# articles

title: Are Miracles Illogical?
topic: Philosophy
author: Keith Plummer
date: 06/04/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-miracles-illogical-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many who adhere to philosophical naturalism or materialism call claims that supernatural events occurred in the past (and are possible today) illogical because of their pre-commitment to a view of the world that precludes anything that transcends nature. They equate being rational with holding to some form of naturalism and therefore conclude that any claim that contradicts naturalism is irrational. But this is fallacious. It will not do to dismiss miracles out of hand on the grounds that nature is all there is. That’s the very question at the heart of the dispute between the Christian theist and the atheist. If we inhabit a universe created, upheld, and governed by a transcendent, omnipotent, all-wise God, then there is no problem with the possibility of miracles. One can only claim that miracles are impossible if, in fact, one knows that God is not there. But as the late Greg Bahnsen <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Always-Ready-Directions-Defending-Faith-ebook/dp/B004QOAX8A/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=always+ready&amp;qid=1559592074&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-2">noted</a>, “The denial of the very possibility of miracles is not a piece of evidence <em>for</em> rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific manifestation <em>of</em> that very rejection.”</p>

<p>Atheists and materialists aren’t the only ones who might use the adjective “illogical”&nbsp;to describe reported miracles, however. Some Christians, too, though they believe the biblical reports of miraculous occurrences and that God is able to perform them today, claim that miracles themselves or belief in them is illogical. By this, they mean to emphasize the fact that miracles surpass our ability to comprehend. We can say <em>that</em> God has performed them, but we don’t know <em>how</em> He did. That’s true as far as it goes. But there’s a substantial difference between saying that something is <em>beyond</em> reason and saying that it actually <em>contradicts</em> it.</p>

<p>The problem with both uses of the word “illogical”&nbsp;is that they are the result of an imprecise definition of the word. To say that something is illogical is to say that it violates the basic principles of reasoning, commonly known as the laws of logic. These norms of thought (the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle) are essential to reasoning and communication. The law of non-contradiction affirms that something cannot be A (where A represents a particular quality) and non-A at the same time and in the same manner. It’s possible for a ball to be black and white at the same time if it’s striped or spotted, for example; but it’s not possible for it to be uniformly black and white at the same time. With regard to propositions, the law of non-contradiction says that one cannot be true and false at the same time, in the same respect.</p>

<p>The law of identity states that a thing is itself or “A is A.”&nbsp;In their book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Cross-Introduction-Christian-Witness/dp/0310524687/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=apologetics+at+the+cross&amp;qid=1559592534&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1">Apologetics at the Cross</a></em>, Joshua Chatraw and Mark Allen note that the significance of this law is “that all things have certain qualities that can be described - qualities that set them apart from everything else.”&nbsp;“Without such qualities,”&nbsp;they continue, “we could not identify something in the first place.”</p>

<p>Finally, the law of excluded middle states that a thing is either A or non-A. An assertion is either true or not true.</p>

<p>Someone might conclude on the basis of the observed regularity of nature that miracles are impossible and therefore conclude that they are illogical, but that would be faulty for two reasons. First, what we call the laws of nature are descriptions of how the world ordinarily functions, but they are not prescriptions of what must always be the case. Concerning this point, John Frame <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Justification-Christian-John-Frame/dp/1596389389/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=apologetics+to+the+glory+of+god&amp;qid=1559592715&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-2">observes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Certainly, in almost all our experience, things happen in regular patterns, to some extent describable by scientific law. But there is nothing in this experience to persuade us that irregularity is impossible, or that everything always behaves naturally and regularly. Experience tells us what is happening; it does not tell us what is or is not possible, or what “always”&nbsp;happens. We have not seen what everything always does, for we have neither seen everything nor seen things always.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even if we granted that miracles are not physically possible (which I obviously don’t think we should), it would be erroneous to confuse <em>physical</em> impossibility with <em>logical</em> impossibility or illogic. At my age (let alone weight), it’s not physically possible for me to dunk a basketball. (Come to think of it, it never was!) But there’s nothing about the thought of my doing so that is contrary to any of the laws of logic.</p>

<p>Neither the miraculous events reported in the Bible nor believing in them inherently violates the laws of logic. Consequently, it’s not appropriate to describe them as illogical. Believers and unbelievers alike should refrain, therefore, from describing them as such.</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-miracles-illogical-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-miracles-illogical-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-miracles-illogical-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Hell Interrupted—Part 3
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/hell-interrupted-part-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>By Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl</strong></p>

<p>There is no Christian doctrine more distressing than the doctrine of Hell. When I<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> meditate for just a few moments on the lonely agony and perpetual, conscious torment of everlasting damnation, a kind of panic begins to seize me. That may be one reason the classical view of Hell has fallen out of favor of late.</p>

<p>The Good News, of course, is only really good because the bad news is very, very bad—on anyone’s estimation. For some, though, the bad news is not quite as bad as we used to think. Respected evangelicals—like theologian John Stackhouse and the late Anglican John Stott, among others—have argued that the Bible doesn’t characterize Hell as a <em>place</em> of eternal conscious torment (the classical view) but rather as a <em>sentence</em> of “destruction” into everlasting non-existence (conditional immortality, a.k.a. annihilationism). The <em>reality</em> of Hell is not in dispute with these writers, of course, but rather the <em>nature</em> of Hell’s sentence.</p>

<p>We do not think this trend is biblically sound. We’re convinced the most natural reading of the <em>full </em>corpus of Scripture on Hell supports the church’s historical position of eternal conscious torment and not nonexistence. We began our defense of the classical view in two prior issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>. <sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Here is a summary of our argument so far.</p>

<h2>Our Case</h2>

<p>Since the doctrine of the final state of the wicked unfolds progressively in Scripture, we take the standard approach for harmonizing details of issues that span both Testaments: Earlier revelation gives initial pieces of the puzzle; later revelation adds details that modify, qualify, and expand on what came before.</p>

<p>Our task is to take the commonsense meaning intended by individual authors and blend them together in a unified, coherent whole, counting on the most recent revelation to give us the clearest picture. The final word on the final judgment, then, comes properly from the final chapters of the Bible.</p>

<p>Here’s how that progression of revelation has unfolded in our previous two installments. We argued that Old Testament characterizations of God’s justice focus on the physical, temporal, earthly elements of judgment—the tangible actions of God in this world that the Jews could experience directly. The wicked are “cut off” (i.e., physically killed), and the righteous inherit the land, for example.</p>

<p>Things “destroyed,” though, don’t necessarily lose their <em>being</em>. Rather, they lose their <em>well-being</em>. A destroyed home doesn’t vanish. It’s just no longer a suitable shelter. It is laid waste, ruined for its original purpose. Similarly, we cannot conclude that those who are “dead” and “destroyed” are gone forever. Adam and Eve “died” when they ate the forbidden fruit, but they didn’t disappear. Rather, death denoted separation—separation of man from God and, eventually, separation of soul from body. “Destruction” simply is not <em>necessarily</em> synonymous with annihilation—though it’s understandable how some texts, read in isolation from later revelation, could be taken that way.</p>

<p>The New Testament corrects that confusion by providing more precision about the nature of the final state, the non-earthly, other-worldly dimension of eternal death—everlasting separation from God—that the Hebrew prophets simply did not address directly.</p>

<p>Paul, for example, does not say the damned vanish, but that their “destruction” is “<em>away</em> from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thess. 1:9). Jesus says they go to a <em>place</em> of “outer darkness,” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12)—a “furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42), an “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8), an “unquenchable fire” (Mk. 9:43), and a “fiery Hell” (Matt. 5:22), where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48). Hell’s fire continues to burn because it continues to torment. A fire that completely consumes—annihilationism—goes out. This fire, Jesus warned, burns forever.</p>

<p>Where does this happen? Jesus tells us. The goats “depart…into the eternal fire…prepared for the devil” to experience “eternal punishment” while the righteous enjoy “eternal life” (Matt. 25:41, 46, note the parallelism). The duration is the same, though the experience is different. John describes this location as the final sentence, a fire that torments “day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). Jesus and John both agree. This is not a place of non-existence but rather a place of conscious suffering that never ends.</p>

<p>There are no awkward hermeneutical moves here. The classical view fits the plain, common sense of each of the passages in question so far. But there’s more. Since the final word is the last word, to the last word we now go.</p>

<h2>Torment without Rest</h2>

<p>Without the final book of the Bible, the eternal fate of the wicked might remain uncertain, the door still open to some form of annihilationism. In Revelation, however, the apostle John shuts that door decisively.</p>

<p>Consider this text in Revelation 14. John writes that anyone worshiping “the beast and his image…will drink the wine of the wrath of God…and he will be tormented <em>with fire and brimstone</em>…and <em>the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever</em>; they have <em>no rest day and night</em>…” (Rev. 14:9–11).</p>

<p>Conditionalist John Wenham confesses that this passage “is the most difficult passage that the conditionalist has to deal with…. Certainly, on the face of it, having no rest day or night with smoke of torment going up for ever and ever, sounds like everlasting torment.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Indeed, it does. Other conditionalists agree. Clark Pinnock admits, “This text comes closest in my mind to confirming the traditional view.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Ralph Bowles concurs: “This text is regarded by both traditionalist and conditionalist interpreters as one of the strongest texts in support of ‘eternal torment.’”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>We concur with these conditionalists entirely, for good reason. The language—especially when coupled with similar passages in Revelation 19 and 20, as we’ll see—seems clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. “The smoke of <em>their</em> torment goes up forever and ever.” “<em>They</em> have no rest day and night.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> <em>The wicked</em> never rest (14:11), but the righteous rest forever (14:13). The saints suffer physical death (13:15) then enter into unending blessedness; <em>the wicked</em> suffer physical death then enter into unending torment.</p>

<p>Even so, there is a counter from conditionalists. The language of this passage is similar to the language found in Isaiah 34:9–10 where the prophet predicts the doom of Edom, a people God had “devoted to destruction” (v. 5):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into brimstone, and its land will become burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The smoke of Edom’s judgment, conditionalists point out, is reminiscent of Sodom’s smoke ascending “like the smoke of a furnace” (Gen. 19:28). In both cases, the human inhabitants were destroyed, as predicted. If John is citing the <em>same kind of imagery</em> used in those judgments (e.g., smoke rising, night and day, going up forever), isn’t it fair to conclude that Revelation 14 has <em>the same kind of consequences</em> as those judgments described in the Old Testament?</p>

<p>That’s the rejoinder, at least, and the answer to the question is no, the consequences are not the same because the descriptions, taken as a whole, are not the same. The superficial similarities distract conditionalists from differences that are critical to our question.</p>

<p>To begin with, we dealt with this passage at length in “<a href="/w/hell-interrupted-part-1">Hell Interrupted, Part 1</a>.” We clarified there that, biblically speaking, neither “dead” nor “destroyed” necessarily means loss of existence, but rather, it usually means ruin—in these cases, the physical ruin of the people and their habitation.</p>

<p>We also pointed out that the <em>earthly</em> destruction of Edom—or Sodom, for that matter—tells us nothing of the <em>eternal</em> state of the wicked who are judged there since that isn’t the intent of the passage. True, smoke is a signal of their physical destruction in both cases, but there’s nothing in either Isaiah 34 or Genesis 19 that tells us anything about the ultimate fate of the wicked. Those authors do not give us that information about those past judgments, but John does about the future judgment.</p>

<p>This brings us to the most compelling reason we know those earlier judgments are significantly different from what John describes in Revelation: <em>John tells us so</em>.</p>

<p>Curiously, Revelation 14 never says that those who worship the beast or receive his mark are destroyed or even dead. It never uses that language because their physical, temporal condition is not John’s point. Rather, John focuses on the <em>eternal</em> consequences of the wicked’s rebellion toward God: They “drink of the wine of the wrath of God…and the <em>smoke of their torment</em>goes up forever and ever” (v. 10–11).</p>

<p>Conditionalists presume the smoke that goes up merely signals completed destruction since in the other passages the cities and their inhabitants are burned and gone and the land smokes continually as a memorial of their fate.</p>

<p>Not so in Revelation 14. Never-ending smoke here memorializes something different—not completed destruction, but ongoing, never-ending, conscious anguish of the wicked, who have no rest or relief from their suffering day or night. It is the smoke of their <em>torment</em>, not the smoke of their <em>demise</em>. Even the casual reader knows that “torment” is not a synonym for “annihilation.” Indeed, going out of existence ends torment. If death is the end of existence, then the anguish ends, too—as euthanasia advocates quickly point out.</p>

<p>Further, the phrase “forever and ever” (v. 11) is used ten times in the book of Revelation and always denotes a <em>never-ending duration of time</em>. In Revelation 22:5, for example, John uses the same expression to describe the unending reign of the saints. <sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Wenham also suggests, with Stott, that maybe what is described here is “the moment of judgment, not the eternal state.” “Final judgment,” he writes, “is an experience of unceasing and inescapable pain, and as at Sodom all that is left is the smoke of their torment going up forever. It is a reminder to all eternity of the marvelous justice and mercy of God.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>This parry is completely unconvincing, however. Think about it. Wenham seems to be saying that final judgment is an experience of “unceasing and inescapable pain”—until their pain ceases and they escape it through annihilation.</p>

<p>There is a good reason John is so clear in this passage. It is a stern, solemn warning to Christians, and he does not want to be misunderstood. Deny the beast and suffer physical death now (13:15), but live gloriously forever. Worship the beast or take his mark and live a little longer in this life, but be tormented forever and ever in the next.</p>

<p>John is perfectly clear; there is too much at stake for him to be imprecise in this passage. He is not simply repeating Isaiah. In Revelation 14, he is warning of the plain and unmistakable fate of the damned. <em>The price these wicked persons pay for worshiping the beast is conscious anguish that will never end</em>. Once again, there are no tricky maneuvers here. The classical view fits the plain, common sense of this passage, as the conditionalists we previously noted above readily admit.</p>

<h2>Double Death</h2>

<p>One of the strengths of our conclusion about Revelation 14 is how well it dovetails with the last judgment of all mankind depicted just a few chapters later. Indeed, the doom awaiting those who worship the beast is the very same sentence that befalls all the wicked of the world at the end of the age.</p>

<p>In that final narrative describing the final fate of the damned at the final judgment before a great white throne, John details an unfolding drama that includes two distinct kinds of death—a first death and a second death:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet…; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword…and all the birds were filled with their flesh. (Rev. 19:20–21)</p>

<p>And [the deceived nations] came up on the broad plain of the earth…and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil…was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:9–10)</p>

<p>And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds…. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:13–15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We would like you to consider what appears to be the natural and obvious understanding of what takes place in these scenes.</p>

<p>The beast and the false prophet are seized and thrown alive (i.e., conscious) into the lake of fire burning with brimstone (19:20). Then the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone with the beast and false prophet, and all will be tormented day and night forever and ever (20:10).</p>

<p>As for the humans, some are physically killed, and their flesh is consumed by birds (19:21). Others are physically devoured by fire and killed (20:9). Then all the dead appear again for judgment before the throne, are found wanting, and are thrown into the lake of fire, which John calls the “second death” (20:14–15).</p>

<p>According to John’s full narrative, then, those humans who were dead once whose names were not found in the book of life are judged by their deeds and die a second time.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> They end up in the same place as the false prophet, the beast, and the devil—the lake of fire—and thus experience the same fate—torment day and night forever and ever. Revelation 14 adds they are tormented “with fire and brimstone,” just like the unholy triad, and the smoke of their torment “goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night” (14:10–11), just like those three.</p>

<p>There is no annihilation here, nor is there any ambiguity. The prophet, the beast, and the devil exist forever, and the damned exist forever. The prophet, the beast, and the devil are thrown in the lake of fire, and the damned are thrown in the lake of fire. The prophet, the beast, and the devil are tormented with fire and brimstone, and the damned are tormented with fire and brimstone. None have any rest. None have any relief.</p>

<p>How do the conditionalists counter?</p>

<p>Yes, eternal punishment seems to be <em>pictured</em> in this scene, they say, but it’s not what John <em>intends</em> that we conclude from the picture. What then? Conditionalists assert that John intends the second death to be the “death” of annihilation. After all, they point out, death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (20:14), suggesting the ultimate extinction of both along with their residents. This assumption, though, is completely unwarranted given John’s narrative. Here’s why.</p>

<h2>Death and Hades</h2>

<p>The expression “death and Hades” is clearly a metonymy, a substitute phrase of location referring to those who reside there. Just as “the White House” refers to the president and “the Supreme Court” refers to the justices, “death and Hades” refers to the dead temporarily quarantined in the netherworld. Notice, “Death and Hades gave up the dead <em>which were in them</em>” (20:13). The inhabitants, then, are the focus of the judgment, not the place.</p>

<p>Clearly, a mere location can’t die once, much less twice. Instead, John’s point is that death and Hades are emptied—unlocked by Jesus, who has the keys (Rev. 1:18) and who is the judge (Acts 17:31)—and their residents now stand in judgment, fulfilling the prophecy of universal resurrection foretold in Daniel 12:2, with some being raised “to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” A new, permanent location imprisons the wicked now—the lake of fire.</p>

<p>In these passages, John continues his dire warning of Revelation 14. The first (physical) death may be unpleasant, even agonizing, but the second death is unbearable, echoing Jesus’ warning in Matthew 10:28, “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.” The “destruction” Jesus refers to cannot be annihilation, though, for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, those who have been “destroyed” still experience torment, according to John—explicit in Revelation 14:10–11 and clearly implicit in 20:14–15. In biblical literature, the word “torment” <em>never</em> refers to cessation of existence. Rather, it always denotes conscious suffering. In fact, the wicked actually “seek death” and “long to die” to escape the “torment” of the wrath of God in Revelation 9:5–6, but that relief is denied them.</p>

<p>Second, it’s clear that the wicked are still around even after the New Jerusalem is established. In fact, John makes two references to them in the last two chapters of Revelation (21:8 and 22:15), where they continue to exist somewhere outside the walls of the celestial city, “away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,” as Paul predicts in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.</p>

<p>Once again, we find ourselves pointing out the obvious. In the final word at the close of the full corpus of Scripture, after the last gavel falls, John depicts two final realities. There are the “blessed” ones (22:14) who will no longer die or mourn or be in pain (21:4), who freely drink from the spring of the water of life (21:6), and who may enter by the gates into the city and eat from the tree of life (22:14).</p>

<p>The second group, the “accursed ones” (Matt. 25:41)—“the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars...” (Rev. 21:8; 22:15)—continue in their second death with no comfort, get no nourishment from the water of life or the tree of life inside the city since they are “outside” (22:15) and “nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, <em>shall ever come into it</em>” (21:27, note the spatial language).</p>

<p>But where outside the walls is this second group? In this passage, Jesus Himself<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> gives the answer. They are located in the fiery lake of the second death that burns with brimstone (21:8). In the final vision of eternity, the wicked are not annihilated. Instead, they are finally conquered and quarantined—ruined for their original purpose of friendship with God, banished from His presence, and punished forever.</p>

<p>So we have come full circle. What we learn about Hell at the end of history is the very same thing Jesus described at the end of His ministry:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on the left…. Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels…. These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25:31–33, 41, 46)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The final word—the last word—is completely consistent with everything that comes before it. No awkward hermeneutical moves. No ad hoc speculations. The classical view of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked fits the plain, common sense of all the passages pertaining to Hell.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Greg Koukl. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">For a thorough treatment of these points and a response to the conditionalists’ counters, refer to the <a href="/w/hell-interrupted-part-1" rel="" target="" title="">Sept-Oct</a> and <a href="/w/hell-interrupted-part-2" rel="" target="" title="">Nov-Dec</a> 2017 issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>, Parts 1 and 2 of “Hell Interrupted,” available online at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">John Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” in <em>Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism,</em> ed. Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books), 86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Clark Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in <em>Four Views on Hell </em>(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 157. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ralph Bowles, “Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment?” in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 140. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Note, John uses the same language to describe the unceasing “day and night” praise of the heavenly creatures in Revelation 4:8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">“That the smoke of their torture rises ‘forever and ever’… must mean eternal torment rather than annihilation; this same phrase applies to God’s and Christ’s eternality (Rev. 1:18; 4:10; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7), to the reign of the saints (22:5), and to the eternal suffering of the beast (20:10).” Craig Keener, <em>Revelation</em>, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 374, in <em>Four Views on Hell</em> (above). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid. Wenham, 86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Note, believers are not judged here (Jn. 3:18), so the second death has no power over them (Rev. 20:6). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">“And I heard a loud voice <em>from the throne</em>” (21:3), and, “I am the <em>Alpha and the Omega</em>” (21:6). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&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%2Fhell-interrupted-part-3" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhell-interrupted-part-3" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhell-interrupted-part-3" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How the Deity of Christ Reminded Me of a Pro-Life Argument
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/09/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-the-deity-of-christ-reminded-me-of-a-pro-life-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <em>Mere Christianity,</em> C.S. Lewis makes a point about Jesus being the Son of God that, strangely, reminded me of a point I make when I teach on the art of pro-life persuasion.</p>

<p>When I make the case that the unborn is a <em>human</em> being, one of the arguments I offer is based on the law of biogenesis. This law states that living things reproduce after their own kind. When two animals of the same species mate, they produce offspring that is of the same biological type. When two dogs mate, for example, they produce another dog. When two spiders mate, they produce another spider. That’s why when my wife was pregnant with our first child, though we wondered whether we were going to have a boy or girl, we didn’t wonder whether we were going to have a human or not. After all, we’re human, so our offspring must also be human. And when our second pregnancy yielded a second human, we weren’t shocked by this. We didn’t think<em>, Wow...two humans in a row! What are the chances?</em> Humans beget humans.</p>

<p>Well, I was recently reading C.S. Lewis when I came across this piece. He was arguing that if Jesus was begotten of God, then that means Jesus has the same nature as God. Lewis explains:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set [i.e., a type of military radio transmitter] - or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue...Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Lewis is making a point based on a principle similar to the law of biogenesis. When God begets, He begets something of the same nature. Therefore, if Jesus is the Son of God (begotten), then that means He has the same nature as God. Conversely, humans (and angels) are created beings. That makes us a different kind of being than God.</p>

<p>There are, of course, always limitations to these analogies. For example, human begetting yields a creature of the same kind that <em>begins</em> to exist. Although the person of Jesus <em>began</em> in space-time history, the second person of the Trinity <em>always</em> existed. There are many other dissimilarities, as well. To list them all would be to take this post too seriously. But hopefully you can see the similarity between the case for Christ’s divinity and the pro-life argument.</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-the-deity-of-christ-reminded-me-of-a-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-deity-of-christ-reminded-me-of-a-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-deity-of-christ-reminded-me-of-a-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Training Students for War
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/30/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/training-students-for-war
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We are at war.</p>

<p>It’s not a war of bombs and bayonets. It’s not a war against flesh and blood. In fact, it’s not a <em>physical</em> war at all. It’s a <em>spiritual</em> war.</p>

<p>Because of the spiritual nature of this battle, it’s easy to diminish - or even disregard - its significance. Visible wars seem more pressing than invisible wars because you can physically see the enemy. But according to the New Testament, there is an invisible war going on. And the enemy is just as real.</p>

<p>For this reason, the apostle Paul says, “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil”&nbsp;(Eph. 6:11). The devil has “schemes”&nbsp;that we are ordered to “stand against.”&nbsp;Fortunately, we’re not left guessing about his battle strategy. The devil is “the father of lies”&nbsp;(John 8:44), and his plan is to deceive the whole world (Rev. 12:9; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).</p>

<p>The devil’s primary weapon is <em>deception</em>. He wants us to believe false ideas about God. And the way we fight against false ideas is with true ideas. Simply put, we combat deception with truth. In fact, the first piece of armor Paul tells us to put on is the “belt of truth”&nbsp;(Eph. 6:14).</p>

<p>Paul has more to say about spiritual warfare in his second letter to the church at Corinth. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. (2 Cor. 10:3-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Using our primary weapon - truth - we are able to destroy bad arguments, false opinions, and wrong thinking.</p>

<p>We are at war. But it’s not a war against <em>individuals</em>; it’s a war against <em>ideas</em>. Sadly, many of our young people are becoming captive to these false ideas.</p>

<p>It’s almost unfathomable to imagine sending young men and women off to fight a physical war <em>without the proper training.</em> Yet, when it comes to spiritual warfare, we do this all the time. The vast majority of our students are <em>not</em> prepared for the spiritual battle that awaits them.</p>

<p>This is where Stand to Reason comes in. We want to help train your students for war. There are two primary ways we do this.</p>

<p>First, <em>we train students</em>. The devil spews false ideas to blind the minds of our students to the truth. A number of these false ideas specifically relate to the Bible. He wants them to believe that the Bible is unreliable, unscientific, and immoral. Furthermore, he would love them to believe the lie that God hasn’t spoken through the prophets and apostles.</p>

<p>Consequently, we devoted an entire <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference</a> to training young people to counter these lies. Furthermore, this coming September we will begin another reTHINK tour training students to combat specific lies about God.</p>

<p>These reTHINK conferences involve two days of intense spiritual training. Each session is designed to respond to a lie from the enemy.</p>

<p>Second, <em>we train trainers.</em></p>

<p>If the <em>only</em> apologetics training your students get is our reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference, then they are in big trouble.</p>

<p>Now, that’s not a knock against our event. reTHINK is <em>the</em> finest student apologetics conference in the country. And we wish every student would attend. But two days of training is not enough to counter 365 days of the devil’s scheming.</p>

<p>Through daily <a href="/articles">blog posts</a>, weekly training <a href="/videos">videos</a>, bimonthly <a href="/solid-ground">Solid Ground articles</a>, two Stand to Reason downloadable <a href="/apps">apps</a>, and nearly three hours of <a href="/podcasts">podcasts</a> per week, we are going to train you so that you can train your students.</p>

<p>You are the <em>primary</em> apologist in the life of your students. It’s not me, or Greg Koukl, or Alan Shlemon. It’s you.</p>

<p>And as the primary apologist in your students’&nbsp;lives, it is <em>your</em> responsibility to train them. But remember, you are not alone. We are here for you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftraining-students-for-war" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftraining-students-for-war" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftraining-students-for-war" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Portlanders Rethinking Aborting Children with Down Syndrome?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/07/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-portlanders-rethinking-aborting-children-with-down-syndrome-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>For more than a decade, I’ve been training Oregon Right to Life students in the art of pro-life persuasion and taking them to the streets of Portland to <a href="/w/do-people-change-their-minds-about-abortion-" target="_blank">practice their skills</a> with people who disagree. To begin conversations with passersby, we use a survey tool that asks simple yes or no questions. One of those questions is, “Should abortion be <em>against the law</em> if the fetus is diagnosed with Down syndrome?”</p>

<p>As one would imagine, Portlanders have overwhelmingly answered no to this question over the years. Abortion is a right, in their mind. They believe there should be few to no reasons why abortion should be restricted.</p>

<p>This year was different. Many of the students came back with surveys where people who identified as “pro-choice”&nbsp;were opposed to abortion when the fetus is presumed to have Down syndrome. In fact, several Portlanders were bothered by the thought of this.</p>

<p>I’m obviously <em>not</em> suggesting that this was a controlled survey, was representative of Portlanders, was large enough to detect such changes, or had any statistical significance. Not even close. That’s never been the point of the survey. It was simply interesting to anecdotally note a difference in our experience from previous years.</p>

<p>It made me wonder whether <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/" target="_blank">2017’s news story</a> that told of Iceland’s push to “eliminate”&nbsp;Down syndrome had caused some people to reconsider their view. Iceland wasn’t actually doing anything to <em>prevent</em> Down syndrome. They were simply <a href="/w/discriminating-against-people-with-down-syndrome" target="_blank"><em>killing</em></a> any unborn child who was likely to have it through abortion.</p>

<p>Whatever the reason, if there is a trend towards being against abortion when the unborn child has Down syndrome, it’s a trend worth welcoming.</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-portlanders-rethinking-aborting-children-with-down-syndrome-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-portlanders-rethinking-aborting-children-with-down-syndrome-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-portlanders-rethinking-aborting-children-with-down-syndrome-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Jesus Die on a Torture Stake?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/04/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I talk to Jehovah’s Witnesses, <a href="/w/being-tactical-with-jehovah-s-witnesses">I have a plan</a>. This keeps us from getting sidetracked during the course of our conversation. However, I wasn’t always this tactical. I used to easily get pulled off topic. As a result, I would leave the conversation feeling frustrated.</p>

<p>For example, I remember one energetic discussion I had with two friendly Jehovah’s Witnesses on the nature of the atonement. At one point during the conversation, I said, “Jesus died <em>on the cross</em> for our sins.”&nbsp;This seemingly benign declaration launched our discussion in a completely different direction. Unfortunately, it was a direction I wasn’t prepared for.</p>

<p>It came as a surprise to me that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe Jesus died on a cross. I knew Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses have fundamentally different views on <em>why</em> Jesus died on the cross. But, as I soon found out, we have fundamentally different views on <em>whether</em> Jesus died on a cross.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus was crucified <em>on a stake</em>, not a cross. Moreover, they believe that the cross is a pagan symbol that Christians have adopted because of the influence of satanic forces.</p>

<p>There are a number of problems with the view that Jesus died on a stake. Rather than provide a comprehensive case, let me give you five <em>talking points</em> for the next time a Jehovah’s Witness tells you Jesus died on a stake.</p>

<p><em>First</em>, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which claims to be God’s prophet on earth today, used to teach that Jesus died <em>on a cross</em>. In fact, up until October 1, 1931, <em>The Watch Tower</em> magazine (now called <em>The Watchtower</em>) included a cross and crown on the cover. This was part of their official logo for 40 years.</p>

<p>Moreover, in 1921, <em>The Watch Tower</em> published <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheHarpOfGodByJ.f.Rutherford">a book</a> by Joseph Rutherford - the second president of <em>The Watch Tower</em> - titled <em>The Harp of God.</em> Repeatedly, Rutherford affirms that Jesus died <em>on a cross</em>. For example, he writes, “The ransom price was provided <em>at the cross</em>. The <em>cross of Christ</em> is the great pivotal truth of the divine arrangement, from which radiates the hopes of men”&nbsp;(141, emphasis added).</p>

<p>It is imperative that you point this out to your Jehovah’s Witness friends. This is not meant to humiliate them. Many have no idea how <em>The Watchtower</em> has changed this doctrine - and others - over time.</p>

<p>Here’s the crucial question you need to ask: <em>If The Watchtower is a true prophet of God - who speaks for Jehovah - how could they get this wrong?</em></p>

<p>If they are willing to admit that <em>The Watchtower</em> was wrong, then ask if they could be wrong about other doctrines, like the deity of Christ. Minimally, this should cause them to doubt their <em>alleged</em> prophet.</p>

<p>Ultimately, all Christian doctrines need to be tested by the revelation given in Scripture. This leads to the remaining four points.</p>

<p><em>Second</em>, the Greek word <em>stauros</em> - translated “torture stake”&nbsp;by the 2013 edition of the New World Translation - is used to refer to a number of wooden structures used for execution. These structures include a variety of shapes, like a cross, x-shape, plus-shape, and a simple pole. Therefore, the word <em>itself</em> isn’t enough to tell us if it was a cross or something else. We need the context for that. So, we need to look for clues in the text to help decide if it was a cross or a stake.</p>

<p><em>Third</em>, the apostle John describes nails being used. This is a significant point easily missed if you’re not paying attention.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.”&nbsp;But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark <em>of the nails</em>, and place my finger into the mark <em>of the nails</em>, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe”&nbsp;(John 20:25).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This passage indicates there was one nail for each hand. This fits the description of being nailed to a cross, not a stake. After all, only one nail was needed when crucifying a person on a stake. Unwittingly, <em>The Watchtower</em> concedes this point. In the 2014 revised edition of <em>What Does the Bible Really Teach?</em> they include <a href="https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/the-ransom-jesus-sacrifice/">an illustration of Jesus on a stake</a> showing only <em>one nail</em> through both hands. Ironically, this depiction is contrary to what the Bible really teaches.</p>

<p><em>Fourth</em>, Jesus describes how Peter would be crucified and refers to his arms being outstretched.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, <em>you will stretch out your hands</em>, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.“&nbsp;(This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”&nbsp;(John 21:18-19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Most scholars believe Jesus is using this expression (“you will stretch out your hands”) to refer to crucifixion on a cross. Of course, this expression makes little sense if Jesus is referring to crucifixion on a stake.</p>

<p><em>Fifth</em>, the charge against Jesus was placed <em>over his head</em> (Matt. 27:37). Again, this makes little sense if Jesus was crucified on a stake. After all, if Jesus was on a stake, then the sign would be placed over <em>His hands</em>, not His head. But crucifixion on a cross could have a sign over Jesus’&nbsp;head.</p>

<p>None of these pieces of evidence <em>alone</em> will likely convince a Jehovah’s Witness, but taken together they provide clear support that Jesus died on a cross.</p>

<p>In the end, this isn’t a hill I want to die on with my Jehovah’s Witness friends. Even if I successfully persuaded them that Jesus died on a cross, they would still be lost. That’s why my primary goal will always be to bring it back to the <a href="/w/ready-for-the-knock-on-your-door">identity of Jesus</a>. Why He was crucified is far more important than how He was crucified.</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-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Choose Being Kind over Being Right?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Natasha Crain
date: 04/16/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/choose-being-kind-over-being-right-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This morning I attended weekly chapel with my kids at their school. At the end, one of the kids from student government shared an “inspirational quote”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Choose being kind over being right, and you’ll be right every time.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I was happy that both of my 10-year-olds immediately looked up at me with a questioning glance. This is the kind of secular wisdom that sounds good but has layers of problems. Like other quotes of this nature, there is some truth, but it’s also very misleading. Today’s world is all about being “kind”&nbsp;- according to a very secular definition of accepting every person’s own definition of kindness. There’s no longer a concept of truth <em>with</em> gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).</p>

<p>This is so important for kids to understand, so I came home and made a series of questions I will give my 10-year-olds to write answers to this week. I told them they will earn something for their extra work (extra computer time for my son and extra allowance for my daughter). If they were older, I would ask them to think through it all without these leading questions. If you have older kids, I encourage you to ask them to respond to the quote on their own and talk through this. With younger ones, feel free to use these questions for your own discussion.</p>

<ol>
	<li>What is your first reaction to this quote - does it sound consistent with what the Bible teaches? Why or why not?</li>
	<li>This quote assumes that a person must choose between being kind and being right. Do you agree that this is a choice that must always be made? Why or why not? Give an example to support your answer (and a Bible verse or story if you can think of one).</li>
	<li>There are times when it is not very important to be “right”&nbsp;and it’s more important to simply show kindness. For example, at recess, you might know that you tagged someone out even though they disagree, but it’s not worth hurting a friendship to insist for a week that you were right. What would be another example of when being right is not as important as being kind?</li>
	<li>Now imagine for a moment that you have a friend who likes to hurt himself/herself. You tell them that God created them, loves them, and doesn’t want them to do that. They then get mad at you for not being “kind”&nbsp;- they say, “If you were nice, you would just leave me alone to do whatever I want!”&nbsp;Do you think you should choose to be kind according to their definition - leave them alone to hurt themselves? Why or why not?</li>
	<li>Is there a way to be kind <em>and</em> be truthful with a friend who is hurting himself/herself? If so, how would you do it?</li>
	<li>From these examples, we can see there is a word in this quote that is really important to define. What is it, and why does it make a big difference?</li>
	<li>Read the quote again. Do you agree that if you choose being kind over being right, you’ll be right every time? Summarize your thoughts from having answered the previous questions.</li>
</ol>
</div>

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


title: Is Morality Grounded in God Just Another Form of Relativism?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>During a panel discussion I participated in after a talk I gave at the University of Alaska, one of the philosophy professors on the panel mentioned that a divine command approach to morality was just another form of ethical subjectivism - relativism, that is. This troubled me because I’m a moral objectivist committed to the idea that God’s commands are the basis for moral obligations - a form of divine command morality. The comment seemed to put divine command ethics on par with ordinary moral relativism.</p>

<p>In a certain sense, though, the philosopher had a point. Subjectivism in morality, generally speaking, is when moral truth is completely dependent on an individual subject - the person holding the moral conviction. Good and evil are not objective features of the world but are subjective judgments of individual minds. God is a subject - a mind - true enough, and on divine command theory, morality is grounded in Him. At first glance, then, it seems that grounding morality in God provides no rescue from ordinary relativism.</p>

<p>But it does. Here’s why.</p>

<p>In moral relativism, morality is grounded in a subject - a human individual or group of individuals - whose beliefs about right and wrong change over time. What is right or wrong for that person (or group) at one point in time could be completely different at another point since human subjective values vary. Nothing fixes morality in any absolute sense.</p>

<p>God is an individual subject, of course, but He’s a completely different sort of subject. He is a personal being, but He is also the ground of being. He doesn’t arbitrarily give commands according to His changing whim - ordinary subjectivism - because God doesn’t change. Rather, His commands flow forth from the objective quality of His unchanging, morally perfect nature.</p>

<p>So even though God is a <em>subject</em> - a personal individual, so to speak - He is also an <em>object</em> of fixed moral perfection, the standard of good by which all other good (and bad) is measured.</p>

<p>The problem with relativism grounded in human subjects is that humans are multiple and they are whimsical. There are many of them, resulting in many “moralities,”&nbsp;and their moralities change over time because they are not grounded in or attached to anything fixed and moral in itself.</p>

<p>In an odd sort of way, then, morality grounded in God can be objective yet still relative to a subject. Notice I did not say relative to <em>any</em> subject, but to <em>a</em> subject - God Himself, the only unchanging, morally perfect objective standard for absolute ethics.</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-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Can God Forgive Me?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/10/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-god-forgive-me-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>How can God forgive me?</em> This is a crucial question raised in the movie <em><a href="https://www.unplannedfilm.com/">Unplanned</a></em>, the true story of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director who left the abortion industry after witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion.</p>

<p>It’s the right question to ask. If God is a just judge and the very standard of perfect morality, how can He possibly <em>not</em> condemn someone who has committed egregious moral crimes? This is a common objection to Christianity: “So you’re telling me that if [insert name of evil person here] accepted Christ at the end of his life, God would just forgive him, and he would go to Heaven?”&nbsp;This idea is repulsive to us because it seems to pervert justice, and a God who perverts justice is no God at all. The objection is a powerful challenge for anyone who has a sense of the goodness and rightness of justice.</p>

<p>Whenever I hear this objection, it’s usually applied to someone else <em>out there</em>, but the truth is, the question applies to every single one of us: How can God forgive <em>me</em>? The only reason we focus this objection on other people <em>out there</em> is that <a href="/w/why-you-shouldn-t-trust-the-feeling-that-you-don-t-deserve-hell">we don’t have an accurate sense</a> of the deadly seriousness of our <em>own</em> sins. No one wants to face the truth of that.</p>

<p>But Abby Johnson gets it. When the guilt she bears for playing a part in the deaths of 20,000 unborn children begins to crush her, and her husband assures her God will forgive her if she asks Him, she can only respond with an anguished “How can He?”&nbsp;His answer: “Because He’s God.”</p>

<p>But the real answer is so much better.</p>

<p>God’s forgiveness is not merely a matter of His will. It’s not merely an expression of His power or His authority. It’s not a decision to temporarily suspend His justice because “being God”&nbsp;gives Him the right to sweep evil away unpunished. It’s so much more beautiful, and solid, and unshakable than that.</p>

<p>Here’s the truth: God doesn’t simply command guilt to flee. If our guilt were still lurking out there unresolved somewhere, how could we ever be certain it wouldn’t find its way back to us?</p>

<p>No, God’s forgiveness isn’t grounded in His power, given <em>in spite</em> of His justice. It’s grounded in His <em>satisfied</em> justice. He doesn’t deny the goodness of His justice in order to offer grace. He acts out of the fullness of His nature, expressing both His perfect justice and His glorious grace on the cross:</p>

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

<p>God didn’t just dismiss the guilt of those who trust in Jesus with a wave of His hand; Jesus <em>fulfilled</em> justice <em>on our behalf</em> by serving as the sacrifice—the payment—for our sins. Our moral crimes were nailed to the cross—to Jesus, who took them to His grave, putting an end to our guilt once and for all, and then rose again, giving us His life and righteousness once and for all:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When you were dead in your transgressions...He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, <em>having nailed it to the cross</em>. (Col. 2:13–14)</p>

<p>We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:10)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What this means for us is astounding. No matter who we are, there is no need for us to hide from God or man. There is no one on earth who has sinned beyond hope of forgiveness. In fact, Paul says God saved him—a former “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+1%3A12-17&amp;version=NASB">blasphemer</a> and a persecutor and a violent aggressor”—in order to prove to everyone that <em>anyone</em> can be forgiven in Christ:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. (1 Tim. 1:15–16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because of the cross, a woman who played a role in killing 20,000 babies can say her crimes have been paid for in full. Her guilt isn’t hidden away; it’s fully recognized and covered. As Christ said on the cross, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A30&amp;version=NASB">It is finished</a>.”&nbsp;And by seeing <em>her</em> forgiveness, we see that the value of Christ’s sacrifice will cover anything we’ve done. We don’t have to try to convince ourselves our sins are smaller than they seem in order to lessen our feelings of guilt. We can boldly face the truth of whatever we’ve done because we know the gospel is <em>bigger</em> than anything we have ever done. <em>Anything</em>.</p>

<p>God doesn’t forgive those who trust in Christ “because He’s God.”&nbsp;He forgives because He has grounded His forgiveness in the solid rock of completed justice. He is both just <em>and</em> the justifier. Our guilt is finished; grace is here.</p>
</div>

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


title: Speaking “Christianese” to the Unchurched
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/21/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/speaking-christianese-to-the-unchurched
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I don’t always preach a sermon, but when I do, I try not to violate one of my sermon points within hours of preaching. That, however, is what I did recently.</p>

<p>Last week, I had the privilege of teaching at a men’s retreat outside of Stavanger, Norway. After the event was over, I was invited to preach at a local church. One of the points I made in my sermon was the importance of not speaking “Christianese.”&nbsp;This is the language that Christians speak among themselves and often speak when sharing their faith with non-Christians. It’s composed of church words that are filled with theological meaning but are meaningless to unchurched people. For example, “Jesus died for your sins”&nbsp;is Christianese. Christians understand the meaning, but it’s a foreign phrase to unchurched people. Who is Jesus? What is a sin? Why do I have sins? How does someone’s death affect my sin? This phrase is nonsensical to those outside the church. As the culture becomes increasingly secular, it’s more common to run into people who are unchurched and don’t understand Christianese.</p>

<p>That’s why I was amused when I made the same mistake just hours after preaching. I was invited to lunch by a local pastor and church leader. While at the restaurant, we made friendly conversation with a young (twenty-something) waitress, who, although working at a restaurant in Norway, was from Poland. At one point while talking to her, I offered the reason for my visit to Norway and explained that I was invited by a church to speak at a men’s retreat. I was curious to see if she had any religious interest or connections. Of course, I didn’t think I was speaking Christianese. After all, who hasn’t heard of a church men’s retreat? Apparently, she hadn’t. Her response: “So, is that where guys go to learn how to be men...like how to pick up women and stuff like that?”&nbsp;At first, I thought she was joking, but she wasn’t. She had no idea what a men’s retreat was, let alone that churches don’t typically teach men how to “pick up women.”</p>

<p>Not only did I not think I was speaking Christianese, but I underestimated how unchurched the culture was. Now, I realize this is not necessarily proof of anything, given this is a single data point. I suspect, however, that this is far from an isolated incident. Either way, it was an interesting and valuable lesson for me.</p>

<p>The alternative to speaking Christianese that I offered in my sermon that day was to communicate the gospel or a religious idea using ordinary words and not with religious lingo. No matter who we’re talking to, we want to meet people where they are and seek to help them understand. In my case, I told the waitress I was speaking at a men’s retreat for a church. Little did I know how unfamiliar she was with the concepts of a men’s retreat and a church. Not only was she unaware of what a men’s retreat was, but she thought it was possible that a church would teach men how to pick up women. After the “incident,”&nbsp;I was able to clarify what a men’s retreat was and that it was an apologetics-themed event. And, no, I did <em>not</em> use the term “apologetics.”&nbsp;By then, I had learned my (own) lesson.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are We Accountable for Unchosen Sinful Desires?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-we-accountable-for-unchosen-sinful-desires-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>A clarification to my brothers and sisters in Christ who, like me, hold to the biblical teaching that sexual activity is reserved only for a man and woman married to each other.</em><br>
&nbsp;</p>

<p>The discussion about homosexual desire is too often oversimplified and seldom given appropriate nuance. For example, many people in Western culture frame the debate as, “You’re either born gay or it’s your choice.”&nbsp;Such an oversimplification leads to two immediate mistakes.</p>

<p>First, it wrongly assumes that those are the only two possible explanations for same-sex attraction. Since one side states almost axiomatically that no one chooses who they are attracted to, the only remaining option is that some people are born with an “orientation”&nbsp;that results in sexual desire for the same sex.</p>

<p>The second mistake is assuming that if you’re born gay (and, therefore, didn’t choose your “orientation”), you are not accountable for the desires that flow from that orientation. Many Westerners adopt this view and, consequently, believe it’s permissible to satisfy same-sex desires through homosexual relationships.</p>

<p>Now, I’ve argued in the past that I don’t believe homosexual desires are something anyone is born with. There is now even more data that supports that claim. In fact, even notable researchers who identify as gay and lesbian agree. This debate is largely irrelevant now, though. The born-this-way claim served its purpose in convincing culture to ground same-sex marriage to civil rights and recognize same-sex unions as a legitimate legal form of marriage.</p>

<p>Even if homosexual desires were something you’re born with, however, that wouldn’t justify the behavior. Discovering a “gay gene”&nbsp;(or any other pre-birth factor) would tell us nothing about the morality of homosexual sex or same-sex marriage. Simon LeVay, a pioneer in sexual-orientation research who identifies as gay, acknowledges, “Science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves.”&nbsp;Geneticist Dean Hamer (who also identifies as gay), produced a study that suggested there is a genetic contribution to homosexuality. Even so, he concurs with LeVay’s sentiment. Hamer writes, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”&nbsp;To claim that a scientific discovery about human biology can tell us how we’re supposed to live would be to commit the is-ought fallacy. Just because something <em>is</em> a certain way, it doesn’t follow that it <em>ought</em> to be that way. Science can tell us <em>what is</em>, but it cannot tell us <em>what ought to be</em>.</p>

<p>Again, I’m not claiming homosexual desires arise from a genetic or biological cause, but only that if such a discovery were made, it would tell us nothing about the morality of homosexual fantasy or sex.</p>

<p>Since homosexual men and women are not born that way, some people suggest that choice plays a major factor in their attraction. This, again, wrongly presumes that homosexual desire results from <em>either</em> a congenital condition or choice.</p>

<p>This is an oversimplification many Christians make. We have good reason to think same-sex desires are not directly decided by conscious decisions. Consider the Christian who experiences same-sex desires but loves Jesus, wants to obey Him all his life, rejects satisfying his desires either in thought or deed, and is repentant when and if he succumbs to those temptations. Virtually every believer like this will tell you two things: 1) They didn’t <em>choose</em> to be attracted to a person of the same sex, and 2) if they could choose to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, they would. Many believers have told me they’ve tried to consciously will away their same-sex attraction but are unable to do so. That’s because homosexual desire is not a choice.</p>

<p>When some Christians hear that, they think, <em>Alan doesn’t think homosexuality is a choice. Therefore, he must not think homosexuals are accountable for their sinful desires. It sounds like he’s buying into the world’s thinking and compromising his biblical convictions.</em> Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if I were compromising on this matter, pro-gay advocates would be jubilant. Trust me; they’re not.</p>

<p>Even though I don’t think same-sex attraction is a choice, I still believe people are accountable for what they do with that attraction. That’s because our sinful desires arise from our sin nature. Same-sex desire is a disordered desire (“degrading passions,”&nbsp;Rom. 1:26 NASB) resulting from man’s fall. It’s no different from <em>any sinful desire that any person experiences. We’re all responsible for what we do with our sinful desires, even if they’re not chosen.</em></p>

<p>It’s important to note that I don’t mean that no choice is involved at all. Every person has the choice to satisfy homosexual desire in thought or deed. Every person has the choice to either embrace those desires and believe they’re a part of their identity or to mortify them in pursuit of biblical sexuality.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I do believe that our choices <em>can</em> impact our desires. What we think about and what we do can ultimately shape what we crave. For example, if we choose to view porn and choose to fantasize about it, then those conscious decisions will affect our souls, making us desire porn even more. Choice, then, can play a role in how our desires are formed.</p>

<p>Taking time to unpack these ideas and nuance them isn’t easy. That’s why I’ve suggested - as a matter of practical wisdom - to avoid saying to a person who identifies as gay or lesbian, “Homosexuality is a choice.”&nbsp;Such advice is <em>not</em> comprehensive, nuanced theology but rather a practical principle to help believers avoid unnecessary damage to their relationships with friends or family members who identify as gay or lesbian.</p>

<p>Yes, there’s choice in whether one accepts or rejects their homosexual desire as a part of their identity. Yes, there’s choice in whether one satisfies their homosexual desire in thought and deed or decides to pursue biblical sexuality. But if you simply tell a friend or family member with SSA that homosexuality is a choice, it’s likely they’ll be unnecessarily put off. Even if your view is more nuanced, they won’t get it. They’ll think to themselves, <em>You think I chose to be gay? You’re clueless! You have no idea what I’ve experienced and are completely out of touch with who I am.</em> Your cliché will likely hurt your relationship with them rather than build a bridge. They won’t grasp the nuances I’ve described here.</p>

<p>We don’t want to unnecessarily offend the people we’re trying to reach. The gospel can be offensive already, but we don’t want to be offensive with our approach. Understanding the usual interpretation of “choice”&nbsp;in this context can help us be wise in our approach. So, if homosexuals aren’t born that way, and it’s not a choice, then where does that leave those who experience homosexual desires? It leaves them in exactly the same place it leaves every person on the planet. We all experience desires we don’t choose. Everyone is accountable for those desires. The Bible doesn’t say we’re accountable for chosen desires but not accountable for unchosen ones. In fact, it’s specifically those unchosen desires that arise from our sin nature that we are commanded to mortify.</p>

<p>But isn’t it impossible to do what God expects us to do - to deny our innate desires? Yes, it’s impossible. There’s no way a homosexual could - on his or her own strength - live up to God’s standard. Neither could anyone else. Thankfully, God doesn’t expect us to fulfill this insurmountable feat on our own. He’s done three things to make it possible. First, He had His Son - Jesus - live the perfect life on our behalf. Even though it would be impossible for us to resist every sinful temptation, Jesus did it. His impeccable record was transferred to those whom God calls His children. Second, God has offered His Spirit - the Holy Spirit - to anyone who turns His life over to God and asks Him to help them deny their sinful desires. God’s Spirit in us breaks the bondage of sin we’re in and gives us the power to deny our sinful desires.</p>

<p>Even with God’s help, though, we’re bound to falter. That’s why God gives us a third thing: grace. He understands us better than we understand ourselves. He knows we falter. He’s ready to forgive us when we sin then turn to Him.</p>

<p>Yes, we are accountable for unchosen sinful desires, but we are accountable to a powerful, just, and gracious God who will never leave or forsake us.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-accountable-for-unchosen-sinful-desires-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-accountable-for-unchosen-sinful-desires-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-accountable-for-unchosen-sinful-desires-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Bulverism Blunder
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bulverism-blunder
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“The only reason you’re a Christian is that you were born in the United States. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be a Muslim.”&nbsp;It’s possible someone has told you something similar. On their view, you’re just a Christian by accident since you happened to grow up in an American culture that’s primarily Christian and not Muslim. Though this claim might sound true, it’s wrong-headed.</p>

<p>This mistake in thinking is expressed in other ways, too. “Christianity is just a crutch for you,”&nbsp;or, “You only believe in God because you want a father figure.”&nbsp;Since you arrived at your belief for some sociological or psychological reason - so the argument goes - your belief isn’t true.</p>

<p>But these statements commit a big blunder. C.S. Lewis observed this error so often he invented a name for it: Bulverism. In fact, he joked he’d write a biography about an imaginary person named Ezekiel Bulver, who was allegedly responsible for starting this logical mistake.</p>

<p>Let me explain at least three problems with the Bulverism blunder.</p>

<p>First, it confuses motivation with justification. It makes no difference what <em>motivates</em> a person to arrive at their belief. It only matters whether or not the belief is <em>true</em>. It might be the case that you’re a Christian because you grew up in a country whose primary religious affiliation is Christian, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons for why Christianity is true.</p>

<p>If a challenger wants to undermine your faith, they must first show <em>why</em> it is false with reasons or evidence. No psychological or sociological discovery about the believer can accomplish this. As C.S. Lewis explained with Bulverism, “You must show <em>that</em> a man is wrong before you start explaining <em>why</em> he is wrong.”&nbsp;It only makes sense to ask why someone came to believe something false <em>after</em> you’ve done the hard work of refuting that belief.</p>

<p>Consider the claim that you believe in God because you want a father figure. It might be true that your real father was awful and abusive, and that this led you to God as a perfect father substitute. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to believe God exists. How does your journey to theism affect whether God exists or not? It doesn’t. It makes no difference what <em>motivates</em> a person to arrive at their belief. It only matters whether or not it’s <em>true</em>.</p>

<p>Second, nothing follows from the claim. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you <em>did</em> become a Christian (and not a Muslim) because you grew up in the United States. What can we conclude from that? Nothing. Yes, it might be true that you’d be a Muslim if you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia. But does that prove Christianity is false? Does that prove Islam is true? It does neither. Nothing logically follows from the observation that people who grow up in America tend to become Christian rather than Muslim. It’s merely sociologically interesting.</p>

<p>Or consider when someone claims your Christian belief is just a crutch. It might be true that your addiction to pornography or drugs led you to rely on Jesus as a “crutch”&nbsp;who carries you through each day without succumbing to temptation. What follows from that? Does that mean Jesus doesn’t exist? If a skeptic wants to deny Jesus’&nbsp;existence, he needs to refute the historical evidence that Jesus existed, not merely point out what motivated you to believe in Him.</p>

<p>Third, the same critique can be leveled against the unbeliever. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If this type of critique is legitimate, then the Christian could make an opposite accusation against the atheist: “The only reason you’re an atheist is that you want to kill a father figure.”&nbsp;If the atheist grew up in a home where the father was absent, emotionally distant, or abusive, perhaps the idea of a heavenly Father would be repugnant to him. He’d want to kill a father figure, leading him to atheism - not for logical reasons, but for psychological ones.</p>

<p>The atheist would protest such a claim, however, and rightly so. His psychological status has no bearing on the merits of atheism. If a theist wants to show the atheist is mistaken, he must give evidence <em>for theism</em> or <em>against atheism</em>, not describe his motivation.</p>

<p>The Bulverism blunder highlights a challenging aspect of engaging non-Christians in our culture: People don’t know how to think. You might make a good point or answer a challenge to your faith, but if the person you’re speaking to doesn’t know <em>how</em> to evaluate an argument, you’ll make very little progress. I don’t mean to sound condescending. Christians are guilty of this mistake, too. Because people aren’t taught logic, sometimes it’s necessary to lay a foundation for good reasoning before one can even make the case for the Christian worldview.</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-bulverism-blunder" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-bulverism-blunder" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-bulverism-blunder" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Charles Spurgeon on Reading the Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/charles-spurgeon-on-reading-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been reading my latest acquisition from Crossway’s <a href="https://www.crossway.org/books/?series=Theologians%20on%20the%20Christian%20Life">Theologians On the Christian Life</a> series, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spurgeon-Christian-Life-Christ-Theologians/dp/1433543877/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1556753208&amp;sr=8-1">Spurgeon on the Christian Life: Alive in Christ</a></em> by Michael Reeves, and I love what he has to say about reading the Bible. Reeves sums up Spurgeon’s “experiential, Christ-centered approach to Scripture”&nbsp;with three points from his 1879 sermon titled “How to Read the Bible.”</p>

<p>First seek to understand what is written:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>His first point was that to read the Bible properly, the reader must <em>understand</em> what is written. “Understanding the meaning is the essence of true reading.”&nbsp;From the start Spurgeon is clear that in seeking to be experiential, he will not allow the sort of mysticism that bypasses the intellect. It is “<em>the light of the knowledge</em> of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 4:6) that transforms us “into the same image from one degree of glory to another”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 3:18). “There must be knowledge of God before there can be love to God: there must be a knowledge of divine things, as they are revealed, before there can be an enjoyment of them.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seek spiritual instruction and transformation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Spurgeon’s second main point was that in reading we should seek out Scripture’s <em>meaning</em> and <em>intent</em>. Beyond simple understanding, this involves finding spiritual <em>instruction</em>. Reading a historical passage, for example about Moses’s bronze snake (Numbers 21), we learn <em>more</em> than history: we learn about the nature of living faith. Reading a passage from the Law, for example about the tabernacle (Exodus 25–31), we learn about the nature of God’s holiness and atonement. Reading a passage filled with explicit doctrine, we seek not simply to comprehend it but to be affected and altered by it. More than understanding, such reading involves transformation....</p>

<p>At its root, the transformation Spurgeon desired for readers of the Bible was a turning away from the sin that deadens and to the Christ who makes alive.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s worth all the investment of your time and energy:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>His third and last point was really a simple encouragement: Scripture reading is <em>profitable</em>. It is worth all the investment of time and of mental and emotional energy. That is because it is the Spirit’s means of imparting new life. “We are begotten by the word of God: it is the instrumental means of regeneration. Therefore love your Bibles. Keep close to your Bibles.”&nbsp;We are initially regenerated and we are continually vitalized by the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ held out to us in Scripture. So, “cling you to Scripture. Scripture is not Christ, but it is the silken clue which will lead you to him.”</p>

<p>“It will lead you to him.”&nbsp;That was the point of the Bible, as Spurgeon saw it. Indeed, it was the point of all his theology.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s that last point that I want to emphasize. If I could only convey in words just how profitable Scripture reading is! But the reason <em>why</em> it’s so profitable is especially worth noting: “It will lead you to Him,”&nbsp;and this is <a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">the very center of Christianity</a>, as Reeves explains in a later chapter:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our problem as humans is that, having been made to find happiness in God, we instinctively (and vainly) look for it elsewhere. “Since man fell in the garden, he has too often sought for his enjoyments where the serpent finds his.”&nbsp;Yet the richest gladness is found only in communion with the happy God....</p>

<p>By rejoicing in the Lord, we “commence our heaven here below.”&nbsp;Christians rejoice in the Lord always. We rejoice in the privileges and blessings of the gospel, and will know a special joy when we walk in holiness and close communion with Christ. Above all, though—above all the blessings of salvation and adoption—it is God in himself who is the great object of our joy.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When you read your Bible, you gain knowledge of, are transformed by, and come into the very presence of our triune God. Are you motivated yet? See “<a href="/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible">A Long-Term Plan to Know Your Bible</a>”&nbsp;for ideas on how to get started.</p>
</div>

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


title: Tactics for Atheists
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/tactics-for-atheists
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Consider this scenario. An atheist engages two Christians on a sidewalk and begins to gently and genially engage them about their beliefs. Their initial, breezy assurance begins to fade, however, as they falter in the face of carefully-worded questions about the things they think they know “by faith.”</p>

<p>The atheist gives no evidence <em>for</em> atheism. He gives no evidence <em>against</em> Christianity. Instead, he only does one thing. He asks questions about “faith”&nbsp;as a way of knowing. He remains calm and friendly as the discussion closes, but by that time one of the Christians is visibly uncomfortable.</p>

<p>This scenario is not a piece of fiction, though. I watched the actual conversation’s sad saga unfold on YouTube.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> The companion follow-up video documented the devastating consequences of the atheist’s approach. One of the Christians, now an atheist, thanks his challenger for helping him see the irrational errors of his religious ways.</p>

<p>Conversations like this are not isolated events. More and more atheists are taking tactical cues from atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian, who has written a book titled <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em>. It is, essentially, a tactics book for atheists, and the purpose of the book is to help other atheists make an atheist out of you.</p>

<p>Boghossian calls his approach “Street Epistemology.”&nbsp;His strategy is absolutely unique, though, since he has no interest in making the case in favor of atheism or against any particular religious claim. It’s not necessary. The Achilles’&nbsp;heel of all religion, according to him, is “faith,”&nbsp;and that is his singular target. Christians have a “faith virus,”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> and his goal is to kill it.</p>

<h2>Mangling “Faith”</h2>

<p>I keep putting scare quotes around the word “faith”&nbsp;for a reason. Quotes are often used by writers to signal to the reader that a word is being used in an odd, specialized, or unconventional way. That is what Boghossian has done with the word “faith.”</p>

<p>It’s a common rhetorical ruse to redefine words vital to a debate in a way that favors one’s own position. Mangling the definition of faith is a trick used almost universally by atheists recently to illicitly gain advantage in their assault against Christianity. This atheist, though, builds an entire attack plan around this ploy.</p>

<p>Here is Boghossian’s definition. A Christian’s faith is nothing more than “belief without evidence,”&nbsp;a habit of “pretending to know things you don’t know.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> After all, Boghossian asserts, “if one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith. ’Faith’&nbsp;is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Of course, the second element of Boghossian’s definition (pretending to know things you don’t know) would be an uncontroversial consequence of the first element (belief without evidence) if the first were sound. But it is not. That definition may do for Mormonism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, but it will not do for biblical Christianity. The reason is simple: That is not the biblical view of faith.</p>

<p>I am painfully aware that the number of Christians who “just believe”&nbsp;is legion. For them, faith is indeed a leap, a “belief without evidence,”&nbsp;a kind of “pretending”&nbsp;at knowledge, as Boghossian puts it. What <em>Christians do</em>, though, and what <em>Christianity teaches</em> are often two different things. Sadly, many Christian people do not understand Christian teaching and fall prey to atheists like Boghossian looking for a quick kill with this maneuver.</p>

<p>If one wants to find fault with the Christian version of faith, he must go to the Christian source: the Bible. There we find an entirely different characterization of faith. In the biblical understanding, faith is not a leap without reason but <em>a step of trust based on evidence</em>. Here is a small sampling of what it says:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Jesus the Nazarene, a man <em>attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs</em> which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know...”&nbsp;(Acts 2:22)</li>
	<li>To these [apostles] He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, <em>by many convincing proofs</em>, appearing to them over a period of forty days. (Acts 1:3)</li>
	<li>“Though you do not believe Me, <em>believe the works</em> [i.e., miracles], so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me.”&nbsp;(Jn. 10:38)</li>
	<li>Therefore <em>many other signs</em> Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; <em>but these have been written</em> so <em>that you may believe</em> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (Jn. 20:30-31)</li>
	<li>And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths <em>reasoned with them</em> from the Scriptures, <em>explaining and giving evidence</em> that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. (Acts 17:2­-3)</li>
</ul>

<p>And this is just the tip of the iceberg from the record. Anyone is free, of course, to fault the evidence as unconvincing, but evidence and arguments are offered in abundance, nonetheless. The Bible knows nothing of blind-faith appeals.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Boghossian’s entire tactical project trades on a straw man—a misrepresentation of our view that, like a lifeless scarecrow, is easily beaten. He and his disciples are tilting at windmills.</p>

<p>Boghossian has anticipated this objection, of course. “When pressed,”&nbsp;he writes, “the faithful will offer vague definitions that are merely transparent attempts to evade criticism, or simplistic definitions that intentionally muddy the meaning of ’faith.’”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>We are doing nothing of the sort, of course. This is Boghossian’s project—not the Christian’s—and he knows it, candidly admitting he is “<em>redefining faith</em> as ’pretending,’”&nbsp;(emphasis mine).<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Curiously, he writes, “Words...can help us see clearly, or they can confuse, cloud, or obscure issues.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> I agree. And that is precisely what he has done—confuse, cloud, and obscure—with his definition of “faith.”</p>

<p>This will not do. As I have pointed out elsewhere:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you want to critique a view, you must critique the view itself and not your own private version of it. Anyone is free, of course, to define faith according to his own fancy, but he is not free to import his fanciful definition into another’s use of the word. If he does, he will be jousting with shadows and not the real thing.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mangling “faith”&nbsp;is foundational to Boghossian’s approach, a crafty wordplay that’s critical to his method. But it’s not the only thing he distorts in his system.</p>

<h2>Mangling Epistemology</h2>

<p>Boghossian has made another mistake you need to be alerted to. It’s a second bit of sleight of hand that serves his purposes. “Faith,”&nbsp;Boghossian claims, “is an epistemology.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>This fancy philosophical word has a simple meaning. Epistemology is the discipline that describes how we know what we know. There are a variety of ways of knowing, of course. Empiricism is one epistemology we are all familiar with. We use our five senses to discover true things about the world. Reason is also a way of knowing. We use it to assess evidence and ideas in order to determine what is true and what is false. Both are examples of genuine epistemologies.</p>

<p>Boghossian claims that faith is in the same category. Faith is <em>a way of knowing</em>. This assumption was clear in the YouTube conversation and is central to the tactical approach outlined in Boghossian’s <em>Manual</em>. It’s a false move, though—and a surprising tack for a philosopher to take, since a person of such letters should know better.</p>

<p>Boghossian attempts to undermine a Christian’s confidence by showing that the epistemology a believer uses—“faith”—is an unreliable source of knowledge. But this gambit is just another effort to “confuse, cloud, and obscure.”&nbsp;<em>Of course</em> faith is not a reliable source of knowledge, for a good reason: <em>Faith is not an epistemology to begin with.</em></p>

<p>Christians do not use faith <em>in order to</em> discover knowledge. Rather, faith is their <em>response</em> to knowledge they’ve already obtained by some other means. Christian faith is a way of <em>acting</em> (the act of trust) based on what a person knows <em>for other reasons</em> (his epistemology).</p>

<p>Look carefully at the statement I cited earlier at the end of John’s Gospel, and you will see this point precisely.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but <em>these have been written so that you may believe</em> that Jesus is the Christ.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice, John does not enjoin us to believe <em>so that</em> we will know (faith as epistemology). That would be silly. Quite the opposite. He enjoins us to believe <em>because he’s given us good reasons</em>—miracles, in this case—to know that Jesus’&nbsp;claims are true (empirical evidence as epistemology).</p>

<p>Even when a Christian has no evidence at all that he can offer a critic to justify his faith, he still is not using his faith as an epistemology. For example, when he puts his faith in what Scripture says, he is using <em>revelation</em> as an epistemology—as his way of knowing—and he’s putting his active trust (faith) in that. <sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>Whether or not the Christian is justified in doing so is another issue. My point here is that in Christianity (or anyplace else I’m aware of), <sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> faith is never considered an epistemology—a way of knowing—so the Street Epistemology strategy is based on a second straw man. Boghossian is leaning on yet another bent reed.</p>

<h2>Strategy on the Street</h2>

<p>Boghossian’s game plan has three elements. First, he instructs his disciples to avoid facts. “Do not bring particular pieces of evidence (facts, data points) into the discussion,”&nbsp;he counsels.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> It’s a distraction since persuasion is not the immediate objective.</p>

<p>Second, “Target faith, not God...Belief in God(s) is not the problem. Belief without evidence [Boghossian’s version of “faith”] is the problem.”<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>Third, create doubt. Doubting “faith”&nbsp;is the goal. “Focus on undermining one’s confidence in <em>how</em> one claims to know what one knows...as opposed to what one believes exists,”&nbsp;Boghossian instructs.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> In that way “you’ll sow seeds of doubt that will blossom into...moments of...openness.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>There are different kinds of doubt, of course. When a person faces formidable evidence against his view, he’ll naturally feel a dissonance—a conflict in his mind causing him to question his beliefs. This hesitation is called <em>rational</em> doubt. It’s a natural part of the process of amending our convictions when appropriate.</p>

<p>Boghossian is not interested in that kind of doubt, though. Remember, facts are not relevant to his strategy since facts cannot be counted on to change minds.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup> Rather, Boghossian wants to arouse a different kind of misgiving in a Christian—<em>psychological doubt</em>. He wants her to feel unnerved not as a result of facts, evidence, or reason, but because of carefully-crafted questions that catch her off guard, cause her to hesitate, and create uncertainty in her mind about her spiritual convictions.</p>

<p>Boghossian gives a personal example of how he did this in a conversation with a Mormon security guard<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup> who appealed to creation as evidence for God, making the argument that if the universe began to exist, then a creator God must exist:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>PB: Well, if the universe always existed then it wasn’t created. If it wasn’t caused what would that mean?</p>

<p>(Pause)</p>

<p>SG: That there’s no God?</p>

<p>PB: Yup. That’s what it would mean.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, it would mean nothing of the sort, and Boghossian knows it since he’s a philosopher. The technical error in his argument is called denying the antecedent in a conditional syllogism, but you can readily see for yourself that even if the universe always existed—which almost no one believes anymore because of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary—it <em>still</em> wouldn’t rule out God. The universe, being contingent and not self-existent, could still <em>depend</em> on a self-existent God for its eternal existence. <sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>

<p>Using a clever hypothetical linked to a question, the philosopher had duped the security guard who, Boghossian admitted, “looked horrified and scared.”&nbsp;The atheist was elated, though: “I tried to hide my joy, show my approval, and acknowledge our success.”</p>

<p>Boghossian had taken advantage of a Mormon’s philosophic and scientific naiveté by feeding him a fallacy. He then patted himself on the back since, even though his own reasoning was awful, he’d accomplished what he’d set out to do—ravage the Mormon’s confidence, regardless of the truth.</p>

<p>The questions Boghossian teaches atheists to ask are not meant to clarify. They are meant to stupefy. <sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup> They are often hypotheticals—“What if...?”&nbsp;kinds of questions—that unsuspecting Christians answer without reflection, not realizing they’re being ambushed.</p>

<h2>Street Smarts</h2>

<p>Boghossian’s Street Epistemologists are dangerous not because they’re right, but because they’re very clever and they’re very nice. They are friendly and non-combative, and they ask lots and lots of questions, especially about “faith”&nbsp;since they’re convinced your beliefs have no basis in fact. When someone begins to make frequent, friendly probes about “faith,”&nbsp;be on guard. Here’s what I suggest.</p>

<p>First, as a general rule, stop using the word “faith”&nbsp;to describe your personal investment in what you believe. I have been saying this for years because that word has been so abused—both by accident (by untutored Christians) and on purpose (by atheists like Boghossian)—it’s no longer useful.</p>

<p>I’ve heard the atheist’s canard “If you have evidence for your belief, then where is room for faith?”&nbsp;plenty of times from believers, too. When a Christian says this, he’s red meat for a Street Epistemologist.</p>

<p>Second, in conversation with an atheist, do not let him redefine faith for you. If he succeeds, you’re finished. You’ll be conceding that your convictions have no basis in fact. Ask, “When you use the word ’faith,’&nbsp;what exactly do you mean?”&nbsp;Refuse the “faith”&nbsp;redefinition, and you’ll dodge one of Boghossian’s most lethal bullets.</p>

<p>Use the word “trust”&nbsp;instead. That’s what the Greek word in the New Testament translated “faith”&nbsp;means. Though Boghossian warns his disciples to be alert to this move, it is completely legitimate for you to insist that the atheist use <em>your</em> definition of faith and not <em>his own</em> distortion.<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup></p>

<p>In fact, do not let him carry on about “faith”&nbsp;at all. If you do, you’ll be giving life to a straw man. Instead, shift the conversation to evidence and reasons. That’s what matters.</p>

<p>Third, if you��re not entirely sure where a question is leading, don’t answer it. Politely refuse to play the question game. The moment you feel like the questions might be designed to manipulate you, stop the conversation and ask for clarification before you go any further. Here’s how that might look, in brief, in Boghossian’s encounter with the Mormon (above):</p>

<p>PB: Well, if the universe always existed, then it wasn’t created. If it wasn’t caused, what would that mean?</p>

<p>SG: I’m not clear on what you’re getting at. What do you think it would mean?</p>

<p>PB: That there’s no God.</p>

<p>SG: Really? How does that follow?</p>

<p>Notice, your response here forces the <em>questioner</em> to make his point—and defend it—instead of him getting <em>you</em> to make his point for him.</p>

<p>Some of the basic questions you’ll encounter will not be difficult. If someone asks you what you believe, it’s okay to tell him. Keep it basic, though. If he asks, “What is your level of confidence in your belief?”&nbsp;feel free to tell him that, too—just avoid giving numbers (“I’m an 8 on a 10-point scale”). Instead, keep it general. Say your confidence is strong, but it’s open to revision. If he asks, “If you had good reasons to change your belief, would you?”&nbsp;answer, “Of course.”&nbsp;If he asks you, “Is faith a reliable way of knowing?”&nbsp;answer, “Of course not. Faith is trusting what I have reason to believe based on the evidence.”</p>

<p>Then ask him to explain where he’s going with his questions. Make him lay his project out precisely. This is something the Street Epistemologist does not want to do (“Oh, I’m just curious”), but don’t let him off easily. Have him come clean as a condition for further conversation.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, when an atheist presses you with questions you’re not sure how to answer, <em>always ask for clarification</em>. Here are some examples:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Help me out here. What, specifically, are you are getting at with your question?”</li>
	<li>“There are probably a number of ways to answer that, depending. What do you have in mind?”</li>
	<li>“Of course, any person can be mistaken about what he believes. So could I. I’d have to consider conflicting evidence, though. Where are you headed with these questions?”</li>
	<li>“Sure, I’d change my mind if I had no good reasons to believe what I do and good reasons to believe something else. What do you suggest?”</li>
	<li>“What evidence would cause me to change my mind? I’m not sure I can tell you in advance. I’d have to consider particular objections. What were you thinking?”</li>
	<li>“You asked how I would know if I were delusional. I have no reason to think I’m experiencing delusions. Why would you think I am? And why would you label an inaccurate belief a ’delusion’? You’ve had inaccurate beliefs, haven’t you? Does that make you delusional, too?”</li>
</ul>

<p>When the atheist offers a response, listen carefully, assess thoughtfully, and answer slowly, if at all. Don’t worry if you can’t answer all the questions he asks about your faith. As I said, Street Epistemologists are clever. They’re prepared with particular questions you may not be able to respond to in a clear way at the moment. No worries. Don’t be afraid to say, “I’ll have to give that some thought.”</p>

<p>Finally, Street Epistemologists prey upon the weak. If you don’t have any reasons for your convictions, you’re going to be vulnerable. Don’t be a spiritual weakling. Since all of Boghossian’s questions trade on his conviction that belief in Christianity lacks good reasons, your best defense is to have those reasons handy. They’re out there. You need to get them.<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup></p>

<p>When you learn how to think well and respond with care, you won’t be a sitting duck, easy prey to Boghossian’s disciples. Instead, you’ll be a strong, courageous, and confident disciple of Christ.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">You’ll find lots of examples on YouTube under “Street Epistemology.”&nbsp;This one is at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fe1vep7NDU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fe1vep7NDU</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Peter Boghossian, <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em> (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013), 68. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid., 23. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Find an extensive list of passages and citations from moderns to the ancients in Tom Gilson’s <em>Peter Boghossian: Atheist Tactician</em>, available at Amazon.com. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Boghossian, 21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ibid., 80. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 23. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 133-134. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Boghossian, 29. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Incidentally, I think conviction by the Holy Spirit is also a legitimate grounding for faith, even without other evidence, though your own conviction may not be persuasive to others. There’s a difference between <em>knowing</em> and <em>showing</em>, to use William Lane Craig’s terminology. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">From my own MA studies in philosophy, it appears that Boghossian’s claim that faith is an epistemology is philosophically novel. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Boghossian, 72. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Ibid., 76-77. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Ibid., 79. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid., 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Ibid., 72. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Just to be clear, Mormons are not Christians, though they are some of the nicest people you’ll ever meet. Theirs is a religion that is completely distinct from historic Christianity—same vocabulary, different definitions. These distinctions don’t matter to an atheist, but they should matter to you. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Boghossian, 126. STR’s Amy Hall alerted me to this passage and helped me develop some of these ideas. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">For more detail, see Gottfried Leibniz’s version of the cosmological argument. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Causing people to doubt, not clarifying ideas, is one of the biggest differences between Boghossian’s approach and my own teaching in <em>Tactics</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">The best single source I suggest for a short, concise tutorial on faith is chapter 21, “Trust,”&nbsp;in <em>The Story of Reality</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23">For more thorough critiques of Boghossian’s Street Epistemology, see Gilson’s <em>Peter Boghossian: Atheist Tactician</em> and Cameron Bertuzzi’s “How to Respond to Street Epistemology”&nbsp;at CapturingChristianity.com. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23">&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%2Ftactics-for-atheists" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftactics-for-atheists" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftactics-for-atheists" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Palestinian Culture Creates Unique Challenges
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/palestinian-culture-creates-unique-challenges
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians in the Middle East face challenges that are unique to their culture. I will often hear the <em>same</em> twenty questions asked on a given subject when speaking to <em>different audiences</em> in the United States but then get twenty <em>different</em> questions from a <em>single audience</em> in the Middle East. Different cultures create different challenges. That makes speaking internationally both challenging and interesting.</p>

<p>Last month, I was invited to teach in a Palestinian culture, in the West Bank of Israel. One of the topics I was asked to address was homosexuality. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of the audience consisted of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. The remainder were skeptics and atheists. Being Arabs in a Middle Eastern milieu, virtually all of them held the view that homosexual behavior was sin or - for the skeptics and atheists - forbidden. That’s not surprising given that both the Bible (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:10) and the Quran (Surah 7:80-84) prohibit homosexual sex.</p>

<p>During my interaction with the religious Palestinians, there was never a hint of compromise about what their respective religious texts taught. They were unwavering about God’s design for sex and marriage. I was free, then, to move past arguments responding to pro-gay theology. That was refreshing.</p>

<p>Palestinians err on the other side of the spectrum. They get the truth right. What they lack is compassion. There is a strong cultural tide against not only people who engage in homosexual sex but also those who experience same-sex attraction. These people are shunned and shamed. There’s very little opportunity for them to share what they’re experiencing and find a compassionate response.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that attitude has carried over into the church. Not only have Palestinian Christians adopted the culture’s mindset, but also their church leadership isn’t talking about homosexuality, training believers to understand it, or equipping them with practical principals to help those struggling with same-sex attraction. If a Palestinian Christian experiences homosexual desires but doesn’t want to satisfy those desires in thought or deed, there’s a dearth of options to find support. Though they may want to live obediently to the commands of Christ, it’s rare for them to find a Christian community that will walk with them through their struggle.</p>

<p>That’s why I considered it a privilege to speak to fellow believers about this topic. I began by painting a positive picture of what the Bible teaches about sex and marriage, followed by showing that Scripture is univocal in its teaching that homosexual fantasy and behavior is sin. Since that is not where these Palestinians struggled, I didn’t focus my attention there.</p>

<p>Instead, I wanted them to walk away with some practical principles that could help them navigate their relationships with friends and family who struggle with same-sex attraction but desire to live a godly life. In many cases, these believers know homosexual fantasy and behavior is sin but need help knowing how to proceed. Here are three principles (not exhaustive by any means) I shared with the group.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Make your relationship with them a high priority</strong>. In other words, don’t distance yourself from them; move towards them. Relationships are a bridge by which we can show compassion, tell people the truth, or share the gospel (Luke 19:1-10). Your ability to influence them will be a function of your relationship with them.</li>
	<li><strong>Don’t make homosexuality out to be the worst sin</strong>. For many reasons, some believers treat the sin of homosexuality as the most grievous, the supreme abomination against God. Although the Bible <em>does</em> place the sin of homosexuality in the group of sexual sins committed “against the body”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 6:18), it <em>doesn’t</em> elevate it above every other sin. Sometimes, even though we don’t say it’s the worst sin, we often communicate the same message by how we treat people who struggle with same-sex attraction.</li>
	<li><strong>Create a safe environment for faithful Christians who experience same-sex attraction and struggle with godly living</strong>. That <em>doesn’t</em> mean compromise biblical standards. It just means that a person who struggles with homosexual desires may, at times, succumb to that temptation in thought or deed. We can’t just blast them with a Bible verse and expect perfection. As long as they are repentant, they need our prayer, support, accountability, and love. That’s how we address any other believer who struggles with a different sin. If they are not repentant, however, then we should address them and their sin the way Jesus (Matt 18:15-17) and Paul did (1 Cor. 5:1-13).</li>
</ol>

<p>It was exciting to see the Palestinians eagerly receive this teaching. It’s also encouraging because they’ll turn around and influence their own culture with what they learned. I’m thankful I was able to play a small part in equipping these believers to be salt and light in their culture.</p>
</div>

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


title: Jesus’ “Hidden” Teaching on Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-hidden-teaching-on-homosexuality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want you to think, for a moment, about what we can learn from Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on homosexuality. Now, I know what you’re probably thinking. <em>What teaching? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality</em>. And in one sense you’d be right.</p>

<p>Lots of folk point this out, of course, and it’s clear what they’re getting at. If Jesus didn’t specifically condemn homosexuality - or same-sex marriage or transgenderism, etc. - then how can Christians condemn those same things?</p>

<p>So here’s my question in light of that challenge. What can we properly conclude from that fact that the record is silent about Jesus’&nbsp;view on homosexuality? The answer is simple. Nothing. Nothing at all.</p>

<p>There are actually two flaws in this approach. Here’s the first. There is a difference between the <em>record</em> being silent about Jesus’&nbsp;opinion on something and <em>Jesus</em> being silent about it. Remember, the vast majority of what Jesus said and did was left out of the Gospels. Not enough room, as John himself admits (Jn. 21:25).</p>

<p>Is the silence significant? Think about it. The record is also silent on Jesus’&nbsp;view of slavery, capital punishment, spousal abuse, sex trafficking, racism, child abuse, and gay bashing, to name a few. Do we infer from this “silence”&nbsp;that He approved of these things?</p>

<p>You see the problem. It’s difficult to conclude anything about what Jesus <em>did not</em> condemn based on a limited written record of what He <em>did</em> condemn.</p>

<p>Notice I said <em>difficult</em>, not <em>impossible</em>. Sometimes we can infer Jesus’&nbsp;view on something we have no record of by listening carefully to His view on a related thing He <em>did</em> weigh in on. That brings us to the second flaw of this approach.</p>

<p>It turns out that Jesus had strong convictions about subjects closely related to the so-called “pelvic”&nbsp;issues. Jesus condemned divorce, for example, and He did so for a very specific reason. Here’s what He said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? [Gen. 2:24] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Matt. 19:4-6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note three critical takeaways from Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on divorce.</p>

<p>First, Jesus affirmed the common-sense observation that human gender is binary. Human beings are either male or female. God designed them that way (Gen. 1:27). That’s how we reproduce (“Be fruitful and <em>multiply,”</em>&nbsp;Gen. 1:28). Some people are confused on that point nowadays, but Jesus was not confused.</p>

<p>Second, marriage is between a man and a woman, a male and a female. Period. Not between two males or two females (same-sex marriage) or an admixture of males and females (polygamy or polyamory). According to Jesus, it’s what God intended from the beginning, and He still intends it today. For Christ, any deviation distorts God’s purpose.</p>

<p>Third, the only kind of sexuality (“one flesh”) that is proper is sex between a man and a woman committed to each other for life in marriage. Conversely, all forms of sex expressly prohibited in the Bible - adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality - are each automatically disqualified by Jesus’&nbsp;reasoning. His one, simple principle rules them all out.</p>

<p>Here’s the best way I’ve found to sum up Jesus’&nbsp;view on marriage, sexuality, and gender: <em>One man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime.</em> Pretty straightforward. This one-sentence summary covers all the bases.</p>

<p>So it appears Jesus had a lot to say about the issue of homosexuality - and same-sex marriage, and gender dysphoria. If we really care what Jesus thinks, then His views should be our views, too. I wonder, by the way, if Jesus <em>had</em> condemned these things <em>explicitly</em>, would that change the critics’&nbsp;mind? I doubt it. If not, then why even raise the point in the first place?</p>

<p>Two lessons here. First, be careful when you argue from silence. There are hazards if you don’t do it carefully. Second, it’s clear that Jesus implicitly opposed homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism. Why? They violate the Father’s purpose established from the beginning. For the sake of discussion, Christians could be wrong on the homosexuality question, et al., but critics will get no comfort from Christ.</p>

<p>So here’s our lesson: Look closely at the <em>details</em> of God’s Word, think carefully about the <em>full</em> counsel of Scripture, then draw your conclusions. It’s the safest way to ensure your ideas match Jesus’&nbsp;ideas.</p>
</div>

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


title: Abortion Advocates Fail Biology
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I love science.</p>

<p>In fact, I’m a science teacher by training and have had the privilege of teaching science to hundreds of students.</p>

<p>One of the reasons I’m against abortion is <em>because of science</em>. Specifically, the science of embryology has firmly established that human life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, abortion—at any stage of development—kills a <em>human being</em>.</p>

<p>Anyone with a basic understanding of biology should know this. Unfortunately, there are many people today spouting anti-scientific misinformation to aid their agenda.</p>

<p>For example, CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently moderated a spirited conversation over so-called “heartbeat bills”&nbsp;- legislation that prohibits abortion once the fetal heartbeat can be detected—between Christine Quinn, a former Democratic politician, and Rick Santorum, a former Republican politician.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6AdWpYvj5Q">During the discussion</a>, Quinn confidently claimed something that left me stunned. In fact, what she stated was so utterly ridiculous that I thought I must have misheard her. But I hadn’t misheard her. She <em>really</em> said it. Not only that, it looked like she really believed what she said.</p>

<p>Here’s what she said: “When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.”</p>

<p>This statement would be laughable if the consequences of such a statement weren’t so lethal. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. And the false idea that pregnant women are not carrying distinct human beings inside them has helped justify the killing of approximately 3,000 human beings <em>a day</em> in the U.S.</p>

<p>Quinn is <em>not</em> an uneducated woman. She graduated from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. She also served as the speaker of the New York City Council. These are impressive <em>bona fides</em>. This leads me to believe she is either intentionally deceiving others, or she’s been deceived herself. Not wanting to attribute bad motives, I’ll assume it’s the latter.</p>

<p>It was also interesting that Cuomo didn’t jump in to correct Quinn. In fact, he seemed to double down on her statement in a <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/1125740694977548288">tweet</a> after the interview. Chris Cuomo tweeted, “[T]he pro-life position is more about faith and feeling than facts.”</p>

<p>Cuomo has it exactly backwards. It’s the pro-life argument that rests on facts, while it’s the abortion advocate who consistently ignores facts and appeals to feelings. Let me show you.</p>

<p>Is it a fact that what’s inside a pregnant woman is not a human being? Not according to the leading anatomists in the world.</p>

<p><em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a></em> is a human development textbook written for medical students. In the book, anatomists Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia state:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Human development begins at fertilization</em>, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell <em>marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual</em>.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Describing the history of genetics and human development, they also state, “It was soon realized that the zygote contains all the genetic information necessary for directing the development of <em>a new human being</em>.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>So, according to Quinn, “that is <em>not</em> a human being”&nbsp;inside a pregnant woman. Yet, according to three leading anatomists, human development begins at fertilization when a zygote is formed. This is the beginning of each new human being.</p>

<p>Of course, this isn’t the only embryology textbook to make this claim. The opening words of chapter two in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Langmans-Medical-Embryology-T-W-Sadler/dp/1496383907/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Langman%27s+Medical+Embryology&amp;qid=1557844071&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">Langman’s Medical Embryology</a></em> textbook state, “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>In the textbook titled <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being">Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects</a></em>, it says, “Embryology is concerned with the origin and development <em>of a human being</em> from zygote to birth.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Furthermore, in a section titled “Answers to Clinically Oriented Questions”&nbsp;near the end of the book, the authors state, “There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. <em>The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human.”</em><sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Many more science textbooks could easily be cited, but this is enough to show that the science supports the pro-life position: <em>A new human being begins at fertilization.</em></p>

<p>Even well known Princeton University bioethicist and abortion advocate Peter Singer agrees that abortion kills a human being. In his book <em>Practical Ethics</em>, he writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is possible to give ’human being’&nbsp;a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ’member of the species <em>Homo sapiens’</em>. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. <em>In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence, an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.</em><sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Science is clear. However, my worry is that many will watch this CNN segment and mistake Quinn’s sincerity for veracity, her boldness for truthfulness. Make no mistake, anyone who claims that the unborn is not a human being is terribly wrong.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a>, 10th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 11. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a>, 10th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">T.W. Sadler, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Langmans-Medical-Embryology-T-W-Sadler/dp/1496383907/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Langman%27s+Medical+Embryology&amp;qid=1557844071&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">Langman’s Medical Embryology</a>, 14th Edition, (Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, 2018), 14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being">Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology</a>, 9th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 1, 339. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being">Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology</a>, 9th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 339. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Peter Singer, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521433630">Practical Ethics</a>, 2nd Edition, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Cruel Logic of Naturalism’s “Morality”
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/03/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-cruel-logic-of-naturalism-s-morality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Greg often recommends <a href="/w/brian-godawa-god-against-the-gods-storytelling-imagination-and-apologetics-in-the-bible-may-11-2016-">Brian Godawa’s</a> short film <em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP4it-QLBE">Cruel Logic</a></em> when arguing for objective morality and naturalism’s inability to account for it, so I thought I’d post it here.</p>

<p>In the film, a professor finds himself facing someone who embodies the naturalistic ideas about morality he’s been promoting, and it doesn’t turn out well for him. “Ideas, you see, have consequences.”</p>

<p>(This is not for small children. There’s no gore, but it’s intense.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="noP4it-QLBE" 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/noP4it-QLBE?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-cruel-logic-of-naturalism-s-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%2Fthe-cruel-logic-of-naturalism-s-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%2Fthe-cruel-logic-of-naturalism-s-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: If Jesus Was Sinless, Why Did He Need to Be Baptized?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/16/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-jesus-was-sinless-why-did-he-need-to-be-baptized-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Have you ever wondered why Jesus had to undergo John the Baptist’s “baptism of repentance”&nbsp;if He was sinless? Jonathan Pennington responds to this question in “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-need-baptized/">Why Did Jesus Need to Be Baptized?</a>”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>John himself was hesitant to baptize Jesus. John, aware that Jesus wasn’t just another person coming to repent and confess his sins, protests: “I need to be baptized by you, but you are coming to me?”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.esv.org/Matt.%203%3A14/">Matt. 3:14</a>).</p>

<p>Jesus’s answer to John’s reluctance is instructive, both in answering our question and also in revealing an important aspect of Matthew’s theology. Jesus said, “Let it be so, for it is fitting in this way for us to fulfill all righteousness”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.esv.org/Matt.%203%3A15/">Matt. 3:15</a>)....</p>

<p>Jesus’s response to John remains a bit esoteric for most readers today. So allow me to offer the following paraphrase: Jesus is fulfilling his role as the obedient Son of God by practicing the required righteousness of submitting to God’s will to repent (i.e., to live in the world wholeheartedly devoted to God)....</p>

<p>The call to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.esv.org/Matt.%203%3A2%3B%204%3A17/">Matt. 3:2; 4:17</a>) is an urgent invitation to reorient our values, habits, loves, thinking, and behavior according to a different understanding, one rooted in the revelation of God’s nature and coming reign. In short, repentance means, “Become a disciple!”&nbsp;Jesus repents not in the sense of turning from sin (our repentance necessarily includes this where his does not), but in the sense of dedicating himself to follow God’s will fully on earth.</p>

<p>Thus, the qualms we (and John) may have about why Jesus would undergo John’s baptism dissipate. Even as a virgin-born, divine-incarnate, unique person in the world, the Son desires to be wholeheartedly obedient to the Father (i.e., righteous). Thus, he must submit to the God-ordained message of life-dedication preached by John.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-need-baptized/">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-jesus-was-sinless-why-did-he-need-to-be-baptized-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-jesus-was-sinless-why-did-he-need-to-be-baptized-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-jesus-was-sinless-why-did-he-need-to-be-baptized-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Realization That Christianity Is Really Real
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/18/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-realization-that-christianity-is-really-real
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Zmirak writes about his experience attending the Discovery Institute’s recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukaz2aULa0U&amp;list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3wfVsVizCzTu9k8zfNOT58">Science and Faith Conference</a> in this <a href="https://stream.org/what-a-friend-we-have-in-darwin/">article</a> on <em>The Stream</em>, and I loved his description of what happened when he heard Stephen Meyer speak on the topic of his upcoming <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">book</a>, <em>The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God.</em></p>

<p>I suspect that many apologists had a moment like this that started it all for them:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At some point during this talk, I felt a gear turn in my head. Then a shudder went through the whole Rube Goldberg, sending all the mismatched parts of my mind into frantic motion.</p>

<p><em>What if God is real?</em> Not real as in “something we hope for, and have decided to be confident about, thanks to Pascal's Bet.”&nbsp;Or as in “a friend whom we trust to go on being a friend.”&nbsp;Or “the best explanation for a series of mysteries, including certain apparent religious experiences.”&nbsp;Or even “an argument whose truth we feel certain of.”</p>

<p>No. Real as the light by which you’re reading this. As certain as the smash of a plate you drop on the floor. Reliable not as in “socialism reliably produces poverty and shortages”&nbsp;but as in “if you stick your hand in a fire, it will hurt.”&nbsp;Inexorable and majestic, impossible to escape. Not the wisp of hope you feel for a happy outcome when your airplane hits some turbulence, but the vertigo which you feel looking down on the Grand Canyon, which seems somehow to be sucking you in.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For me, this moment came when I first read <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1555547390&amp;sr=1-3">Mere Christianity</a>—</em>an incredible sense of surprise, awe, and curiosity as I first felt the weight of the idea that Christianity is really <em>real</em>. That started me down a path of asking questions, comparing, evaluating, and thinking, that eventually led to God completely reorienting my life around Himself. This is the joy of apologetics—it leads to Someone who is not only real but also worth knowing.</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-realization-that-christianity-is-really-real" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-realization-that-christianity-is-really-real" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-realization-that-christianity-is-really-real" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Did God Create People if He Knew So Many Would Go to Hell?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-did-god-create-people-if-he-knew-so-many-would-go-to-hell-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I received this question, and I suspect you may have also wondered about it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Imagine you are presented with two options: 1) You will have no children, or 2) You will have triplets, but you know for a fact that two of the three will grow up and want nothing to do with you as their father and will ultimately live miserable, depraved lives full of nothing but suffering.... The third triplet will love you as a father, live a wholesome, joyful life working alongside you every day, living next door, and will ultimately be blessed in every aspect of life.</p>

<p>Which do you choose? Is the third child that will be happy and love you worth seeing your other two children, whom you love unconditionally, live a miserable life? ...</p>

<p>If you did have the power change it, you of course would. You would make all three choose the happy path, or at least 2/3 if that was the best you could do. When God created us, He knew that a majority of people would end up in Hell. He had the power to change that, or at least could have made the decision not to create us at all, sparing the Hell-bound majority from what awaits them. Yet according to Christianity, He proceeded with creating the universe, even though most of mankind, all of which He supposedly loves, were destined for eternal damnation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There’s much more to this story than a “joyful life”&nbsp;vs. a “miserable life”&nbsp;for human beings. Since God is the center of all things, not us, we need to look a little more closely at <em>Him</em> in order to answer this question.</p>

<h2>God Is the Judge of the World</h2>

<p>The first thing to note is the difference between the Creator’s relationship with His creation and a human father’s relationship with his children. A human father is not the judge of the world. He does not uphold goodness and punish evil in the world. A human father is a limited (and fallen) human being, so the comparison is not strictly accurate and can create some misunderstandings.</p>

<p>We begin life with God as our Creator and Judge. When we trust in Christ, <em>then</em> we are adopted as His children (Eph. 1:5–6&gt;). Despite the fact that every one of us deserved our Judge’s just punishment, He chose to pluck some of us out of that path, adopting us so that He could show us grace, “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus”&nbsp;(Eph 2:7). But He didn’t do this for everyone, nor must He. Justice requires only judgment, not grace.</p>

<h2>God’s Judgment Is Good</h2>

<p>Second, the fact that God <em>is</em> love means that He hates evil. It means that He can’t sweep anything under the rug. When anyone causes harm to another in this world, God’s perfect love and justice demand punishment. This is good and right. It is not a bad thing for people to be punished for their moral crimes. In fact, upholding goodness and love by punishing moral crimes is <em>a very good thing</em>. We would want any Judge of the universe to be perfectly just.</p>

<p>For this reason, Hell is not a bad thing, just as justice is not a bad thing but an extremely good thing. (The question of whether or not the punishment in Hell is just is another question entirely that we should leave aside for the moment. Just keep in mind that we, as human beings, are very bad at being able to recognize the punishment we deserve—see “<a href="/w/why-you-shouldn-t-trust-the-feeling-that-you-don-t-deserve-hell">Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Feeling That You Don’t Deserve Hell</a>”&nbsp;for more on that.) Think of the Nazis who were tried and convicted after World War II. Was it not a laudable thing that they were convicted and punished? Did that not vindicate love and goodness? Judgment is not a bad thing; it upholds all that is good, true, and beautiful. (See “<a href="/w/how-can-god-forgive-me-">How Can God Forgive Me</a>”&nbsp;for an explanation of how God can show us grace and still maintain perfect justice.)</p>

<h2>God’s Highest Goal in Creating Human Beings</h2>

<p>Next, God is not dependent on us to be happy and fulfilled. He does not need us to love Him, and He didn’t create us in order to have someone to love. God is fully satisfied in the love He has shared with the Son and Spirit for all eternity. He created us not out of need but out of the overflow of love and creativity among the persons of the Trinity and out of a desire to reveal Himself to us so that we could also enjoy Him.</p>

<p>So why create people at all, knowing that many will be punished for their sin? Here are two verses that talk about God’s end goal:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, <strong>to the praise of the glory of His grace</strong>, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph. 1:5–6).</p>

<p>But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, <strong>so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus</strong>. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:4–9)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The crowning glory of God was revealed fully at the cross: His grace. For eternity, we will enjoy the “surpassing riches of His grace.”&nbsp;But if there had been no Fall, we would never have seen God’s grace at all because there would have been no moral crimes and no deserved punishment. God reveals His righteousness in judgment, and He reveals His grace in His freely-given, undeserved salvation. God’s goal is to have people who will enjoy Him forever, and that requires knowing Him fully, and <em>that</em> requires a fallen world where His justice and grace could be revealed.</p>

<p>Even the existence of those who reject God will glorify God in the end by revealing His righteousness through His perfect justice, so <em>their existence also has a good purpose</em>. Romans 9:22–23 says God “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction...and He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”</p>

<p>In other words, God’s highest goal in creating human beings—knowing that many would face His judgment—was to reveal His glory to us through His judgment of moral evil and, even more so, through Jesus’&nbsp;work of undeserved grace on the cross. <em>Every human being</em> will play a role in this end goal of bringing glory to God and increasing the undeserved joy of those who will be saved by God’s grace—either by experiencing His grace themselves or by revealing the depth of that grace by demonstrating the judgment from which we were saved. Seeing God’s judgment will reveal to us what we truly deserved, and in that way, we will see God’s grace as it truly is.</p>

<h2>How We Know God Loves and Is Good</h2>

<p>And how do we know God loves and is good? First of all, because it wouldn’t make sense to say there’s something in this universe that’s <em>better</em> than the foundation of the universe. In other words, if there is a Creator, then where did the standard of “good”&nbsp;and “love”&nbsp;come from if not from that Creator? Is it possible for a created universe to somehow have within it a standard that’s <em>better</em> than the One who fashioned that universe? Where would such a thing come from? No, if we love and can see the goodness of love, it’s because we were created to love. Loving is part of being whole, part of living the way we were designed to live. It’s the way things are supposed to be; therefore, it comes from the Designer and Creator.</p>

<p>But we can also know God is good by looking at Jesus and, particularly, at the cross. Jesus is “the radiance of [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+1%3A3&amp;version=NASB">Heb 1:3</a>). God would have been perfectly just if He had saved <em>no one</em>. But Jesus—the second person of the Trinity—suffered and died <em>out of love</em> to give us something beyond imagining that we didn’t deserve.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+5%3A7-8&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 5:7–8</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I recommend the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+holiness+of+god&amp;qid=1552689751&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1"><em>The Holiness of God</em></a> by R.C. Sproul for more on the topic of God’s holiness, our sinfulness, what we deserve, and the depth of God’s grace and love.</p>
</div>

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


title: Critical Theory vs. Christianity
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/23/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/critical-theory-vs-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You may not have heard the term “critical theory”&nbsp;before, but you’ve seen its ideas playing out in our culture. Neil Shenvi has been doing great work writing and speaking on this topic, helping Christians understand the ideas of critical theory and how they conflict with Christianity (see below for an excellent video). Here’s how he defines the central idea of critical theory in an <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/">article</a> he wrote with Pat Sawyer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Modern critical theory views reality through the lens of power. Each individual is seen either as oppressed or as an oppressor, depending on their race, class, gender, sexuality, and a number of other categories. Oppressed groups are subjugated not by physical force or even overt discrimination, but through the exercise of hegemonic power—the ability of dominant groups to impose their norms, values, and expectations on society as a whole, relegating other groups to subordinate positions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because critical theory is driving much of our current cultural conversation, it’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with its concepts. The article linked above is a good introduction, but I highly recommend taking the time to watch Shenvi’s video below, where he gives an in-depth, fair, non-sensationalistic explanation of why critical theory and Christianity are incompatible. (If you prefer a written version of his presentation, you can find that <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Here’s an excerpt from the <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/">transcript</a> of his presentation contrasting the Christian worldview with the worldview of critical theory:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christianity tells one comprehensive, overarching narrative about reality in four basic acts: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.</strong> Who are we? We are the creatures of a holy, good, and loving Creator God. What is our fundamental problem as human beings? We have rebelled against God. What is the solution to our problem? God sent Jesus to bear the penalty of our rebellion and rescue us. What is our primary moral duty? To love God. What is our purpose in life? To glorify God. This is the basic story that Christianity tells us and is the grid through which we ought to interpret everything else.</p>

<p><strong>Critical theory also functions as a worldview, but it tells [an] alternate comprehensive, overarching story about reality.</strong> The story of critical theory begins not with creation, but with oppression. The omission of a creation element is very important because it changes our answer to the question: “who are we?”&nbsp;There is no transcendent Creator who has a purpose and a design for our lives and our identities. We don’t primarily exist in relation to God, but in relation to other people and to other groups. Our identity is not defined primarily in terms of who we are as God’s creatures. Instead, we define ourselves in terms of race, class, sexuality, and gender identity. Oppression, not sin, is our fundamental problem. What is the solution? Activism. Changing structures. Raising awareness. We work to overthrow and dismantle hegemonic power. That is our primary moral duty. What is our purpose in life? To work for the liberation of all oppressed groups so that we can achieve a state of equality.</p>

<p>As you can see, Christianity and critical theory answer our most fundamental questions about reality in very different ways. I worry that too many people are trying to hold on to both Christianity and critical theory. That’s not going to work in the long run. We’ll constantly be forced to choose between them in terms of values, priorities, and ethics. <strong>As we absorb the assumptions of critical theory, we will find that they inevitably erode core biblical truths.</strong> [Emphases in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="qnmJX5hEenY" 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/qnmJX5hEenY?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%2Fcritical-theory-vs-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcritical-theory-vs-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcritical-theory-vs-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Justification Looks Like
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-justification-looks-like
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an episode of The White Horse Inn titled “<a href="https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/did-jesus-teach-justification-by-faith-alone/">Did Jesus Teach Justification by Faith Alone?</a>”&nbsp;the discussion turned towards ways Jesus’&nbsp;life illustrated justification, and this memorable image caught my attention:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In His ministry, there were certain times that Jesus did things that <em>looked</em> like justification—or, at least, the logic. For example, eating with sinners. If you have an understanding of how significant it is to actually eat with someone else in a Mediterranean, ancient Near Eastern type of setting, to eat with someone is to actually treat them as if they are a peer or an equal. So for Jesus to eat with sinners, you actually have a picture of double imputation, where you actually have Jesus, because He ate with sinners, people thought <em>He</em> was a drunkard and a glutton, and He was treated <em>as if</em> He was a sinner. But because He also, as a rabbi, ate with sinners, He was treating <em>them</em> like they actually belonged there. So you actually have, in that picture of the significance of eating with sinners, an illustration of what justification actually looks like—the treating <em>as if</em> they are righteous, and Him being treated <em>as if</em> He was a sinner.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I am continually amazed by the artistry God used to reveal Himself. He didn’t just give us a list of propositions about theology; He painted pictures for us all throughout history so that we could better see the depth of His beauty (see my posts “<a href="/w/god-is-an-artist-or-why-god-didn-t-just-download-information-into-our-minds-">God Is an Artist</a>”&nbsp;and “<a href="/w/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-command-against-mixed-threads-">What Was the Purpose of the Command against Mixed Threads?</a>”&nbsp;for more on this). And Jesus, of course, is the ultimate revelation of God, “the radiance of His glory and the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+1%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">exact representation</a> of His nature.”</p>

<p>You can listen to the White Horse Inn’s entire four-part series on justification <a href="https://www.whitehorseinn.org/series/justification/">here</a>. (Listening to older episodes, such as those four, requires a membership, but you can listen to the <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/white-horse-inn/id356920632?mt=2">last three months</a> of episodes for free on any podcast app, including two classic episodes featuring Greg Koukl that posted on February 20 and 27.)</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-justification-looks-like" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-justification-looks-like" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-justification-looks-like" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: “Possible” Is Not the Same as “Reasonable”
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/-possible-is-not-the-same-as-reasonable-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Bart Ehrman is a well-known skeptic of Christianity, but even he <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bart+ehrman+jesus&amp;qid=1551290271&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1">defends</a> the idea that Jesus existed. As he’s said <a href="/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus">in the past</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the interview clip below, atheist Reginald Finley (“The Infidel Guy”) asks Ehrman about various skeptical theories against the idea that Jesus existed (“Jesus”&nbsp;was a composite of many people, maybe Paul didn’t write Galatians, etc.), and Ehrman responds with historical arguments.</p>

<p>Sometimes, similar to this interview, people will pepper you with contrary theories as a way of countering your arguments. Don’t let theories overwhelm you. Theories aren’t evidence. They’re either attempts to <em>explain</em> evidence, or they’re merely attempts to create doubt <em>without</em> any evidence. If a particular theory falls into the first category, then evaluate the explanatory power of the two competing theories in light of the evidence.</p>

<p>But if a theory falls into the second category (i.e., “But what if...? But what if...?”), don’t let that rattle you. Point out there’s a difference between what’s possible and what’s reasonable, given the evidence at hand, and don’t let the <em>possible</em> overwhelm the strength of the <em>reasonable</em>.</p>

<p>Of course, at some point, when supernatural events are in play, people will disagree on what’s reasonable. If one rejects the possibility of supernatural events <em>before</em> any evidence is even considered, then of course any explanation that involves the supernatural will be dismissed as unreasonable, regardless of the evidence. But is that reasonable?</p>

<p>(We have <a href="/search?q=Bart+Ehrman">many posts and podcasts</a> on our site responding to Bart Ehrman’s arguments against the trustworthiness of the biblical text. <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman">Here’s one by Greg</a>.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="9qZfXVntEl4" 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/9qZfXVntEl4?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%2F-possible-is-not-the-same-as-reasonable-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-possible-is-not-the-same-as-reasonable-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-possible-is-not-the-same-as-reasonable-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why You Can Be Confident We Have the Original New Testament Text
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/28/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-can-be-confident-we-have-the-original-new-testament-text
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The new video below from <a href="https://www.impact360institute.org/">Impact 360</a> explains why you can be confident that “the books of the New Testament you read today are the same as the original writings penned nearly 2,000 years ago.”&nbsp;Enjoy!</p>

<p>(For more on this, see “<a href="/w/the-original-text-is-not-a-physical-object">The Original Text Is Not a Physical Object</a>.”)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="lCeOjLQ61vo" 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/lCeOjLQ61vo?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/07/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What is abortion? It’s more than a medical procedure, though mere medical <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/17/abortion-methods-the-gruesome-reality-of-how-babies-are-killed-in-abortion/">descriptions</a> of it are horrifying in themselves. It’s the destruction of human beings—their brutal and abrupt loss of every good, beautiful, and true thing that awaited them in life—perpetrated by the very ones who should have been their most valiant protectors.</p>

<p>Perhaps only a poet could capture the true horror of this. Poet Roderick Falconer recites his attempt in the video below. I warn you, it’s tough to listen to. But it’s a powerful unmasking of what lies behind the word “abortion.”</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0RsH0rQzsyA" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

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


title: Christians Don’t View Jesus as a Means to an End
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/14/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An atheist who <a href="/w/when-christian-schools-try-to-please-the-crowd">called the podcast</a> a few weeks ago wanted to reduce Christianity to the avoidance of Hell, saying it’s merely a “<a href="/w/is-christianity-a-religion-of-carrots-and-sticks-">carrots and sticks</a>”&nbsp;religion. There may be people out there who view their Christianity that way, but if there are, they’ve missed the point of Christianity.</p>

<p>Christians don’t view Jesus as a <em>means</em> to some other end—not as a way to escape Hell, or to have meaning in our lives, or to make us good people, or to reunite us with loved ones in Heaven, or to give us any other benefit. No, Jesus <em>is</em> the end we’re after. We love Him for Himself. We read the Bible <em>to see Him</em>, not to avoid Hell. We sing His praises <em>to honor Him</em>, not to find meaning in our lives. We learn about Him <em>to know Him</em>, not as a self-improvement exercise. Yes, by being Christians, we avoid Hell; yes, we find meaning and fulfillment; and yes, we do <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8%3A29&amp;version=NASB">improve as people</a>. But again, those aren’t the ends we’re ultimately after. Rather, we want to avoid Hell <em>so that we can be with Him</em>, we want to improve morally <em>so that our behavior glorifies Him and reveals Him to others</em>, and our desire for meaning is merely a desire <em>to know and follow Him</em>, the purpose for which we were created.</p>

<p>This is not to say we’re not grateful for what Jesus did on the cross to save us from Hell—His actions reveal who He is and make our relationship with Him possible, and reflecting on those things increases our love for Him. But <em>He</em> is the one who is ultimately in view. He’s not a tool we use to achieve something else. Even if there were no Hell, even if <em>no</em> other benefit resulted from being with Him, we would still want to be with Him. The greatest commandment is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”&nbsp;We’re to love Him for Himself, not as a means to an end.</p>

<p>Nowhere do we see this more powerfully than in the book of Job. Here’s what Eric Ortlund says in his essay “<a href="http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/five-truths-for-sufferers-from-the-book-of-job">Five Truths for Sufferers from the Book of Job</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This is the issue at stake in the book of Job: will human beings continue in a relationship with God in which all they gain from the relationship is God? Or are we just too selfish? Is our piety just for show? Will we ever treat God as anything more than a business partner or a means to an end? The opening chapters of Job show God putting his beloved servant in a position in which he loses every other reason to stay in a relationship with God except God himself. It starts to cost Job dearly to hold on to his relationship with God. As Thomas Merton writes, “if we love God for something less than himself, we cherish a desire that can fail us. We run the risk of hating Him if we do not get what we hope for.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A time of great loss will reveal whether we’re placing our value in God or His gifts. I say with much grief that I’ve watched a few friends walk away from Him after a tragedy. But if we are valuing God Himself above all else, suffering won’t succeed in driving us away. Rather, Ortlund says, God will use it as a means of revealing Himself more fully to us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Sometimes God allows pain and loss that have nothing to do with sin in our lives and are not meant to teach us anything. Rather, our loss and bewilderment become an avenue by which God gives himself to us more than he ever could have before, when we were at ease (29:6). When God puts us into a position where we must hold onto our relationship with God for God’s sake only—in which we stand to gain nothing but God—we start to receive him more fully than we ever had before. Job’s amazed cry, “Now my eyes see you,”&nbsp;becomes our own.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I love Ortlund’s essay—I’ve read it more than once since it was published a few years ago. I encourage you to read the rest <a href="http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/five-truths-for-sufferers-from-the-book-of-job">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%2Fchristians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Some Atheists Seek to Create Doubt, Not Reveal Truth
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/some-atheists-seek-to-create-doubt-not-reveal-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Philosopher Peter Boghossian has developed a version of <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316">Tactics</a> for atheists in his popular <a href="/w/a-manual-for-creating-atheists-who-create-straw-men"><em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em></a>. But unlike Stand to Reason’s tactics (see <a href="/w/responding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics-">here</a> for some of my thoughts on their purpose), it seems his approach is more concerned with using possible counterexamples to create doubt than it is with clarifying thinking to reveal truth. For example, he says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Showing someone doesn’t have the necessary justification to warrant belief in a claim in which they’re certain is fairly easy…. [A]ll one has to do is find some condition <em>that could possibly hold</em> that undermines the truth potential for the belief in question. [Emphasis mine. See <a href="/w/-possible-is-not-the-same-as-reasonable-">my post</a> on “possible” vs. “reasonable” regarding this tactic.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The goal of Boghossian’s “treatments” is to create psychological doubt in his “subjects.” (Though, as he says, “Sometimes, even after years of treatment, the faith virus is not separated from its host.”)</p>

<p>The following “intervention” from his book (minus the parts of his commentary that aren’t relevant to this post) illustrates the problem with this approach:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>[Peter Boghossian]</em>: So what’s your best line? I mean, what’s the line you’re gonna use that will convince them [God exists]? You can try it on me if you want. Maybe you’ll convince me. (Self-conscious laughter)</p>

<p><em>[Security Guard]</em>: Okay. So look around you. How did this get here? This had to have a cause, right? All of this.</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Well, what if it was always here?</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: What do you mean?</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Well, you assume that nothing is the default. What if the default was something. In other words, what if there was always something stretching back into infinity.</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: What do you mean?</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: What do you mean what do I mean? You assume the universe had to have a beginning. What if there was no beginning?</p>

<p>(Pause)</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: I never thought of that.</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Well, I think about this stuff a lot, so don’t feel bad. Plus this is what I do for a living. So if it’s possible that the universe always existed, what would that mean to you?</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">The obvious conclusion was that if the universe always existed then God didn’t create it. It’s a short intellectual step from God not creating the universe to God not existing—but SG didn’t see that yet. I continued.</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: I’m not sure.</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Well, let’s think through it together.</p>

<p>(Pause)</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: So the main argument for God was, “Look around you. How did this get here?” But we know there’s another possible explanation for what there is. So if the universe always existed, what would that mean?</p>

<p>(Pause)</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: I’m not sure.</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Well, if the universe always existed then it wasn’t created. If it wasn’t caused what would that mean?</p>

<p>(Pause)</p>

<p><em>SG</em>: That there’s no God?</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">I tried to hide my joy, show my approval, and acknowledge our success.</p>

<p><em>PB</em>: Yup. That’s what it would mean.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hopefully, you can see the problem even if you can’t put an official name to it: The argument that brought Boghossian joy and elicited his approval contains a formal logical fallacy. It’s called “denying the antecedent,” and it goes like this:</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">If A, then B.<br>
Not A.<br>
Therefore, not B.</p>

<p>Here’s how his argument falls into this form:</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">If the universe had a beginning, then God exists.<br>
The universe did not have a beginning.<br>
Therefore, God does not exist.</p>

<p>At this point, the reason why this form of argument is invalid should be clear: Does God’s existence <em>depend</em> on the universe having a beginning? And could there not be other reasons supporting belief in the existence of God that don’t depend on the universe having a beginning (as, indeed, <a href="/w/the-contingency-argument">there are</a>)? But the problems with Boghossian’s argument don’t stop there. In addition to the formal fallacy, there is also very good <a href="/w/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument">evidence</a> the second premise (“the universe did not have a beginning”) is false. So in the end, his “what if” does nothing to refute the security guard’s belief in God.</p>

<p>Surely, as a philosopher, Boghossian knows this. So why does he consider this a “success”? Because his tactics aren’t about truth, they’re about doubt; and if doubt is the main goal of his “interventions,” then anything that moves his “subjects” towards doubt is a success. Even invalid arguments with false premises.</p>

<p>I agree with Boghossian that too many Christians out there don’t think logically about their faith. That’s what puts them in danger of being hoodwinked by fallacious reasoning like what you see above.</p>

<p>We have a lot of work to do.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-atheists-seek-to-create-doubt-not-reveal-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-atheists-seek-to-create-doubt-not-reveal-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-atheists-seek-to-create-doubt-not-reveal-truth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Single Biggest Threat to Faith: Apologetics?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/21/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-single-biggest-threat-to-faith-apologetics-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In his book <em>The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context</em>, Myron Bradley Penner says, “Apologetics itself might be the single biggest threat to genuine Christian faith that we face today.”&nbsp;According to Penner, apologetics - not the promulgation of pornography, not the rise of relativism, not the surge of secularism - is the biggest threat to faith in the twenty-first century.</p>

<p>But, is apologetics the single biggest threat to faith today?</p>

<p>For most churches in North America, apologetics is not a priority. This is because they view apologetics as either an extra or an error. If it’s an extra, it can be ignored. If it’s an error, it should be impugned. In either case, both are grounded in anti-intellectualism in the church. And it’s this anti-intellectualism - not apologetics - that is arguably the greatest threat to Christian faith today.</p>

<p>In his book <em>The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind</em>, Mark Noll writes, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”&nbsp;He’s right. Many Christians don’t think very deeply. In fact, some Christians have come to repudiate thoughtful Christianity.</p>

<p>Speaking about the problem of anti-intellectualism in the Church, philosopher William Lane Craig states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer Christian faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Writing in <em>Christianity Today</em> back in 1980, academic Charles Malik wrote, “I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough.”</p>

<p>Caring for the life of the mind is the job of apologetics. Unsurprisingly, it’s the uncared for Christian mind that leads to the undoing of Christian faith.</p>

<p>Summarizing the findings of a three-year longitudinal study launched by the Fuller Youth Institute, researchers Kara Powell and Steven Argue <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/february-web-only/doubt-parenting-biggest-hindrance-kids-faith-is-silence.html">state</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>According to our study, which looked at 500 youth group graduates, over 70 percent of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about faith. Sadly, less than half of those young people shared their doubts and struggles with an adult or friend. Yet these students’&nbsp;opportunities to express and explore their doubts were actually correlated with greater faith maturity. In other words, it’s not doubt that’s toxic to faith; it’s silence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do you see what this study is saying? Doubts are <em>not</em> the problem. In fact, doubts, when carefully explored, actually strengthen faith. It’s the <em>suppression</em> of doubts that’s the problem.</p>

<p>Anti-intellectualism can only respond to doubt with <em>silence</em> or <em>shame</em>. It can’t give real answers. It can’t provide a safe place for questions. Instead, anti-intellectualism would have us ignore our doubts and demand that we “just have more faith,”&nbsp;or it would shame us into thinking we are “bad Christians”&nbsp;for having doubts in the first place.</p>

<p>The majority of churchgoing high schoolers - over 70 percent - struggle with serious intellectual doubts. And anti-intellectualism only makes the problem worse because it gives the impression - through silence or shame - that these serious doubts don’t have solid answers.</p>

<p>The danger isn’t apologetics. It’s part of the solution. Apologetics is attempting to push back against the real threat: anti-intellectualism<em>.</em> Apologetics encourages students to raise their doubts and then search out answers.</p>

<p>If we want our students to know the mind of God, we need to train them to use their own minds. And when they do, they will be simultaneously combating one of the biggest threats to their faith.</p>

<p><em>Correction: This post originally identified the author of</em> The End of Apologetics <em>as Trinity Western professor Myron A. Penner. The author is actually <a href="http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/authors/myron-b-penner/564">Myron B. Penner</a>.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-single-biggest-threat-to-faith-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%2Fthe-single-biggest-threat-to-faith-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%2Fthe-single-biggest-threat-to-faith-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>
            
          


title: Take Heart, New Zealand, for He Has Overcome the World
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/take-heart-new-zealand-for-he-has-overcome-the-world
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I visited New Zealand, I found they didn’t just film a Hobbiton set there. The entire country and its people truly are the Shire. It’s enraging to think of evil trampling on that peaceful beauty in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-shooting.html">today’s attack</a>. Thank goodness we know that not only will there be <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/it%E2%80%99s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice#.XIxjOhNKijQ">justice</a>, but that evil is already defeated.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I wrote two short paragraphs that contain what I consider to be the most significant thing I’ve learned in the last ten years and probably the most important thing I’ve ever written. It’s a pretty simple idea, really. And I didn’t make it up. It’s something I finally came to understand after years of grappling with making sense of the destructive power of evil. The resolution of that struggle all came down to <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/what-easter-says-to-those-who-are-suffering#.XIxkbBNKijQ">this simple truth</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>With the cross and resurrection at its core, Christianity need never deny the reality of evil and suffering because Jesus has proven Himself to be greater than all of it. He didn’t just overcome it, He overcame <em>through</em> it. The cross was the very means by which He secured joy: “[F]or the joy set before Him [He] endured the cross, despising the shame”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+12%3A1-3&amp;version=NASB">Hebrews 12:2</a>). In this same way, all evil will be swallowed up. We will, in our resurrection, see that what we suffered was the means by which we gained joy, and the “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4%3A17-18&amp;version=NASB">eternal weight of glory</a>”&nbsp;produced by our affliction will turn the suffering we experienced into a drop of dye lost in an ocean.</p>

<p>Sometimes we’re tempted to think evil is stronger than God, but when we understand that every attempt evil makes to harm us is working <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8%3A28-29&amp;version=NASB">for our good</a>, we’ll see that all of evil’s weapons have been removed from it; there is nothing left it can use against us.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To all my friends in New Zealand at <a href="https://thinkingmatters.org.nz/">Thinking Matters</a> and elsewhere, take heart, for He has overcome 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%2Ftake-heart-new-zealand-for-he-has-overcome-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-heart-new-zealand-for-he-has-overcome-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-heart-new-zealand-for-he-has-overcome-the-world" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Engaging Australia’s Muslims
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/engaging-australia-s-muslims
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over a thousand Muslims were filing out the doors while a group of Australian believers and I waited patiently outside one of the largest mosques in Melbourne, Australia. Our arrangement with the imam was to attend their service and then dialogue with him about our respective religious convictions. After listening to the sermon and observing their Friday prayers, we sat down with the imam and a couple of other Muslim leaders for what turned out to be a spirited interfaith discussion.</p>

<p>Muslims don’t trust the Bible. Though they believe that the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel (a single document they believe once existed that was different from our four Gospels) are true revelations of Allah, they also believe the biblical books have been either intentionally or accidently corrupted. Not only is this one of the most common objections, but it’s also a serious one. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain the true identity of Christ, His life, and His message of reconciliation. Those books, though, are the very documents Muslims claim are corrupted. When you try to tell a Muslim about Jesus, they fire back with the charge of corruption. In fact, that’s what the imam quickly claimed during our interaction at the mosque.</p>

<p>Christians are often caught off guard by this response. There’s very little you can say about the claims of Christ without relying on the four Gospels. Fortunately, though, I’d spent a week teaching about Islam and training these Australian believers how to overcome this objection.</p>

<p>Although <em>Muslims claim</em> the Bible is corrupted, <em>Islamic authoritative sources teach</em> the opposite - that the Torah, Psalms, and four Gospels are the uncorrupted Word of God. The Quran teaches it, Mohammed said it, and Muslim scholars confirm it.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>The Quran teaches it</strong>: Muslims believe the Quran contains the literal words of God. That means they must accept everything it says. It turns out the Quran teaches two concepts. First, it teaches that no one can change the words of God (surah 6:115, 6:34, 10:64, etc.). Second, it teaches the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are the words of God (surah 2:136, 3:3, 29:46, etc.). Therefore, if no one can change the words of God, and the Gospel (which I’d argue is a reference to the four Gospels) is the Word of God, then it follows that the four Gospels are the unchanged Word of God. Muslims can’t claim they’re corrupted if their highest authority teaches the opposite.</li>
	<li><strong>Mohammed said it</strong>: Not only does the Quran teach that the biblical books mentioned in the Quran are trustworthy, but Mohammed - their most esteemed prophet - affirmed the very same thing. According to the earliest extant biography of Mohammed (<em>Life of Mohammed</em>, written by the Muslim Ibn Ishaq, pg. 268), four Jews asked Mohammed a question: “Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and <em>believe in the Torah which we have</em> and <em>testify that it is the truth from God</em>?”&nbsp;Mohammed replied, “Certainly, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein...”&nbsp;Notice, when asked if he believed that the Torah - which the Jews had with them during the 7th century - was the truth from God, Mohammed answered in the affirmative. He even held them accountable to the Torah’s commands, presuming that the Torah was reliable. It wouldn’t make sense for Mohammed to respond in this way if he believed it was corrupted.</li>
	<li><strong>Muslim scholars confirm it</strong>: The most trusted Muslim authorities also confirm that the biblical books have not been changed. Abdullah ibn Abbas was Mohammed’s cousin and most trusted companion (<em>sahaba</em>). His commentary is regarded as the most reliable because of his close relationship with Mohammed. Writing about a quranic passage that refers to Jews who “displace words from their right places”&nbsp;(surah 4:46), Ibn Abbas says, “’They corrupt the word’&nbsp;means ’they alter or change its meaning’, yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.”&nbsp;Notice that Ibn Abbas confirms that the verse refers to a different <em>interpretation</em> of the biblical text while simultaneously affirming God’s words <em>can’t</em> be changed. Renowned 14th century scholar Ibn Kathir says the same thing: “None among Allah’s creation can remove the words of Allah from his books...The Tawrah and Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed.”</li>
</ol>

<p>If all of these Islamic sources (and there are many more) affirm the same point - the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels are trustworthy - then Muslims can’t sustain their claim that those Christian texts are corrupted. On the contrary, we can point Muslims to what Jesus taught about Himself in the four Gospels.</p>

<p>That’s precisely what the Australian believers were able to do. They could point the imam to his highest authorities to clear the charge of corruption. Of course, we wanted to be respectful as well. The goal was to build bridges so that the believers in that country can make a long-term difference for the kingdom with the many Muslims that come to their shores.</p>
</div>

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


title: Watch Out for This Tactic Used by Cults
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/26/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/watch-out-for-this-tactic-used-by-cults
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When someone called our podcast <a href="/w/frustration-with-two-christian-films">last month</a> to ask about the Jehovah’s Witness claim that Jesus died on a pole rather than a cross, Greg wondered why they would care about that point since it doesn’t seem to have any theological implications.</p>

<p>In answer to this question, a listener to the podcast, Janice Davis, wrote in to say she has a theory “formed from much observation”&nbsp;about why they do this. Her idea that it’s a purposeful tactic to watch out for is a truly helpful insight:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>JWs are not the only ones who press this point; several heretical distortions of Christianity do so (e.g., The Way International). And this is always one of their opening arguments. The purpose of this challenge, it appears, is to break down your commitment to the traditional Christian facts that you have never questioned. Their goal is to have you questioning, “If I was wrong on that, then what else should I question?”&nbsp;This is an illegitimate tactical approach to make a person more susceptible to distortions of biblical teaching. Cults know that they must be subtle when dealing with Christians; they do not want to show their hand before there is some buy-in on the part of their subject.</p>

<p>I believe recognizing this pattern can help Christians recognize less obvious cults before they get too deep. Hence, when a religious [group] (especially one that claims to be Christian) questions seemingly benign facts about Christianity, and does so intently, beware.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems like great advice.</p>
</div>

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


title: Live Stream the reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/live-stream-the-rethink-apologetics-student-conference
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We have good news for all of you who don’t live near one of the four locations where we hold our <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conferences</a> (Orange County, Dallas, Birmingham, and Minneapolis)—we’ll be live streaming our Dallas conference on March 29–30!</p>

<p>The topic this year is “Has God Spoken?”&nbsp;(see the video below). The conference is geared towards the middle school through college age range, so the live stream would be great for a youth event or retreat. And honestly, even if you’re older than a college student, I think you would enjoy it.</p>

<p>There’s tiered pricing for the live stream starting at $24.99, depending on the number of people who will be watching with you—from one friend to a church event of over 1,000 people. If you purchase a streaming license, you can watch live that weekend and/or replay the conference until August 31st.</p>

<p>Of course, we’d rather have you all come spend the weekend with us, but we know that’s not possible for many of you, so we’re really happy to be able to give you this opportunity. We hope to see you online on March 29–30, live from the great State of Texas!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="1BkiLKUVb1E" 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/1BkiLKUVb1E?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%2Flive-stream-the-rethink-apologetics-student-conference" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flive-stream-the-rethink-apologetics-student-conference" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flive-stream-the-rethink-apologetics-student-conference" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Bible Comes Alive in Israel
topic: History
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/13/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-comes-alive-in-israel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I know the average Christian doesn’t need an argument to visit the Holy Land. Most believers want to go there. I don’t blame them. I happen to be in Israel right now and was taken aback by seeing - in real life - two archaeological discoveries that the Bible references.</p>

<p>I‘ve often argued (and so have many others) that the Bible is accurate when it references historical people, places, and events. It’s one reason why we can trust the Bible.</p>

<p>For example, Matthew 27 talks about Pontius Pilate presiding over the trial of Jesus. For a long time, there was no evidence that such a person existed outside the biblical reference. In 1961, however, Italian archaeologists found an inscription on a piece of limestone that read, “Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.”&nbsp;This discovery confirmed that the Bible got his correct name, correct title, and the correct jurisdiction he presided over. This past Sunday, I saw that stone (not a replica). I wasn’t even expecting to see it. I was visiting the Israel Museum in Jerusalem to see the Dead Sea Scrolls and by chance came upon a stone that looked exactly like the one I use in my PowerPoint slides when I teach about the Bible’s accurate historical references.</p>

<p><img class="img-fluid" src="/documents/20123/0/alanpost2.jpg/8b81029c-c556-7ec5-c2f9-3b4fe118e49d?t=1563558998553"></p>

<p>The second example has to do with the biblical story of King Hezekiah building a tunnel that would channel water under Jerusalem (described in 2 Kings 20 and 2 Chronicles 32). The Israelites’&nbsp;fresh supply of water through this tunnel made it harder for enemies to succeed when they laid siege to the city. Of course, it seems rather implausible for people 2,700 years ago to successfully carve a 1,750 foot tunnel through solid rock from the Gihon spring to the Pool of Siloam. But this tunnel is real. I walked through the entire tunnel on Friday. It still has water running through it, just like it did 2,700 years ago when the Israelites successfully defended the city against the Assyrian siege led by Sennacherib. I also learned this week that the vertical drop from the springs to the pool is only 30 cm! In other words, Hezekiah’s engineers managed to convey water across a 0.06% gradient that runs 1,750 long. Amazing!</p>

<p><img class="img-fluid" src="/documents/20123/0/alanpost.jpg/47ba79fd-f850-0f41-7945-400e00503d5b?t=1563558982174"></p>

<p>These are just two of the many incredible archaeological discoveries you can experience when you visit this land. It’s powerful evidence for the Bible’s accuracy.</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-bible-comes-alive-in-israel" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-bible-comes-alive-in-israel" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-bible-comes-alive-in-israel" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Christians Don’t Live in Fear
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/20/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-don-t-live-in-fear
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been having a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93/posts/2065152120247003?xts[0]=68.ARDq4hX3SS2dMqAf4cuuoajdGXpRizqrKRW9tbGeHgktUVNY_uGIAWoECqmnkruEMcqGB_2gSxuI0zCW-dLSwHZ96ds0W8iCHoiTFbaSm-4GaR1fWGCUmbFrcFN4eRNsEobs-u0Z5LJDltVwDsNpLjiSRHxsZTQSwuNqKvcz-sPO4Ywnpn1q-NmJPAbTmhfw2hcujQKFiD2zFb5Vvcel0Y2Dczlhim14ydeeBbV06ezJq3uqrNkQtaxpQoWDblgfMm4abJ8nhOHfRBWYIxVPHfKFSAmTqgtby5uqTE4kQMRTUZwGHdxOuLa7ugjv86QIIvIsBEtBXIvKzZfIM-QH8_wRLw&amp;tn=-R">conversation</a> on our Facebook page with a man who objects to my post “<a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">Christians Don’t View Jesus as a Means to an End</a>.” He insists Christians are motivated only by the “carrots and sticks” of Heaven and Hell, despite my explanation.</p>

<p>I think the conversation is helpful for understanding why we often hear people (usually atheists) accuse Christians of “living in fear.” Of course, as Christians, we know we’ve been freed from the kind of fear they’re talking about; we’re not living in it. What do we have to fear? If Christ died to secure our salvation <em>while we were His enemies</em> (Rom. 5:10), “much more, then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Rom. 5:9).</p>

<p>We know we have “an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, <em>reserved</em> in heaven for [us], who are <em>protected by the power of God</em> through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:4). As Paul explains in Romans, we are completely secure, for “these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). If you have been justified by faith in Christ, you <em>will</em> be glorified with Him in the end. How do we know this? Because “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:32).</p>

<p>So what do we have to fear? “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?” No one, says <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A33-39&amp;version=NASB">Romans 8:33–39</a>—not as long as Christ is interceding for us at the right hand of God (Rom. 8:34), and that is forever (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+7%3A23-25&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 7:23–25</a>).</p>

<h2>Adopted by God</h2>

<p>As I explained in “<a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">Christians Don’t View Jesus as a Means to an End</a>,” Christians follow God and seek to be like Him not because we’re using Him as a tool to avoid Hell, but because we’ve been changed into people who love and desire Him.</p>

<p>We’ve been adopted by God, which means our relationship with Him is no longer that of a Judge and criminal; now the relationship is that of a Father and child. Of course we don’t want to disobey God; we respect Him as a child rightly respects his father, knowing that “those whom the Lord loves He disciplines,” and that “God deals with [us] as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? ... He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+12%3A5-11&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 12:5–11</a>).</p>

<p>But the discipline of a good father is obviously quite different from the wrath of a good judge, and the kind of “fear” a child has of disobeying a good father is quite different from the “fear” a criminal has of a good judge. In both cases, the fear results from the goodness of the authority figure, but there is clearly <em>a qualitative difference</em> between a child’s “fear” of the discipline of a loving father (i.e., a deep respect and desire to please that’s motivated by the child’s love for the father and undergirded by the security of the familial relationship) and the “fear” a criminal has of a just judge (i.e., a fear of facing judgment for his crimes, motivated merely by a desire not to suffer). Despite the fact that a Christian’s position is analogous to the first, the kind of “fear” people accuse us of is the second.</p>

<p>I think I understand why this confusion exists among atheists and other non-Christians. You have to remember that they are on the other side of the fear divide from Christians, and they are seeing God from a completely different angle—His judging wrath rather than His loving discipline. They have not yet been adopted by the Father through faith in Christ; their relationship to God is still that of criminal to Judge, so they can hear only warnings of Hell. And if the Facebook conversation is any indication, they hate the concept of the Christian God as Someone who has the power and authority to execute the perfect justice of His wrath against those who commit moral crimes.</p>

<h2>Why Some Only See Carrots and Sticks</h2>

<p>Why can some people only see carrots and sticks in Christianity? Because God’s <a href="/w/god-s-wrath-is-his-love-reacting-to-evil">righteous wrath against the evil of sin</a> is threatening and ugly to them. They think our God is evil and undesirable, so they can’t see any other reason for following Him <em>other</em> than carrots and sticks. But the reason why Christianity is <em>not</em> all about carrots and sticks is that <em>Christians view God as desirable</em>. This undesirable/desirable divide is <a href="/w/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions">the root difference between non-Christians and Christians</a>, and one’s view of God can only change from the first to the second by a work of the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>I have, in the past, explained the gospel to people who were so focused on their anger against God’s wrath that they literally could not comprehend what I was saying. They just kept returning again and again to the idea of God’s wrath and couldn’t see past it. And they hated Him for it. As I’ve <a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned">written</a> before,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This is as far as atheists see into Christianity—an unforgiving, impossibly high moral law enforced by a fearful Judge. They accuse us of “living in fear,” and they want no part of that kind of life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those who see God only in this way assume that everyone else sees Him through the same lens, and that, therefore, Christians must be submitting to this ugly God merely out of necessity—in order to avoid a punishment and gain a reward. They can’t imagine anything else. They certainly can’t imagine being <a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">motivated by <em>desire</em> for this God</a>. They’re unable to see the love of God or the peace we enjoy with Him. They’re unable to see Him <em>as He is</em>, though the truth is there for all to see.</p>

<h2>The Truth about Our Good God</h2>

<p>And here is the truth about our good God: “God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ...so that in the ages to come He might show <em>the surpassing riches of His grace</em> in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:4–5). <em>He</em> is <a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">the reward we seek</a>, this God of perfect justice <em>and</em> self-sacrificing love. And this is the kind of love we see: “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Jesus died for His enemies. He displayed His love on the cross for all to see who will submit to seeing (<a href="/w/god-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope">by the power and grace of God</a>), and no enemy is beyond His power to save. But the vitriol against God in the Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93/posts/2065152120247003?xts[0]=68.ARDq4hX3SS2dMqAf4cuuoajdGXpRizqrKRW9tbGeHgktUVNY_uGIAWoECqmnkruEMcqGB_2gSxuI0zCW-dLSwHZ96ds0W8iCHoiTFbaSm-4GaR1fWGCUmbFrcFN4eRNsEobs-u0Z5LJDltVwDsNpLjiSRHxsZTQSwuNqKvcz-sPO4Ywnpn1q-NmJPAbTmhfw2hcujQKFiD2zFb5Vvcel0Y2Dczlhim14ydeeBbV06ezJq3uqrNkQtaxpQoWDblgfMm4abJ8nhOHfRBWYIxVPHfKFSAmTqgtby5uqTE4kQMRTUZwGHdxOuLa7ugjv86QIIvIsBEtBXIvKzZfIM-QH8_wRLw&amp;tn=-R">conversation</a> is another reminder that “with people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).</p>

<p>(For more on the topic of how Christians view God and why we seek to live good lives that honor Him, see “<a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned">Free to Say We’ve Sinned</a>” and “<a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</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%2Fchristians-don-t-live-in-fear" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-don-t-live-in-fear" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-don-t-live-in-fear" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: One Way or Any Way? Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I do not consider myself a particularly brave person, and I think it especially foolish, on the main, to make a frontal assault on a clearly superior force. Further, it is always dangerous to cross theological swords with C.S. Lewis. He was, arguably, the most compelling voice for Christianity in the 20th century, and his impact continues unabated into the 21st.</p>

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

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

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

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

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

<h2>Anonymous Christians?</h2>

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

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

<p>Was Lewis right? Many Evangelicals in this country seem to think he was, giving rise to a trend I have called the “confused confession.”&nbsp;It’s a term I introduced in the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em> (<a href="/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-i">January 2019</a>) to describe the following claim: “Jesus is <em>my</em> savior. He is the only way <em>for me</em>. But I can’t say He is the way for <em>others</em>.”</p>

<p>As I argued earlier, this could mean a number of different things.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Some, for example, may be uncertain about the fate of those who never heard about Jesus. This, I think, is Lewis’s concern. Perhaps God will judge them by the limited light they’ve been shown. Others, though, seem to take it quite a bit further.</p>

<p>Dinesh D’Souza, author of the vigorous defense of Christianity titled <em>What’s So Great about Christianity</em>, faltered in a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish thinker Dennis Prager. When asked by Prager if Jews who do not accept Jesus as savior can still be saved, he said, “I believe the answer to that is yes.”&nbsp;Clearly, Abraham made it to Heaven without believing in Jesus, D’Souza pointed out. There must be, then, another “mode of salvation...that doesn’t include Jesus.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

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

<blockquote>
<p>There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

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

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

<blockquote>
<p>Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<h2>A “Jealous”&nbsp;God</h2>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<p>Second, the <em>ground</em> of salvation has always been the redemption secured by Christ on the cross. Old Testament saints who, because of progressive revelation, had not yet learned about Jesus were still saved because of Him. God “passed over the sins previously committed”&nbsp;(Rom. 3:25), knowing the full, complete, and final payment would be made at the cross (Heb. 9:15, 10:10-18).</p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<p>The teachings of Christ and also the writings of those disciples Jesus personally trained to proclaim His message after Him give little comfort to inclusivists. Remarkably, Dulles admits as much: “The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> If this is the clear testimony of the ancients, what good reason do we have to abandon that message in the modern era? I don’t see any.</p>

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

<h2>Pascal Redux</h2>

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

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

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

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

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">C.S. Lewis, <em>The Last Battle</em> (New York: Collier, 1956), 164-5.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">For details, refer to “<a href="/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-i">One Way or Any Way? - Part 1</a>,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, January 2019, at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Dinesh D’Souza, “The Christian God, the Jewish God, or No God: A Meaningful Dialogue,”&nbsp;May 8, 2008. See a video clip of this portion of the debate<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoonNPAs1Zc">here</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Mother Teresa, <em>A Simple Path</em> (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), 31.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., “<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8">Who Can Be Saved?</a>,”&nbsp;<em>First Things</em>, February 2008.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em>Ibid</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Don’t Forget Why We Do What We Do
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/12/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-forget-why-we-do-what-we-do
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Justin Brierley hosts <em><a href="https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable">Unbelieveable?</a></em>—a weekly radio show (and podcast) where he invites Christians and non-Christians to discuss various apologetics-related topics. In Brierley’s book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Unbelievable-After-Talking-Atheists-Christian/dp/0281077983/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=unbelievable&amp;qid=1551740122&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3">Unbelievable?: Why After Ten Years of Talking With Atheists, I’m Still a Christian</a></em>, he comments on something he’s observed too often in Christians who love apologetics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Like the <em>Star Wars</em> collector who keeps his original 1979 Millennium Falcon toy pristine and unopened in its original box, and has never actually played with it, too many apologists are guilty of spending more time arguing for the truth of their faith than experiencing its living reality. I sometimes fear that those non-believers whose only exposure to Christianity is a weekly dose of the <em>Unbelievable?</em> podcast may assume that debating the theories, doctrines and truth claims of Christianity is the main point. But it really isn’t....</p>

<p>What begins in the head should eventually become a matter of the heart. Sadly, apologetics can often end up resembling a game of chess in which clever moves advance an argument, but the victory amounts to little more than an intellectual exercise. Yet people can’t entrust their lives to an argument, however well made. Faith involves more than that. If our arguments are worth making, it is because they open the door to trusting in a person—Jesus Christ—and then living our lives in the light of that reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Does this sound like you? We who truly enjoy our analytical side are all in danger of getting caught up in thinking about arguments for Jesus at the expense of actually communing with Him and holding Him up for others to worship. Don’t forget why we do what we do! It’s all for Him—knowing Him, glorifying Him, being conformed to Him, showing Him to others. If you’ve become more focused on arguments than you are on Jesus, then something has gone wrong, and if you’re not yet feeling the spiritual effects of this, you will.</p>

<p>If you need a little course corrector, I recommend these posts:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/do-you-convey-a-sense-of-the-reality-centrality-and-desirability-of-jesus-with-your-apologetics-">Do You Convey a Sense of the Reality, Centrality, and Desirability of Jesus with Your Apologetics?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/apologetics-aren-t-enough-to-connect-you-with-a-person">Apologetics Aren’t Enough to Connect You with a Person</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/having-trouble-praying-">Having Trouble Praying?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/tips-for-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible">Tips for Memorizing a Book of the Bible</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible">A Long-Term Plan to Know Your Bible</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

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


title: Can You Ground Objective Morality in a God That Does Not Exist?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-you-ground-objective-morality-in-a-god-that-does-not-exist-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some questions cannot be answered with a simple “yes”&nbsp;or “no”&nbsp;response. That is, there is some ambiguity in the question that demands more clarification.</p>

<p>A question like this came up in a recent <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/conversation-atheist#.XGtzlZNKijQ">discussion</a> between Greg Koukl and an atheist named Doug on the Stand to Reason podcast. While discussing the nature of grounding objective morality, Greg said, “Obviously, Christianity is a subset of theism. But I don’t have to just restrict it to Christianity that can ground morality. I could say, <em>in principle</em>, theism is capable of grounding morality.”</p>

<p>As Greg explained, if someone believes in a God who is morally perfect, then, <em>on their view</em>, they have an adequate grounding for morality - i.e., in their worldview, objective morality makes sense.</p>

<p>Responding to Greg’s point, Doug asked, “So, are you saying you can believe in a God that does not exist and still have a good grounding for objective morality?”</p>

<p>This is a fair question. However, the answer depends on whether you are talking about a good grounding for objective morality <em>in principle,</em> or a good grounding for objective morality <em>in reality</em>.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it appeared - at least <em>to me</em> - that Doug didn’t understand the difference between these two categories. Since there may be others who didn’t follow this important distinction, I thought it might be helpful to clarify.</p>

<p>Most people recognize that if your concept of God is such that He is the absolute standard of perfection, then you have an objective moral standard <em>in principle.</em> The phrase “in principle”&nbsp;is used to indicate that something is theoretically possible even though it may not be actual. “In principle”&nbsp;doesn’t mean this God actually exists. It doesn’t mean this objective standard actually exists. It merely indicates that this God - with these particular attributes - is the kind of Being that can adequately ground objective morality. That’s it.</p>

<p>We can contrast an <em>in principle</em> proposition with what I’ll call an <em>in reality</em> proposition. I’m using the phrase “in reality”&nbsp;to indicate that something is actual, not merely possible. For example, <em>in principle</em>, a lottery ticket is capable of winning the lottery. However, <em>in reality</em>, my particular ticket is not the winning ticket.</p>

<p>Similarly, <em>in principle</em>, the Muslim God is capable of grounding objective morality. That is, the concept of the Muslim God is the kind of Being that could ground objective values and duties. However, <em>in reality</em>, the Muslim God does not exist. Therefore, the Muslim God is not <em>actually</em> a grounding for objective morality.</p>

<p>So, just as a lottery ticket is <em>the kind of thing</em> that allows for the possibility of winning the lottery, a morally perfect God is <em>the kind of thing</em> that allows for the possibility of objective morality.</p>

<p>Of course, the possibility of being a “winning ticket”&nbsp;doesn’t make every ticket an actual winner of the lottery. Likewise, the possibility of being a “grounding God”&nbsp;doesn’t make every proposed God an actual grounding for objective morality.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it wouldn’t matter if someone <em>sincerely</em> believed they had a grounding for objective morality in their particular God. If the evidence shows their God does not exist, then they will have to look elsewhere for a basis for objective morality.</p>

<p>So, can you ground objective morality in a God that does not exist? Of course not. Even though theism is a legitimate way of grounding objective morality <em>in principle</em>, whether or not any particular form of theism accomplishes that <em>in reality</em> depends entirely on whether or not that God actually exists.</p>

<p>Only a <em>real</em> God can ground real, objective morality. No real moral standard, no real morality. By the way, that’s a problem with materialistic atheism. Without God, it has no real moral standard. Whereas theism can ground objective morality in principle, materialistic atheism cannot, <em>even in principle</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%2Fcan-you-ground-objective-morality-in-a-god-that-does-not-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-ground-objective-morality-in-a-god-that-does-not-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-ground-objective-morality-in-a-god-that-does-not-exist-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Apologetic for Apologetics with Alisa Childers
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/06/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-apologetic-for-apologetics-with-alisa-childers
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I need to tell you something. This may come as a complete shock. You may want to sit down for this. Here it is.</p>

<p><em>Not everyone is a fan of apologetics.</em></p>

<p>Okay, this news probably didn’t come as a surprise. If you’ve tried to get your friends and family into apologetics, or you’ve tried to bring apologetics to your church, then you’ve probably already come to this realization.</p>

<p>For many people, apologetics is an <em>extra</em> at best or an <em>error</em> at worst. Whether it’s <em>apathy</em> or <em>animosity</em> towards apologetics, both are often fueled by ignorance about <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/why-apologetics">what apologetics is and why it is so important</a>.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m so excited to share with you a <a href="https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/an-apologetic-for-apologetics-with-tim-barnett-the-alisa-childers-podcast-42">recent interview</a> I did with Alisa Childers. In it, we talk about the reasons why apologetics is <em>not</em> optional. We all should be prepared to give an apologetic for what we believe. And, we all should be prepared to give an apologetic for why we do apologetics.</p>

<p>If this podcast is helpful to you, then please consider sharing it with your friends.</p>

<p><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/585078813&amp;color=A01723" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-apologetic-for-apologetics-with-alisa-childers" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-apologetic-for-apologetics-with-alisa-childers" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-apologetic-for-apologetics-with-alisa-childers" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Muslims Jesus Is the Son of Man
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/tell-muslims-jesus-is-the-son-of-man
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On a recent visit to a mosque, a Muslim imam asked, “Where in your Bible does Jesus ever clearly say He is God?”&nbsp;I know there are many excellent ways to answer this question, but I’ve always found the following approach intriguing.</p>

<p>I like to tell Muslims that the “proof”&nbsp;that Jesus claimed to be divine is found in His favorite self-designation: Son of Man (Matt. 12:40; Mark 10:45; Luke 18:31; John 9:35, etc.). Muslims are unpersuaded by this answer. In fact, they look at me like, <em>Is this guy for real? That example proves the opposite - that Jesus is a mere human being.</em></p>

<p>I understand their disbelief. “Son of Man”&nbsp;hardly sounds like a claim to deity. It appears to reference the fact that we are all born from mankind, a product of human parents. In that sense, <em>I’m</em> a son of man, <em>you’re</em> a son of man, and <em>everyone</em> on the planet is a son of man. That proves nothing, it’s thought.</p>

<p>Though the term “Son of Man”&nbsp;sounds like a claim to humanity, it has an unmistakable second meaning - a reference to divinity. Jesus had a plan to reveal His full identity, but not at the beginning of His ministry. He chose “Son of Man”&nbsp;as His favorite title because, on its surface, it seems rather innocuous. He’s human - no big deal.</p>

<p>Those who paid close attention to what Jesus said would recognize that “Son of Man”&nbsp;was a reference to an Old Testament title. In Daniel 7:13-14, the Son of Man is an exalted figure, who comes with “clouds of heaven,”&nbsp;has authority and power over all creation, eternally reigns over His kingdom, and is worshiped by every person on earth. That’s more than a mere mortal.</p>

<p>That’s why when Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, those who knew the scriptures understood His claim to divinity. When the chief priests asked Him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”&nbsp;Jesus answered, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”&nbsp;(Matt. 26:64). When the high priest heard this response, he tore his clothes and declared that Jesus had committed blasphemy. Jesus was subsequently executed because - according to His claims - He was making Himself equal with God (John 5:18).</p>

<p>Part of the reason I like this approach is that it invites conversation. It also allows you an opportunity to open the Scriptures to a Muslim and unpack some theology. Most Muslims, I’ve found, have never read Jesus. Though He’s believed to be a prophet in Islam, I rarely find a Muslim who’s read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. In fact, even the imam I was talking to hadn’t read the Gospels.</p>

<p>By taking this approach, you can tell your Muslim friend more about the person they believe is merely a prophet. Plus, you can answer a common question Muslims have about our claim that Jesus is God. When Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, He wasn’t only saying He had a human nature, He was telling us He’s divine.</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-muslims-jesus-is-the-son-of-man" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftell-muslims-jesus-is-the-son-of-man" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftell-muslims-jesus-is-the-son-of-man" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The False Dilemma Propagated by Pro-Gay Advocates
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-false-dilemma-propagated-by-pro-gay-advocates
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’re told that if your friend or family member identifies as gay or lesbian, then you face a choice: fidelity to your faith or fidelity to your friend/family member. If you stick with your biblical convictions about sexuality, then you reject (i.e. hate) your friend or family member. If you plan to keep your relationship, then you need to jettison your outdated theological idiosyncrasy that says homosexual sex is wrong. You can’t do both, we’re told.</p>

<p>But this is a false dilemma. Those aren’t the only options. A third possibility is to keep your biblical convictions <em>and</em> keep your relationship with your friend/family member who identifies as gay or lesbian. People do this all the time. It may get messy, but it’s possible.</p>

<p>In fact, most people understand this principle (disagreeing with someone but still maintaining a relationship) and live it out in their lives every day on other matters. Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend William Hamilton, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”&nbsp;Of course! We all have people in our lives with whom we disagree, and yet we still have meaningful relationships with them. There probably isn’t a person on earth with whom we agree on everything.</p>

<p>I’m sure most of us have friends or family who differ from us politically, but we still break bread with them. I know I do. I’m sure most of us have friends or family who hold to a different faith, but we still care for them and spend time with them. I know I do. I’m sure most of us have friends or family who have different philosophical commitments than we do, but we are still in a relationship with them. I know I do. Why, then, can’t this be the case for the Christian who has a friend or family member who identifies as gay or lesbian?</p>

<p>Consider this example. I’m a Christian who believes Jesus is the son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I believe Jesus chose me before time began, loves me, and died for me. I believe I’ve been bought with the blood of Christ, ransomed from my slavery to sin, and become a slave to righteousness. I wholeheartedly believe my identity is wrapped up in who Jesus is, living in me. But I can sit down over a meal with a Muslim, and that Muslim can believe that <em>he</em> is the true believer, deny the legitimacy of my relationship with God, think my Jesus is not divine, believe I’ve committed the unpardonable sin in Islam, claim I’m leading others on a false path to God, oppose my teachings and behavior, and think I’m going to Hell. Yet I <em>don’t</em> find myself thinking, <em>I must either accept this man’s religious identity as a Muslim, his beliefs in Islam, and his religious behaviors or I must reject him entirely.</em> That’s a false dilemma. Even though being a Muslim - in his own thinking - is everything, I can (and do) love him, accept him, and respect him but still disagree with his Muslim identity, religious convictions, religious behavior, and philosophical commitments. Our respective identities are completely at odds with each other, and I can still love him and have a relationship with him.</p>

<p>That might sound crazy to some, but that’s what I call civility. It’s also called love. It’s possible because of who God has made him (an image bearer of God and therefore valuable and important to me) and how God has called me to act towards others (loving everyone through the Holy Spirit’s power in me). Jesus, after all, calls us to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). How much more, then, can we <a href="/w/even-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified" target="_blank">love our friends and family who identify as gay or lesbian</a>? Christians have loved this way for thousands of years, but now we’re told by pro-gay advocates that such a third way isn’t possible.</p>

<p>Nonsense.</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-false-dilemma-propagated-by-pro-gay-advocates" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-false-dilemma-propagated-by-pro-gay-advocates" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-false-dilemma-propagated-by-pro-gay-advocates" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 You Need to Know about Evil and Suffering
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-you-need-to-know-about-evil-and-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A mass shooting in New Zealand. Devastating flooding in Nebraska. Cancer. Miscarriage. Adultery. Abuse. Evil and suffering always bring with them many questions. Where was God? Why does it seem like evil is stronger than He is? Is He good? Why should we trust Him? What can we even trust Him to do? The church in the prosperous West has not done a good job preparing Christians to face these inevitable questions, and that means there are a lot of vulnerable Christians out there who are one crisis away from having their trust in God shattered.</p>

<p>As I’ve struggled through making sense of these questions over the last decade, I’ve written <a href="/search?q=suffering&amp;userName=amy k. hall">well over 100 posts</a> about what I’ve discovered. Below are links (and brief excerpts) to posts covering some of the key ideas Christians need to know about evil and suffering.</p>

<p>My prayer for you is that your suffering will bring you closer to God, not drive you away from Him.</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/christians-you-will-suffer">Christians, You Will Suffer</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“If suffering disproves your Christianity, you’ve missed Christianity. The Bible is filled with the suffering of those whom God loves. The central event of the Bible is one of suffering. Love involves suffering. “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”&nbsp;That means suffering. But Christianity also promises justice for evil. And grace. And life from death. Resurrection. New bodies. Hope. Jesus is the only hope for true pain. Without Him, there’s nothing left to do but rail against God with the most perverse insults imaginable.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/the-gospel-s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil">The Gospel’s Answer to the Problem of Evil</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“In ‘A (Very) Brief, Gospel-Centered Defense against the Problem of Evil,’ Derek Rishmawy explains how we can know, through the Gospel, that God is indeed all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, despite the existence of evil.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/why-it-isn-t-naive-to-trust-god-in-your-suffering">Why It Isn’t Naïve to Trust God in Your Suffering</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“My trust isn’t just wishful thinking. It results from my confidence in God’s sovereignty and love, both of which He demonstrated definitively, objectively, and historically at the cross. It also results from my own past experience. When I look back at what God has done in me through suffering, and how much better I know and trust Him because of it, I can see His faithfulness to me. My highest goal has always been to know God better—intellectually and experientially—and I can see from my own life how suffering has led to a richer knowledge and experience of His grace, His strength and support, and His love.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/don-t-trust-god-to-protect-you-from-pain">Don’t Trust God to Protect You from Pain</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“An experience of suffering can be very disorienting to Christians who are trusting God to protect them from pain. This is not the kind of trust God has called us to have, and though most of us know this intellectually, I think this is something that has to be learned through experience. What will you cling to when your hopes for God’s provision seem to fail? What does it really mean to trust in God’s provision? You will struggle with these questions.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/what-easter-says-to-those-who-are-suffering">What Easter Says to Those Who Are Suffering</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“With the cross and resurrection at its core, Christianity need never deny the reality of evil and suffering because Jesus has proven Himself to be greater than all of it. He didn’t just overcome it, He overcame <em>through</em> it. The cross was the very means by which He secured joy.... Sometimes we’re tempted to think evil is stronger than God, but when we understand that every attempt evil makes to harm us is working for our good, we’ll see that all of evil’s weapons have been removed from it; there is nothing left it can use against us.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/how-can-we-condemn-evil-if-god-is-sovereign-">How Can We Condemn Evil if God Is Sovereign?</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“There, we see that the most grievous sin ever committed—the killing of Jesus—was something God predestined to occur. But this doesn’t mean the people didn’t sin in killing Him! No one would say that killing Jesus wasn’t a sin just because it was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world for Jesus to die on the cross. In fact, it was said of Judas that ‘it would have been better for that man if he had not been born’ (Matt. 26:24). The people sinned <em>and</em> God meant it as part of His plan for His glory and the good of His people.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/it-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice">It’s Not Wrong to Long for Justice</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“Our love of justice is a reflection of our love for the perfections of God’s character. He is righteous. He is loving. He is good. In the deepest part of us, we know that everyone who rips away at God’s reflection on earth rightfully deserves condemnation, and we desire the fulfillment of that condemnation. It’s when we recognize that this applies even to <em>our own</em> sins that we become desperate for grace.”</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/evil-and-the-cross">Evil and the Cross</a></strong>&nbsp;–&nbsp;“Why did God allow evil to come into this world? Why not create everything in the state of perfection we will be in after this world comes to an end? I think the answer is that God had a goal in mind that is greater than the suffering, and that goal is the revealing of Himself to His people so that we will be able to fully express our pleasure in Him through worship, enjoying Him for an eternity.”</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-you-need-to-know-about-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%2Fwhat-you-need-to-know-about-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%2Fwhat-you-need-to-know-about-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: One Way or Any Way? Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-i
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sometimes we make dealing with the current controversial features of Christianity more difficult than it actually needs to be. Here I’m talking about politically charged theological and ethical issues like abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gender dysphoria, and the like. In one important sense they’re not hard at all; they’re easy.</p>

<p>Some ideas flow so naturally and directly from clear, core elements of the Christian worldview that they are not “tough”&nbsp;issues in a scriptural sense. The relevant texts are clear. There is no ambiguity in the Bible’s teaching. The basic doctrines informing these issues are not gray areas. They never have been.</p>

<p>The confusion comes almost completely from the outside, not the inside. Lots of folks - including Christians - simply don’t like what the Bible teaches, so they wrangle about words and twist the text trying to get the verses to say the opposite of what they clearly mean.</p>

<p>Which brings me to my present concern. I continue to be mystified by what I call the “confused confession”&nbsp;that many Christians make regarding Christ as savior. It goes something like this (note carefully the inflection): “<em>I</em> am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is <em>my</em> savior. He is the only way <em>for me</em>. But I can’t say He is the way for <em>others</em>.”</p>

<p>So, here’s my question: Does this claim strike you as unusual?</p>

<p>Now, there is a sense in which it’s not unusual at all. Comments like this are so common lately - not just with more secular Christians or with politicians who identify in some way with Christianity, but also with massive numbers of rank and file evangelicals - they hardly raise an eyebrow anymore. That, of course, is the appeal. It’s a clever way of both aligning with Christ (in one sense) and denying Him (in another). No one gets offended. Everyone is satisfied. Perfectly politically correct.</p>

<p>I want to know, though, if this statement strikes you as <em>theologically</em> unusual. Think of Christ’s response when He was asked a similar question at His trial: “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”&nbsp;He didn’t respond, “That’s true for <em>Me</em>, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to others.”&nbsp;He simply said, “I Am,”&nbsp;and, in virtue of that confession, was led away to execution.</p>

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

<p>There was no ambivalence or ambiguity in these ancient confessions, yet today ambivalence abounds. Indeed, it’s hard to know what such a confused confession even means coming from a Christian. In what sense can Jesus be “my savior”&nbsp;but not the only savior for everyone else?</p>

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

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

<h2>One Way for Some</h2>

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

<p>I am completely sympathetic to this reason for religious relativism because I realize this is the best some Christians can do. They lack confidence because they lack <em>knowledge</em> - that is, they lack any evidence their beliefs are actually justified.</p>

<p>It’s one reason apologetics is so important. The role of Christian defenses is to supply the evidence meant to help elevate mere belief to credible and justified conviction. Some believers have not been exposed to the kind of resources that could help them bridge this belief/knowledge gap, so their hesitation is understandable.</p>

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

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

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

<p>Which brings me to the question of why Jesus is the only savior for everyone. It is difficult for a believer to be confident <em>that</em> Jesus is the singular savior if she is not clear on <em>why</em> He is necessary in the first place, so let me make that clear.</p>

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

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

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

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

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

<blockquote>
<p>This is why Jesus of Nazareth is the only way to God, the only possible source of rescue. <em>He is the only one who solved the problem.</em> No other man did this. No other person could...Only Jesus of Nazareth could save the world. Without him, we are crushed under our overwhelming debt. Without him, every single one of us would have to pay for our own crimes, and that would take eternity.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> [Emphasis in the original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is no middle ground, no neutral place to stand for the Christian espousing the confused confession. Anyone thinking there is a third option has either severely misjudged the problem - sin - or he has severly misjudged the solution - Christ - or both.</p>

<h2>Many Ways for All</h2>

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

<p>The religious pluralism I am concerned with is not simply the observation that there are lots of religions to choose from (a plurality of views) coupled with the conviction that we ought to live in peace with people who disagree with our own convictions. That strikes me as self-evident.</p>

<p>The pluralism that concerns me is the view that, generally speaking, all religions are each <em>on their own terms</em> legitimate roads to God. According to this view, God has somehow ordained various paths for various people in diverse cultures with diverse beliefs. Therefore, no one is within his rights to say his religion is better than anyone else’s. “God is too big to fit into one religion,”&nbsp;the bumper sticker instructs us. The Almighty is much larger than our limited theological categories. Christ may be the path for Christians, but others have legitimate paths of their own.</p>

<p>This alternative, though, is another dead end. I’ll use a popular religious pluralism parable to show you why.</p>

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

<blockquote>
<p>The first blind man put out his hand and touched the side of the elephant. “How smooth! An elephant is like a wall.”&nbsp;The second blind man put out his hand and touched the trunk of the elephant. “How round! An elephant is like a snake.”&nbsp;The third blind man put out his hand and touched the tusk of the elephant. “How sharp! An elephant is like a spear.”&nbsp;The fourth blind man put out his hand and touched the leg of the elephant. “How tall! An elephant is like a tree.”&nbsp;The fifth blind man reached out his hand and touched the ear of the elephant. “How wide! An elephant is like a fan.”&nbsp;The sixth blind man put out his hand and touched the tail of the elephant. “How thin! An elephant is like a rope.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

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

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

<p>This fable is often used to illustrate the nature of religious pluralism, instructing us that every faith represents just one part of a larger truth about God. Each religious tradition possesses a piece of the truth, eventually leading its adherents to God by its own unique route. Devotees of Eastern religions are fond of using the parable in this way.</p>

<p>The problem with the parable, though, is it presumes that Christians reject pluralism because they lack exposure to other beliefs, much as the blind men erred because each explored only a part of the elephant and not the whole animal. Had they searched more completely, they would have discovered their error. Christians, then, are simply uninformed about the bigger picture.</p>

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

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

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

<p>No, the Christian’s concern is not based on ignorance. No possible future discovery is going to change the fact that many of the claims of competing religions simply cannot be harmonized. Rather, exploration complicates the issue. The more we discover about core beliefs of various faiths, the more complex the problem of harmonizing becomes.</p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<p>First, inclusivism is only promoted by Christians who agree that, as the New Testament claims, Jesus is the only way of salvation - at least in one sense. However, <em>explicit faith</em> in Christ is not required on this view. In God’s bookkeeping, so to speak, Christ is the only <em>grounds</em> of forgiveness - without the cross there could be no salvation for anyone. However, the <em>object of faith</em> for the salvation provided solely by Christ need not be Jesus.</p>

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

<p>As I mentioned, this inclusivism takes two different forms, what I might call “modest inclusivism”&nbsp;and also a more radical variety. The modest version goes like this: For everyone who <em>hears</em> the gospel, the standard for <em>them</em> is faith in Christ. For those who <em>explicitly</em> reject the gospel, there is no hope. However, we must be either agnostic about those who have never had a chance to hear the gospel, or consider it possible that God judges them by a different standard. A person does not have to believe in Jesus to benefit from Him.</p>

<p>I do not think there is good scriptural justification for this hesitation. However, I am somewhat sympathetic to those who hold this view given the uncertainty some have. It is far less dangerous than the second, more radical version of inclusivism. Here it is: Even those who are exposed to Christianity and who have heard the gospel are not required to believe it. They can be forgiven through Christ even if they openly and decisively reject Him.</p>

<p>Maybe they have been so deeply influenced by circumstances and cultural biases that they do not have the psychological freedom to take the gospel seriously. Maybe they are convinced that the narrowness of Christianity isn’t fair or just. Maybe Christ simply isn’t compelling to them. Whatever the reason, they sincerely reject Christianity and diligently pursue other religious options instead. For this effort, God recognizes the <em>implicit</em> faith of these religious people - “anonymous Christians,”&nbsp;of sorts - and answers by granting them the saving grace of Christ.</p>

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

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids: Zonndervan, 2017), 132.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Lillian Quigley, <em>The Blind Men and the Elephant</em> (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959). Possible original sources of the story are the Jataka tales, a collection of Buddhist birth stories, and the Pancatantra stories, Hindu religious instruction fables.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Women in Apologetics Annual Conference This Weekend
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/09/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/women-in-apologetics-annual-conference-this-weekend
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This Friday and Saturday is the second annual <a href="https://www.womeninapologetics.com/2nd-annual-women-in-apologetics-conference/">Women in Apologetics Conference</a> at Biola University. If you’re in Southern California, I hope you’ll consider attending. (If you’re not in Southern California, you can register to livestream the conference’s plenary sessions.) I’ll be doing a breakout session on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vz3XoJBrgQ">problem of evil</a>, and you can see the full lineup of speakers on the <a href="https://www.womeninapologetics.com/2nd-annual-women-in-apologetics-conference/">website</a>.</p>

<p>One of the nice things about the WIA conference is that they also offer an apologetics program for kids in grades 3–6, so bring them along with you. (You can learn more about that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6chRLSIyVo">here</a>.)</p>

<p>We hope to see you there!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="kqbfJi2xCD8" 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/kqbfJi2xCD8?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%2Fwomen-in-apologetics-annual-conference-this-weekend" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwomen-in-apologetics-annual-conference-this-weekend" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwomen-in-apologetics-annual-conference-this-weekend" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Nazareth Inscription
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/10/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-nazareth-inscription
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The <em>Los Angeles Review of Books</em> has an <a href="https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-emperor-and-the-empty-tomb-an-ancient-inscription-an-eccentric-scholar-and-the-human-need-to-touch-the-past/#!">article</a> by Kyle Harper titled “The Emperor and the Empty Tomb: An Ancient Inscription, an Eccentric Scholar, and the Human Need to Touch the Past.”&nbsp;It tells the story of the antiquities collector who quietly kept a marble tablet with a very interesting inscription all to himself until he died in 1925.</p>

<p>The tablet is known as the Nazareth Inscription, and it contains an “edict of Caesar”&nbsp;calling for capital punishment for anyone who removes a body from a tomb (you can read the text <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth_Inscription">here</a>). If the tablet is indeed from Nazareth, it’s easy to see how one could make a connection between this edict and the beginnings of Christianity.</p>

<p>In terms of evidence supporting that connection, the style of the letters used in the inscription indicate it was written the first half of the first century—so far so good—but because of the said collector’s eccentricities, we’re not sure exactly where the inscription came from, so we may never be able to confirm the connection. Still, it’s intriguing and seems entirely plausible.</p>

<p>In the article, Harper explains the theory that the edict was a response to the unrest over the claims that Jesus was resurrected:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[One of the two theories] is that the edict is a response to the Christian gospel and the bitter disturbances it aroused. The disciples of Jesus claimed that they found their master’s tomb empty. The 28th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew makes it abundantly clear that rival accounts of the empty tomb were in circulation. Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah spread the counter-claim that the disciples had stolen the body, and according to Matthew, they suborned the Roman guards into testifying as much to the governor. These polemics rippled outward across the Roman Empire. The Christian gospel was first proclaimed in the synagogues of diaspora Judaism, and the unsettling message of the resurrected Christ was a source of violent contention. For at least a generation, the principal way in which the Christian mission caught the attention of Roman authorities was in the internecine squabbling it set off in communities of Jews in towns all across the empire. In the reign of Claudius, this strife reached such a pitch that he expelled the Jews from Rome. Perhaps aware of lingering conflict over the claims of the resurrection, the emperor issued an edict laying down harsh penalties for violating tombs and the bodies resting within. A copy was then pointedly set up in the hometown of Jesus or perhaps the nearby Greco-Roman town of Sepphoris. The edict was not an effort to stymie the growth of a new world religion, so much as a reaction to simmering tensions among the empire’s many Jewish enclaves.</p>

<p>The theory [has] an undeniable elegance. It can account for the provenance, date, and purpose of the inscription....</p>

<p>Inevitably, it has been asked whether the Nazareth inscription might be a forgery. But the Nazareth inscription is at once too good, and not good enough, to be a fake. It is virtually impossible that anyone in the 19th century would have had the ability to conjure a passing imitation of something as little understood at the time as the Roman law on tomb robbing—into ancient Greek, with perfect Palestinian paleography no less. And, if someone had been that astute, they should have created a document that does just a little more to convince us of its links with the Christian story. The authenticity of the Nazareth inscription has never been seriously doubted by the scholarly community....</p>

<p>If it is from the remote corner of the world that gave birth to Christianity, and if it was inspired by the emperor’s reaction to the tumult over the empty tomb, it would be the most ancient surviving artifact in any sense <em>of</em> the Christian faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the engaging story behind this discovery in Kyle Harper’s <a href="https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-emperor-and-the-empty-tomb-an-ancient-inscription-an-eccentric-scholar-and-the-human-need-to-touch-the-past/#!">article</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-nazareth-inscription" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-nazareth-inscription" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-nazareth-inscription" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Manual for Creating Atheists Who Create Straw Men
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-manual-for-creating-atheists-who-create-straw-men
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s important to read books you don’t agree with. There are many reasons for doing this. For instance, it forces us to think critically. When we <em>only</em> surround ourselves with voices that are all saying the same thing, we can drift towards intellectual paralysis. It may also get us to engage new ideas we never considered before. In some cases, it may even lead us to change our minds.</p>

<p>These are all important reasons to read books we know we will disagree with. But the <em>most</em> important reason is to understand the opposing point of view. After all, a view can only be <em>properly assessed</em> after it is <em>properly understood</em>.</p>

<p>When we - wittingly or unwittingly - misunderstand an opposing view, it’s easy to erect a <em>straw man</em>. A straw man argument is when you misrepresent a view in order to refute it. A straw man is a lot easier to knock over than a real man. In the same way, a straw man argument is a lot easier to refute than the real argument.</p>

<p>This brings me to a book I’m currently reading titled <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1518648045&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+manual+for+creating+atheists&amp;dpID=41MchZGqb3L&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch"><em>A Manuel for Creating Atheists</em></a> by atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian. This book contains a number of misrepresentations. Let me highlight just one.</p>

<p>Boghossian devotes an entire chapter to defining faith as well as describing its dangers. Significantly, the dangers of faith he cites <em>directly depend</em> on his definition. Speaking of faith, he says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith. “Faith”&nbsp;is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On Boghossian’s view, faith is “belief without evidence”&nbsp;and “pretending to know things you don’t know.”&nbsp;In fact, he says, “As a Street Epistemologist, whenever you hear the word ’faith,’&nbsp;just translate this in your head as, ’pretending to know things you don’t know.’”&nbsp;For example, if someone says, “I have faith in God,”&nbsp;the Street Epistemologist should understand that to mean, “I pretend to know things I don’t know about God.”</p>

<p>What’s incredible about this chapter is how badly Boghossian misrepresents biblical faith to his readers. Boghossian explicitly states that his book depends upon the definition of faith. It’s foundational to his argument. However, rather than building a foundation, Boghossian devotes an entire chapter to building a straw man. In fact, a biblical understanding of faith would <em>undermine</em> the rest of his book.</p>

<p>No <em>thoughtful Christian</em> I know defines faith as “belief without evidence”&nbsp;or “pretending to know things you don’t know.”&nbsp;More importantly, the Bible <em>never</em> uses the word “faith”&nbsp;that way. In fact, biblical faith is always used to describe <a href="/w/getting-faith-right">active trust based on evidence.</a></p>

<p>Over and over again, Boghossian asserts that faith is an epistemology - a way of knowing. But biblical faith is <em>not</em> an epistemology at all. <a href="/w/faith-isn-t-a-way-of-knowing-it-s-a-way-of-trusting">It is not a way of knowing; it is a way of trusting.</a></p>

<p>Boghossian should know better.</p>

<p>Not only does the Bible clearly teach that faith is <em>trusting in light of the evidence</em>, but many contemporary Christian scholars also explicitly teach this. For example, philosopher William Lane Craig - one of the leading Christian thinkers alive today - says, ���Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. Once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can then place your faith or trust in those things.”&nbsp;Furthermore, Oxford mathematician John Lennox writes, “Faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of it.”</p>

<p>Notice Boghossian - an atheist - is saying the <em>exact opposite</em> of what Craig - a Christian - is saying. Minimally, Boghossian is not representing what Craig teaches. But it’s worse than that. Since Craig is representing biblical Christianity, he’s not representing what biblical Christianity teaches.</p>

<p>Boghossian opens his book by stating, “This book will teach you how to talk people out of their faith.”&nbsp;Yet, he can’t even be trusted to properly define what faith is.</p>

<p>This brings us back to an important lesson: <em>You can only properly respond to a view after you understand it.</em></p>

<p>Unfortunately, Boghossian doesn’t understand biblical faith. As a result, he resorts to a misrepresentation - a straw man - to make his argument work. Sadly, there are many who will blindly believe Boghossian without looking into what Christianity actually teaches. Boghossian is hopeful that his manual will show atheists how to create atheists. However, instead of being a manual for creating atheists, this is <em>really</em> a manual for creating atheists who create straw men.</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-manual-for-creating-atheists-who-create-straw-men" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-manual-for-creating-atheists-who-create-straw-men" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-manual-for-creating-atheists-who-create-straw-men" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Australians’ Non-Confrontational Disposition
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/12/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/australians-non-confrontational-disposition
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Relativism, although not nearly as cutting edge of a topic as it used to be, is still a massive problem. I’ve been teaching in Victoria, Australia this past week. My friend (and local pastor) here has been telling me that Australians have a very non-confrontational disposition. Relativism, he says, plays very well into this desire to avoid arguing with others. When you don’t want to disagree with someone about your religious convictions, it’s a lot easier to think, <em>I have my belief and they have their belief, so let’s just leave it at that.</em> There’s no need to tell them what you believe, make people feel uncomfortable, or, worse, begin a quarrel.</p>

<p>That’s why my pastor friend wasn’t at all surprised to read the recent <a href="https://www.barna.com/research/millennials-oppose-evangelism/" target="_blank">Barna study</a> that found 47% of Christian millennials think it’s wrong to share their faith with someone of a different faith. Ironically, the same group believed they were gifted at sharing their faith more than any other group (Gen X, Boomers, or Elders).</p>

<p>Although the study was conducted in the United States, my friends here in Australia are quick to point out that their culture - in this particular way - mimics trends in the United States.</p>
</div>

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


title: A Response to Hemant Mehta’s Post about Stand to Reason’s Email
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/30/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-response-to-hemant-mehta-s-post-about-stand-to-reason-s-email
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve received some emails from atheists regarding a recent post by the “Friendly Atheist,”&nbsp;Hemant Mehta, so I thought it might be worth writing a response here.</p>

<p>Mehta’s post is titled “<a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/28/a-christian-bible-camp-brought-in-a-fake-atheist-so-kids-could-stump-him/">A Christian Bible Camp Brought in a Fake ’Atheist’&nbsp;So Kids Could Stump Him</a>,“&nbsp;and it features an STR email that was sent out last weekend describing an atheist role play event one of our listeners/readers held at his camp in order to test his students after a week of training.</p>

<p>Here’s what Mehta had to say:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I imagine the conversation went like this:</p>

<p><strong>“Atheist”</strong>: Evolution is real!<br>
<strong>Kids</strong>: Then why are there still monkeys?<br>
<strong>“Atheist”</strong>: Oh man! You got me! But at least I’m a good person!<br>
<strong>Kids</strong>: You can’t be good without God!<br>
<strong>“Atheist”</strong>: Oh no... this is hard. Uh... uh... Jesus is a myth!<br>
<strong>Kids</strong>: No He’s not! The Bible says so!<br>
<strong>“Atheist”</strong>: Damn! You win again! I’m gonna go eat lunch now.<br>
<strong>Kids</strong>: Here’s a banana.<br>
<strong>“Atheist”</strong>: AHHHHHHHHH!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even though the email wasn’t describing an STR event (a fact that the commenters and emailers seem to have missed), I highly doubt this is even remotely accurate. I don’t know why Mehta would assume Christian teachers would go easy on students in an exercise like this one, especially if they’re following Stand to Reason’s lead.</p>

<p>Our speakers, as many of you know, have done many <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46G9MlM6lgM">atheist role plays</a> with students over the years, but the goal is to <em>stump</em> the kids so that they realize they’re unprepared to respond to the challenges that are out there, not to make the students feel good about themselves.</p>

<p>Mehta says of the atheist role play:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>These people are so afraid to put their beliefs under <em>actual</em> scrutiny that they had to bring in someone who could easily be “beaten”&nbsp;just for the sake of show. What does that accomplish? And why avoid an actual atheist?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s just odd to me that Mehta and his readers would jump to the conclusions they jumped to without any information whatsoever. Why assume it’s not possible for a Christian to represent atheist arguments accurately? As it happens, popular YouTube atheist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCR23SnRcuAqafV1lH1le5w/about">Pinecreek Doug</a> recently reviewed one of Tim Barnett’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tDtH2EGnH0">atheist role plays</a>, saying Tim did “an excellent job”&nbsp;role-playing the atheist (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVK5vi2fBRk">here</a>).</p>

<p>As a result of Mehta’s post, we’ve received emails from atheists who wrongly assumed Stand to Reason isolates Christian students from hearing atheist ideas. (Take a look at the <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/28/a-christian-bible-camp-brought-in-a-fake-atheist-so-kids-could-stump-him/">comments</a> on his post if you want to get an idea of what those emails are like. Good grief. We moved blog comments to Facebook a year ago partly because of comments like these. As <a href="/w/we-re-closing-comments-on-the-stand-to-reason-blog">I said then</a>, “Interacting with anonymous strangers online these days has the negative potential of training Christians to not only expect incivility from non-Christians (resulting in a constantly defensive posture on the part of Christians), but also to respond in kind.”&nbsp;The last thing we want at Stand to Reason is for our readers to develop a negative view of real-life atheists because of anonymous internet atheist comments.)</p>

<p>As for “avoiding actual atheists,”&nbsp;anyone who has followed our work knows our philosophy is that we ought to <a href="/w/inoculate-don-t-isolate">inoculate, not isolate</a>, students from opposing ideas. In fact, many years ago, Brett Kunkle (now with <a href="https://www.maventruth.com">MAVEN</a>) developed apologetics mission trips, training students for weeks ahead of time, and then taking them to Berkeley to listen to influential, public atheists (and Berkeley students, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEU7JKSWZRU">atheist campus groups</a>, etc.) and interact with them.</p>

<p>Atheist activist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier">Richard Carrier</a> was one of those speakers several years ago, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/richard.carrier.phd/posts/185855611458674">he had this to say</a> about the experience in a Facebook comment:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’ve spoken for Stand to Reason for years. They are an awesome group. Really smart kids. Progressive. Kind and accommodating. Their very motto is to hear out other points of view because their religion should be able to stand to reason, i.e. if they have to avoid listening to us, then their religion is probably false, ergo they should listen to us and give us a fair hearing (“us”&nbsp;being any non-Christians, not just atheists, and possibly Christians of diverse views, too).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The irony of this whole situation is that it appears to be the case that the very person who forwarded the STR email that ended up with Mehta <em>is one of those atheists</em> who regularly spoke to students on our Berkeley apologetics mission trips.</p>

<p>Greg and Tim talked about this on <a href="/w/a-response-to-an-atheist-s-objection-to-atheist-role-plays">today’s podcast</a>, if you’d like to hear more. And if you are an atheist, we would absolutely love for you to call our podcast (Tuesdays, 4:00–6:00 p.m. PT, 855-243-9975) to interact with Greg. Of course, you’re welcome to call with your questions even if you aren’t an atheist! But if you’re an atheist out there who’s concerned that your view isn’t being heard and considered by STR listeners, please do give us a call. Greg always treats callers with respect, and you’ll have a good conversation. (If you need proof of that, you can hear a recent conversation he had with an atheist caller <a href="/w/when-christian-schools-try-to-please-the-crowd">here</a>. We’ve had many repeat atheist callers over the years.) We look forward to hearing from you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-hemant-mehta-s-post-about-stand-to-reason-s-email" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-hemant-mehta-s-post-about-stand-to-reason-s-email" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-hemant-mehta-s-post-about-stand-to-reason-s-email" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/06/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has two new videos addressing the question “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”&nbsp;Part One makes a case for three historical facts that point to the physical, historical resurrection of Jesus. Part Two gives arguments against four alternative, naturalistic theories popularly used to explain those historical facts: the conspiracy theory, the apparent death theory, the displaced body theory, and the hallucination theory.</p>

<p>Reasonable Faith’s videos explain apologetics topics simply and clearly; they’re definitely worth watching and sharing. If you’re not familiar with them, make sure you take a look at these, as well.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument">The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/could-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-">The Moral Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-finely-tuned-universe-necessity-chance-or-design-">The Fine-Tuning Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/the-contingency-argument">The Contingency Argument</a></li>
</ul>

<p>And for a brief, written argument for the resurrection, see “<a href="/w/the-resurrection-was-a-real-event-in-history">The Resurrection Was a Real Event in History</a>.”</p>

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

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="6SbJ4p6WiZE" 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/6SbJ4p6WiZE?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-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-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%2Fan-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-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%2Fan-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-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: More Reasons Not to Abort Babies That Are Going to Die
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/13/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/more-reasons-not-to-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many people who are convinced abortion is wrong hesitate when it comes to the question of aborting babies that have been diagnosed with a lethal disease or abnormality. The moral reasoning against abortion in these cases doesn’t change (the fact that a human being will die in the future doesn’t justify killing him now), but the additional emotional element that’s added into the situation gives people pause. Why go through the pain of pregnancy, labor, and birth for a baby who will not survive? Won’t that just make a tragic situation worse?</p>

<p>Christopher Kaczor’s article “<a href="https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/01/47802/">Do Women Regret Giving Birth When the Baby is Doomed to Die?</a>”&nbsp;addresses this question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This defense of abortion depends in part on an empirical claim about the likely consequences of continuing a pregnancy when the baby has a life-limiting diagnosis. Yet the evidence suggests that almost all women [97.5%] do not regret giving birth, even if their baby is doomed to die, and that abortion in such cases leads to less positive outcomes.</p>

<p>A 2018 article from the <em>Journal of Clinical Ethics,</em> entitled “’<a href="http://www.clinicalethics.com/single_article/8R6FBJJkYFA.html">I Would Do It All Over Again’: Cherishing Time and the Absence of Regret in Continuing a Pregnancy after a Life-Limiting Diagnosis</a>,”&nbsp;examines these cases. The authors write, “Some—or perhaps many—people assume that ending a pregnancy shortly after a diagnosis of an LLFC [Life Limiting Fetal Condition] would subsequently relieve regret and lessen the grief parents anticipate from carrying a baby with severe problems.”&nbsp;In fact, however, data “from this study and others suggest that more profound regret comes from failure to spend as much time with their children as they would like, even during pregnancy.”</p>

<p>When asked, “Do you have any regrets about continuing the pregnancy?”&nbsp;the study found an overwhelming and emphatic lack of regret....</p>

<p>Though incredibly difficult, women who continued their pregnancies despite a lethal fetal diagnosis did not regret giving birth but found joy and peace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Women report a few different reasons for their lack of regret for giving birth to children who will die:</p>

<ul>
	<li>An experience of love</li>
	<li>Self-transformation and growth</li>
	<li>A chance to meet the child</li>
	<li>Thankfulness for the time they were able to spend with the baby</li>
</ul>

<p>The article goes on to contrast these positive results with the results that occur when a woman decides to end the baby’s life rather than care for him until his natural death. In sum, “Women who terminated reported significantly more despair, avoidance and depression than women who continued the pregnancy.”</p>

<p>Of course, these studies only address the <em>psychological</em> and <em>emotional</em> impact on the mothers, and these considerations don’t determine whether it’s <em>right</em> or <em>wrong</em> to abort the children (see <a href="/w/why-we-shouldn-t-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die">here</a> for some thoughts on the ethics involved). But I suspect that many women who find themselves in this devastating situation decide to preemptively end the lives of their children precisely because of their fear of what they will suffer as mothers if they give birth to a child who dies. Having this information about what mothers in this situation actually experience could prevent fear from obscuring the <a href="/w/pro-life-crash-course">moral reasoning against abortion</a> and free them to embrace caring for their children to the end.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmore-reasons-not-to-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmore-reasons-not-to-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmore-reasons-not-to-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Happy New Year...You’re at War
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/happy-new-year-you-re-at-war
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I hope you had a merry Christmas. Welcome to the new year!</p>

<p>Guess what. You’re at war.</p>

<p>This may not sound like a <em>happy</em> new year post. There’s a reason for that: it’s not. The sobering reality is that we are at war because someone is at war with us. Scripture makes this clear. After the angelic battle in heaven, Satan was thrown down to earth and “went off to make war with [those] who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus”&nbsp;(Rev. 12:17).</p>

<p>The Bible is not talking about <em>physical</em> warfare, using tanks and missiles. This battle is “not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”&nbsp;(Eph. 6:12). Again, Scripture clarifies this is a spiritual war: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 10:3-4).</p>

<p>So, put on the full armor of God. Stand firm. Gird your loins with truth. Put on the breastplate of righteousness. Fit your feet with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. Take up the shield of faith. Place on your head the helmet of salvation, and take hold of the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:13-17).</p>

<p>This means war.</p>

<p>I hope you’re ready for the new year. I pray it will be a “happy”&nbsp;one, but please prepare for it to be filled with trial and tribulation. Our adversary is not sitting around playing Xbox. He “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour”&nbsp;(1 Pet. 5:8). Those are fighting words.</p>

<p>Thankfully, we have an advocate, Jesus. He promises us that He will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5). In fact, He intercedes for us (Rom. 8:34).</p>

<p>We at Stand to Reason are also eager to help you this year to destroy “speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 10:5). Our hope is that you stand firm in your faith, love one another, and honor God with how you live.</p>
</div>

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


title: Telling Parting Words: John Newton vs. Mr. Rogers
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/telling-parting-words-john-newton-vs-mr-rogers
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A person’s final words are often telling.</p>

<p>Consider the last words spoken by John Newton - Newton, 18th-century infidel, libertine, and slave trader; later, Newton, rector of London’s St. Mary Woolnoth, mentor and political inspiration of abolitionist William Wilberforce, author of the most beloved hymn in history, “Amazing Grace.”</p>

<p>For all his undeniable moral greatness, John Newton’s parting words were, “I am a great sinner, but Christ is a great Savior.”</p>

<p>Consider another honorable soul, the much-loved Fred Rogers - Rogers, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, ordained United Presbyterian minister, gentle and loving mentor to generations of preschool children through his long-lived television series, <em>Mr. Rogers’&nbsp;Neighborhood</em>.</p>

<p>In the twilight of his years, reflecting on Jesus’&nbsp;judgment parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, Fred Rogers asked his wife, Joanne, “Am I a sheep?”</p>

<p>John Newton, after a lifetime of noble accomplishment, confident only of his own badness and of Christ’s merciful goodness on his behalf. Fred Rogers, after a lifetime of loving, self-sacrificial service, certain only of his uncertainty - unsure of his own goodness, thus unsure of his own salvation.</p>

<p>Two lives; two virtuous legacies, yet two entirely different understandings of God’s grace.</p>

<p>It saddened me when I learned of the doubts of the decent, upright, conscientious Mr. Rogers. His wife, Joanne, had answered him, “Fred, if anyone is a sheep, you are.”&nbsp;It was not the right answer. Something vital was missing.</p>

<p>I want you to think of the words of this, the first Bible verse I ever learned more than 45 years ago: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast”&nbsp;(Eph. 2:8-9). This verse - and the many like it - informs everything for me as a Christian. It always has.</p>

<p>I am 68 years old, and the twilight of my own life is slowly approaching - not close, I trust, but within sight. I am nowhere near as noble, as self-sacrificial, as persistently and irrevocably loving as Mr. Rogers was. No matter. That is not what counts in the final reckoning. Here is what matters:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus...let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (Heb. 10:19-23)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col. 1:13-14)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do passages like these (and there are a multitude of them) instruct your heart the way they do mine? Feast on these words. Regularly. There is life in them. Relief from self-doubt. The source of great hope, the only hope, for even the worst of us - and the best of us. These are the verses Joanne Rogers should have comforted her husband with - those that focus on Christ’s magnificent merits, not our own, feeble by contrast.</p>

<p>I have already chosen the epitaph for my tombstone. You’ll find it in Psalm 130:3-4. It reflects not Rogers’s sad uncertainty, but Newton’s proper confidence:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?</p>

<p>But there is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Are you a great sinner? You know you are. So am I. And if God should mark our iniquities, then we are all done for - John Newton, Fred Rogers, you, me. But Christ <em>is</em> a great Savior. Never forget this. It is our only hope as darkness encroaches.</p>
</div>

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


title: Must God Prove He Exists?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/must-god-prove-he-exists-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On occasion, I’ve heard a skeptic or atheist make the following comment (or something similar to this): “If God levitates this car, I’ll believe He exists.”&nbsp;After staring at the car (which never moves an inch) for a few moments, he triumphantly declares, “See, nothing happened. God doesn’t exist.”</p>

<p>Several thoughts come to mind about such a “test.”</p>

<p>First, even though this approach presumes the atheist would be open to believing in God if there were sufficient evidence, I’ve never been convinced that such a person would actually believe in God <em>even if their condition was surprisingly met</em>. I suspect they would rationalize the phenomenon away. Perhaps they would think they were on candid camera or there was some geo-gravitational anomaly that occurred that day. Either way, they’d try to find an alternative explanation.</p>

<p>Second, Jesus performed many miracles in His day - many of them in front of His skeptics - and they still didn’t believe His claims. It’s quite possible that a modern skeptic would obstinately reject miraculous evidence today, as well.</p>

<p>Third - and this probably explains the first two points - your worldview determines the options you have for possible beliefs. Atheists are typically naturalists, people who believe that nature is all there is. On their worldview, there are no non-material objects like souls, angels, or gods. That means they don’t have the option to believe that a spiritual being levitated a car. That’s ruled out by definition. They must figure out some other explanation that’s consistent with their worldview (it’s a prank, a gravitational anomaly, etc.). A theist, on the other hand, has a worldview that is open to explaining an event through either natural or supernatural means, depending on where the evidence leads.</p>

<p>Fourth, God is not a circus animal that jumps through our hoops. If He exists, then He’s the only infinite, all-knowing, and all-powerful being. He created the universe out of nothing and is the author of life. Such a being is not at the beck and call of a mortal who’s challenging Him to prove His existence.</p>

<p>Fifth, the reasoning behind a “test”&nbsp;like this is flawed. A car that doesn’t levitate proves very little. Suppose I respond to the atheist by demanding he pay me $2,000 every month for the rest of his life. Then I declare, “Unless you give me that money, I won’t believe you exist.”&nbsp;Am I justified in declaring the atheist doesn’t exist when he balks at my demand? It’s quite possible that he <em>can</em> pay me, but chooses <em>not</em> to. Why? Because he doesn’t want to! He has no obligation towards me, and he’s probably not bothered if I don’t believe in him. The same would be true of God.</p>

<p>The good news is that we don’t need a test like this to have evidence of God’s existence. His power and divine nature are powerfully evident through creation (Rom. 1:20).</p>
</div>

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


title: Naturalism’s Only Option
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/naturalism-s-only-option
content:
            <div> 
		<p>February 12 is Darwin Day, a holiday devoted to celebrating Darwin’s contribution to explaining how humans and animals “arrived.”&nbsp;Those who reject the idea of a creator God were jubilant about their newfound creation story once it was published in 1859. The problem with the evolutionary explanation, though, was that it was the only creation story that atheists would embrace, even if the evidence didn’t support it.</p>

<p>During Darwin’s day, Christians held a complete worldview. According to Christian theism, there are <em>material</em> things like planets, protons, and giraffes. There are also <em>immaterial</em> things like souls, angels, and an all-powerful God who created the universe and all the creatures that inhabit the earth.</p>

<p>The atheist worldview, naturalism, by contrast, was incomplete. Naturalism posits that nature is all there is. Only physical or material things exist. There are no souls, gods, angels, or anything immaterial. Atheists were mostly satisfied with their naturalistic worldview, but they lacked a compelling “creation”&nbsp;story - an account of how humans and animals got here. Even though atheists vigorously rejected the Christian account of creation, they probably had creation-story-envy.</p>

<p>That all changed when Darwin came along. He postulated that different species arrived not by divine intervention but by evolution through natural selection. Atheists were ecstatic. Now they had a way to explain how life emerged on earth without appealing to God. Darwin had filled in the hole in naturalism’s worldview, thereby making it complete.</p>

<p>The problem, though, is that atheists had no choice but to embrace the evolutionary explanation, even though the evidence didn’t support it. The reason is simple. Naturalism is a materialistic account of reality. <em>Only</em> physical things exist. If there is no God, then what could possibly explain how life emerged on earth? The answer <em>must</em> be some type of physical explanation. That’s precisely what evolution is - a materialistic explanation.</p>

<p>What happens when scientists discover evidence that undermines evolutionary theory or supports the Christian story of creation? It’s disqualified by definition. It’s ruled inadmissible. Atheists have no choice but to accept Darwin’s account. It’s the only option they have.</p>

<p>Thoughtful evolutionists admit this, too. Richard Lewontin, former Harvard University geneticist and leading evolutionary thinker, acknowledged this very point. Writing in the <em>New York Review of Books</em>, Lewontin said, “It is <em>not</em> that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are <em>forced</em> by our a priori adherence to <em>material</em> causes to...produce <em>material</em> explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive...”&nbsp;(Emphasis mine.)</p>

<p>This is a stunning admission. Remember that evolution is a <em>material</em> explanation. It’s a creation story that only uses matter - not immaterial things like God - to explain life on earth. Lewontin says that it’s <em>not</em> scientific evidence that compels atheists to accept a material explanation. Rather, it’s their adherence to naturalism and the belief that physical matter is all that exists.</p>

<p>One would think that evolutionists, like other scientists, base their conclusions on evidence. Not so, writes Lewontin. Adherence to material causes is “a priori”&nbsp;- a Latin term that means believing in something <em>without</em> looking at empirical evidence. In other words, there is no piece of evidence or scientific test that leads him (or others like him) to believe that matter is all there is. It’s not only presupposed as fact, but Lewontin claims that belief in “materialism is absolute”&nbsp;and therefore is not subject to counter-evidence.</p>

<p>This dogmatic belief in materialism “forces”&nbsp;(that’s Lewontin’s word) atheists to accept material explanations like evolution. That’s why I said they had no choice but to accept Darwin’s thesis. They also have no choice but to accept it now. It’s the only materialist explanation available.</p>

<p>By contrast, Christians who uphold a theistic worldview have the freedom to believe not only in material things, but also in immaterial things. When a phenomenon requires an explanation, the Christian can follow the evidence where it leads - whether it has a material or an immaterial cause.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnaturalism-s-only-option" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnaturalism-s-only-option" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnaturalism-s-only-option" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Apologetic against Dating in High School
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/29/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-apologetic-against-dating-in-high-school
content:
            <div> 
		<p>High school students love to say they’re dating “to get to know each other better”&nbsp;and “to see if we’re compatible.”</p>

<p>If <em>my</em> kids offer that excuse, I’d like to respond with <a href="https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/what-about-dating-high-school" target="_blank">this hypothetical but honest explanation</a>.</p>

<p>Here’s a short excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If no one is ready to get married at the age of 16, then “getting to know”&nbsp;someone romantically in high school will simply terminate the relationship, because you will learn the person you are dating is not yet marriage-material. I don’t mean that as an insult. At 16, a person might have a lot of potential, but you should marry someone based on what they have done, not what you hope they will someday do. At 16, you just haven’t accomplished enough to be worthy of marriage...Marriage is a noble and high calling. Think of marriage as an honor which must be prepared for.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>By the way, if you’re not familiar with the <a href="https://www.circeinstitute.org/" target="_blank">CiRCE Institute</a> and you’re interested in classical Christian education and want to understand the philosophy behind it, look no further than this organization.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why Is the Old Covenant Obsolete?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/17/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-the-old-covenant-obsolete-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been reading Andy Stanley’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Reclaiming-Jesus-Unleashed-World/dp/0310536987/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">new book</a>, <em>Irresistible: Reclaiming the New That Jesus Unleashed for the World</em>. His main contention in the book is that pastors ought to “unhitch [their] teaching of what it means to follow Jesus from all things old covenant” because the Old Testament is a “stumbling block to faith”—an <em>unnecessary</em> stumbling block, since that covenant is obsolete.</p>

<p>Regular readers of this site know I agree with Stanley that the Mosaic Covenant God made with Israel is obsolete. (See “<a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">Why We’re Not Under the Mosaic Law</a>” and “<a href="/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-">Should Followers of Christ Observe the Torah?</a>” where I go through several passages that explain our relationship as followers of Christ to the laws of the Mosaic Covenant.) The “obsolete” language comes from Hebrews 8:7–13:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,</p>

<p style="margin-left:.5in;">“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,<br>
When I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;<br>
Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers<br>
On the day when I took them by the hand<br>
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;<br>
For they did not continue in My covenant,<br>
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.<br>
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel<br>
After those days, says the Lord:<br>
I will put My laws into their minds,<br>
And I will write them on their hearts.<br>
And I will be their God,<br>
And they shall be My people….”</p>

<p>When [God] said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Though I agree with Stanley that the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, I have many concerns about the book, and I think the root of those concerns may be his understanding of <em>why</em> the Old Covenant is obsolete. His misunderstanding here leads to his faulty conclusion of how Christians today ought to view and interact with the <em>Old Testament</em>, not just the laws of the Old Covenant.</p>

<h2>The Jerusalem Council’s Decision</h2>

<p>Let’s start by looking at what he says about the Jerusalem Council’s decision (in Acts 15) that the new Gentile followers of Christ would not be required to follow the Mosaic Law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]hey decided <em>unity</em> in the church was more important than the <em>law</em> of Moses.</p>

<p>Did that send a chill down your spine?</p>

<p>No?</p>

<p>Peter, Paul, and James agreed that keeping the church together took precedence over keeping the law. To put it another way, unity in the church was more important than about half your English Bible.</p>

<p>Congregational unity trumped ceremonial purity. (p. 130)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>First, this makes it sound like the Jerusalem Council’s decision was pragmatic. The decision wasn’t pragmatic; it was theological. They weren’t giving up ceremonial purity in order to have unity. In fact, their point was that they could have unity <em>because they already had ceremonial purity in Christ</em>. Peter explains this in Acts 15:8–11 in his speech to the Council:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, the problem with telling the Gentiles to follow the Law wasn’t mainly that doing so would make it more difficult for them to become Christians; the problem with telling them they needed the Law was that <em>the Law wasn’t needed</em>. They were purified by being in Christ by His grace. That’s a theological reason, not a pragmatic one.</p>

<p>Second, it doesn’t at all follow from the Jerusalem Council’s decision that half of our Bible is <em><a href="/w/we-still-need-the-old-testament">less important</a></em>. And here’s where we come to the root of the problem. Stanley argues that the old and new covenants aren’t just divided by the Mosaic Law; they’re actually divided by different <em>worldviews</em> with different ethics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hen Paul unhitched his wagon from the old covenant and bolted it onto the new, his entire worldview changed. Not just his understanding of justification and salvation, his entire worldview. Paul had taken the old covenant to its logical extreme both in his personal devotion to it as well as his no-holds-barred defense of it. Which may explain why he was so happy to be done with it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is very unsettling. Despite Stanley’s assertions that the Old Testament was inspired, he makes many statements, such as the one above, that refer to the “offensive portions of the old covenant” and indicate a sharp contrast between the “worldview,” “values,” and “ethics” of the two covenants.</p>

<p>For example, he says the command to love foreigners was entirely new in the New Covenant, saying Peter had “never been expected to love anyone other than other Jews” (p. 185), but see Leviticus 19:33–34; he refers to Israel’s “ancient racist ways” (p. 187), which I can only assume refers to the laws separating Israel from other nations—something that had nothing to do with racism; he says John “redefined God for his readers and, ultimately, for the world” (p. 222) when he said, “God is love,” even though God’s “steadfast love” is evidenced throughout the Old Testament; and he claims “the justifications Christians have used since the fourth century to mistreat people find their roots in old covenant practices and values” (p. 95).</p>

<h2>The Weakness of the Law</h2>

<p>For Stanley, the “fault” with the first covenant (referred to in the Hebrews passage quoted above) was in the “values” and “worldview” of that covenant, but this is not what the Bible teaches. Rather, the “fault” was in the fact that the Law was unable to impart righteousness, change hearts, or empower the people to “bear fruit for God” (notice the Hebrews passage speaks of God “finding fault with <em>them</em>,” the people, who did not follow the stipulations of His covenant, not with the laws of the covenant themselves).</p>

<p>Paul explains where the weakness of the Law lies in Romans 7:7–13, and it’s not with the morality of that Law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, <em>which was to result in life</em>, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, <em>the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.</em></p>

<p>Therefore did <em>that which is good</em> become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through <em>that which is good</em>, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to this passage, the “fault” referred to in Hebrews 8:7–13 did not lie with any lack of goodness in the Law—on the contrary, “the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” The reason why we need a new covenant is not that Jesus has a better <em>commandment</em> for us now; the reason is that the good Law only has the power to reveal and condemn our sin, not to make us holy. The fault lies with <em>us</em>, with <em>our</em> sin and inability to follow the Law. The New Covenant is “a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6) not because the commandments are better, but because it isn’t weakened by our frailty. It’s secure because “we have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” and because Jesus is a better priest, who is able “to save forever those who draw near to God through Him” because He lives forever (see Hebrews 7–10 for more).</p>

<p>Acceptance by God was always by grace, though faith—even for Abraham (Rom. 4)—but God is also gathering us as “a people for God’s own possession, so that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9), and so we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10) that will bring Him glory; and as new creations joined to Christ and raised from the dead with Him (Rom. 6), the works we do are now powered by the Spirit (Rom. 8). This power to overcome our sin and “bear fruit for God” (Rom. 7:4) is something the Law could never give us (as Rom. 8:1–17 explains).</p>

<p>Here’s the bottom line: The change in covenants is not about creating a new and better ethic; it’s about a new source of perfect, imperishable righteousness (the righteousness of God received through faith in Jesus, apart from the Law—Rom. 3:21–22) and power to live the <em>old</em> ethic—the reflection of God’s character revealed fully by Jesus—in a way that’s appropriate to our time and place.</p>

<h2>Why This Matters</h2>

<p>Why does this matter? It’s hard to imagine anyone who thinks the values of the Old Covenant are subpar spending time trying to understand the Old Testament and its Mosaic laws—laws that were meant to reveal much of who God is and what He values and to shed light on the coming Messiah. Stanley says toward the end of the book that, ultimately, once people are won to Christ through his method of convincing people that the Old Testament has “absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or His new covenant”&nbsp;(p. 274), they will then want to understand the Old Testament. But it’s hard for me to believe this is the case, especially after he repeatedly implies the worldview, values, and ethic of the Old Covenant are not worth knowing compared to the New. And not knowing the Old Testament can’t help but lead to a more shallow understanding of God. This consequence grieves me the most.</p>

<p>Secondly, there is a real danger in divorcing the Old Covenant writings from the New and then saying that the new Christian ethic is simply, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34), and that the behavioral standard is, “If it’s not good for them, it’s sin” (p. 242), and that the only question we need to ask ourselves is, “What does love require of me?” (p. 233). Here’s the problem: Without any content behind the words “love” and “good for them,” one can make this ethic and standard fit almost any action. Just ask a progressive Christian who’s promoting acceptance of homosexuality. Is it not “loving as Jesus loved” to accept marginalized gay people’s marriages? How could one respond to that question without the content God provided for over a thousand years to define what is good and what love requires?</p>

<p>Those who are not steeped in the background of the Old Testament will be “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14), influenced by every fad in our culture. Paul made this very clear in 2 Timothy 3:16–4:4:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you:...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But again, why would anyone so steep himself in the Old Testament if he’s not convinced it’s actually good?</p>

<h2>A Pragmatic Approach That Isn’t Worth the Cost</h2>

<p>The acknowledged impetus behind Stanley’s approach is pragmatism:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christianity has a compelling, verifiable, historical story to tell. But the moment we anchor our story to an old covenant narrative and worldview, we lose our case in the marketplace. (p. 158)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But God’s worldview has not changed, because <em>He</em> has not changed. And God Himself anchored our Christian story to the Old Covenant narrative and worldview. The two are of one piece—one unified story—and one can’t fully appreciate the end of any story without understanding its beginning.</p>

<p>Yes, understanding that beginning can be difficult, and work must be done in order to respond to the moral objections to the Old Testament that are currently so popular in our culture. It would certainly be much easier to simply “shrug, give ’em our best confused look, and say, ’I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up. My Christian faith isn’t based on any of that’” (p. 290), but we would have to do so at the cost of exploring, enjoying, and proclaiming the words God inspired to reveal Himself to the world. That’s not a price we should be willing to pay.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;<br>
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.<br>
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;<br>
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.<br>
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;<br>
The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.<br>
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;<br>
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. (Ps. 19:7–10)</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-the-old-covenant-obsolete-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-the-old-covenant-obsolete-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-the-old-covenant-obsolete-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Evidence Will Not Convince Some Atheists
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-evidence-will-not-convince-some-atheists
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if he found himself standing before Him after his death. Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ’Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’”</p>

<p>For Russell, it all came down to the evidence. The implication is, given better evidence for God, Russell would believe.</p>

<p>Many atheists today make similar claims. For example, while taking questions on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycISekvHY5M">The Atheist Voice</a>, Hemant Mehta - the Friendly Atheist - was asked, “What would it take for you to believe in God?”</p>

<p>He replied, “I guess, simply put, I would need to see a miracle. I need evidence for God, and maybe that would come in the form of a miracle that has no possible explanation in the natural world.”</p>

<p>When we hear claims like these, it is tempting to think belief in God comes down to the evidence <em>and nothing else</em>. On this view, it’s as if we have an “evidence meter”&nbsp;in our heads. And when the “evidence meter”&nbsp;reaches a certain level, we believe in God.</p>

<p>But is it really that simple? Does belief in God <em>merely</em> depend on evidence?</p>

<h2>A Heart Issue</h2>

<p>The brilliant French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal didn’t think so. He certainly believed evidence for God played an important role. However, it wasn’t the decisive factor.</p>

<p>In his masterful book <em>Pensées</em>, Pascal wrote,</p>

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

<p>Pascal makes it clear that the evidence for God is <em>not</em> the issue. Instead, the <em>issue</em> is with the desires of the human heart. To put it another way, the problem is not <em>with God</em>; the problem is <em>with us.</em></p>

<p>According to Pascal, the evidence for God will have a different result depending on the <em>heart of the person</em>. Those who seek God with all their heart will see the evidence and believe. Those who flee God with all their heart will <em>also</em> see the evidence but will not believe. It’s not an evidence issue; it’s a heart issue.</p>

<p>Pascal’s ideas find support in both the Old and New Testaments. Speaking through the prophet Jeremiah to the children of Israel, God says, “You will seek Me and find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart”&nbsp;(Jer. 29:13).</p>

<p>This same promise is repeated in the New Testament. Paul appeals to the men of Athens to seek after God so that they may find Him.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And He 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, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us. (Acts 17:26-27)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here is the problem with Russell’s and Mehta’s responses. They assume, as many people do today, that knowledge of God is <em>only</em> an evidence issue. If they reach a certain level of evidence, then they will believe. But this is simply <em>not</em> true. They have failed to account for the orientation of the heart.</p>

<p>There is no clearer example of this in Scripture than the Pharisees’&nbsp;response to Jesus healing Lazarus.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of Him but also to see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. (John 12:9-11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After being confronted with evidence that Jesus miraculously brought Lazarus back from the dead, the chief priests didn’t repent and turn to God. No, the text says they made plans to kill Lazarus.</p>

<p>This passage highlights two different responses to the same evidence. John tells us that many believed in Jesus because of the evidence (v.11). But this miraculous event didn’t <em>guarantee</em> that everyone would believe. There were some - the chief priests - who had the same evidence and chose to reject it.</p>

<p>Lazarus was <em>living, breathing evidence</em> of Jesus’&nbsp;identity. However, rather than believe, the chief priests made plans to destroy the evidence.</p>

<p>This is unbelievable unbelief.</p>

<p>Belief in Jesus - God the Son - has consequences. The Pharisees and chief priests knew it. After Jesus raises Lazarus, they plot to kill Jesus, saying, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”&nbsp;(John 11:47-48).</p>

<p>Notice what’s motivating their unbelief. It’s not the evidence. In fact, they don’t deny that signs are being performed. Rather, they don’t want to lose their status - including their temple and nation (v.48). They can’t stand the idea of living in a world like that. As a result, their wicked hearts push back.</p>

<p>And so do many today. In a moment of honest reflection, Philosopher Thomas Nagel remarks,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>A Worldview Issue</h2>

<p>This kind of unbelievable unbelief is still present today.</p>

<p>In a candid discussion between atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vG_8wkwhr0">Boghossian asked Dawkins what it would take for him to believe in God.</a></p>

<p>You might assume Dawkins would boldly announce, “Evidence!”&nbsp;After all, scientists are supposed to care about evidence. But that’s <em>not</em> what he says. He states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Well, I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the second coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming, bass Paul Robeson voice saying, “I am God, and I created.”&nbsp;But I was persuaded...that even if there <em>was</em> this booming voice in the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it’s a hallucination, or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield, or something...A supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After more discussion, Boghossian pushes the question further. He asks Dawkins again, “So what would persuade you?”&nbsp;Dawkins replies,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Did you catch his answer? There is no amount of evidence that would convince Dawkins of the supernatural. None! He has excluded the supernatural <em>before</em> even looking at the evidence.</p>

<p>In the end, it’s Dawkins’s presuppositions - his naturalistic worldview - that have ruled out a supernatural being. In fact, even if Dawkins witnessed the second coming of Christ or God speaking to him in a booming voice, he wouldn’t go to God; he’d go to a psychiatrist.</p>

<p>Again, belief in God is not only an evidence issue; it is also a <em>worldview</em> issue. The evidence exists, but some worldviews will not allow that evidence to speak.</p>

<p>True, God could have written “YAHWEH”&nbsp;in the stars or stamped “Made by God”&nbsp;on every atom in the universe. But this would not guarantee that people would believe. Some hearts simply don’t <em>want</em> to believe. And some worldviews won’t let them believe. In either case, evidence is not the problem. We are.</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-evidence-will-not-convince-some-atheists" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-evidence-will-not-convince-some-atheists" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-evidence-will-not-convince-some-atheists" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why We Care about Truth
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/02/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-we-care-about-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The truth isn’t always what we want it to be. Sometimes beliefs that don’t match up with truth are much more convenient, or more palatable, or more popular. It takes work to conform your beliefs to reality. It requires examining what you’ve always believed and evaluating other beliefs charitably, without fear. It requires a willingness to submit to the truth when you find it, at whatever cost to yourself.</p>

<p>As followers of Christ, we know we have nothing to fear from the truth because the closer we get to knowing truth—even when the changes are painful to us—the better we know God, the foundation of everything. We care about the truth because we care about God. Here’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Passion-His-Glory-Jonathan/dp/1581347456/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1546467503&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=god%27s+passion+for+his+glory+piper">how John Piper put it</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[O]ur concern with truth is an inevitable expression of our concern with God. If God exists, then he is the measure of all things, and what he thinks about all things is the measure of what we should think. Not to care about truth is not to care about God. To love God passionately is to love truth passionately. Being God-centered in life means being truth-driven in ministry. What is not true is not of God. What is false is anti-God. Indifference to the truth is indifference to the mind of God. Pretense is rebellion against reality, and what makes reality reality is God. Our concern with truth is simply an echo of our concern with God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thankfully, God did not leave us on our own to discover truth. He revealed truth to us; we have a standard by which to measure all ideas and doctrines—the Bible. Your growth in sound knowledge and wisdom depends on your relationship to that revealed truth. Are you putting the full weight of your trust in it? Are you devoting significant time to it?</p>

<p>Where you end up depends on where you start. This year, if you’re a follower of Christ, if you love the truth, start with the Bible.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are Your Kids Ready to Respond to These Pro-Abortion Arguments?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/24/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-your-kids-ready-to-respond-to-these-pro-abortion-arguments-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Nazis were so very <em>civilized</em>. This may be why their evil is so utterly terrifying. There’s nothing quite as chilling as seeing a seemingly ordinary man working at a desk, devising <a href="/w/why-you-shouldn-t-trust-the-feeling-that-you-don-t-deserve-hell">bureaucratic plans</a> to send millions to their deaths. One feels a unique kind of horror when witnessing a great evil being treated as <a href="/w/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil">ordinary</a>—even boring—as everyone nods and smiles in response.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the video below.</p>

<p>Amelia Bonow is a co-founder of the “<a href="https://shoutyourabortion.com/about/">Shout Your Abortion</a>” social media campaign to put an end to the stigma associated with abortion. The tagline on their website reads, “Abortion is normal. Our stories are ours to tell. This is not a debate.” They say, “Abortion helps people live their best lives. We are the proof. And we’re only going to get louder.”</p>

<p>In the video below from the “Kids Meet” series,* kids meet “someone who’s had an abortion.” It’s Amelia Bonow. And she wants these kids to know that abortion is normal and it helps people live their best lives.</p>

<p>What chance do kids have of resisting indoctrination into a culture’s nodding, smiling, everyday evil? None at all, if they’re not taught to refute it. If you can bear it, watch the video, and then ask yourself how your kids would have fared in this situation. Are they ready to respond to these pro-abortion arguments? Are they prepared to resist the pull to blend in with the crowd?</p>

<p>But of course, before you can help your kids understand the reasoning behind the pro-life position, you first have to understand it yourself. When you’re ready to get started, go <a href="/w/pro-life-crash-course">here</a>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="gQ1ik-ggg04" 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/gQ1ik-ggg04?rel=0"></iframe></div>

<p>[*<em>Update 7/22/19: The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190115173022/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXKclYbp8gA" id="" rel="" target="" title="">original</a> “Kids Meet” video was removed. The above video contains most of the original video. You can watch a review of the full original video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me6D9ACflmA" id="" rel="" target="" title="">here</a> or read a partial transcript of the original <a href="https://christiannews.net/2018/12/29/shout-your-abortion-founder-talks-to-children-about-abortion-claims-its-all-part-of-gods-plan/" rel="" target="" title="">here</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%2Fare-your-kids-ready-to-respond-to-these-pro-abortion-arguments-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-your-kids-ready-to-respond-to-these-pro-abortion-arguments-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-your-kids-ready-to-respond-to-these-pro-abortion-arguments-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Simple Ways to Grow Spiritually
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/08/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/four-simple-ways-to-grow-spiritually
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The new year brings with it New Year’s resolutions. Many people will look to better themselves <em>physically</em>. They might flood to the gym, start new diets, and quit unhealthy habits, all in pursuit of this goal.</p>

<p>I have some similar physical goals. But my goals aren’t merely focused on the physical. As a follower of Christ, I’m looking for ways to grow <em>spiritually</em>. Paul writes, “For while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come”&nbsp;(1 Timothy 4:8).</p>

<p>So, how do we grow in godliness?</p>

<p>Here are four simple ways to grow spiritually.</p>

<h2>1. Speak to God</h2>

<p>Without constant communication, any relationship will not last. Yet, many Christians, who profess to have a relationship with God, rarely - or never - speak to Him. In fact, some seem content to let weeks or even months go by without ever talking to God. Remarkably, many of these same people wonder why their spiritual lives seem stale.</p>

<p>This isn’t complicated. Relationships need communication.</p>

<p>Because I love my wife and want a lasting relationship with her, I talk to her. I share my thoughts with her. I tell her about my struggles. I thank her for all the things she’s done for me. I ask her for help when I need it.</p>

<p>Likewise, because I love God and want a lasting relationship with Him, I talk to Him. Paul tells the Church at Philippi, “[D]o not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God”&nbsp;(Phil. 4:6).</p>

<p>At this point, you might be thinking, “Tim, it’s a lot easier to talk to my loved ones <em>because they talk back</em>.”&nbsp;This leads to the next point.</p>

<h2>2. Let God Speak to You</h2>

<p>God is still speaking today. Now I’m not talking about listening for an audible voice or deciphering secret codes.</p>

<p>If you want to hear God’s voice, <em>read your Bible</em>. The Word of God is God’s primary source of communication. Of course, God also reveals Himself though creation and conscience. However, it’s through the sixty-six books of the Bible that we get special communication from God.</p>

<p>This year, let God’s words saturate your life <em>every day</em>. Don’t let a day go by without some interaction with God’s life-transforming Word.</p>

<h2>3. Speak to Others</h2>

<p>One of the best ways to grow in the faith is to communicate it to others. We are called to be disciples. And disciples <em>make</em> disciples. If you’re going to make disciples, you need to talk to people.</p>

<p>First, talk to <em>believers</em>. This year, seek out Christians in your life that you can personally disciple. These should be individuals in whose spiritual development you can play a role. And as you instruct, extort, correct, and encourage others, you, in turn, will grow in godliness.</p>

<p>Second, talk to <em>unbelievers</em>. Nothing will grow your faith like having it challenged by unbelievers. This is because these challenges help push us to better understand what we believe and why we believe it. And as your confidence in Christianity grows, so also will your love for God. This has been my experience.</p>

<h2>4. Let Others Speak to You</h2>

<p>It’s important that we be continually discipled by others. We all need trusted individuals who will pray for us, encourage us, and speak truth into our lives. There is so much we can learn from one another. So, take time this year to seek out faithful Christians who can help you grow spiritually.</p>

<p>If one of your goals in 2019 is to grow spiritually, focus on doing these four simple things: Speak to God and let God speak to you, and speak to others and let others speak to you.</p>
</div>

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


