inside your body. Right?”</p>

<p>“I guess that’s right.”</p>

<p>“Why should the government be allowed to protect your offspring on the outside of your body?”</p>

<p>“Because children are valuable.”</p>

<p>“Right, I agree. But that creates a problem for you now, doesn’t it?”</p>

<p>“How so?”</p>

<p>“Well if children are valuable outside of your body—say, right after they’re born—how are those same children not valuable when they are just a couple of inches away hidden inside your uterus? Why does the <em>location</em> of your child make any difference to the <em>value</em> of your child?”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faddressing-abortion-columbo-style" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faddressing-abortion-columbo-style" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faddressing-abortion-columbo-style" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Didn’t Jesus Come to Earth Sooner?
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/19/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-didn-t-jesus-come-to-earth-sooner-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Why didn’t Jesus come to earth sooner? John Piper answered this question in an <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-jesus-delay-so-long-before-entering-human-history" target="_blank">episode of <em>Ask Pastor John</em></a> by explaining how the length of Israel’s long history before the coming of Jesus acts as “a lesson book for the nations about the Gospel”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The thread of Old Testament history runs from creation through fall into sin through election of Israel, thorough exodus, through giving of the law, and then a thousand years, give or take, of the inability of Israel to keep the law. A thousand years of covenant-breaking over and over again. It is a bleak, bleak history as you read it...</p>

<p>Now in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%203.9%E2%80%9318" target="_blank">Romans 3:9-18</a>, Paul quotes half a dozen passages from the Old Testament, mainly from the Psalms, but he calls them “the law.”&nbsp;And the point of those passages is to show that everybody is under judgment—everybody, Jew and Gentile—are sinners. And then Paul says one of the most important sentences in the Bible regarding what God has been up to for these 2,000 years of Jewish history. Verse 19: “Now we know that whatever the law says”—and he is referring back to those statements about the failure of Israel and all people—“whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law”—that is Israel—“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”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%203.19%E2%80%9320" target="_blank">Romans 3:19-20</a>)...</p>

<p>In other words, the history of the Jewish people and the record of its failure to keep the covenant that God made, that record not only shows that Jews will never be able to save themselves, but the whole world is accountable because it, too, has failed in all of its ways of trying. Because, if the Jews can’t do it with this much special revelation and privileges as they have had, how much less will the world be able to work its way into God’s favor? And then he gives this in verse 20: for no human being will be justified in the sight of God.</p>

<p>Now that, it seems to me, is as close as we get in the Bible to an explanation of why there is such a long and contorted, disappointing, frustrating history. God ordained that the history of Israel would develop in such a way and for as long as it did, so that Israel would be a lesson book for the nations about the gospel, a lesson book for the nations that no one can be justified by law keeping. And evidently God believes that the lengthy story of failures under every condition of advantage makes the point in the best possible way.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read or listen to the rest of <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-jesus-delay-so-long-before-entering-human-history" target="_blank">his answer</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%2Fwhy-didn-t-jesus-come-to-earth-sooner-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-didn-t-jesus-come-to-earth-sooner-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-didn-t-jesus-come-to-earth-sooner-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Truth Is Narrow and Exclusive for Everybody
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/12/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-narrow-and-exclusive-for-everybody
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This is a fun little video from Impact 360 on relativism, tolerance, and Christianity’s claim to be objectively true. Enjoy!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="Rt8bJyiUAhY" 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/Rt8bJyiUAhY?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%2Ftruth-is-narrow-and-exclusive-for-everybody" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-is-narrow-and-exclusive-for-everybody" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-is-narrow-and-exclusive-for-everybody" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We Don’t Understand the Difference Christianity Makes
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-don-t-understand-the-difference-christianity-makes
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s common to hear today that morality is “obvious”&nbsp;and we don’t need Christianity to know what’s right and wrong—we could chuck the whole thing out the window, and we’d be fine. But the truth is, most people have no idea of the difference Christianity is making to their current understanding of morality, whether they believe it’s true or not. Our culture has been so shaped by the person of Jesus that we take many things for granted that were despised 2,000 years ago—things that have <em>not</em> been obvious to all cultures, and that <em>won’t</em> be obvious once we exchange our Christian worldview (with its insistence on the dignity of every human person and the value of self-sacrifice) for another (such as one that features a meaningless, purposeless universe, where humans are accidents).</p>

<p>I <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/jesus-built-western-civilization#.WAfeR5grJR0" target="_blank">wrote about this idea</a> a few weeks ago when I came across an article by a historian who discovered, much to his surprise, that his morals were thoroughly Christian. Now here’s more on this topic of the difference Christianity has made to Western morals from Tim Challies, who wrote about <a href="http://www.challies.com/articles/3-awful-features-of-roman-sexual-morality?utm_content=bufferbf52c&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">3 Awful Features of Roman Sexual Morality</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christianity condemned the Roman system in its every part. According to the Roman ethic, a man displayed his masculinity in battlefield and bedroom dominance. In the Christian ethic, a man displayed his masculinity in chastity, in self-sacrifice, in deference to others, in joyfully refraining from all sexual activity except with his wife. The Roman understanding of virtue and love depended upon pederasty—the systematic rape of young boys. But the Christian sexual ethic limited intercourse to a married man and his wife. It protected children and gave them dignity. A Roman woman was accustomed to being treated as second-class human being but “in Christendom, a woman found a culture of genuine love that saw her as equally important as any man in the eyes of God. She was sexually equal with the man in the marriage union and had equal recourse under the law of God to demand marital fidelity.”</p>

<p>Do you see it? Christianity did not simply represent an alternate system of morality but one that condemned the existing system—the system that was foundational to Roman identity and stability. Christians were outsiders. Christians were traitors. Christians were dangerous. Their brand of morality threatened to destabilize all of society. No wonder, then, that they were scorned and even persecuted.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of <a href="http://www.challies.com/articles/3-awful-features-of-roman-sexual-morality?utm_content=bufferbf52c&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">Challies’s post</a>. There’s a tendency to think that whatever we experience in our own culture is “normal”&nbsp;(especially when our ideals have spread throughout the world into other cultures), but one can easily see that Western Civilization, with its ideals of human dignity and sacrificing to uplift the oppressed, is not the “norm”&nbsp;for cultures throughout history.</p>

<p>Cultures don’t just happen; they’re driven by ideas, which create their ideals. It’s worth asking, where are our new ideals (such as self-autonomy above all, even <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/abortion-and-slavery-the-same-old-arguments#.WAfjZZgrJR0" target="_blank">at the expense of the lives of the defenseless</a>), gleaned from a Darwinist worldview, <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/sociological_su103175.html" target="_blank">leading us</a>?</p>

<p>Subscribe <a href="http://www.str.org/subscriptions">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%2Fwe-don-t-understand-the-difference-christianity-makes" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-don-t-understand-the-difference-christianity-makes" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-don-t-understand-the-difference-christianity-makes" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Placed You Where You Are for a Reason
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/04/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-placed-you-where-you-are-for-a-reason
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Where has God placed you? How can you bring glory to God in that place? John Stonestreet’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Restoring-All-Things-Audacious-Everyday/dp/0801000300/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478210529&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=restoring+all+things" target="_blank">Restoring All Things: God’s Audacious Plan to Change the World through Everyday People</a></em> closes with a good reminder to every Christian. Whatever your life situation, there is a way to apply the Christian worldview to what you do and how you interact with people. There is a way to bring redemptive life to the people you encounter, to your profession, and to those whom you serve through your work.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Over the course of a week, we find ourselves in all kinds of personal and social settings: at work, at home, at church, in our communities, at the voting booth, at the store, and around our neighborhoods. Once we identify the places we spend our time, we can identify the relationships we have in those spaces. Then we can begin to think through the needs of these places and what we might do to join God’s work there.</p>

<p>Underneath this exercise is the classic Christian understanding of vocation. Vocation comes from the Latin word <em>vocare</em>, which means “to call.”&nbsp;Today, vocation is often confused with occupation, or what we do to make a living. The Protestant Reformers understood vocation differently. They understood anywhere and everywhere we go as our “stations,”&nbsp;situations and relationships ordained by God for us.</p>

<p>This idea of “station”&nbsp;is key. If we see the various situations and relationships in our lives as accidental, we will never have a proper understanding of vocation. Instead, we should see our various stations as places and people to which God has called us. A calling, after all, requires a “caller.”&nbsp;As Paul told the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers during his famous “Mars Hill”&nbsp;sermon, “[God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”&nbsp;(Acts 17: 26).</p>

<p>So God determines when and where we live. It is no accident where we find ourselves, whether in Budapest or Boston, in Singapore or Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. And it is no accident if we are brothers, daughters, employees, neighbors, and citizens. God is writing our stories into His Grand Narrative of the Story of All Things...</p>

<p>[W]e must embrace that all Christians, not just professional ministers and nonprofit leaders, have sacred vocations...It simply is not true that a person’s calling is more sacred on the basis of where they work. To be Christian is to be called to God’s redeeming work in the world. And anyone who is in Christ can and should seek to glorify God wherever they are.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At Stand to Reason, our goal is not to train apologists; our goal is to train apologist bankers, and apologist janitors, and apologist mothers and fathers—people who apply the Christian worldview and the work of Jesus to every aspect of their lives, wherever they are.</p>

<p>God has called you to the place where you are <em>right now</em>. Every corner of our culture is in need of people who will treat the human beings around them as bearers of God’s image, who will reflect the beauty of God’s kindness, love, truthfulness, justice, and grace to the world, who will honor God with excellence in their work, who will beat back evil and chaos, and who will share the truth about Jesus with those who are broken and lost.</p>

<p>Wherever you are right now, God has called you there to do 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%2Fgod-placed-you-where-you-are-for-a-reason" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-placed-you-where-you-are-for-a-reason" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-placed-you-where-you-are-for-a-reason" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Five Apologetics Questions You Need to Think Through
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/05/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/five-apologetics-questions-you-need-to-think-through
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What key questions should we be thinking about as apologists? When I spoke to high school students at a Christian camp last year, I pointed them to the five questions they most need to think through and solidify in their own minds before they go out into the world.</p>

<h2>1. Does God exist?</h2>

<p>This is the most <a href="https://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store/products/books/item/god-are-you-there_Book" target="_blank">fundamental question</a> of all, and every major divide I can think of in our culture can be traced back to this question. Was everything created, or is it all an accident? Should we acknowledge a created human nature, or do we create our own identities? Do our bodies have a <a href="/w/it-s-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women" target="_blank">purpose</a> to which we ought to conform ourselves? Are human beings <a href="/w/atheism-and-universal-human-rights" target="_blank">valuable</a> because of who we are, or because of what we do? Is there an <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Relativism-Feet-Firmly-Planted-Mid-Air/dp/0801058066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478221028&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=relativism" target="_blank">objective standard</a> of morality outside of us, or do we (whether as individuals or as a society) create our own rules according to our preferences? The opposing answers to this first question logically lead to radically different worldviews, political positions, and lifestyles.</p>

<h2>2. Is God good?</h2>

<p>The divide between Christians and atheists over the moral nature of the biblical God is <a href="/w/christianity-is-vile-to-atheists" target="_blank">more intractable</a> than the divide over whether or not He exists. This is the type of objection I most often hear against Christianity. If you’re not clear on what the Bible truly says about things like the <a href="/w/the-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-" target="_blank">destruction</a> of the Canaanites, <a href="/w/did-god-condone-slavery-" target="_blank">slavery</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478218307&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=holiness+of+god" target="_blank">Hell</a>, the commands to <a href="/w/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-" target="_blank">praise God</a>, etc., you will be shaken when presented with verses plucked from the context of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478221057&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=how+to+read+the+bible" target="_blank">their passages</a>, the culture of ancient Israel, <a href="/w/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today-" target="_blank">the place of the Old Testament Law</a> today, and the overall story of redemption. Part of what you need to do in order to respond to this type of objection is to <a href="/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-" target="_blank">work on getting a big-picture understanding</a> of the Bible as a whole.</p>

<h2>3. Is the Bible trustworthy?</h2>

<p>The Bible is the foundation of all of our theological understanding. If you’re not confident in its <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Glory-Christian-Scriptures-Truthfulness/dp/1433552639/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478222191&amp;sr=8-5&amp;keywords=john+piper" target="_blank">authority</a>—that what was written was the <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD110" target="_blank">inspired words of God</a>, and that we currently have what was <a href="https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/" target="_blank">originally written</a>—then you’ll be swayed not only by those outside the church, but also by those inside the church who are feeling pressure to get on the good side of culture by adjusting their doctrine. You won’t saturate yourself with the Bible if you don’t think it’s God’s word; you won’t deepen and grow as a Christian without submitting your theology and worldview to the Bible; and you won’t stand on the Bible if you’re not convinced it’s trustworthy.</p>

<h2>4. Did Jesus rise from the dead?</h2>

<p>The central event of Christianity (indeed, of all of history) is the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478219233&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=gary+habermas" target="_blank">death and resurrection of Jesus</a>. Nothing is more central to everything we think and do as Christians. “If Christ has not been <a href="/w/what-does-christ-s-resurrection-mean-for-us-" target="_blank">raised</a>, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+15%3A12-19&amp;version=NIV" target="_blank">1 Cor. 15:12-19</a>).</p>

<h2>5. What is the Gospel?</h2>

<p>Don’t assume you (or the people around you) know <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-Gospel-9Marks-Greg-Gilbert/dp/1433515008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478277297&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=what+is+the+gospel" target="_blank">the answer to this question</a>. You don’t—at least, not fully. I know I don’t. The Gospel should shape everything about who we are. We can never think too much about the Gospel—what it means, what it <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Look-Live-Behold-Soul-Thrilling-Sin-Destroying/dp/0764212516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478278291&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=look+and+live" target="_blank">reveals about Jesus</a>, the hope it gives. The more we focus on seeing God more clearly through the Gospel, the more we’re changed into Gospel-shaped people who love God and serve others. But the tragic truth, according to researcher <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Searching-Religious-Spiritual-Teenagers/dp/0195384776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478278167&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=soul+searching" target="_blank">Christian Smith</a>, is that many teenagers (and, I suspect, adults and churches) don’t really know the Gospel. Maybe they know the words, “Jesus died for my sins,”&nbsp;but they haven’t connected the words with their worldview. Instead, they believe in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism" target="_blank">Moralistic Therapeutic Deism</a>, which includes such tenets as, “Good people go to heaven when they die,”&nbsp;and, “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”&nbsp;This is <a href="/w/christians-you-will-suffer" target="_blank">not the Gospel</a>.</p>

<p>I recommend you strengthen your understanding of—and your ability to communicate—the answers to these five questions.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffive-apologetics-questions-you-need-to-think-through" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffive-apologetics-questions-you-need-to-think-through" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffive-apologetics-questions-you-need-to-think-through" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Sin Is Finite, Why Is Hell Eternal?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-sin-is-finite-why-is-hell-eternal-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been asked more than once: Why would God punish non-believers with an eternity in Hell for a finite amount of sin? It seems unfair. Shouldn’t their duration in Hell be commensurate with the amount and severity of their sin?</p>

<p>People who raise this complaint fail to understand the nature of two things: the <em>nature of the offender</em> and the <em>nature of the offended</em>.</p>

<p>The nature of the offender is obvious: Humans are guilty. Not only are they born with a sin nature, they’ve committed crimes against God throughout their lives. That means they deserve to be punished. Every human being on the planet finds himself in this predicament.</p>

<p>God, though, offers every guilty person a pardon. Those who accept God’s offer are absolved of their guilt and go free. Those who reject the pardon pay for the crimes themselves because they remain guilty. Like human prison, God sentences the guilty to a spiritual quarantine (the Bible calls this place Hell).</p>

<p>Their quarantine in Hell lasts forever because they remain guilty forever. While on earth, they had an opportunity to accept the pardon, but that time has passed. They turned down their chance to be absolved of their guilt. Now, they pay for their crimes by being sentenced to an eternal quarantine. After serving a year of their sentence, they’re still guilty. After serving 1,000 years of their sentence, they’re still guilty. Their guilt never fades.</p>

<p>Though the guilt of the offender is relevant, there’s another factor that justifies eternal banishment: The nature of the person offended.</p>

<p>God is the person offended in a human act of sin and/or a lifetime of rebellion. We fail to grasp God’s immense goodness, holiness, and value. He is the greatest being in the universe (and outside the universe). Our inability to understand God’s greatness impedes our ability to understand the reasoning behind the eternality of Hell. Put simply, offending an <em>eternal</em> being earns you an <em>eternal</em> punishment.</p>

<p>Within our human justice system, we often consider the nature of the victim or the person offended. If you kill a rat, for example, you’re not likely to get prosecuted. Indeed, it’s legal to pay people to kill them. That’s because rats aren’t valuable by nature. Kill your neighbor’s Chihuahua, though, and you can be fined because household pets are valued by their owners. If you shoot a bald eagle, you’ll face fines and imprisonment since they’re federally protected. Murder a human being and you might face the death penalty or a lifetime quarantine in prison. That’s a serious punishment because of the nature of humans—they are extremely valuable.</p>

<p>Notice, the more valuable the nature of the being offended, the more severe the punishment. That’s intuitive and just.</p>

<p>Since we live in God’s jurisdiction, we violate His commands when we commit moral crimes. <em>He’s</em> the person offended. The severity of the punishment is commensurate with His nature. Since God is infinitely greater and more valuable than any person, the nature of the punishment is going to be infinitely greater. That’s why an eternal punishment is just. By offending an infinite being, we incur an infinite debt.</p>

<p>Human punishments aren’t that different. In the case of murder, a person is placed in a quarantine for the rest of his life or the duration of his mortal existence. Since a human’s mortal existence extends for the duration of a human lifetime, the prison sentence is for that entire duration. In the case of a crime against a spiritual and eternal being, a person is placed in a quarantine for the duration of their spiritual existence. Since their soul lasts an eternity, their “prison”&nbsp;sentence is for the duration of their soul (which will never die). They’re placed in an eternal quarantine. Hell lasts forever.</p>

<p>We don’t balk at human justice systems that alter the severity of punishment based on the nature of the being offended, so how can we complain when God implements a similar system?</p>

<p>God is just. His reasons for an eternal quarantine are fair. It’s the nature of the offender (perpetual human guilt) and the nature of the offended (the infinite value of God) that justify the eternality of Hell. That may not satisfy our emotions, but it satisfies God’s justice. That’s the bad news.</p>

<p>The good news is that God is not only just, but loving. He doesn’t want anyone to be eternally banished from His presence, but eternally present by His side (2 Peter 3:9). God not only promised this in His word, but He’s demonstrated it by His actions. He’s done everything—including killing His own Son—to keep people out of Hell. God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. It’s a trade that makes God’s pardon possible. That’s not justice; that’s grace.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-sin-is-finite-why-is-hell-eternal-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-sin-is-finite-why-is-hell-eternal-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-sin-is-finite-why-is-hell-eternal-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Made Eve “Suitable” for Adam?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/14/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-made-eve-suitable-for-adam-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the debate over what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, there are important verses that must be considered. There are six passages that usually come up: three in the Old Testament (Gen. 19:1-9; Lev. 18:22; 20:13) and three in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). I believe that each of these passages can be used to adequately demonstrate that God condemns <em>all</em> forms of homosexual behavior. But the Bible has more to say on this issue than these verses.</p>

<p>I’ve recently been reading <em>People to be Loved</em> by Preston Sprinkle. In this book, Sprinkle provides an insight I’d never heard before. It comes from a term used to describe Eve in the creation narrative. Consider Genesis 2:18-21 (NASB),</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper <em>suitable</em> for him.”&nbsp;Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper <em>suitable</em> for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sprinkles’s argument concerns the word translated <em>suitable.</em> This is the Hebrew word <em>kenegdo</em>. Kenegdo is hard to translate into English because it is a compound word made of two parts. The first part is the word <em>ke,</em> which means “like”&nbsp;or “as.”&nbsp;The second part is the word <em>neged,</em> which means “opposite”&nbsp;or “against.”</p>

<p>Taken together, the word kenegdo <em>literally</em> translates “as opposite him”&nbsp;or “like against him.”&nbsp;Eve is a suitable helper because she is both “like”&nbsp;Adam and “opposite”&nbsp;Adam. She is “like”&nbsp;Adam because she is a human being, not an animal (cf. Gen. 2:20). But she is “opposite”&nbsp;Adam because she is female, not male (cf. Gen. 1:27).</p>

<p>Some have argued that Eve was suitable merely because she was a human being. But if being a human being were all that mattered, then the text would have used the Hebrew word <em>ke</em> (“I will make a helper <em>like</em> him”) instead of <em>kenegdo</em>. But Adam needed someone not just <em>similar</em> to him, but also <em>dissimilar</em> from him. From the context, the only difference or otherness in view is Eve’s femaleness (cf. Gen. 1:27).</p>

<p>Therefore, a straightforward reading of the term <em>kenegdo</em> indicates that both partners display sexual difference in marriage. That is, there is a prescribed design of marriage that has universal application for all times. In fact, Genesis 2:24 says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a strange verse given the fact that Adam didn’t have a father and mother to leave. Clearly verse 24 isn’t merely describing the marriage between Adam and Eve; rather it is <em>prescribing</em> marriage for all time. The author of Genesis is saying that from this point forward marriage would be between a man and a woman. This is why this verse is quoted by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament to ground marriage.</p>

<p>You might be thinking, “What does a biblical passage on marriage have to do with homosexual behavior?”&nbsp;Biblically designed sex is <em>always</em> in the context of biblically designed marriage. Conversely, sex with someone other than your spouse is always condemned by God. But we have just demonstrated that the <em>suitable</em> spouse of a husband is designed to be both like him (human, not animal), and opposite him (female, not male). Therefore, this rules out same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior with it.</p>

<p>Building a biblical case from the word <em>kenegdo</em> alone may not be a persuasive argument to everyone. After all, we probably don’t want to base an entire teaching on a single word. However, the Bible has a lot more to say about homosexual behavior, and it’s always negative. I think this exegesis of <em>kenegdo</em> can be used to strengthen the biblical cumulative case against homosexual behavior.</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-made-eve-suitable-for-adam-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-made-eve-suitable-for-adam-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-made-eve-suitable-for-adam-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Our Existence as Relational Beings Points to the Trinity
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/21/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/our-existence-as-relational-beings-points-to-the-trinity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sometimes people ask why they should believe in the Trinity over a different monotheistic God. Besides the fact that I think this is how the true God has revealed Himself through history (including through the writing of His inspired word), the Trinity makes the most sense of the fact that we are relational beings.</p>

<p>It would be odd to think that we alone (who were created in God’s image), and not God Himself, were <em>by nature</em> relational beings who interacted with and loved others. If God were one lone Person, not three Persons in one being, in what sense could we say God <em>is</em> love? Jared Wilson comments on this in his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Unparalleled-Christianitys-Uniqueness-Makes-Compelling/dp/080100859X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1476751239&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=unparalleled" target="_blank">Unparalleled: How Christianity’s Uniqueness Makes It Compelling</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Love is not God. But God is love. So what does it mean for God to be love?</p>

<p>It does not necessarily mean that God is simply <em>loving</em>. Judaism and Islam and Mormonism teach a God who loves. But when Christians teach that God <em>is himself love</em>, they are saying that real love itself has its origin and its essence in God. <em>And this cannot be true unless God is a Trinity</em>.</p>

<p>Think about it: A solitary god cannot be love. He may learn to love. He may yearn for love. But he cannot in himself be love, because love requires an object. Real love requires relationship. In the doctrine of the Trinity we finally see how love is part of the fabric of creation; it is essential to the eternal, need-nothing Creator. From eternity past, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have been in community, in relationship. They have loved each other. That loving relationship is bound up in the very nature of God himself. If God were not a Trinity but merely a solitary divinity, he could neither be love nor be God!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If it weren’t the case that love is part of the Creator by nature, then that would mean love didn’t exist until He created beings outside of Himself; either He was complete without love—in which case, we’ve been mistaken about the value of love—or He was lacking something before He created other beings to love. I don’t think we’ve been mistaken about the value of love. A loveless god would be a deficient god, and love would not be part of the foundation of a universe created by that god. Yet relationships and the desire for love are central to who <em>we</em> are. This would be a very odd state of affairs in a universe not created by a Trinitarian 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%2Four-existence-as-relational-beings-points-to-the-trinity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-existence-as-relational-beings-points-to-the-trinity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-existence-as-relational-beings-points-to-the-trinity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Naming the Clinical Efforts to Help People with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/naming-the-clinical-efforts-to-help-people-with-unwanted-same-sex-attraction
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It is commonly believed that efforts to help people change their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA) are unsuccessful. The problem is that professional therapy outcomes are lumped together with outcomes of accountability, prayer, and pastoral counseling. Consequently, if pastoral counseling and prayer appear to have no effect on a person’s attractions, it’s declared that people can’t change and <em>all efforts</em> to help someone change are ineffective. This has led to a lot of confusion.</p>

<p>That’s why the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) is taking action to clear up this confusion. They are the leading scientific group of psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and other licensed clinicians who help people with unwanted SSA and/or other related psychological symptoms.</p>

<p>This group of clinicians is frustrated with the current crop of terms used to describe their work: conversion therapy, reorientation therapy, sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), and a few others. To more accurately and effectively communicate the work that these therapists do, the ATCSI adopted a new term: Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy (SAFE-T). I attended their national conference and heard them make the announcement. They offered many reasons for implementing this new language, but I’ll mention just a few.</p>

<ul>
	<li>The older terms do not differentiate between professionally conducted psychotherapy and other efforts like religious counseling, prayer, support groups, etc. The ATCSI wants to make it clear that what they are doing is fundamentally different from the family or religious support that often accompanies their services. They’re not opposed to social support but simply want to distinguish what they do from what clergy, friends, and family offer.</li>
	<li>The older terms presume that sexual orientation is a fixed part of a person’s identity. That is, some people have a homosexual orientation, some people have a heterosexual orientation, and these conditions are immutable. ATCSI rejects that proposition and their new term avoids “orientation”&nbsp;language.</li>
	<li>SAFE-T uses the phrase “Sexual Attraction Fluidity,”&nbsp;which is consistent with the current state of research that indicates sexual attraction is indeed fluid (Dr. Katz-Wise, 2015; Dr. Diamond, 2016).</li>
	<li>The older terms imply that the goal of therapy is for the client to experience a categorical change from exclusive SSA to exclusive opposite-sex attraction (OSA). This is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, such an outcome is statistically rare and creates an unrealistic expectation for the client. Second, this degree of change is not normally demanded as proof that legitimate psychological care has been provided for other psychological conditions. Patients treated for depression, for example, aren’t expected to change from 100% depressed to 0% depressed. The amount of therapeutic success falls on a continuum, and many patients find change that is less than categorical to be meaningful and satisfying.</li>
	<li>The older terms imply ATCSI clinicians are practicing some unique and mysterious type of therapy. In reality, psychologists who practice SAFE-T are practicing mainstream therapeutic modalities used by all kinds of clinicians throughout their profession.</li>
	<li>The older terms imply that change is the therapist’s goal and not the goal of the client. Clinicians who practice SAFE-T, however, adhere to their profession’s standards of client self-determination. There is no coercive element on the part of the clinician. The patient sets the goals and the therapist helps him or her achieve them. The ATCSI believes it is unethical (and ineffective) for a therapist to impose his or her goals on the client.</li>
</ul>

<p>In addition to the new term, a group of ATCSI clinicians is conducting a five-year longitudinal study to evaluate the effectiveness of SAFE-T. They’re just over three years in the process, and the preliminary results are promising. Once published, this study will add to the scientific credibility of what ATCSI clinicians are doing, giving more hope to men and women with unwanted SSA.</p>
</div>

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


title: Two Serious Problems with Surrogate Motherhood
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 11/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-serious-problems-with-surrogate-motherhood
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Recently, I was engaged in a conversation about reproductive options for couples. One of the issues discussed was surrogate motherhood. In surrogacy, a couple contracts with a woman to bear them a child. In some cases, an embryo consisting of genetic material from both the man and woman is implanted in the surrogate. In other cases, the surrogate is artificially inseminated with sperm from the man. In either case, I think there are serious moral concerns that, in my estimation, make surrogacy too problematic to consider. Briefly, here are two of the most serious problems.</p>

<p>First, except in cases of altruistic surrogate motherhood, surrogacy seems to reduce children to a commodity that can be bought and sold. The contracting couple is after one thing: the delivery of a product (the baby) and not merely the services of the surrogate. Thus, commercial genetic surrogacy is equivalent to the sale and purchase of a child. In Genesis 1:26-27, we discover that our human rights and dignity are grounded in the fact that we are created in the image of God. Therefore, human beings cannot be bought and sold for a price.</p>

<p>Secondly, surrogacy is the only situation where we deliberately separate procreation and responsibility. This is true in cases of commercial surrogacy, as well as altruistic surrogacy. In surrogate motherhood, we are asking a woman to detach herself from the child in utero. This hardly seems like an ideal context for the birth of a child. As philosopher and ethicist Scott Rae has pointed out, “surrogacy actually turns a vice, the ability to detach from the child in utero, into a virtue.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>For these reasons as well as others, I would not recommend surrogacy as a reproductive option. These are just some brief initial thoughts. If you want to explore this topic further, Rae has written a brief overview <a href="http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-a-surrogate-mother/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Rae, Scott B. <em>Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1995), p. 156.<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%2Ftwo-serious-problems-with-surrogate-motherhood" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-serious-problems-with-surrogate-motherhood" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-serious-problems-with-surrogate-motherhood" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Is the Goal of Apologetics, and How Can You Love Your Listeners?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-the-goal-of-apologetics-and-how-can-you-love-your-listeners-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“<a href="http://www.foclonline.org/answer/what-ultimate-task-christian-communicator" target="_blank">What is the ultimate task of a Christian communicator?</a>”&nbsp;Peter Mead is talking about preaching here, but his answer applies just as well to apologetics. (I wrote on this same theme <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/do-you-convey-sense-your-love-jesus-your-apologetics#.WBPEEeErJR0" target="_blank">here</a>.) After teaching apologetics or using it in conversations, what are your listeners thinking about? Problems with their worldview? Fascinating evidence? Philosophical answers? A coherent system? Or...</p>

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

<p>This clip is also a helpful one for apologists: “<a href="http://www.foclonline.org/answer/how-can-christian-communicators-love-their-listeners" target="_blank">How can Christian communicators love their listeners?</a>”</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="7jfTj7m_WA8" 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/7jfTj7m_WA8?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%2Fwhat-is-the-goal-of-apologetics-and-how-can-you-love-your-listeners-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-the-goal-of-apologetics-and-how-can-you-love-your-listeners-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-the-goal-of-apologetics-and-how-can-you-love-your-listeners-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Evidence That Demonstrates John Is a Reliable Historical Source
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/25/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/evidence-that-demonstrates-john-is-a-reliable-historical-source
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Archeological findings have consistently supported the veracity of historical details mentioned in the Bible. The discovery of the Pool of Bethesda in the late 19th century not only confirms the historical setting in John 5, but it also supports John’s claim that he was an eyewitness to what he reports.</p>

<p>John 5 describes a pool with five porticoes, and since no five-sided pools were known to scholars of antiquity, it was thought that this passage wasn’t historically accurate or written by an eyewitness. But in the late 19th century, a pool was <a href="https://int.icej.org/news/special-reports/jerusalem-finds-validating-gospel-john" target="_blank">discovered</a> under a church in Jerusalem. It wasn’t pentagon-shaped; rather it had porticoes on four sides and a fifth portico that crossed from side-to-side, dividing the pool. It had five porticoes and was dated to Jesus’&nbsp;time.</p>

<p>Since the pool was likely destroyed when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D., John must have known it before then. This places John in Jerusalem in the time frame he claims to have witnessed Jesus. Someone living after 70 A.D. wouldn’t have known about the pool with five porticoes.</p>

<p>It’s a simple piece of evidence to demonstrate that John is a reliable historical source.</p>
</div>

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


title: Is Christ Inferior to the Father?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/09/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-christ-inferior-to-the-father-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had a surprise visit from my Jehovah’s Witness friends a couple of weeks ago. They normally call me to set up an appointment, but this time they were in the neighborhood and decided to drop by.</p>

<p>As usual, they had an agenda they wanted to accomplish. On this occasion, they asked if we could talk about the <em>inferiority of Jesus</em>. Immediately I knew where this conversation was going. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a lesser deity than the Father. To justify this belief, they point to verses that spotlight Jesus’&nbsp;submission to the Father. In <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-Scriptures-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Rhodes-ebook/dp/B005WWN5Q2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1478653237&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=reasoning+from+the+scriptures+with+the+jehovah%27s+witnesses" target="_blank">Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses</a>,</em> Ron Rhodes writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For example, Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I”&nbsp;(John 14:28), and referred to the Father as “my God”&nbsp;(John 20:17). First Corinthians 11:3 tells us that “the head of Christ is God,”&nbsp;and 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that Jesus will “be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Consequently, they had me read 1 Corinthians 15:28. Paul writes, “When all things are subjected to Him, then <em>the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him</em> who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all.”&nbsp;Here, they argued, is explicit evidence from Scripture for the <em>inequality</em> between Jesus and the Father.</p>

<p>How should we understand these kinds of passages? Moreover, if Jesus isn’t equal with the Father, how can we claim He is God?</p>

<p>These isolated passages must be read in light of the entire corpus of Scripture. The same apostle Paul who calls Jesus “our great God and Savior”&nbsp;(Titus 2:13) also says Jesus is <em>subordinate</em> to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). Both are true. It will do no good to ignore or distort the former to make sense of the latter.</p>

<p>These passages are reconciled through an understanding of the distinction between a person’s <em>nature</em> and <em>role</em>.</p>

<p>Here is how I illustrate this with Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the biblical marriage relationship, a husband and a wife have different <em>roles</em>. Not only that, but a husband has a greater office than a wife. As a result, 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.</p>

<p>So, in one sense, the husband is <em>greater than</em> the wife because they have different roles. However, in another sense, husbands and wives are <em>equal</em> because they both have the same human nature (Gen. 1:27). They are equal <em>in nature</em>, but unequal <em>in roles</em>.</p>

<p>The marriage relationship is a dim reflection of the Persons of God. The co-equal, co-eternal Persons of the Trinity are one in divine nature. However, each divine Person has a distinct role in salvation. There is a voluntary submission of roles in the work of redemption. The Son takes on human flesh and submits to the Father in giving His life on the cross.</p>

<p>Lest you doubt what I’m saying, listen to Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, <em>the head of a wife is her husband</em>, and the head of Christ is God”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 11:3). Here Paul takes the same submission language of a wife to her husband and applies it to the Son and the Father.</p>

<p>If we want to truly understand who Jesus is, then we need to look at all of what Scripture says. Those who deny the deity of Christ read the Bible with one eye closed. They only look at isolated verses here and there and must ignore and distort clear passages that teach the deity of Christ. However, all of Scripture must be consulted if we are going to have an accurate portrait of Jesus. And when we read the Bible with both eyes open, we see the incarnate Christ as equal to the Father <em>in His deity</em>, but also in submission to the Father <em>in His role</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%2Fis-christ-inferior-to-the-father-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-christ-inferior-to-the-father-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-christ-inferior-to-the-father-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Importance of Waiting for the “Thinking Pause”
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/16/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-importance-of-waiting-for-the-thinking-pause-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a person who often needs a “thinking pause,”&nbsp;I appreciate these <a href="http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/learning-to-allow-space-for-the-thinking-pause/" target="_blank">words from Timothy Brahm</a> of the <a href="http://equalrightsinstitute.com/" target="_blank">Equal Rights Institute</a> on how to improve your apologetics conversations with others:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>An excellent listener should develop both the wisdom to recognize and the patience to allow space for a <strong>thinking pause</strong>.</p>

<p>There are two types of pauses that can take place after someone finishes talking: 1) a conclusion pause, and 2) a thinking pause. A <em>conclusion pause</em> takes place when the person has concluded his statement and is ready for you to jump in with your thoughts. A <em>thinking pause</em> takes place when the person hasn’t actually concluded; when he intends to continue but needs to stop to think.</p>

<p>The problem is that <strong>these types of pauses strongly resemble each other</strong>. When someone needs a five to ten second pause in between sentences, he doesn’t usually tell you, “Hang on, give me a second to formulate my thought.”&nbsp;You can’t count on everyone to be that articulate of a communicator...</p>

<p>I’ve noticed that people who tend to process quickly and/or internally are especially prone to being too impatient to allow for a thinking pause. I’m describing myself here so I have had to really work on this, and even so I mess up and get impatient sometimes. It sure feels like they should just say what they need to say and get on it with it!</p>

<p>Some people process slowly, and that’s okay. Others need to process their thoughts out loud in order to fully grasp them, and that’s okay too. <strong>The problem isn’t really with them, it’s with me. I need to develop the virtue of conversational patience.</strong> [Emphases in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He explains why this makes such a difference in the <a href="http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/learning-to-allow-space-for-the-thinking-pause/" target="_blank">rest of his post</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-importance-of-waiting-for-the-thinking-pause-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-importance-of-waiting-for-the-thinking-pause-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-importance-of-waiting-for-the-thinking-pause-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Convey a Sense of the Reality, Centrality, and Desirability of Jesus with Your Apologetics?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/08/2016
source:
https://www.str.org/w/do-you-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-

content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been ruminating on this very idea for the last month, making notes, waiting for it to become fully formed in a future post. And now, here it is in an <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizl_XdiMrPAhVBWWMKHbd6ArMQFgggMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2016%2Foctober%2Fbeautiful-orthodoxy.html&amp;usg=AFQjCNHk-3Azoe82m1xBO5imYqg0a5KobQ&amp;sig2=_KH_mQJeqkZlxWADKtYmZg&amp;bvm=bv.135258522,d.cGc" target="_blank">article</a> by Mark Galli:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Truth is so personal that it dwells within us in the Holy Spirit. Thus the truth of God is first and foremost about knowing God personally in Christ. It is more than knowing something <em>about</em> God; it is “having God in oneself,”&nbsp;as Gregory of Nyssa put it.</p>

<p>A friend of mine tells the story of his attempt to argue his college classmates into the Christian faith. In a class on world religions, he gave what he believed was an unassailable apologetic for Christianity during an assigned presentation. As the class reacted, it became clear that the non-Christians were either bored or hostile, despite what my friend felt was the superior logic of the Christian view. Only years later did he finally grasp that while he may have presented the abstract truths of Christianity cogently, he had failed to also present the person of Jesus Christ in a way that winsomely conveyed that our faith is first and foremost an intimate encounter with the God of truth.</p>

<p>When we don’t frame our apologetics, teaching, and preaching in this way, our presentation of Christ will not be fully true, let alone attractive.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>Yes</em>. We need to widen our approach to apologetics. Our goal isn’t merely to argue that Christianity is true, but also to introduce people to a <em>Person</em>—a Person who is with us in the very room we’re standing in as we’re making our arguments, a person whom we <em>love</em> and desire to follow. Do you convey a sense of this when you talk to people about Christianity?</p>

<p>As apologists, we need to grapple with the truth that, at root, unbelief is more a matter of the heart than of the head. That is, I can argue with a person that the God of the Bible exists, and perhaps even convince him, but arguments about God’s existence won’t convince an atheist to <em>love</em> Him. For that, we need something else. Ultimately, that “something else”&nbsp;is the Holy Spirit, of course, but He moves people to love Jesus when we glorify Him.</p>

<p>So the question is, how can we demonstrate the reality, centrality, and desirability of Jesus as part of our approach?</p>

<p>First, act in ways that demonstrate His love, His grace, His humility, and His self-sacrifice. Find the lowliest person in the room, and make him feel loved. Find everyday ways to serve people and put others before yourself. <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace#.V_hKu5MrJR0" target="_blank">Be kind to those who hate you</a>. Show them the beauty of who Jesus is by acting in ways that echo His beauty. Let them see bits of Him in you.</p>

<p>Second, as you make your arguments, openly speak of Jesus in a way that communicates your love for, trust in, and dependence on Him. Point to His glory in everything; let people see that He is the center of your daily life; live in a way that makes it obvious to everyone He is most important to you. That’s how I became a Christian. I became convinced Christianity was true through investigation and arguments, but it wasn’t until I got to know someone who <em>desired</em> Him that I saw Him as desirable. When you speak to others, do they see that <em>you</em> see Jesus as desirable?</p>

<p>Third, none of us loves Jesus as we should, so we need to intentionally cultivate our love for Him, and the way to do that is to look at Him. The book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Look-Live-Behold-Soul-Thrilling-Sin-Destroying/dp/0764212516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1475889558&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=look+and+live" target="_blank">Look and Live</a></em> can get you started on how to do this. (I also recommend <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Christ-Michael-Reeves-ebook/dp/B00U073NTI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1475889586&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=rejoicing+in+christ" target="_blank">Rejoicing in Christ</a></em>.) The Bible is obviously the key to this pursuit. <a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/james-gray-on-mastering-the-bible/" target="_blank">Read</a> and <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/memorizing-the-bible-changes-you#.V_hGA5MrJR0" target="_blank">memorize</a>. Pray that God will enable you to see Jesus more and more clearly. To truly see Him is to love Him, and it will also change <em>you</em>. Our goal ought to be to immerse ourselves in Jesus so well and so often that His love and grace can’t help but come out of us as part of our apologetic arguments.</p>

<p>Christianity isn’t just true; it’s also beautiful and good. And it’s beautiful and good because <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+1%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">we see in Jesus</a>&nbsp;“the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.”&nbsp;Make this truth central to all of your apologetics.</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-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-you-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-you-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


