# articles

title: Is the Culture Shaping Your View of God?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-culture-shaping-your-view-of-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When we ignore God’s Word, we cut ourselves off from the primary source of truth about what God is like. As a result, we open ourselves up to false beliefs about God. One of the most influential sources shaping our view of God is <em>the culture.</em></p>

<p>This isn’t new. It’s been happening for millennia. Even the Israelites, who had a special relationship with God, neglected His word and took their cues about God from the culture.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You shall say, “Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such disaster upon this place that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place <em>by making offerings in it to other gods</em> whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, <em>which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind.”</em>&nbsp;(Jeremiah 19:3-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God <em>never</em> commanded the people of Israel to <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/god-didn%E2%80%99t-command-child-sacrifice#.W3s84pMzrdc">sacrifice their sons and daughters</a> as burnt offerings. The text says that it didn’t even enter His mind. So, how did the idea originate?</p>

<p>The people of Israel were influenced by the <em>surrounding cultures</em>. As a result, they assumed God must be like all of the other gods of the surrounding cultures. The sad irony is that God actually warned against this very thing.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, <em>take care that you be not ensnared to follow them,</em> after they have been destroyed before you, <em>and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, “How did these nations serve their gods? - that I also may do the same.”</em>&nbsp;You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:29-31)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: You don’t determine what God is like by looking to the culture. The Israelites looked to the surrounding cultures and concluded that God must <em>like</em> - and, possibly, demand - child sacrifice. After all, that’s what the people around them did for Baal.</p>

<p>You might be thinking, “How is this relevant to me? I’m not sacrificing my children to pagan deities.”&nbsp;We are all prone to imagine a god that is more like our culture - and its gods - than who He truly is. If we’re not careful, the culture will shape our view of God.</p>

<p>For example, the culture is much more accepting of homosexual behavior than ever before. In fact, it’s celebrated. Consequently, some have argued that a loving God would be as accepting as the culture. After all, God is love. There isn’t a Scripture cited or a better interpretation given. Instead, there’s a cultural shift. <em>As the culture becomes more tolerant, so does our view of God.</em></p>

<p>As we continue to be surrounded by prosperity in the West, it is unthinkable for some that God wouldn’t want us all healthy and wealthy. Prosperity becomes the measuring rod of God’s goodness toward His children. <em>As the culture becomes more prosperity driven, so does our view of God.</em></p>

<p>As technology advances, the world seems to shrink. We now know sincere Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other religious traditions. We develop friendships. We eat together. We play together. Sincerity, not truth, becomes the new criteria for salvation. <em>As the culture becomes more pluralistic and inclusive, so does our view of God.</em></p>

<p>The influence of the culture on our view of God is extremely relevant to our lives. We need to ask ourselves an honest question: <em>Where does my view of God look more like the world than God’s Word?</em></p>

<p>Stay tuned for the final article in this series (see previous installments <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/danger-false-ideas-about-god#.W3tGKJMzrdc">here</a>, <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/idolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-exchanged-lie#.W3tGKpMzrdc">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/false-ideas-start-mind-they-get-expressed-actions#.W3tGLpMzrdc">here</a>), where we will look at how to guard against false ideas about God.</p>
</div>

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


title: Mocking False Ideas Is Dangerous and Disrespectful
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/30/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/mocking-false-ideas-is-dangerous-and-disrespectful
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you don’t take a false idea seriously, you’re more likely to succumb to it. It’s easier to mock a false idea in the company of likeminded people than to take the time to examine the idea carefully. This is a mistake. We, as Christians, have nothing to fear. The truth is on our side.</p>

<p>Avoiding false ideas altogether or misrepresenting them as straw men is dangerous. The world hasn’t bought into false ideas because they were never plausible or without some foundation. False ideas tend to have an aura of truth, which is why millions of people believe them.</p>

<p>If you grow up thinking a false idea - like evolution or relativism - is just plain stupid, and you discount it, you won’t be prepared when you come across an otherwise intelligent person who believes and advocates for it. You’ll be caught completely off guard. In fact, you’ll find out there are real reasons people believe these ideas; and if you’ve never heard their arguments, they could sound persuasive.</p>

<p>Not to mention it’s disrespectful to people who hold these views. Ideas don’t exist in the abstract or float around in the air. They’re believed by people - image bearers of God. Though someone might hold a false idea, we should still treat that person with respect and dignity. Learning and understanding false ideas will allow you to intelligently converse with people who hold these ideas, but to do it in a way that shows you respect them, as well. That’s a characteristic of an effective ambassador for Christ.</p>

<p>I’d encourage you to read more about this principle and see an example of how I applied it in a previous post titled “<a href="https://www.str.org/articles/inoculate-don't-isolate" target="_blank">Inoculate, Don’t Isolate</a><em>.”</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%2Fmocking-false-ideas-is-dangerous-and-disrespectful" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmocking-false-ideas-is-dangerous-and-disrespectful" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmocking-false-ideas-is-dangerous-and-disrespectful" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does Old Testament Polygamy Justify Same-Sex Marriage?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-old-testament-polygamy-justify-same-sex-marriage-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was recently confronted with a challenge about marriage at one of my events. The claim was that God permits same-sex marriage today because marriage is not clearly defined in Scripture. Adam and Eve were a monogamous heterosexual couple, but later in Scripture God allowed men to marry multiple women. This signals a trajectory in the Bible towards more openness of sexual expression and in the definition of marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be allowed by Christians today.</p>

<p>I don’t think the Bible permits same-sex marriage for a whole host of reasons, but I’ll only explain the ones I offered in response to this challenge. First, although God tolerated polygamy during Old Testament times, He never condoned it. In fact, when marriage begins in the Genesis creation account, it’s instituted as a monogamous and heterosexual relationship (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:24). That the patriarchs and other Old Testament figures practiced polygamy is not evidence that God intended them to do so. That’s just what they did. The same could be said of divorce. God never intended married couples to divorce, but He tolerated it. Even Jesus said that divorce was permitted because of the hardness of the hearts of men. Yet, He also clearly reminds the Pharisees that divorce was never intended by God from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). Therefore, when it comes to polygamy (and divorce), Scripture is descriptive but not prescriptive.</p>

<p>Second, even if God made provision for polygamy in the Old Testament, the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law are no longer binding on the New Testament believer. They are part of the Old Covenant (or contract) that has been replaced. Jesus said He “came to fulfill”&nbsp;the Mosaic Law and its requirements because we never could (Matt. 5:17). He didn’t merely abolish that covenant, however. He established a new covenant in His blood. In fact, the entire book of Galatians is an argument against making the Mosaic Law binding on believers living under the New Covenant of Christ.</p>

<p>Third, even if God had ordained polygamous marriage throughout all of Scripture (which I don’t believe He did), it doesn’t follow that He affirms same-sex marriage. Polygamy is fundamentally different from same-sex marriage. When a man marries a woman, he meets the male-female requirement of biblical marriage (Gen. 1:27-28 and 2:24). If he marries another woman, that is also a heterosexual marriage. Every instance of an additional marriage is still an opposite-sex marriage. It’s not same-sex marriage because the women he’s married to are not married to each other. It’s also not group marriage because he and all the women are not married together as a group. Marriage remains an opposite-sex relationship between two people as God defined in His Word.</p>

<p>Fourth, contrary to the claim that the Bible’s trajectory is towards greater <em>openness</em> in sexual expression (and consequently more openness in marriage), it seems the opposite is true. The trajectory in Scripture, especially with Jesus, is towards greater <em>restriction</em>. God may have tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament, but we don’t&nbsp;see it permitted during New Testament times. The pastoral epistles, for example, mandate that a church leader be a man of one wife (e.g. Tit. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). Jesus also cites several Mosaic laws and, far from loosening their prohibitions, makes them more restrictive. For example, He says, “You have heard that it was said, ’You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”&nbsp;(Matt. 5:27-28). Jesus takes a Mosaic prohibition and makes it more restrictive.</p>

<p>Fifth, the New Testament specifically rules out same-sex marriage by prohibiting homosexual sex. Although this is explicitly taught in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains the clearest condemnation. Within the context of a creation narrative (beginning at Rom. 1:18), Paul argues that God made men and women to function in a heterosexual way. Women, he says, exchanged the natural sexual function of a man for unnatural sex with women. Men, in the same way, abandoned the natural sexual function a woman provides and had unnatural sex with other men (Rom. 1:26-27). By prohibiting same-sex sexual contact, Scripture rules out same-sex marriage.</p>

<p>Finally, we should give Jesus the last word on this question. Our King specifically ruled out same-sex marriage by upholding the male-female prerequisite of marriage taught in the Genesis account of creation. When asked about divorce, Jesus replies,</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”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Matt.19:4-6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice Jesus quotes the two Genesis texts that affirm the binary nature of the sexes and the male-female prerequisite of marriage (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:24). That’s because He believes those texts are still authoritative and that marriage is still what’s described in them. Then Jesus adds his own commentary on the passage (“What therefore God has joined together...”), indicating He believes God instituted monogamous and heterosexual marriage.</p>
</div>

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


title: Proverbs for Apologists
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/21/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/proverbs-for-apologists
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are some verses in Proverbs that have served me especially well as an apologist. I can’t count the number of times I’ve thought, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger,” and thereby salvaged conversations that were about to self-destruct. Or I’ve held my tongue, remembering that “when there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.” Or I’ve asked questions to understand the other person’s point of view because “a fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.”</p>

<p>The last time I read through Proverbs, I collected some of these verses so I could share them with you. Read them, meditate on them, memorize them, and let them shape you.</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Seek Knowledge and Wisdom</strong></p>

<p>Do not let kindness and truth leave you,<br>
Bind them around your neck,<br>
Write them on the tablet of your heart.<br>
So you will find favor and good repute<br>
In the sight of God and man. (3:3–4)</p>

<p>How much better it is to get wisdom than gold!<br>
And to get understanding is to be chosen above silver. (16:16)</p>

<p>A man has joy in an apt answer,<br>
And how delightful is a timely word! (15:23)</p>

<p>Iron sharpens iron,<br>
So one man sharpens another. (27:17)</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Tactical Advice</strong></p>

<p>A gentle answer turns away wrath,<br>
But a harsh word stirs up anger. (15:1)</p>

<p>[S]weetness of speech increases persuasiveness. (16:21b)</p>

<p>By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded;<br>
And a soft tongue breaks the bone. (25:15)</p>

<p>When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable,<br>
But he who restrains his lips is wise. (10:19)</p>

<p>Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;<br>
When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. (17:28)</p>

<p>Do not answer a fool according to his folly,<br>
Or you will also be like him.<br>
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,<br>
That he not be wise in his own eyes. (26:4–5)</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Warnings</strong></p>

<p>Do not go out hastily to argue your case;<br>
Otherwise, what will you do in the end,<br>
When your neighbor humiliates you? (25:8)</p>

<p>Do not associate with a man given to anger;<br>
Or go with a hot-tempered man,<br>
Or you will learn his ways<br>
And find a snare for yourself. (22:24–25)</p>

<p>When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,<br>
The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. (29:9)</p>

<p>Do not speak in the hearing of a fool,<br>
For he will despise the wisdom of your words. (23:9)</p>

<p>Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain,<br>
Yet his foolishness will not depart from him. (27:22)</p>

<p>The first to plead his case seems right,<br>
Until another comes and examines him. (18:17)</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Watch Your Character</strong></p>

<p>A fool does not delight in understanding,<br>
But only in revealing his own mind. (18:2)</p>

<p>He who gives an answer before he hears,<br>
It is folly and shame to him. (18:13)</p>

<p>Pride goes before destruction,<br>
And a haughty spirit before stumbling. (16:18)</p>

<p>When pride comes, then comes dishonor,<br>
But with the humble is wisdom. (11:2)</p>

<p>Scorners set a city aflame,<br>
But wise men turn away anger. (29:8)</p>

<p>A hot-tempered man stirs up strife,<br>
But the slow to anger calms a dispute. (15:18)</p>

<p>Do not say, “Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me;<br>
I will render to the man according to his work.” (24:29)</p>
</div>

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


title: Idolatry Begins When Truth about God Is Exchanged for a Lie
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/02/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/idolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-is-exchanged-for-a-lie
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week I wrote on <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/danger-false-ideas-about-god">the danger of false ideas about God</a>. More specifically, I highlighted a powerful warning from A.W. Tozer. Simply stated: Wrong thinking about God leads to worshiping the wrong god - idol worship.</p>

<p>An <em>idol</em> is anything that replaces the one, true God, while <em>idolatry</em> is giving worship or devotion to that thing that replaces God. Significantly, this is the <em>first</em> commandment by God to Israel in the famous Ten Commandments.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>You shall have no other gods before me.</em> You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...(Exodus 20:3-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This command seems clear enough, but there are many people hearing these words who wonder how <em>this</em> commandment applies to them. After all, they aren’t bowing down to carved images.</p>

<p>Consider the warning from A.W. Tozer, “Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it.”</p>

<p>Idolatry isn’t limited to pagans bowing down to idols. That’s just one manifestation of idolatry. It often looks much more subtle than that. In fact, there are all kinds of modern-day idols that attempt to displace God from His rightful place. Sports. School. Jobs. Family. Kids. A boyfriend. A girlfriend. Personal pleasure. A hobby. Our reputation. Our stuff. The list goes on and on.</p>

<p>So, we know what idolatry <em>is</em>. But how does idolatry <em>start</em>? What is the root cause? Fortunately, we are not left guessing. Paul tells us in his letter to the Christians in Rome.</p>

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

<p>Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, <em>because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.</em> (Rom. 1:21-25)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Long before anyone bows down and worships an idol, Paul tells us that something happens <em>in their mind</em>. Paul says an <em>exchange</em> takes place. People will “exchange the truth about God for a lie.”&nbsp;They begin to accept a lie about God - a false idea.</p>

<p>Let me summarize Paul’s words as best as I can: <em>Behind every act of false worship, there is a false idea about God.</em></p>

<p>Tozer states, “The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. It begins in the mind and may be present where no overt act of worship has taken place.”&nbsp;That’s it exactly. Wrong ideas about God don’t just <em>lead to</em> idolatry; they <em>are</em> idolatry. And what <em>begins</em> as idolatrous thoughts leads to idolatrous actions. This is demonstrable from both Scripture and our own lives.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fidolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-is-exchanged-for-a-lie" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fidolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-is-exchanged-for-a-lie" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fidolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-is-exchanged-for-a-lie" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Easy Way to Weed out Bad Bible Interpretations
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-easy-way-to-weed-out-bad-bible-interpretations
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to show you a trick to help you weed out bad Bible interpretations, the kind that don’t fit the context or the flow of thought of a passage. I call it the “paraphrase principle.”&nbsp;The technique trades on two obvious features of language.</p>

<p>First, a good interpretation depends on accurately summing up a verse’s meaning by using other words. A teacher reads a passage, says, “What this verse means, <em>in other words</em>, is...,”&nbsp;then offers an explanation in his own words - his paraphrase - that he thinks squares with the author’s meaning.</p>

<p>Second, most words or phrases have more than one meaning, and that can be a problem. Often, a teacher will assume one meaning, while the biblical author intended another, yet the mistake goes undetected since his take makes perfect sense of the word when read <em>in isolation from the larger passage</em>. The paraphrase principle helps root out that mistake.</p>

<p>Applying the principle is easy. Here’s how it works. Simply insert the supposed synonym into the text, then read the flow of thought of the immediate context - either the verse or the paragraph - to see if the paraphrase still makes sense of the larger passage. If it doesn’t, you immediately know you’re on the wrong track.</p>

<p>I’ll give you two quick examples of how this works to help you get the idea.</p>

<p>Worship leaders often cite Jesus’&nbsp;statement, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself”&nbsp;(Jn. 12:32). Then they apply the insight by inviting the church to sing heartily, taking “lifted up”&nbsp;to be synonymous with “exalted in worship.”&nbsp;Sometimes that’s exactly what it means. But is that what <em>Jesus</em> meant in this passage? Let’s see.</p>

<p>Using the paraphrase principle, when we insert the alleged synonym into the larger passage (v. 32-33), it reads: “’And I, if I <em>am exalted in worship</em>, will draw all men to Myself.’&nbsp;But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.”</p>

<p>Oops. Our worship is going to kill Jesus? You see the problem. Clearly, “lifted up”&nbsp;in this case does not mean to praise but to crucify. Inserting the correct synonym into the passage now makes perfect sense: “’And I, if I am <em>crucified</em>, will draw all men to Myself.’&nbsp;But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.”</p>

<p>Here’s another example. Paul writes, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind”&nbsp;(2 Tim. 1:7 KJV). Some think Paul means that whenever a Christian is afraid, there’s a demonic “spirit of fear”&nbsp;causing it.</p>

<p>The word “spirit,”&nbsp;though, could mean a demon, of course, but it could also mean a disposition or an attitude (e.g., “a spirit of gentleness,”&nbsp;Gal. 6:1). What sense does Paul have in mind here? The paraphrase principle comes to our rescue.</p>

<p>Here’s our paraphrase of the first option: “For God hath not given us <em>the demonic spirit of fear; but a demonic spirit [an angelic spirit?]</em> of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”&nbsp;This seems odd. Does the Bible teach that power, love, and a sound mind are spiritual beings? Or are they virtuous dispositions we develop and possess?</p>

<p>Let’s try the alternate meaning: “For God hath not given us <em>a fearful disposition; but a disposition</em> of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”&nbsp;Much better, especially considering that, in the larger context, Paul admonishes Timothy not to be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord (v. 8). Paul is talking about fearful timidity here, not spirit beings.</p>

<p>Note that the paraphrase principle is a negative test, not a positive test for accuracy. As a negative test, it will weed out obvious errors, but passing the paraphrase requirement is no guarantee that your take is the correct one (positive test). Some faulty interpretations can still slip by that must be disqualified on other grounds.</p>

<p>Getting an accurate understanding of Scripture is critical for your growth as a Christian ambassador. The paraphrase principle is simply another tool in your toolbox to help do that more effectively.</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-easy-way-to-weed-out-bad-bible-interpretations" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-easy-way-to-weed-out-bad-bible-interpretations" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-easy-way-to-weed-out-bad-bible-interpretations" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Should You Take a Closer Look at Islam?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/07/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-should-you-take-a-closer-look-at-islam-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, the apostle Paul answers a key question that many Christians ask at some point: What’s God’s will for my life? First, he says we are ambassadors for Christ. We represent Jesus to others. That’s our identity. Second, Paul tells us our mission: to proclaim the message of reconciliation.</p>

<p>If that’s our identity and that’s our mission, how do we fulfill that role when it comes to Islam? I submit the answer is exactly the same way ambassadors fulfill their role. Political ambassadors typically do two things: learn and engage. They learn about the people they are going to visit, and then they engage those people. Ambassadors for Christ should do the same. We need to learn about Islam and then engage Muslims.</p>

<p>The challenge that many Christians face, though, is that they don’t know much about Islam, and even when they think they do, they’re often misinformed. This can lead to unhelpful stereotypes, prejudice, fear, or syncretism. That’s why I’ve created a tool to equip ambassadors for Christ who are ready to heed the call to learn about Islam and engage Muslims. It’s a DVD or downloadable HD resource called <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD071" target="_blank"><em>A Closer Look at Islam</em></a> (see a trailer below).</p>

<p>My goal in this resource is to provide believers with an accessible introduction to the most important elements of the Islamic faith. That way they can draw upon this knowledge of Islam to more carefully craft their message when they meet Muslims.</p>

<p>I also wanted to combine this knowledge with practical tactics. For example, I show believers how they can determine which beliefs and practices are truly Islamic and which are not. Also, I explain how to respond to the most common objection that Muslims raise: The Bible has been corrupted.</p>

<p><a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD071"><em>A Closer Look at Islam</em></a> will help you better understand, love, and reach out to your Muslim neighbor.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="278708690" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/278708690?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=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-should-you-take-a-closer-look-at-islam-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-should-you-take-a-closer-look-at-islam-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-should-you-take-a-closer-look-at-islam-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Aren’t More Women Interested in Apologetics?
topic: Christian Living
author: Natasha Crain
date: 08/29/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-aren-t-more-women-interested-in-apologetics-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last weekend, I had the privilege of teaching at the <a href="https://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/">CrossExamined Instructor Academy</a>. There was an excellent group of attendees, and I loved having the opportunity to engage with so many passionate apologists. I especially enjoyed time on the final day when instructors were each assigned a room and students were free to move about the rooms and ask questions. One question I was asked during that time led to a particularly interesting conversation:</p>

<p><em>Why aren’t more women interested in apologetics?</em></p>

<p>This question regularly comes up in apologetics circles, so it wasn’t surprising. But as the only female instructor at an event where only about 10 percent of the attendees were women, it seemed especially relevant that day. I thought about the question perhaps more deeply than I ever had before.</p>

<p>Here’s what I said.</p>

<p>A lot of people assume (and it has often been said) that men are more analytical than women, and since apologetics is seen as an analytical pursuit, it makes sense that more men would care about it. While I think there is <em>some</em> truth to this, I believe it’s a very small part of the picture.</p>

<p>My professional background is in marketing. In marketing, we know there are two different kinds of interest, based on how relevant something is to a person: <em>intrinsic relevance</em> and <em>situational relevance</em>. Things that have <em>intrinsic</em> relevance to you are things in which you’re naturally interested. For example, I’ve always been fascinated by family history research; it’s intrinsically relevant to me. But many people are bored to tears by researching generations of dead ancestors (my husband included!). Things that are not intrinsically relevant to you, however, can become <em>situationally</em> relevant due to changes in your life circumstances. I’ve seen many people who never cared about family history suddenly want to know all they can about their family tree after a family member dies. That situation <em>creates</em> an interest.</p>

<p>Let’s apply this to apologetics. As a percent of the body of Christ, there are very few Christians - male <em>or</em> female - who are passionate about apologetics. This means we fundamentally have an <em>awareness</em> issue. Very few Christians have even <em>heard</em> of apologetics. That has nothing to do with gender.</p>

<p>I agree that apologetics may be somewhat more intrinsically relevant to men because of the more analytical disposition some have. That has, perhaps, led more men than women to seek out this kind of information on their own (without someone else first making them aware of it). However, I have found, in talking with numerous women in the last few years, that <em>after</em> they become aware of apologetics, it becomes highly <em>situationally relevant</em> to them. They have kids they want to disciple, friends they want to share their faith with, family members who are unbelievers, and so on. In my experience, awareness leads to interest for women even more often than for men. Women are quickly convicted of the need for apologetics in multiple spheres of life because of the many relationships they care about.</p>

<p>The bottom line: Seeing fewer women than men who are passionate about apologetics right now really isn’t a function of gender. It’s a function of low apologetics awareness in the church more broadly.</p>

<p>Whether you’re a man or woman, we should be working together as the body of Christ to demonstrate the need in our local churches to understand apologetics (you can, for example, start a <a href="https://christianmomthoughts.com/want-to-see-more-christian-parents-learn-apologetics-at-church-introducing-grassroots-apologetics-for-parents/">Grassroots Apologetics for Parents</a> chapter!). When awareness grows, I have no doubt we’ll see proportionately more women passionate in this area. And I have no doubt that when more Christians of either gender are prepared to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity, we’ll make a far stronger stand in this culture. I pray for that day to come.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-aren-t-more-women-interested-in-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%2Fwhy-aren-t-more-women-interested-in-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%2Fwhy-aren-t-more-women-interested-in-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: First Kings 19 and the “Still, Small Voice” of God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/14/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/first-kings-19-and-the-still-small-voice-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’ve followed Stand to Reason for a good amount of time, you’ve likely heard us talk about Greg’s material on <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD105">decision making and the will of God</a>. Here at Stand to Reason, we promote the <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/wisdom-model-summary#.W2yWE_4zrdc">wisdom model</a> of making decisions (i.e., we learn God’s moral will and wisdom from the Scriptures and then apply what we learn to our life decisions in light of our gifts and desires) rather than the model of learning to recognize and interpret personalized instructions from God. This can be somewhat controversial (to say the least), but I think it better reflects the teaching we find in the Bible. (I encourage you to read Greg’s “<a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-1#.W2uNB_4zrdc">Does God Whisper? Part 1</a>, <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-2#.W2uNCv4zrdc">Part 2</a>, and <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/does-god-whisper-part-3#.W2uNF_4zrdc">Part 3</a> to learn more about this.)</p>

<p>Over at <a href="https://heidelblog.net/2017/11/on-still-small-voices-and-allegories/">The Heidelblog</a>, R. Scott Clark has responded to one proof text - the story of Elijah hearing “the still, small voice”&nbsp;of God in 1 Kings 19 - that’s often used to promote the view that we need to learn how to interpret the specific directions God is giving us.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Elijah laid out his complaint to the Lord, that he, Yahweh, was falling down on the job by allowing his prophets to be killed and persecuted (vv. 9-10). Yahweh responded by instructing him to stand on a mount “before Yahweh.”&nbsp;A great wind passed by, an earthquake shook the earth, and fire raged but Yahweh was said not to be “in”&nbsp;them. Counter intuitively, he was, however, in “the still, small voice.”</p>

<p>The point of the passage is that Yahweh defied Elijah’s expectations. He was no less sovereign than he had been when he slayed the prophets of Baal or when he had defeated Pharaoh. His point was that, despite Elijah’s unbelief and fear, he was fulfilling his promise. He was <em>with</em> Elijah. He was not done saving his people. He had not abandoned them. Elijah was wrong. He was not alone. There were yet 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (v.18).</p>

<p>The intent of the passage is not to teach a doctrine or practice of secret revelation or private guidance. The point of the passage is Yahweh’s faithfulness to his promises. Nothing in this passage suggests that we should be listening for a “still, small voice”&nbsp;from Yahweh. The point is the salvation comes in unexpected ways...</p>

<p>At the conference the objection was made that God is still able to speak in still, small voices. Certainly but the objection misses the point. He is also able to use his prophets to slaughter false prophets, of chasing his prophets into the wilderness, and of using his prophets to install kings. He is also capable of speaking into nothing and making worlds. God is what he is. What God is <em>able</em> to do is beside the point. What matters here is what God has <em>promised</em> to do and what he has commanded us to do.</p>

<p>He has nowhere promised to reveal himself privately, directly, specifically apart from his Holy Scriptures. God’s Word written is sufficient for the Christian faith and the Christian life. <em>Sola scriptura</em>. Everything we need to know, to believe, is revealed in his Word. Everything we need to know to live the Christian life, all the guidance we need is in his Word...</p>

<p>Asking God for special, extra-biblical revelation is not only unwise, it marginalizes God’s Word and seeks to know what is secret, what is hidden (Deut 29:29) at the expense of what has already been revealed...</p>

<p>The good news is that God has revealed his Word and his moral will and we are free in Christ to follow that Word and to obey his will, in union with Christ, in communion with his church.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://heidelblog.net/2017/11/on-still-small-voices-and-allegories/">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%2Ffirst-kings-19-and-the-still-small-voice-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffirst-kings-19-and-the-still-small-voice-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffirst-kings-19-and-the-still-small-voice-of-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Guard against False Ideas about God
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/28/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-guard-against-false-ideas-about-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In this series, we’ve looked at <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/danger-false-ideas-about-god">the danger of false ideas about God</a>. We’ve discussed <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/idolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-exchanged-lie">how they originate</a> and considered <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/false-ideas-start-mind-they-get-expressed-actions">biblical examples</a>. We’ve also taken note of one of the most influential sources of false ideas about God: <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/culture-shaping-your-view-god#.W38cJJMzrdc">the culture</a>. To illustrate my point, I cited how the Israelites assumed that God must be like all of the other gods of the surrounding cultures. Consequently, they began sacrificing their children as burnt offerings (see Jeremiah 19:3-5).</p>

<p>The tragedy of the Israelites sacrificing their sons and daughters goes beyond their horrible actions. The people of Israel should have known that <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/god-didn%E2%80%99t-command-child-sacrifice#.W38ctJMzrdd">the Lord <em>hates</em> child sacrifice</a>. But how would they know that? Well, they didn’t have to read God’s mind or get some personal, private message from God. They should have known it <em>because it was written in their Law</em>.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, <em>for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.</em> (Deuteronomy 12:31)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The problem is, the Israelites didn’t know their Bible. They had false ideas about God because they ignored the primary source about God.</p>

<p>Sadly, most Christians don’t know their Bible either. Statistics show that biblical literacy is at an all-time low. People know more about <em>The Office</em> than the covenants. They know more about <em>Downton Abbey</em> than divine attributes.</p>

<p>So, how do we guard against false ideas about God?</p>

<p>The only way to guard against false ideas about God is to fill our minds with true ideas about God. But thinking rightly about God doesn’t come naturally. Our natural inclination is to think wrongly about God. That is why we must look to Scripture - God’s Word - for guidance and authority on what He is like. We need to go to God’s Word because <em>only God can tell us what God is like</em>. And He has. Unfortunately, many of us are too distracted to listen. The prophet Hosea says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Hear the word of the Lord, O Children of Israel, for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, <em>and no knowledge of God in the land</em>...My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since <em>you have forgotten the law of your God</em>, I also will forget your children. (Hosea 4:1, 6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why was there no knowledge of God? The text tells us. They had forgotten the law of God. They neglected His special revelation to them.</p>

<p>It’s interesting to me that Hosea mentions they have no love for God in the same breath that he mentions they have no knowledge of God. I don’t think this is a coincidence. I think there is a link between “knowledge of”&nbsp;and “love for.”</p>

<p>To illustrate, consider the following hypothetical conversation: Someone says, “Tim, tell me about your wife.”&nbsp;And I say, “Well, she has blonde hair, two eyes, and a nose.”&nbsp;They respond, “No, tell me what she’s really like.”&nbsp;And I say, “That’s all I got.”</p>

<p>What would you think about my relationship with my wife? You would likely think I didn’t have a relationship with my wife. From that encounter, would you conclude that I love my wife? Probably not.</p>

<p>The love I have for my wife is connected to the knowledge I have of my wife. It’s my love for my wife that drives my study of my wife. Every husband should have their PhD in the subject of their wife.</p>

<p>In the same way, love for God is always tied to knowledge of God.</p>

<p>John puts it this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him. (John 14:21-23)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two verbs applied to God’s commandments in this verse: <em>has</em> and <em>keeps</em>. If we truly love God, then we will both <em>have</em> and <em>keep</em> God’s commands. Knowing God’s commands helps us know the God who gives these commands. God’s commands are not independent of His nature. They flow from His nature.</p>

<p>If you want to know God, <em>read your Bible</em>. The Bible is primarily a story about God. He is the main character. Over and over, the Bible says, “God loves,”&nbsp;“God says,”&nbsp;“God does.”&nbsp;Every time we read about God, we get to know what He is like. We get to know His character, His desires, His personality.</p>

<p>Let me close with this from Solomon. Solomon, under the inspiration of God, says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord <em>and find the knowledge of God.</em> (Proverbs 2:1-5)</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%2Fhow-to-guard-against-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-guard-against-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-guard-against-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Joseph Smith’s First Vision Changed over Time
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-joseph-smith-s-first-vision-changed-over-time
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Mormon religion rests on Joseph Smith’s “First Vision,”&nbsp;wherein he claimed he was visited by the Father and the Son and told he must not join any of the existing churches, “for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”&nbsp;(see <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng">Joseph Smith - History 1:11-20</a> to read the canonized account).</p>

<p>This vision is at the root of Mormonism’s unique doctrines, as Christian apologists Eric Johnson and Bill McKeever <a href="http://www.mrm.org/first-vision-stories">explain</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This vision is significant to a Mormon for a number of reasons. First, it has been used to support the notion that God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate and distinct personages, are also two distinct and separate gods. And two, it gives the Mormon justification to believe Christianity had fallen into a complete apostasy and needed to be restored to earth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But there’s a problem. There is more than one account of Smith’s vision, and its major details (primarily, the idea that he was visited by the Father and the Son) seem to have evolved over time.</p>

<p>While I was at the <a href="/w/verses-for-your-conversations-with-mormons">Mormon Miracle Pageant</a> in Manti, UT earlier this year, I came across <a href="https://www.crcmin.org/first-vision" target="">this pamphlet</a> by Christian Research &amp; Counsel documenting the history of the development of the First Vision story. Its introduction explains, in the words of the LDS Church’s own former prophet and president, how much is riding on the accuracy of the official account:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Concerning Joseph Smith’s “First Vision,”&nbsp;seeing God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ together, Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said: “...this is the pivotal thing of our story. Every claim that we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say...This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. <strong>If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple</strong> [emphasis added].”&nbsp;(<em>Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley</em>, p.227)</p>

<p>From the above quote, it is obvious that the history of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is of paramount importance. For that reason the following documented accounts, beginning in the year 1820, have been compiled to enable the reader to determine how, and when, the First Vision actually came about.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The pamphlet takes you from 1820 (the year the LDS Church claims Smith received the revelation) to 1888, noting how Smith’s vision is portrayed in - or missing from - each of the historical records. At the end of the timeline, it sums up the evident problems, saying, “Thus we see that the details of the First Vision vary in the different accounts. Early LDS leaders usually thought of the vision as one of angels, not God. They did not appeal to the first vision to establish their teaching that God has a body.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>These historical records of the First Vision leave us with more questions than answers:</p>

<p>If Joseph Smith’s claim to a vision in 1820 had resulted in the kind of public persecution he described, why did the story go completely unnoticed by the public media, and remain absent from the official literature of the LDS Church for 22 years?</p>

<p>Why is there no mention of the 1820 appearance of <em>the Father and the Son</em> in all of Brigham Young’s sermons?</p>

<p>If Brigham Young believed Joseph’s revised First Vision of <em>the Father and the Son</em>, why would he continue to tell the story of a First Vision wherein the Lord sent his <em>angels</em> to tell Joseph not to join any of the churches?</p>

<p>Why did it take more than 50 years for the revised First Vision, adding <em>the Father and the Son</em>, to replace the original First Vision of <em>angels</em> as the church’s standard teaching?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can read and/or print out the entire pamphlet <a href="https://www.crcmin.org/first-vision" target="">here</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Teen Vogue’s View of Abortion Advocacy
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/teen-vogue-s-view-of-abortion-advocacy
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Listen to how Teen Vogue - <em>Teen Vogue!</em> - <a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lady-parts-justice-league-fights-anti-abortion-stigma-with-humor">describes abortion advocacy</a> in this op-ed about “how the Lady Parts Justice League [a group of comedian activists] is taking down anti-abortion sentiment through a comedy tour.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What makes Lady Parts Justice League critical in the current political moment is their ability to push both anti-abortion and pro-choice advocates <em>to be unapologetically supportive of women that choose to obtain abortions, no matter what their reasons</em>...</p>

<p>To be pro-abortion is to face your own potential internalized stigma and recognize that <em>abortion should not be exclusively about access, but about normalizing a medical procedure and life process</em>. It does not mean you hope that every person has an abortion, but it means <em>you advocate for the existence of abortion, not just its accessibility</em>. It’s kind of like being pro-bypass surgery: <em>we love its existence, we appreciate the options it offers people</em>, we aren’t hoping our loved ones have to have one anytime soon. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One of the goals of the Lady Parts Justice League, according to this op-ed, is to “fight anti-abortion stigma.”&nbsp;They want to move the culture away from expecting women to only have abortions for reasons that society deems “respectable”; and they believe that when abortion-choice advocates focus on abortion narratives that involve women having to make decisions to abort due to some sort of hardship, they’re playing into the false narrative that abortion is harmful and/or needs to be justified.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Within contemporary pro-choice and anti-choice narratives, the abortion stories that are normalized in our cultural consciousness are ones that are engineered to engender the most sympathy...</p>

<p>[T]he danger of only amplifying this specific narrative is that it becomes the dominant one, allowing for anti-choice ideologies to exploit that emotion and present abortion as predominantly emotionally disruptive for people. Although a “good”&nbsp;or “accepted”&nbsp;choice can be in relation to economic welfare or personal safety, <em>this narrative does not allow for a good choice on the basis of self-interest</em>. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I bring this op-ed to your attention for a couple of reasons. First, the message being given to your children by our culture has moved from the regretful necessity of abortion to the goodness of abortion. There is currently an intentional effort to convince people there’s no need for any woman to justify her decision to have an abortion because it’s simply not the kind of thing that needs to be justified. It’s merely a “medical procedure,”&nbsp;nothing more. You will need to address this strategy with your children so they’ll recognize it when they see it and understand why it is grievously wrong.</p>

<p>Second, now, more than ever, you need to be ready to engage people like those involved with the Lady Parts Justice League. Are you ready to speak persuasively to them with patience, grace, and love, or do you fear them - or even hate them? Increasing your confidence in your ability to articulate the pro-life message (that is, the full humanity of the unborn and their right to not be killed) will increase your ability to have compassionate, reasoned conversations with abortion advocates that won’t degenerate into anger and insults. Here’s a place to start: “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/pro-life-crash-course#.W2t4qf4zrdc">Pro-Life Crash Course</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%2Fteen-vogue-s-view-of-abortion-advocacy" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteen-vogue-s-view-of-abortion-advocacy" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteen-vogue-s-view-of-abortion-advocacy" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When the Dystopian Tells Us the Way the World Is
topic: Philosophy
author: J.T. Wynn
date: 08/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-the-dystopian-tells-us-the-way-the-world-is
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Netflix recently released the film <em>Anon</em> by writer-director Andrew Niccol. Niccol is known for at least four films. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629272/" target="">IMDB.com</a> even says so:</p>

<ul>
	<li><em>Gattaca</em> is about a dystopian world where society uses our DNA to determine where we live, how we live, and what we’ll do.</li>
	<li><em>The Truman Show</em> is about a dystopian world where a man’s life is watched by omnipresent TV cameras, unbeknownst to him.</li>
	<li><em>In Time</em> is about a dystopian world where humans are engineered to stop aging after their 25th birthday and then die a year later unless they earn more time.</li>
	<li><em>The Host</em> is about a dystopian world where aliens have taken over the world and erased every human’s memory.</li>
</ul>

<p>You’re probably seeing a pattern: Niccol likes dystopian worlds, or at least he likes crafting stories about them. No surprise, then, that <em>Anon</em> also takes place in a dystopian world where there is no anonymity, no privacy, and no hiding. Everything you do and see is recorded and stored, ready to be viewed, shared, and played back for the purposes of 1) marketing corporate products to you, and 2) convicting/exonerating you with law enforcement.</p>

<p>On the surface, it seems like the film is a critique of the questionable marketing practices of Google-Facebook-Amazon <em>et al</em>. But given Niccol’s thematic penchant for utopia gone wrong, I think this filmmaker is speaking to at least two deeper issues.</p>

<h2>Wanting the Cure without the Doctor</h2>

<p>In an <a href="https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-host-and-gattaca-director-andrew-niccol-explains-hi-461244396">interview</a> with <em>io9’s Gizmodo</em> about <em>The Host</em>, we read this exchange:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Gizmodo:</strong> What is your attraction to fake utopias?</p>

<p><strong>Andrew Niccol:</strong> I guess I’m hopeful for a better world. But I’m also realistic [enough] to know that it’s not so easy to achieve.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ironically, Niccol’s way to explore a better world is to give us dystopian ones. Maybe he starts with the way things shouldn’t be because it’s a great starting point: No one thinks the world is as it should be. But here’s the problem for secular moviegoers: If there’s no God, then there is not a way “the world should be.”&nbsp;There’s no standard or purpose for anything, so the very idea of the cosmos being “broken”&nbsp;makes no sense. But even though the atheist’s worldview cannot support notions of objective moral “better”&nbsp;or “worse,”&nbsp;they still yearn for a morally “better”&nbsp;world.</p>

<p>The reason we all sense this present world is broken is precisely because it is actually broken. Our poets rhyme of it, our singers sing of it, our novelists write of it, our actors dramatize it, and our politicians...make it worse. Even atheists want a heaven...just one without God. And that’s the crux of the issue: Sinful humans want salvation on their own terms. They want the benefits of a righteous God while keeping their favorite sins. Rebellious sinners want the benefit of a god without acknowledging their own guilt, and a savior without acknowledging their own sin.</p>

<p>To his credit, it seems Niccol recognizes that man’s best attempts at glorious heaven inevitably lead to ghoulish hell. I think, in his honest reflections, he also recognizes that a heaven (utopia) without God is hell, as his stories often reflect a fascination with utopia gone wrong - worlds where a man-made utopian scheme “only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and Hell where they already have it.”&nbsp;The problem is not the <em>system</em>; it’s the <em>sinner</em>. It’s not the society; it’s the soul. And since sinners design, implement, and inhabit these utopian systems, the utopias will always be dystopias. As wry developers are wont to say, “It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.”</p>

<p>Thus are the many ironies in desiring a cure you deny you need, to a disease you deny afflicts you, from a doctor you deny exists.</p>

<h2>The Fear of an Omnipresent Judge</h2>

<p>Maybe Niccol pitched <em>Anon</em> to Netflix as a story about the dangers of Google-Facebook-Amazon’s practice of stalking your online presence, but looking back at <a href="https://www.stageandstory.org/single-post/2018/02/01/The-Same-Ol-Story-SPOILERS">my analysis</a> of Niccol’s <em>The Truman Show</em>, it seems he’s echoing his distaste for The Omnipresent Judge. Whereas his film <em>The Truman Show</em> <a href="https://www.stageandstory.org/single-post/2018/02/01/The-Same-Ol-Story-SPOILERS">explored our unease</a> with always being watched, <em>Anon</em> takes the next logical step in that existential angst by explicitly showing us the consequences of always being watched; that is, always being judged guilty for our sins since the evidence to convict us <em>never</em> goes away. “You’d be surprised what people want to pretend never happened,”&nbsp;explains the co-star computer hacker who erases everyone’s sins for a large fee.</p>

<p>It’s not just the mere abstraction of being “watched”&nbsp;or “judged”&nbsp;that’s the problem; rather, it’s being watched <em>negatively</em> and judged <em>shamefully</em> that people fear. Think about it: If we’re only watched during our positive moments, not only would we not mind, we’d crave it (see Instagram as proof). And let’s face it, when society says, “Don’t judge,”&nbsp;what society really means is, don’t judge us negatively for our shameful sins. After all, every time somebody hits the “Like”&nbsp;button on your post, you’ve been judged. All the praise we seek and accrue to ourselves on social media is <em>judgment</em>; it’s just the kind of judgment that doesn’t make us feel ashamed.</p>

<p>It’s no coincidence that the context of <em>Anon</em> is not corporate marketing but law enforcement. Sal (Clive Owen), the protagonist, is a detective solving homicide cases while dealing with the loss of his young son - similar to <em>Minority Report</em>, a film about a dystopian world where John (Tom Cruise), the protagonist, is a detective solving homicide cases while dealing with the loss of his young son. But whereas those in the <em>Minority Report</em> world can at least hide behind the indeterminate potential uncertainty of future crimes, <em>Anon</em> leaves criminals no fig leaf since it’s about the recording of past crimes. The concept of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-present Judge who sees all your future crimes as well as records all your past crimes reveals a primal fear within a guilty, rebellious humanity. The futile attempt to hide among the trees of the garden when the Judge approaches in the cool of the day is as old as humanity itself (Gen. 3:8).</p>

<p>The only way to erase our sins is not with a computer hacker but with a contrite heart, not with code but with confession; for to regain paradise, there must be repentance. Utopia can only be had on God’s terms. And though He’s a just Judge, He is also a gracious Judge. There’s no better way to utopia than through His mercy. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”&nbsp;(1 John 1:9).</p>
</div>

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


title: Author of AB 2943 Withdraws the Bill
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/31/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/author-of-ab-2943-withdraws-the-bill
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You have likely heard us talk about California’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943">Assembly Bill 2943</a> over the last few months (if you haven’t, you can catch up <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christian-read-bill#.W4l93pMzrdc">here</a>). The bill classified “sexual orientation change efforts”&nbsp;(SOCE) as an “unlawful business practice”&nbsp;in any instance involving the sale of services.* From the text of the bill:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Courts, including in California, have recognized the practice of sexual orientation change efforts as a commercial service. Therefore, claims that sexual orientation change efforts are effective in changing an individual’s sexual orientation, may constitute unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices under state consumer protection laws. This bill intends to make clear that sexual orientation change efforts are an unlawful practice under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The alarmingly broad wording used in <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943">AB 2943</a> included “efforts to <em>change behaviors”</em>&nbsp;in its definition of SOCE. But, of course, this could seemingly include any paid Christian speaker advocating for celibacy outside of opposite-sex marriage. Many supporters of AB 2943 denied this was the case, but the language used in the bill was ambiguous enough to allow for denials now and lawsuits later.</p>

<p>At the last moment, the author of AB 2943, Assemblyman Evan Low, withdrew the bill, <a href="https://a28.asmdc.org/press-release/assemblymember-low-statement-assembly-bill-2943">saying</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The best policy is not made in a vacuum and in order to advance the strongest piece of legislation, the bill requires additional time to allow for an inclusive process not hampered by legislative deadlines. With a hopeful eye toward the future, I share with you that, despite the support the bill received in the Assembly and Senate, I will not be sending AB 2943 to the Governor this year. I am committed to continuing to work towards creating a policy that best protects and celebrates the identities of LGBT Californians and a model for the nation to look towards.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This bill is dead, but there’s every indication in Assemblyman Low’s&nbsp;<a href="https://a28.asmdc.org/press-release/assemblymember-low-statement-assembly-bill-2943">full statement</a> that he intends to try again: “I am committed to continuing to work towards creating a policy that best protects and celebrates the identities of LGBT Californians and a model for the nation to look towards.”</p>

<h2>The Motivation behind the Bill</h2>

<p>The bill offered quotes from various organizations declaring SOCE to be harmful. But when you look more closely at the reasoning in the quotes, you’ll see that the <em>root</em> harm they’re warning against is not the therapies themselves but the idea <em>behind</em> the therapies that homosexuality is unhealthy, wrong, or in any way undesirable. For example, here’s a quote from the American Psychiatric Association:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, <em>since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient</em>. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The word “since,”&nbsp;there, indicates that what follows <em>is the cause of the harm</em>. Here’s another one:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, stating: “As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So again, the concern here seems to be the underlying assumption <em>behind</em> SOCE - that is, the assumption that homosexuality is undesirable or even wrong. As the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists put it (also quoted in the bill), “Reparative therapy is grounded in the idea that nonheterosexual orientation is ’disordered.’”</p>

<p>That was really the bottom line behind this bill. Without experiential knowledge of the freedom Jesus offers us from the guilt we all share in one form or another, hearing that your sexuality is disordered must be unbearably difficult. This reason behind opposition to SOCE is something to look for and keep in mind as you’re researching arguments for and against the effectiveness/harm of SOCE. It may be that some SOCE cause harm in other ways for other reasons (and, certainly, it’s easy to see how <em>particular kinds</em> of therapy could cause harm), but blanket statements against <em>all</em> of them are likely smuggling in the ethical assumption that homosexuality is <em>not</em> disordered. As you’re evaluating, you’ll need to distinguish between the claims of harm that are based on this assumption and those that aren’t.</p>

<p>This fight on the part of AB 2943 advocates to both curb the freedom of those who wish to seek out SOCE therapies and to limit the free speech of those who advocate therapies the government disagrees with is over for now. But probably only for now.</p>

<p>*Update: I originally said the law applied to “goods and services,”&nbsp;but as the Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-conversion-therapy-bill-20180831-story.html" target="_blank">notes</a>, the bill was later amended so it would clearly apply only to services, not goods.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fauthor-of-ab-2943-withdraws-the-bill" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fauthor-of-ab-2943-withdraws-the-bill" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fauthor-of-ab-2943-withdraws-the-bill" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Is Man?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-man-
content:
            <div> 
		<link href="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">p {
word-wrap: break-word;
	overflow-wrap: break-word;
}
</style>
<p>Three thousand years ago, an ancient sage gazed at the world and asked the most important question anyone could ask about our corporate humanity:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,</p>

<p>The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;</p>

<p><em>What is man</em> that You take thought of him...? (Ps. 8:3-4)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. What is man? What does it mean to be human? You cannot answer a single question of consequence regarding human beings without answering that question first. Everything vital, meaningful, and moral about us hangs on its answer. It is the quintessential query regarding the nature of human existence.</p>

<p>Is gender fixed or fluid? Is homosexuality natural or perverse? Is there a right to abortion? What about capital punishment? Or sexual slavery? Or social justice? The answer to each of these questions depends upon an answer to a prior question: What is man?</p>

<p>There are three ways to respond. Here is the first way, the response of naturalism - the religion currently governing science. According to pop “Science Guy”&nbsp;Bill Nye, “We are just a speck, on a speck, orbiting a speck, in the corner of a speck, in the middle of nowhere.”</p>

<p>“We emerged from microbes and muck,”&nbsp;Carl Sagan declared. “We find ourselves in bottomless free fall...lost in a great darkness, and there’s no one to send out a search party.”<a href="#fn:1" rel="footnote">1</a></p>

<p>And they are right, of course. In a world without God, humans are nothing but cogs in the celestial machine, cosmic junk, the ultimate unplanned pregnancy, left to build our lonely lives on the “unyielding foundation of universal despair,”&nbsp;as atheist Bertrand Russell put it. Nihilism - bleak “nothing-ism.”</p>

<p>There is a more cheerful alternative, though: the New Age answer to the question “What is man?”&nbsp;There <em>is</em> a God, according to Rhonda Byrne, and he is you. In <em>The Secret</em>, her celebration of human divinity, she writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You are God in a physical body. You are Spirit in the flesh. You are Eternal Life expressing itself as You...You are all power. You are all wisdom. You are all intelligence. You are perfection.<a href="#fn:2" rel="footnote">2</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the secularists have given us two options. Either there is no God, or there is and we are Him. Cosmic debris or divine perfection. In either case, we are alone - solitary nothing or solitary everything. Scylla or Charybdis.</p>

<p>Our ancient sage, though, provides a third answer. No, we are not God, but we are not garbage, either. There is another alternative, a path between those two monsters. It is also one that makes complete sense of our deepest intuitions about what it means for us to be human.</p>

<h2>An Odd Day</h2>

<p>Something has always confused me about Earth Day celebrations. They seem to be based on a contradiction. Earth Day is a fete enjoyed by naturalists, on the main, who celebrate nature as ultimate and man’s unique moral responsibility to protect it.</p>

<p>There, did you see it? Did you catch the contradiction?</p>

<p>In order to see the misstep, you must see something else first. Worldviews come in packages. They are like puzzles with particular pieces fitting together into a coherent whole. Foundational concerns either fit crisply with other details or foreclose on them.</p>

<p>In a naturalistic worldview, nature is all there is - physical things in motion strictly governed by the deterministic laws of physics and chemistry. In this package, then, there is no place for actual moral obligations of any kind because morality is based on free choices, not on physical determinism.</p>

<p>Further, Darwinism is a strictly materialistic process that produces strictly material goods. No pattern of genetic mutation and natural selection can cause an immaterial moral obligation to pop into existence. <a href="#fn:3" rel="footnote">3</a> Thus, no living thing can have an obligation to protect another. The locusts take what they can and leave nothing for the hapless boll weevil. Nor should they. May the best bug (the “fittest”&nbsp;critter) win. That’s the program.</p>

<p>Nature’s “balance”&nbsp;is maintained by the corporate tug o’&nbsp;war for survival that all living things engage in (on this view), not by one species acting responsibly towards another. There are no moral hierarchies in nature since nature has no resources to build them. Thus, the notion that a specific animal, even a human one, has responsibility of stewardship over any other - much less over nature’s entire project - is completely foreign to Darwinism and, thus, to naturalism. In short, there is nothing in an atheistic, naturalistic world that makes sense of man’s obligation towards nature. That’s the contradiction.</p>

<h2>My Father’s World</h2>

<p>As I said, it confuses me, and it ought to trouble naturalists, too, but it doesn’t appear to. There is a reason for this, I think. To them it just seems obvious - regardless of their underlying worldview - that humans are different in a qualitative way, making us responsible as stewards over the world entrusted to us. That’s not the exact language they’d use, of course, but it’s what the intuition driving Earth Day amounts to.</p>

<p>And they are right about this intuition, of course, but certainly not in virtue of naturalism. Naturalists can talk all they want of human obligations, human meaning and purpose, human value, human significance - even human rights - but it’s all chaff in the wind given their foundational understanding of reality.</p>

<p>There is a worldview, though, in which each of these features of human worth makes perfect sense. Ours.</p>

<p>Here is what the Earth Day crowd gets right: Man <em>is</em> different. Humans <em>are</em> special. People <em>are</em> responsible precisely because they are <em>not</em> the same as anything else in nature. And we all know this, which is why the fact continues to stubbornly assert itself even with people whose worldview package cannot justify it. That’s because this world is not Mother’s world (“Mother Nature”). It is Father’s world.</p>

<p>Here is what Father says about human beings. Humans are beautiful, but they are also broken. They are good, but they are also guilty, and so they are lost. But it hasn’t always been this way, so there is hope for rescue. These are things we all know, it turns out. They reflect our deepest intuitions about ourselves and the world we live in.</p>

<h2>Beautiful</h2>

<p>Carl Sagan says we are cousins of apes.<a href="#fn:4" rel="footnote">4</a> That is Mother’s assessment, of course. Father says different: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”&nbsp;(Gen. 1:27).</p>

<p>This is the starting point for the answer to our question, “What is man?”&nbsp;At the core of our being lies a mark, an imprint of God Himself - not <em>on</em> us, as if foreign and attached, but <em>in</em> us, as a natural feature built <em>into</em> our natures. This mark is part of what makes us what we are, who we are. We would not be humans without it, but only creatures. Because of this mark, we are not kin to apes. We are kin to the God who made us for Himself.</p>

<p>I do not want you to miss the significance of this simple statement, “God created man in His own image,”&nbsp;the very first thing said about humans at the outset of God’s Story. It means that anyone reading these words - indeed, every person who has ever lived or died or hoped or dreamed anywhere on this planet at any time in history - bears something beautiful at their core, a beauty that can never be lost and cannot be taken from them.</p>

<p>No, we are not gods, but we are like God in an important way. God’s image in us is what makes abortion a homicide and sexual slavery a travesty. It is the reason we are not free to treat each other like animals. It is why certain “inalienable”&nbsp;rights belong uniquely to us. It is also the basis for our friendship with God. We are like Him so we can be near Him in an extraordinary, intimate way.</p>

<p>In a very real sense, then, you have never met an “ordinary”&nbsp;person.<a href="#fn:5" rel="footnote">5</a> Because of the mark of God within our souls, we are each extraordinary in a way that no disfigurement - physical or moral - can ever change, no circumstance can ever alter, no thief can ever steal. It is God’s forever gift to humanity, His image on our being.</p>

<p>Thus, we are precious to Him as nothing else is. Jesus said, “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:29-31).</p>

<p>Notice something else about Father’s world. God says He made us “male and female.”&nbsp;God made gender binary, not “fluid.”&nbsp;There are two and only two, not a vast array. This is a good thing - one made to match the other, each designed to fit the other physically for reproduction (obviously) and soulishly for oneness when paired together in lifelong relationship. The two make one, each “fearfully and wonderfully”&nbsp;made, man for woman, woman for man - the one as the other’s proper, lifelong complement and companion.<a href="#fn:6" rel="footnote">6</a></p>

<p>There is another reason for our binary sexuality. Only in the combination of those unique characteristics germane to each gender is the image of God fully manifest. Though in God’s essential nature He is Father, God is neither male nor female, strictly speaking, but shares and manifests the magnificent glories of both genders.</p>

<p>Note one thing more. God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth”&nbsp;(Gen. 1:28). This is the accurate insight of the Earth Day crowd. We are both masters and stewards; regents on earth, yet servants of the Most High God.</p>

<p>But there is a problem. Something went south.</p>

<h2>Broken</h2>

<p>I want to tell you another thing everyone knows. Something has gone terribly wrong. We call it “the problem of evil,”&nbsp;and it prompts us to ask, “Why is there so much badness in the world?”&nbsp;There is a wrinkle to this concern, though, another detail each of us also already knows.</p>

<p>The world is broken, true enough. But we are broken, too, and our brokenness is a huge part of what is wrong with the world. The world is broken because we are broken. Though man has inherent dignity, he is also cruel. The evil is “out there,”&nbsp;as it were, but it is also “in here”&nbsp;- in us.</p>

<p>Things did not start out that way, though. At the very end of the very beginning, once God had set everything in its proper place, we find this summary of all He had done: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good”&nbsp;(Gen. 1:31).</p>

<p>All was as it was supposed to be, just as God intended, everything working according to its purpose, man and woman one with each other and the world, resting in their friendship with God.</p>

<p>In that peaceful paradise, though, there was a lone prohibition - a test of fidelity to a Friend, of love to a Father, of loyalty to a King. There was also a tempter who told a terrible lie and a devastating disobedience that changed everything.</p>

<p>When our first parents chose to follow the deceiver rather than their Sovereign, they broke fellowship with their Father, they broke communion with each other, and they broke harmony with the earth they’d been entrusted with. Indeed, when Adam and Eve sinned, <em>they broke the whole world</em>. Human badness made the world go bad.</p>

<p>Because our parents became broken, each of us is now broken like them since they reproduced children just like themselves, and their children have done likewise, one broken generation cascading down to the next.</p>

<p>Each of us is still beautiful, to be sure. God’s image cannot be erased. However, it can be defaced and disfigured, sullied and spoiled. And that is what has happened. Where there was freedom, there is now slavery and struggle. Where there was spiritual life, there is now spiritual death and decay. Where there was friendship with God, there is now enmity and strife.</p>

<p>This is the second part of our answer to the question, “What is man?”&nbsp;Yes, man is beautiful, but man is terribly broken. And it gets worse.</p>

<h2>Guilty</h2>

<p>To say we are broken is accurate, but it is also easily misunderstood since it does not go far enough. We are not machines that are malfunctioning. We are not bodies that are ailing. We are subjects who revolted, rebels who are now morally corrupted. We are guilty, and for this we must answer.</p>

<p>Again, each of us knows this deep down inside. Years back, I lectured to a sold-out crowd at the University of California at Berkeley. I made the case against moral relativism simply by observing how frequently we object to evil deeds done by others.</p>

<p>This tendency, I pointed out, explains something about ourselves, too, since we are the “others”&nbsp;doing those evil deeds we object to. And we know it. Deep inside of us is a gnawing awareness of our own badness, producing a feeling we universally recognize. That feeling has a name. I asked them what it was. All over the auditorium I heard their response. “Guilt,”&nbsp;they said, one by one.</p>

<p>Yes, we all <em>feel</em> guilty, don’t we? At some point or another, if we are honest with ourselves, we feel the pain of our own brokenness. “But why?”&nbsp;I asked. “Why do we feel guilty? How about this,”&nbsp;I suggested. “Maybe we <em>feel</em> guilty,”&nbsp;I said, “because we <em>are</em> guilty. Is that in the running?”&nbsp;This, of course, is exactly what the Story tells us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There is none righteous, not even one;</p>

<p>There is none who understands,</p>

<p>There is none who seeks for God;</p>

<p>All have turned aside, together they have become useless;</p>

<p>There is none who does good,</p>

<p>There is not even one. (Rom. 3:10-12)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Humans are beautiful, yes. But humans are also broken. And in our moral wretchedness we are also profoundly guilty. We owe. We are in debt, not to a standard, not to a rule, not to a law, but to a Person - to the One we have offended with our disobedience. And this is not good news, since our guilt has severe consequences.</p>

<h2>Lost</h2>

<p>At the end of the Story we find a dark passage.<a href="#fn:7" rel="footnote">7</a> It tells of the final event of history as we know it, a great trial on a great plain where a great multitude of the accused - the guilty ones - stand before a Judge. The books of death are opened, each of our moral lives laid bare for all mankind to see - the record in the books the basis for a final reckoning, a last judgment.</p>

<p>Nothing is missed or overlooked. From massive acts of evil to minor moral missteps, no sullied deed passes. “There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known,”&nbsp;Jesus warned (Matt. 10:26). “Every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment,”&nbsp;He said (Matt. 12:36). It is not a pretty picture.</p>

<p>Before the Judge stand all the beautiful, broken, guilty ones, each shut up under sin.<a href="#fn:8" rel="footnote">8</a> Every mouth is also shut, each voice muted, silenced from any defensive appeal or any excuse, all the world accountable to Him with whom we have to do.<a href="#fn:9" rel="footnote">9</a> The record in the books speaks for itself.</p>

<p>Here is Sagan’s “bottomless free fall”&nbsp;- mankind “lost in a great darkness.”&nbsp;He is right about that, since we are all guilty, and no judge owes a pardon. Atonement must be made. The debt must be paid. Justice must be perfect.</p>

<p>There is one more detail to the Story, though. I did not leave the students at Berkeley in despair, abandoned under the weight of their own guilt - culpability that we all shoulder, blame that we all share.</p>

<p>“The answer to guilt is not denial,”&nbsp;I told them. “That’s relativism. The answer to guilt,”&nbsp;I said, “is <em>forgiveness</em>. And this is where Jesus comes in.”</p>

<p>Sagan is right when he says we are lost. But he is wrong when he says, “There’s no one to send out a search party.”&nbsp;Clearly, man needs rescuing, and he cannot rescue himself. Help must come from the outside. From outside of ourselves. From outside of Sagan’s closed cosmos. From outside of this world.</p>

<p>And the search party has arrived. The Rescuer has come:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, when [Jesus] comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ’Behold, I have come...to do Your will, O God.’”&nbsp;(Heb. 10:5-7)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because our souls bear God’s own image, we are wonderful. Because we have rebelled against the God who gave us our beauty, we are broken, guilty, and ultimately lost. “For the wages of sin is death...”&nbsp;the Story tells us (Rom. 6:23). In the darkness, though, there is hope, because it then adds, “...but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”</p>

<p>He is the One who calls to us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest...for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matt. 11:28-29)</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:1">
	<p>Carl Sagan, <em>Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space</em> (New York: Random house, 1994), 6, 51. <a href="#fnref:1" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:2">
	<p>Rhonda Bryne, <em>The Secret</em> (New York: Atria Books, 2006), 164. <a href="#fnref:2" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:3">
	<p>In a previous issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I explain why Darwinism as a system is completely incapable of generating actual, objective moral obligations. See “God, Evolution, and Morality,”&nbsp;parts 1 and 2, at str.org. <a href="#fnref:3" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:4">
	<p>Sagan, ibid. <a href="#fnref:4" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:5">
	<p>I owe this insight to C.S. Lewis. <a href="#fnref:5" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:6">
	<p>Note Jesus’&nbsp;comment in Matt. 19:4-6. <a href="#fnref:6" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:7">
	<p>Rev. 20. <a href="#fnref:7" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:8">
	<p>Gal. 3:22. <a href="#fnref:8" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:9">
	<p>Rom. 3:19. <a href="#fnref:9" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
</ol>
</div>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.min.js" type="application/javascript"></script><script type="application/javascript">
littlefoot.default()
</script>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-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%2Fwhat-is-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%2Fwhat-is-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: Is God a Sex Killjoy?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-a-sex-killjoy-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was recently vacationing in Italy for my 20th wedding anniversary and decided to visit the Lamborghini factory. I’ve always loved the power and sleek look of the Aventador, the Diablo, the Veneno, and several other models. So, when I heard you can tour the assembly line, I persuaded my wife to drive a few hours for the rare opportunity to see firsthand how these beauties are built.</p>

<p>During the drive to and from Modena, where the factory is located, it was no surprise to see several Lamborghinis being road-tested. Immediately I began daydreaming about taking one out for a test spin, feeling the g-force during acceleration, and effortlessly cornering winding mountain roads.</p>

<p>What would it be like to take one of these low-profile supercars off road, though? Instead of humming along on the smooth asphalt streets of Modena, imagine turning sharply onto a dirt road and attempting to climb a mountain on steep and rocky terrain. It’s obvious what would happen: tears...lots of tears. The front spoiler would crack, the rims and doors would dent, and the car would high center on a bulging boulder, rendering the car inoperable in a matter of seconds. The Lamborghini would incur tens of thousands of dollars of damage in an instant.</p>

<p>No (sane) owner would ever do that. They know how a Lamborghini is designed to function and what conditions it’s made to handle. They know its limitations. No driving on sand. No driving on rocks. No driving through rivers. No driving off jumps. That’s a lot of “no.”&nbsp;Lamborghini owners don’t regard the car’s lack of off-road capability a weakness. They certainly wouldn’t name-call the Lamborghini designers or think they’re killjoys. In fact, Lamborghini owners would consider the engineers heroes to be lauded for their innovation and automotive brilliance. When you drive a Lamborghini on the open highway or along a winding mountain road, you enjoy the engineering excellence of a high performance sports car, the way it was meant to be driven.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m mystified by Christians who think God is a killjoy. They wonder why God restricts sexual activity to a married man and woman. That seems to leave out a lot of opportunities, many people reason. No sex before marriage (fornication). No sex outside of marriage (adultery). No sex with people of the same sex (homosexuality). No sex with animals (bestiality). No sex with close relatives (incest). That’s a lot of “no.”</p>

<p>But God isn’t <em>against</em> sex. He’s <em>for</em> sex, but according to the way He intended it. The Bible paints a beautiful picture of what sex is supposed to be. Remember, it’s God who made sex (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:24). Our culture didn’t give us sex. God gave us sex. In fact, it was His idea to make it procreative and His idea to make it pleasurable. The sexual act is a remarkable encounter that knits together a man and woman physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It allows them to express their love within the safe and intimate confines of a marriage commitment. Both husband and wife can be vulnerable, expressive, and intimate, while remaining safe and protected.</p>

<p>Any deviation from that God-ordained design causes damage. It’s not that God doesn’t want us to have sex. It’s that He doesn’t want us to get hurt or to hurt others, which is what happens when we attempt to have sex in ways it was not designed to be enjoyed. He cares about us, and that’s why He gives us guidelines.</p>

<p>Too often, though, people say they want to have sex “on their own terms, not on God’s.”&nbsp;They want to throw off the imagined shackles of religious rules they think hold them back from fun and pleasure. The problem, though, is they’re using sex in a way it was not designed to function.</p>

<p>So, for example, they get intimate with their partner. They become vulnerable with another person. They give themselves and knit their soul to another. But because they’re not married, there’s no commitment. There’s nothing keeping them together. They break up and experience pain and heartache because their partner has betrayed their trust.</p>

<p>It’s like driving a Lamborghini off road. That’s not the way it was meant to be driven. The engineers made Lamborghinis to be driven and enjoyed <em>on the road</em>. When you drive one “on your own terms,”&nbsp;you’re not breaking free of the designer’s restrictions, you’re just breaking things.</p>

<p>God is like a Lamborghini engineer. He created something beautiful, amazing, and special to be enjoyed in a specific way. Any deviation from His design is like wrecking a Lamborghini by driving it off road. Just about everything that’s made is made to be enjoyed within certain limits. Lamborghini engineers aren’t killjoys, and neither is God.</p>
</div>

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


title: Colorado Accuses Masterpiece Cakeshop of Discrimination…Again
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/24/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/colorado-accuses-masterpiece-cakeshop-of-discrimination-again
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Remember Jack Phillips of <a href="/w/religious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-">Masterpiece Cakeshop</a>? Of course you do. It’s been less than three months since <a href="/w/masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-at-the-supreme-court">the Supreme Court ruled 7-2</a> that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unconstitutionally applied the law against Phillips in a biased and hostile manner.</p>

<p>Well, once again the Commission has accused Masterpiece Cakeshop of <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopProbableCauseDetermination.pdf">violating</a> Colorado’s anti-discrimination law after the shop declined to make what the <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopDiscriminationCharge.pdf">official complaint</a> describes as “a cake with pink interior and blue exterior, which I [i.e., Autumn Scardina] disclosed was intended for the celebration of my transition from male to female.”</p>

<p>First, I will continue to say as long as it needs to be said that declining to communicate a message one disagrees with is not the same thing as denying a person services <em>because of who they are</em> (see <a href="/w/religious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-">here</a>, <a href="/w/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events">here</a>, and <a href="/w/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas">here</a> for more on this). This needs to be understood before anything else.</p>

<p>Second, the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is even more difficult to understand in light of what appears to be Scardina’s harassment of Phillips since the incident, described here by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/">David French</a> (who is summing up the info found <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf">here</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop [since the original request]. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina”&nbsp;appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme - except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.”&nbsp;This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”</p>

<p>On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request [see the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/">original article</a> if you would like to read the obscene request - I’m not willing to post it here]...</p>

<p>And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.”</p>

<p>Rather than recognizing Scardina’s conduct as nothing more than a bad-faith campaign of harassment, Aubrey Elenis, the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, found on June 28 “probable cause”&nbsp;to believe that Phillips violated Scardina’s civil rights when he refused Scardina’s bad-faith request to design a cake celebrating Scardina’s “transition.”</p>

<p>This decision is as foolish as it is malicious.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (7-2!) in the <em>last</em> case that the charges against Phillips were a result of the government’s hostility towards his religious beliefs, it’s hard to imagine this case wouldn’t lead to the same result (especially considering what follows below).</p>

<p>Phillips has responded by suing Colorado state officials for targeting him out of <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf">anti-religious animus</a>. He <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/16/jack-phillips-despite-my-supreme-court-victory-im-still-under-attack-column/996588002/">explains</a> in an op-ed at USA Today,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The state did this even though it allows others - like the three bakers who were asked for cakes criticizing same-sex marriage - to decline requests for cakes expressing messages that they don’t communicate for anyone. The government is clearly treating me worse than others.</p>

<p>Perhaps worse yet, the state is contradicting what it told the Supreme Court in my prior case. The government said that I can decline to create custom cakes with pro-LGBT designs or themes, announcing in no uncertain terms that I am free “to decline to sell cakes with ’pro-gay’&nbsp;designs or inscriptions.”</p>

<p>Yet the cake requested in the new case obviously had a pro-LGBT design. The person who requested it even recognized that the design was intended to represent and celebrate a gender transition. The inconsistency between what the state told the Supreme Court and what it is doing to me now shows the government’s real policy: No matter the circumstances, I must be punished.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Indeed.</p>
</div>

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


title: Advice for Your Relationship with an Apostate Family Member
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/advice-for-your-relationship-with-an-apostate-family-member
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was recently asked for advice by someone whose sister is no longer claiming to be a Christian. This has caused a rift in their relationship, and she wanted to know what I would suggest. I figured I’d offer my thoughts “out loud”&nbsp;in case someone else is asking a similar question.</p>

<p>First, I told her she should begin (if she hasn’t already) to pray for her sister’s salvation. Too often, in apologetic circles, we put too much emphasis on arguments and reason, thinking we could win over our family member if we just had a better apologetic. Don’t get me wrong, knowing apologetics can help, especially if the person is wrestling with an intellectual objection. I’m an apologist, so I’m definitely in favor of being prepared to answer questions and doubts. Many times, though, we might not know exactly what’s going on inside their soul, but God does. Besides, no person comes to faith in Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. So, making prayer a priority helps us gain the right perspective. The work of salvation is the work of God alone.</p>

<p>One of the things I suggested she specifically pray for is that God would bring committed believers into her sister’s life. Often our family members are resistant to our ideas, thoughts, pleas, and arguments simply because we’re their relative. I’ve often seen God bring someone else like a friend or co-worker into a person’s life who becomes a bigger influence than the family member ever could be.</p>

<p>My second piece of advice was to make her relationship with her sister a high priority. This might seem like obvious advice, but for some people, once their friend or family member has abandoned their walk with Christ, that relationship is relegated to second-class status. That’s a mistake, in my opinion. Relationships are a bridge by which we can tell the truth, show compassion, share the gospel, and simply share life together. They also allow us to gain people’s trust so they can become more open with us. Making your relationship with them a high priority will allow you to have a lasting impact in their life.</p>

<p>The third thing I told her was to take an evening and give her sister an opportunity to share what’s going on in her life, especially with regard to her recent spiritual changes. She should be prepared, however, to allow her sister to share the entire time. In other words, don’t plan to respond. Just give her the freedom to honestly tell her story and what’s going on inside her heart and soul without the anticipation that she’ll be answered or argued with. This will make it more likely that she’ll be open and honest, giving you a more accurate picture of her life.</p>

<p>This third piece of advice is helpful for a couple of reasons. First, it will allow her to be more strategic when she prays for her sister. By better understanding what’s going on in her sister’s heart and soul (e.g. inner conflicts, doubts, fears, etc.), she can use that knowledge to ask God for help to intervene in specific ways that are relevant to her sister’s issues. Second, knowing her sister’s concerns will help her be more strategic about how she could intervene in the future, should the opportunity arise. Realize, though, that talking to her about spiritual matters doesn’t have to occur all at once. Too often we think that if we have a chance to share about matters of faith, we must unload everything we know or think. In the case of a sister (or anyone you’re in a long-term relationship with), you usually have plenty of time and opportunities. There will probably be other chances to share additional spiritual thoughts with them.</p>

<p>Don’t forget, as I mentioned in my first piece of advice, that it’s not your job to make people Christian. It’s not your job to convince them of your arguments either. Your job is to be faithful to your role - being an ambassador for Christ. Share the truth in a loving, persuasive, and gracious way, and then leave the results up to God.</p>
</div>

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


title: False Ideas Start in the Mind before They Get Expressed as Actions
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/false-ideas-start-in-the-mind-before-they-get-expressed-as-actions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We are continuing in our series on false ideas about God. You can read the first two parts <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/danger-false-ideas-about-god">here</a> and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/idolatry-begins-when-truth-about-god-exchanged-lie">here</a>.</p>

<p>The Bible is full of examples of people engaging in idolatrous behavior. But the idolatry didn’t start there. Their outward idolatrous actions were preceded by inward idolatrous ideas. Consider the story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.</p>

<p><em>He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ’You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”</em>&nbsp;And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ’You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”&nbsp;<em>But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”</em>&nbsp;So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Gen. 3:1-6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We are all familiar with the story of the Fall. Many of us have grown up in Sunday school hearing about how Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. But the fall of mankind didn’t <em>begin</em> when the first pair took their first bite.</p>

<p>That is, it didn’t begin with a <em>disobedient deed</em>. Rather, it began with an <em>incorrect idea</em>. Specifically, the serpent - the devil - planted false ideas about God in the minds of the original pair.</p>

<p>First, Satan <em>questions</em> what God has said. “Did God actually say?”&nbsp;asks the serpent. He goes after God’s word. And Satan’s game plan hasn’t changed. Aberrant theologies nearly always start with questioning what God has said.</p>

<p>“Did God really say homosexual behavior is wrong?”&nbsp;“Did God really say people will go to Hell for their sin?”&nbsp;“Did God really say Jesus is the only way?”&nbsp;“Did God really say there are only two genders?”&nbsp;“Did God really say...?”</p>

<p>Second, Satan <em>denies</em> what God has said. “You will not surely die,”&nbsp;Satan deceivingly declares. Satan moves from questioning God’s word to denying it. Satan doesn’t deny God’s existence. No, his scheme is even more insidious. He denies what God has said <em>so that he can replace truth with a lie</em>.</p>

<p>Well, what’s the lie? This leads to the next point.</p>

<p>Third, Satan <em>attacks</em> who God is. In this very short dialogue, we see Satan attack the character of God. Think about the implications of what he says. Firstly, Satan plants the lie that God is <em>withholding</em> something good from them. After all, why would a loving God withhold something that appears to be pleasing to the eyes? The implication is that God is <em>not loving</em>. Satan gets them to believe the lie that God must not care about them; He must like keeping things from them; He must be cruel.</p>

<p>Of course, this isn’t true at all. We know that God is love. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love”&nbsp;(1 John 4:8).</p>

<p>Secondly, Satan plants the lie that God wasn’t telling Adam and Eve the truth. The implication is that God is <em>not truthful</em>. Satan - the father of lies - gets them to believe that God lied about the consequences of disobeying His command.</p>

<p>However, Satan is the one that cannot be trusted. In fact, we know that God cannot lie. “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind”&nbsp;(Numbers 23:19). Lying is against God’s nature.</p>

<p>Finally, Satan plants the lie that God isn’t sufficient. They need to take care of themselves. They begin to believe they can be their own gods. The implication is that God is <em>not enough</em>.</p>

<p>It’s only after Adam and Eve have fallen for this false understanding of who God is that they eat the fruit.</p>

<p>The same connection between ideas and actions can be seen during the events that took place while Moses was receiving the Law on Mount Sinai.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the people saw that <em>Moses delayed</em> to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, <em>we do not know what has become of him</em>.”&nbsp;So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.”&nbsp;(Ex. 32:1-2)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For those unfamiliar with this story, Aaron melts the gold down and forms it into a golden calf for them to worship.</p>

<p>Now remember our main point: <em>False ideas start in the mind before they get expressed as actions.</em></p>

<p>Before any gold was gathered or the calf was being sculpted, idolatry had already begun to germinate in the minds of the people. Rather than trusting God and His chosen leader, Moses, they began to doubt God. The text says that “the people saw that Moses delayed.”&nbsp;They had decided, in their minds, that God was taking too long with Moses. And they were growing impatient. God shouldn’t keep them waiting, should He?</p>

<p>Notice their response. When God doesn’t operate the way they think He should, they decide to sculpt a god who will. But, of course, this is futile thinking.</p>

<p>God just gave ten plagues showing that He is greater than the false gods of the Egyptians. For example, the Egyptians worshiped sun god Ra, so God put out the sun. But what do the Israelites do? They exchange the truth about God for a lie and demand to worship an image resembling a creature - a cow.</p>

<p>More examples could be given, but this is enough to show that false worship begins with false ideas about God.</p>
</div>

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


title: Free Apologetics Audio from Credo Courses
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/04/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/free-apologetics-audio-from-credo-courses
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Great news from Credo Courses! This week, they’re having a <a href="https://www.credocourses.com/">Fourth of July sale</a>, and all of the audio from <em>any</em> of their courses is free, including an entire thirty-session <a href="https://www.credocourses.com/product/christian-apologetics-101/">Christian Apologetics 101</a> series with Douglas Groothuis. (If you prefer video to audio, or you’re looking for PowerPoint slides to help you teach, there’s a 60-90% sale on everything else they offer - for example, the Groothuis digital videos are $25 instead of $199).</p>

<p>Tim went through their classes on <a href="https://www.credocourses.com/product/textual-criticism/">textual criticism</a> (taught by Daniel Wallace) and the <a href="https://www.credocourses.com/product/the-resurrection-of-jesus/">resurrection</a> (with Gary Habermas) and reviewed their courses <a href="/w/letting-you-know-about-a-great-resource-credo-courses">here</a>. Take a look at what he had to say, and then head over to the <a href="https://www.credocourses.com/">sale at Credo Courses</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%2Ffree-apologetics-audio-from-credo-courses" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffree-apologetics-audio-from-credo-courses" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffree-apologetics-audio-from-credo-courses" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/who-did-jesus-think-he-was-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has been releasing short, animated videos explaining apologetic arguments in an accessible, shareable way. Their newest video explores the question “Who did Jesus think He was?”</p>

<p>After you watch, check out some of their past videos and pass them on:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument#.WoZoEJOplR1">The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/could-%E2%80%9Cgood%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cevil%E2%80%9D-exist-without-god#.WoZhqJOplR0">The Moral Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-finely-tuned-universe-necessity-chance-or-design#.WoZoG5OplR1">The Fine-Tuning Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-contingency-argument#.WoZoB5OplR1">The Contingency Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/can-there-be-any-meaning-universe-without-god#.W0P0Adgzrdd">Is There Meaning to Life?</a></li>
</ul>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="eaaWl8RtTa8" 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/eaaWl8RtTa8?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%2Fwho-did-jesus-think-he-was-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-did-jesus-think-he-was-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-did-jesus-think-he-was-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Pilgrimage to Mecca and the Forgiveness of Sins
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/18/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-pilgrimage-to-mecca-and-the-forgiveness-of-sins
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This short documentary (below - about 14 minutes) by journalist Suroosh Alvi on what it’s like for a Muslim to go on a pilgrimage (“Hajj”) to Mecca is worth watching. A proper completion of the Hajj is thought to bring <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh2/bh2_598.htm">forgiveness of sins</a>: “Whoever performs Hajj for Allah’s pleasure and does not have sexual relations with his wife, and does not do evil or sins then he will return (after Hajj free from all sins) as if he were born anew.”</p>

<p>The video Alvi captured on his journey with his Pakistani parents is fascinating. After the people perform a series of very specific rituals over a period of several days, it is announced:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You should be the happiest people on earth because your mission has been accomplished. And you [are] all new born. And Allah has erased and forgiven all your previous sins. This is reality. It’s not a dream anymore.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even so, because of the conditions involved, there’s <a href="https://islamqa.info/en/173723">no guarantee</a> Allah will accept this work from everyone. The pilgrims who complete the rituals leave in hope, but without a guarantee.</p>

<p>I’m always moved when I see people who feel the weight of their sin and are working to have their guilt removed. I’m moved because we know from <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203&amp;version=NASB">Romans 3</a> that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”&nbsp;Having a high standard reminds us daily of our failures. And if the standard we hold is the only means we have of perfecting ourselves, we’re left in despair. We’ll never make it.</p>

<p>But the next chapter of Romans removes all despair:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.</p>

<p>For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%204&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 4:13-16</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That’s one of my favorite passages in Romans. If we had to earn our forgiveness and righteousness, God could not promise us our salvation because it would rest on us - on worse than shaky ground, on a sinkhole! We would have nothing to look forward to but the wrath of God. But God wanted to <em>guarantee</em> our forgiveness, freedom, and salvation. This is why He decided to save us through the work of Christ, by His grace alone, and not by our works. This is the good news.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe...(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 3:21-22</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I hope this documentary moves you to tell this truth to your Muslim friends.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="q7q_LcqbvKI" 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/q7q_LcqbvKI?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Why You Shouldn’t Ask God if the Book of Mormon Is True
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Aaron Brake
date: 07/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-shouldn-t-ask-god-if-the-book-of-mormon-is-true
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some time ago, I heard a knock on my door and was pleasantly surprised to see two young Mormon missionaries. Their crisp white shirts, stark black ties, and distinctive name tags instantly gave them away. Having spent time dialoguing with Mormons in the past and studying their beliefs and practices, I gladly invited them in. As we sat discussing important doctrines, they asked me a question that invariably arises in every discussion with Mormon missionaries: “<em>Would you be willing to pray and sincerely ask God if the Book of Mormon<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> is true</em>?”&nbsp;I responded by saying, “No, I don’t think anyone should pray that prayer.”&nbsp;The reason I refused to pray it, and the reason I say everyone else should refuse, is that basing a belief on something so subjective is dangerous. In what follows, I will explain the inherent problems and dangers with this type of epistemology and demonstrate a biblical basis for testing religious truth claims.</p>

<h2>The Essence of Mormon Epistemology</h2>

<p>Epistemology is “the branch of philosophy that tries to make sense out of knowledge, rationality, and justified or unjustified beliefs.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> In other words, it’s about what we know and how we know it. This is important because Mormons frequently appeal to subjective experience as important evidence for determining truth. They view it as an adequate means of gaining and grounding knowledge. The Book of Mormon <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.32">states</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.32">Moroni 10:4</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mormon missionaries regularly quote this verse and accompany it with heartfelt personal testimony about how the Holy Ghost bore witness to them of the truth of the Book of Mormon. They encourage potential converts to follow suit so that they, too, may know the Book of Mormon is from God. This is the essence of Mormon epistemology. Bruce McConkie, a doctrinal authority and former apostle within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Doctrine-Bruce-R-McConkie/dp/0884944468/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">wrote</a>, “But the great and conclusive evidence of the divinity of the Book of Mormon is the testimony of the Spirit to the honest truth seeker.”&nbsp;While praying about the truth of a book may seem innocent, there are many inherent problems with this type of subjective test.</p>

<h2>Problems with the Mormon Test for Truth</h2>

<p>Whenever a Mormon suggests we should pray to find out whether the Book of Mormon is true, we should begin by pointing out that this idea comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This in itself is problematic and amounts to a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”&nbsp;or circular reasoning. Begging the question occurs when you assume in your argument the conclusion you are trying to prove. In this example, we have to assume Moroni 10:4 is true when it exhorts us to pray with sincerity about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. In other words, we have to assume the Book of Mormon is true in order to find out if it’s true. This is nothing more than circular reasoning.</p>

<p>The Mormons you’re speaking to may appeal to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+1&amp;version=NASB">James 1:5</a> as biblical support for their approach: “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”&nbsp;Mormons assure us that we simply need to ask God if we lack wisdom concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The problem with the Mormon’s use of this verse becomes apparent when we examine it in context. First, James is writing to those who are <em>already</em> Christian believers, not potential converts. These believers are experiencing trials (verses 2-4), and James instructs them to pray and ask for wisdom in the midst of their testing. Second, Christians here are encouraged to pray if they are lacking <em>wisdom</em>, not requiring <em>knowledge</em>. Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. Third, nothing is mentioned in this passage about attempting to discover the truth of a book through a subjective test. This interpretation is contrived and must be read into the text.</p>

<p>Further, this sort of prayer test is specious since there are some things we don’t need to pray about. For example, everyone can agree we don’t need to pray about committing adultery or murder because Scripture has already revealed biblical commands prohibiting these. By the same token, God has already warned believers about the dangers of a false gospel. Paul states in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+1%3A8&amp;version=NASB">Galatians 1:8</a>, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”&nbsp;To pray about such things as adultery, murder, or a false gospel is to test God because He has already revealed to us the truth in these matters. So, the more important question regarding the Book of Mormon is whether or not it teaches a false gospel.</p>

<p>Finally, what happens if there are objective facts and evidences that contradict a personal testimony?<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Is greater authority given to the objective data or subjective experience? In the end, there are simply too many problems with relying on such a limited and subjective truth test.</p>

<h2>The Biblical Test</h2>

<p>This is not to say religious experience can’t play a role in the justification of a belief. But relying exclusively on personal feelings can be downright dangerous, especially in the face of overwhelming objective evidence against your view. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=prov+14%3A12&amp;version=NASB">Proverbs 14:12</a> says, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”&nbsp;Religious matters are eternal matters, and eternal matters are weighty matters. We simply cannot place the importance of eternity in what <em>seems</em> right to us at any given time. Fortunately, the Bible provides Christians with examples of how to test new religious claims.</p>

<p>One such example is found in Acts 17. In this passage, the apostle Paul and his companion Silas arrive in the city of Berea and immediately go into the synagogue to preach. Verse 11 describes the Bereans as follows: “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, <em>examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so</em> [emphasis added].”</p>

<p>First, notice the Bereans are commended in Scripture for being noble-minded. Second, note the <em>reason</em> they were considered noble-minded. They did not simply accept what Paul said as fact, nor did they pray about the things Paul taught to see if they were really true. Instead, they took what Paul said and compared it with the Scriptures (Old Testament) to “see whether these things were so.”&nbsp;Here, the Bible presents a much more objective standard to adjudicate between differing truth claims and experiences: Scripture itself.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Therefore, when presented with the Mormon gospel, we need to follow the example given to us in Scripture. We should not pray about it; rather we should examine it in light of the teachings of the Bible.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<h2>Biblical Support for a Subjective Test for Truth?</h2>

<p>In <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9?lang=eng">Doctrine and Covenants</a> we read, “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that <em>your bosom shall burn within you</em> [emphasis added]; therefore, you shall feel it is right.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Many Mormons testify to having experienced a “burning in the bosom”&nbsp;after praying to see if the Book of Mormon is true. The Mormon scripture quoted above authenticates this experience for them. However, Mormons also appeal to the Bible to support this teaching. For instance, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+24&amp;version=NASB">Luke 24</a>, the risen Christ appears to two of His followers on the road to Emmaus. In this passage, Jesus explains to them all the things concerning Himself from the Old Testament, and in verse 32 we’re told their reaction: “They said to one another, ’Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?’”&nbsp;Mormons argue that this passage directly corresponds with the burning bosom experience. Upon closer examination, however, this passage is not in any way analogous.</p>

<p>First, notice these travelers on the road to Emmaus were <em>already</em> followers of Christ when their hearts burned within them. They were not non-Christians seeking to find out if Christianity was true. Second, the followers mentioned here did not pray about anything at any time. Third, the followers’&nbsp;experience was the result of what Jesus taught them concerning Himself <em>from the Scriptures</em>. Consequently, this passage in Luke in no way supports the idea that we should pray and seek a burning in our bosom that confirms the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Rather, it shows us the importance of going back to the Scriptures as the standard by which we judge all religious truth claims.</p>

<h2>Conclusion: Test the Spirits</h2>

<p>The Mormon challenge to pray concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is riddled with problems, both philosophically and biblically. The Bible provides Christians with plenty of warnings against trusting in oneself as an arbiter of truth. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jer+17%3A9&amp;version=NASB">Jeremiah 17:9</a> says, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?”&nbsp;The book of Proverbs cautions, “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but he who walks wisely will be delivered”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=prov+28%3A26&amp;version=NASB">28:26</a>). We are even told that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light and prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+11%3A14&amp;version=NASB">2 Cor. 11:14</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+pet+5%3A8&amp;version=NASB">1 Peter 5:8</a>). This is why we must constantly remain sober and vigilant. Rather than trust our feelings, Scripture continually encourages us to use our minds. God beckons us to come and reason with Him (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is+1%3A18&amp;version=NASB">Isaiah 1:18</a>). We are told by the apostle Paul that we must examine everything carefully and hold on to that which is good (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+thes+5%3A21&amp;version=NASB">1 Thess. 5:21</a>). We must “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+4%3A1&amp;version=NASB">1 John 4:1</a>).</p>

<p>In summary, then, we should never be tempted to accept the Mormon challenge to pray about the Book of Mormon. Rather, we should use our minds to investigate its origin, examine its teachings, and compare it with Scripture. In so doing, we remain consistent with Scripture and subject a book that claims to be the Word of God to a factual and realistic assessment.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Mormon scripture consists of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the King James Version of the Bible. These four are considered their “standard works.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, <em>Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview</em>, p. 71. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Unfortunately, space does not permit an extensive look at some of the historical inaccuracies, contradictions, and doctrinal changes contained within Mormonism. For more information, see this list of resources at <a href="http://www.utlm.org/navonlineresources.htm">Utah Lighthouse Ministry</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">This appeal to Scripture should not be considered circular reasoning since both Christians and Mormons agree that the Bible is the Word of God. However, Mormons do qualify this by stating in their eighth Article of Faith, “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly...”&nbsp;Practically speaking, this means the Bible is the Word of God when it does not contradict other Mormon scripture. See <em><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng">The Articles of Faith</a></em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ironically, it seems Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith as Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would agree. He states, “Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test.”&nbsp;See <em><a href="http://jod.mrm.org/16/40">Journal of Discourses, 16:46</a></em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9?lang=eng">Doctrine and Covenants, 9:8</a></em>. This verse seems to start out on the right track by encouraging readers to “study it out in your mind,”&nbsp;but notice the emphasis is once again shifted to a subjective experience: “you shall <em>feel</em> that it is right.”&nbsp;(Emphasis added.) <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%2Fwhy-you-shouldn-t-ask-god-if-the-book-of-mormon-is-true" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-shouldn-t-ask-god-if-the-book-of-mormon-is-true" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-shouldn-t-ask-god-if-the-book-of-mormon-is-true" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: DNA’s Intelligent Design
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/dna-s-intelligent-design
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Today, scientists can store information in a DNA molecule, just like we do with computers, DVDs, and thumb drives. DNA’s capacity to store information, however, is vastly greater than any DVD or thumb drive your company’s IT guy would carry. Harvard researchers were able to cram 700 terabytes of data onto one gram of DNA. That’s 148,936 DVDs of data. You could binge watch your favorite TV shows for the rest of your life and never see a rerun. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains DNA’s storage potential:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet, a number...of approximately one thousand million, could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Did you catch that? A teaspoon of DNA - smaller than the size of a typical thumb drive - can hold all the design blueprints for <em>every</em> species on earth and <em>every</em> book ever written. That’s amazing!</p>

<p>The implications of this new technology are fascinating. Based on this discovery, I wonder if researchers have been able to draw further conclusions about DNA. I think there are at least two truths that become evident.</p>

<p>First, the reason why scientists are able to cram DNA full of information is that it’s <em>already</em> working as a storage medium for information. Information, by the way, is not merely random bits of data. For something to qualify as information it must be complex and specified. By complex, I mean that the arrangement of its contents isn’t simple enough to be explained by chance. Merely being complex, though, isn’t sufficient to qualify the data as information. The contents must also be specified. This means the contents’&nbsp;pattern communicates a meaningful message (e.g. it has a set of instructions, contains data that depicts something, provides blueprints for the construction of something, etc.).</p>

<p>DNA is both complex and specified. The arrangement of information is incredibly complex, making it impossible to account for its arrangement merely by chance. Furthermore, DNA is highly specified, containing the design blueprints to manufacture the proteins that make up your body. Therefore, the content of DNA qualifies as information.</p>

<p>Second, the <em>source</em> of the information in DNA must be external to the medium in which it’s stored. Consider someone writing a letter to a friend with an ink pen. Neither the ink in the pen nor the letters on the page are the source of the message. There’s nothing intrinsic to the ink, the paper, or the characters that creates what’s being communicated. The ink doesn’t naturally arrange itself into letters, and the letters don’t naturally arrange themselves into sentences that are meaningful to the reader. The message <em>is in the mind of the author</em>, and he communicates that message using the medium of ink, letters, and paper.</p>

<p>The same is true of the bits of zeros and ones that make up binary computer code. Those two characters don’t naturally arrange themselves into a sequence on your computer. Instead, there are programmers who write code to make computer programs. The <em>source</em> of the code is in the minds of the computer engineers, and they use the characters of computer language to write their program. The information goes from their minds into the computer code.</p>

<p>The same is true of DNA. Instead of the two-character code (zeros and ones) used by computers, DNA uses a four-character code we represent with the letters T, G, C, and A. With these four characters, DNA can store the design blueprints for every part of your body. The four letters are not in and of themselves the <em>source</em> of the blueprints, though. They don’t automatically arrange themselves into the proper sequence that results in the creation of proteins. The source of the plan for these body parts must be <em>external</em> to the DNA letters. That means there is something - or someone - who takes the ideas from their mind and puts it into DNA.</p>

<p>Even if you don’t know who that someone is, we can be confident there is a mind behind what’s coded in DNA. That’s because you can’t get computer programs arising by chance without a programmer. It follows, then, that you can’t get the design blueprints for your body - something magnitudes more complex than a program - arising by chance without a designer either.</p>

<p>We are not left without evidence of God’s hand in creation. That’s why Paul writes in Romans 1:20 that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”&nbsp;Indeed, we are without excuse.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdna-s-intelligent-design" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdna-s-intelligent-design" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdna-s-intelligent-design" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Science Does Not Disprove Miracles
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/28/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-science-does-not-disprove-miracles
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Recently, when I asked an atheist why he was an atheist, the first reason he gave was that “science has disproved God.”&nbsp;When I asked what he meant by that, he started listing miracles in the Bible - such as the virgin birth - that were impossible for him to believe “because of science.”</p>

<p>This is simply a misunderstanding of what a miracle is and, therefore, how one can evaluate it. Yes, people have used the methods of science to study the natural workings of the reproductive system and have very accurately said that virgins do not get pregnant <em>naturally</em>, but of course, no Christian ever claimed they did! We <em>agree</em> on how the reproductive system works, and we <em>agree</em> that in the normal course of things, a virgin does not get pregnant. The miracle claim is not that Mary became pregnant <em>naturally</em> (a ridiculous idea refuted by science), but that God caused her to conceive <em>supernaturally</em>. That is, in a unique situation, God personally intervened to cause something to happen.</p>

<p>A rough analogy would be something like this: In the normal course of things, grass grows; it doesn’t shrink. Science shows this to be true. But science does <em>not</em> disprove the idea that I can personally intervene in this situation by cutting that grass with a lawn mower. The fact that grass does not cut itself naturally doesn’t disprove the idea that <em>I</em> can step in and cut the grass if I choose.</p>

<p>By definition, a miracle does not happen as a result of a naturally repeating cause that can be measured and studied. Therefore, a scientific study of the natural workings of any one object will be irrelevant to an investigation of whether or not a miracle occurred in relation to that object. A miracle is a unique, historical event, where God acts <em>supernaturally</em> to accomplish something. And as a unique, historical event - not a naturally repeating one - the way to evaluate it is not through scientific investigation but through historical investigation, requiring the methods of a courtroom not a laboratory.</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-science-does-not-disprove-miracles" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-science-does-not-disprove-miracles" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-science-does-not-disprove-miracles" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 We Choose between Winning the Argument and Winning the Person?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Keith Plummer
date: 07/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/must-we-choose-between-winning-the-argument-and-winning-the-person-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some people are uncomfortable with the third use of the <a href="https://www.str.org/publications/take-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo#.W0etQdgzrdc">Columbo Tactic</a> (using questions to help people see flaws and inconsistencies in their thinking). They might see it as being necessarily contentious, aggressive, and driven by a prideful desire to best the person with whom they’re talking.</p>

<p>Once, after I had finished teaching on the subject, someone who I could tell was wary of the tactic came up to me and said, “I don’t really agree with this approach; I’d rather win the person than the argument.”&nbsp;As we talked, it became clear that according to her, we <em>either</em> aim to lovingly win a person to Christ, which means avoiding confronting (no matter how gently) their faulty thinking, <em>or</em> we inquire about apparent incoherence and lack of correspondence to life, in which case we’re not genuinely concerned about the person but only about creating a “Gotcha!”&nbsp;moment to make ourselves feel superior and our conversation partner feel bad. This way of thinking assumes we must either love the person or challenge their outlook on life, but we can’t do both because they’re mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>I understand what’s behind such a stance. The word “win”&nbsp;together with the word “argument”&nbsp;evokes, in the minds of many, images of an adversarial, hostile, and competitive encounter, a fight to the finish with a victor and a vanquished, a belittling gloater and one shamefully gloated over. But it doesn’t have to be that way. If we understand arguing in its formal sense - namely, offering reasons in support of one’s claims and assessing the reasoning put forth by someone holding an opposing position - <em>and</em> understand winning an argument as simply making a more compelling case, I think we’ll see that to pit winning an argument against winning a person is unwarranted. In other words, it’s a false dichotomy.</p>

<p>Wanting to win an argument isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s <em>why</em> I want to win that determines whether there’s a problem. If I’m motivated by a desire to display my cleverness and/or to demean or belittle the person with whom I’m speaking, or if I consider winning the argument as an end in itself, I’m out of step with the Holy Spirit and misrepresenting Jesus, whose truth I say I’m defending. Due to the reality of indwelling sin, this is a temptation we must always be prayerfully on guard against and repentant of when we recognize it in ourselves. Anyone engaged in apologetics to any degree needs to be asking the Lord to purify their motives so that we all increasingly desire to win arguments as a means (though certainly not the only one) of winning people to the gospel.</p>

<p>The late Francis Schaeffer is a good example of what I have in mind. Schaeffer said that despite the non-Christian’s rebellious attempts to interpret himself and the world in unbiblical ways, he cannot do so consistently because he continues to be a divine image-bearer living in God’s world. Thus, there will always be what Schaeffer called a “point of tension”&nbsp;between life as the unbeliever experiences it and their professed philosophy. In fact, Schaeffer said, the more logically consistent the unbeliever is to his/her unbiblical presuppositions, the more out of touch he/she will be with reality. In an attempt to demonstrate to people the consequences of their rejection of God’s revelation and why they need Christ, Schaeffer advised that Christians lead unbelievers to seriously consider the logical ends of their presuppositions in order to drive home the existential and intellectual lostness of humanity apart from God. (Schaeffer called this approach “Taking the Roof Off.”&nbsp;It’s one of the tactics Greg explains in greater detail in chapter 10 of <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316">Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</a></em>.) Schaeffer urged Christians to engage in such argumentation but sounded a sober warning about doing so for the wrong reasons:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As I seek to do this, I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game I am playing. If I begin to enjoy it as a kind of intellectual exercise, then I am cruel and can expect no real spiritual results. As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. Otherwise I will only end up destroying him, and the cruelty and ugliness of it all will destroy me as well. Merely to be abstract and cold is to show that I do not really believe this person to be created in God’s image and therefore one of my kind. Pushing him towards the logic of his presuppositions is going to cause him pain; therefore, I must not push any further than I need to. (<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/God-Who-There-Francis-Schaeffer/dp/0830819479/ref=sr_1_1_atc_badge_A2N1U4I2KOS032_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1531423732&amp;sr=8-1-spons&amp;keywords=the+god+who+is+there&amp;psc=1">The God Who is There</a></em>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the same volume, Schaeffer rightly noted that “[t]he purpose of ’apologetics’&nbsp;is not just to win an argument or a discussion, but that the people with whom we are in contact may become Christians and then live under the Lordship of Christ in the whole spectrum of life.”&nbsp;No, the winning of arguments is not more important than winning people, but neither is it necessarily in conflict with that 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%2Fmust-we-choose-between-winning-the-argument-and-winning-the-person-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-we-choose-between-winning-the-argument-and-winning-the-person-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-we-choose-between-winning-the-argument-and-winning-the-person-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Was Jesus a Religious Pluralist?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/03/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-a-religious-pluralist-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some people, to my surprise, say Jesus never made an exclusivist claim. They believe He never said that Christianity alone is the true religion. Rather, they suggest, He would have considered many approaches to God.</p>

<p>My guess is that these people have not read the Gospels carefully. In fact, even a cursory reading of Jesus’&nbsp;words would lead you to think He rejected pluralism. Consider just two famous verses.</p>

<p>In John 14:6, Jesus says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”&nbsp;If you want heaven, Jesus is your guy. There’s no one else getting to God unless they’re going through Jesus. That’s straightforward.</p>

<p>The other well-known passage is the Great Commission. Jesus has completed His earthly ministry. He’s mentored his disciples. He’s died and risen from the grave. He’s atoned for the sins of the world. He’s ready to ascend into heaven and initiate the church’s mission. What mission? Jesus spells it out clearly in Matthew 28:18-20. He tells His disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”</p>

<p>Why bother reaching <em>every nation</em> with His message if His way is only one of many ways? These two verses alone clarify Jesus’&nbsp;view that religious pluralism is false.</p>

<p>There aren’t just two verses, though. There are 100. In fact, Greg put them all in a small book called <em><a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK109" target="_blank">Jesus, the Only Way</a></em>. It’s a simple but awesome tool that makes the same point but with a lot more evidence.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-a-religious-pluralist-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-a-religious-pluralist-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwas-jesus-a-religious-pluralist-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Tragic Consequences of the IVF Industry
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/31/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-tragic-consequences-of-the-ivf-industry
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The news in this UK Telegraph article, “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9772233/1.7-million-human-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html">1.7 Million Human Embryos Created for IVF Thrown Away</a>,”&nbsp;is horrific:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs”&nbsp;or evidence of successful implantation.</p>

<p>Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research....</p>

<p>Nearly 1.7 million were discarded unused and a further 23,480 were discarded after being taken out of storage....</p>

<p>Lord Alton, a Crossbench peer, said last night that embryos were being created and thrown away in “industrial”&nbsp;numbers.</p>

<p>He added: “It happens on a day-by-day basis with casual indifference. This sheer destruction of human embryos –&nbsp;most people would not know that it took place on such a scale.”</p>

<p>A HFEA spokesman added: “IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Discarded “unused”? Put into storage? <em>Set aside for scientific research?</em> These are human beings we’re talking about here!</p>

<p>IVF practices and their consequences have not changed since the above article was written six years ago, and many (if not most) Christians have not thought through this issue carefully enough. Sometimes, here at Stand to Reason, we hear from people (or their concerned friends) who used IVF before considering all of its implications, and their stories are tragic. For example, you can read <a href="/w/premarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this">here</a> about a woman who successfully implanted five of her embryonic children and then was told by her doctor she needed to kill three of them to prevent premature delivery. She ended up taking her doctor’s advice. We hear of others who created a great many embryonic children—more than they can likely give birth to—who now don’t know what to do with them. (<a href="https://www.embryoadoption.org/">Embryo adoption</a> is always a possibility. Though understandably painfully difficult, certainly it’s a better option than the death of your children.)</p>

<p>As soon as you create new human beings with someone, you are their parent, whether you freeze those children and put them into storage, give them to researchers for experimentation, or enable them to be born. Please, I am begging you, do not contribute to this cavalier treatment of human beings—of <em>your own children</em>. Don’t create more embryos than you’re willing to transfer, and don’t transfer more embryos than you’re willing to carry to birth. In fact, consider whether you want <em>any</em> involvement with an industry that’s creating the situation described in the article above.</p>

<p>You likely know someone who has experienced the tragedy of not thinking through the implications of in vitro fertilization—someone who has children waiting in frozen storage limbo who are every bit as much their children as those who are fortunate enough to be selected for implantation and birth. Perhaps this person is you. This is far too common.</p>

<p>If you have already done something you regret that can’t be reversed, then I mourn with you. The church has failed you by not giving you the tools you needed to think through this. I can’t comfort you by telling you that what you’ve done is less terrible than you think, but I can do <em>better</em> than that. I can tell you that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”&nbsp;(Rom. 5:20–21). Jesus sees the ugly depth of our sins more clearly than any of us, yet still He offers us grace and comfort in love, having taken the wrath of God towards this and many other evils completely on Himself, replacing our sin with His righteousness. Rest and grieve in His forgiveness, and then warn others before they make the same tragic mistakes and find themselves in situations that have no good solutions.</p>

<p>We have written on this topic in the past. Please carefully consider the posts below and share the information with your friends. As Christians, we should be the first to stand up for the humanity and dignity of these tiny human beings.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/moral-factors-to-take-into-account-if-you-re-considering-ivf">Moral Factors to Take into Account if You’re Considering IVF</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/premarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this">Premarital Counseling Needs to Include This</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/the-confusing-moral-logic-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research">The Confusing Moral Logic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned">Free to Say We’ve Sinned</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%2Fthe-tragic-consequences-of-the-ivf-industry" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-tragic-consequences-of-the-ivf-industry" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-tragic-consequences-of-the-ivf-industry" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Law Is Good
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/11/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-law-is-good
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some objections naturally arise from Paul’s argument in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6-8&amp;version=NASB">Romans 6–8</a> that “we were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ”&nbsp;and “have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:4–6)—objections I received after writing about <a href="/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-">our relationship to the Mosaic Law</a> last week. Thankfully, Paul anticipates those objections and provides answers:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement #1</strong>: “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord���&nbsp;(Rom. 5:20–21).</p>

<p><strong>Objection</strong>: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?”&nbsp;(Rom. 6:1)</p>

<p><strong>Answer</strong>: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6%3A1-14&amp;version=NASB">Romans 6:1–14</a></p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement #2</strong>: “You are not under law but under grace”&nbsp;(Rom. 6:14).</p>

<p><strong>Objection</strong>: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?”&nbsp;(Rom. 6:15)</p>

<p><strong>Answer</strong>: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6%3A15-7%3A6&amp;version=NASB">Romans 6:15–7:6</a></p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement #3</strong>: “[Y]ou also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh [i.e., before “our old self was crucified with [Christ]”&nbsp;(Rom. 6:6)], <strong>the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death</strong>. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:4–6).</p>

<p><strong>Objection</strong>: “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:7)</p>

<p><strong>Answer</strong>: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A7-11&amp;version=NASB">Romans 7:7–11</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’m going to focus here on the last objection/answer (see “<a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</a>”&nbsp;for a post on the second objection) because after writing last week about our being “released from the Law,”&nbsp;I received an email from someone who was concerned I was saying the Law isn’t good and God was unloving to give it to us.</p>

<h2>The Law Reveals Both God and Our Sin</h2>

<p>If we needed to be released from the Law “in order that we might bear fruit for God,”&nbsp;does that mean the Law is bad? As with the other objections listed above, Paul responds in Romans 7:7 with “May it never be!”&nbsp;The Law is beautiful. In fact, Deuteronomy is my favorite book of the Old Testament because of how much I love the Law. Here’s what I said about it in “<a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">Why We’re Not Under the Mosaic Law</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Though we are not under the specific regulations, blessings, and curses of the Mosaic Law today, it remains for us “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training in righteousness”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+3%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">2 Tim. 3:16</a>); for by it, we learn much about God’s holiness, justice, and character—what He loves and hates—so that we can know God and know what it means to love Him and love our neighbor today.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I would not know these things without the Law, and I cherish the ability to read it and meditate on it. God’s goal for us is to be “conformed to the image of His Son”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A28-30&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 8:29</a>), who is “the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+1%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 1:3</a>), and we learn much about His image from the heart of God revealed in the Law. Therefore, knowledge of the Law is both crucial and rewarding. It’s not the Law that’s the problem in Romans 7; it’s our <em>sin</em> that’s the problem. The Law, in its goodness, reveals the depth of our sin by bringing that sin to the surface. Here’s how Paul explains it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”&nbsp;But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind...[A]nd this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy and righteous and good. (Rom. 7:7–12)</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Why the Good Law Results in Death for Us</h2>

<p>The Law is good, but it can’t give us life. It was never intended to. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3&amp;version=NASB">Galatians 3</a> explains that the inheritance was never meant to be based on law (v. 18), and the Law was never intended to invalidate the promises given to Abraham through faith.) Instead of giving us life, the Law <em>condemns</em> us by revealing our sin. “For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe”&nbsp;(vv. 21–22). In other words, as Paul concludes, the Law was “our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith”&nbsp;(v. 24).</p>

<p>So, ���the Law is holy and righteous and good,”&nbsp;but it “results in death for us.”&nbsp;This brings us to the fourth objection and answer in Romans 7:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement #4</strong>: “[T]his commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:10).</p>

<p><strong>Objection</strong>: “[D]id that which is good [i.e., the Law] become a cause of death for me?”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:13)</p>

<p><strong>Answer</strong>: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A13-23&amp;version=NASB">Romans 7:13–23</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s not the goodness of the Law that killed us but the evil of our sin. Paul explains,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore did that which is good 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 that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. (Rom 7:13)</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Jesus Sets Us Free to Live for God</h2>

<p>In the rest of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7&amp;version=NASB">Romans 7</a>, Paul then illustrates the frustration of seeing the goodness of the law of God but being unable to live it because of the weakness of flesh “sold into bondage to sin,”&nbsp;all leading to the grand question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Problem</strong>: “Who will set me free from the body of this death?”&nbsp;(Rom. 7:24)</p>

<p><strong>Solution</strong>: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A1-17&amp;version=NASB">Romans 8:1–17</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s his answer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. <strong>For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did</strong>: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit...</p>

<p><strong>[I]f the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.</strong></p>

<p>So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but <strong>if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to this passage, not only are Jesus’&nbsp;death and resurrection our only hope for righteousness and justification (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+3-5&amp;version=NASB">Romans 3–5</a>), but they’re also our only hope for <em>sanctification</em>. The Law is good, and we still learn much from it; but just as the married woman (who “is bound by law to her husband while he is living”) is “released from the law concerning the husband”&nbsp;when he dies (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 7:2–4</a>), so we too “have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound”&nbsp;through the body of Christ, “so that we might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”</p>

<p>To “bear fruit for God,”&nbsp;we had to be joined to Christ; and to be joined to Christ, we had to die to the Law. For, as Paul notes, “the law has jurisdiction over a person <em>as long as he lives”</em>&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 7:1</a>), so were it not the case that <em>we die with Christ</em> and are thereby no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, then being joined to Christ (while still being bound to the Law) would be an act of spiritual adultery, just as a married woman who is joined to another man while her husband is living “shall be called an adulteress”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 7:1–4</a>).</p>

<p>Therefore, having died with Christ, the Law no longer has jurisdiction over us (though we are free to follow the Law for reasons other than obligation, obedience, or sanctification if we wish, as I explain in a footnote <a href="/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-">here</a>); and having been raised with Him, we can put to death our sin by the Spirit. Our need to be released from the Law and united with Christ has nothing to do with a lack of goodness in the Law and everything to do with the weakness of our flesh.</p>

<h2>Paul’s Argument in Romans 6–8</h2>

<p>Here is Paul’s argument about our relationship to sin and the Law in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6-8&amp;version=NASB">Romans 6–8</a> (all beginning with the objection “Are we to continue in sin?”&nbsp;that naturally results from his extensive discussion in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+3-5&amp;version=NASB">Romans 3–5</a> on how our righteousness is a result of grace through faith in Christ, not law):</p>

<ol>
	<li>“The Law is holy and righteous and good.”</li>
	<li>Even so, while we were bound by the Law, the “sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”</li>
	<li>But “law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives,”&nbsp;not after death.</li>
	<li>And we “were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that we might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”</li>
	<li>Because we have been united with Christ in His death and resurrection, “we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”</li>
	<li>The Law, though good, had no power to enable us to follow it, but now that we have died to the Law and been united with Christ and raised with Him, we have the Spirit, by which we can put to death our sin (which we know to be sin because of the holy and righteous Law), “so we too might walk in newness of life,”&nbsp;with the knowledge that God is working in us to conform us to the image of Christ.</li>
</ol>

<p>Now that we have died with Christ and been raised with Him, we have the Spirit’s power to seek to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves (the fulfillment of “the whole Law and the Prophets,”&nbsp;according to Jesus in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+22%3A36-40&amp;version=NASB">Matthew 22:36–40</a>)—a pursuit <em>informed</em> by the Torah Law but not <em>governed</em> by it (see <a href="/w/think-of-the-mosaic-covenant-like-a-state-law">here</a> for more on this).</p>

<p>I can’t cover every aspect of this topic in a single blog post, so I encourage you not to read this post on its own. Here are some additional posts to give you a more complete picture:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-">Should Followers of Christ Observe the Torah?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">Why We’re Not Under the Mosaic Law</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Farticles%2Fhow-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today%23.V9x38ZMrJE4%3Agl12YrrLx4VteNEOtPy0uClGAX4&amp;cuid=4217703" title="http://www.str.org/articles/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today#.V9x38ZMrJE4">How Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians Today?</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%2Fthe-law-is-good" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-law-is-good" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-law-is-good" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Verses for Your Conversations with Mormons
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/21/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/verses-for-your-conversations-with-mormons
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This week, I’ve joined many other Christians in Manti, Utah to talk to Mormons who are attending the Mormon Miracle Pageant (see <a href="http://www.mrm.org/mrm-manti">here</a> to learn more about this event). As I was reviewing a very basic list of verses for conversations with Mormons that I compiled a while back, I thought you might find it useful, as well. It’s in no way comprehensive, but it could give you a good place to start, serving as a rough outline for your discussion.</p>

<p>The Book of Mormon offers a test for truth that your Mormon friend will likely share with you. It comes from <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng">Moroni 10:4–5</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While Mormons will ask you to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon in order to receive a revelation of its truthfulness from God, the Bible offers a different way of testing new revelation, telling us to examine “prophetic utterances” carefully (1 Thess. 5:20–21), and holding up the Bereans, who diligently compared the claims of Paul to the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), as a model for us.</p>

<p>There are two explicit tests for new revelation given in the Bible, so I like to focus on the two categories they cover—God and the gospel. See my notes below.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p>THE BIBLICAL TESTS FOR NEW REVELATION</p>

<p><strong>Deuteronomy 13:1–3</strong>—Does it teach the same God the Bible teaches?</p>

<p><strong>Galatians 1:8</strong>—Does it teach the same gospel the Bible teaches?</p>

<ol>
	<li>You have to believe the Book of Mormon is true to accept the test it offers as valid. Therefore, stick with these two tests first. If Mormonism is true, it will stand up to these tests. These are the tests God commanded.</li>
	<li>If we bypass and ignore the truth of the Bible (i.e., by praying before we test against Scripture), God may allow our deception. In fact, in <strong>2 Thessalonians 2:10–11</strong>, God sends a delusion to those who don’t love the truth. If we ignore the truth given in the Bible and look for some other answer, we have nobody to blame but ourselves if we are deceived.</li>
	<li>Ask, “Have you prayed about Islam [or adultery, or anything that���s contrary to Scripture]? No? Why not?”</li>
</ol>

<p><br>
WHO IS GOD?</p>

<p><em>Is there more than one god?</em></p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Isaiah 43:10</strong>—No god formed before Him, and no god formed after Him.</li>
	<li><strong>Isaiah 44:8</strong>—He knows of no other god.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Has God changed from a man to a god?</em></p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Psalm 90:2</strong>—God has been God from everlasting to everlasting.</li>
	<li><strong>Malachi 3:6</strong>—God doesn’t change.</li>
	<li>Your God is not perfect if He changes.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Does God have a body?</em></p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>1 Kings 8:27</strong>—A building could not contain God.</li>
	<li><strong>Jeremiah 23:23–24</strong>—The LORD is near, and He fills the heavens and the earth.</li>
	<li><strong>1 Timothy 6:15–16</strong>—No one has seen God, nor is anyone able to see God.</li>
	<li><strong>John 1:18</strong>—No man has seen God at any time.</li>
	<li><strong>1 Timothy 1:17</strong>—God is invisible.</li>
	<li><strong>Psalm 139:7–10</strong>—God’s “right hand” is everywhere (i.e., the Bible isn’t referring to a literal right hand).</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Do you worship Jesus?</em></p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Matthew 28:9, 2:11</strong>—People worship Jesus, and they aren’t struck down.</li>
	<li><strong>Exodus 34:14</strong>—We are to worship no other god—therefore, Jesus and the Father aren’t two separate gods.</li>
</ul>

<p>The Trinity is supported by three clear truths of the Bible (see <a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1">here</a> and <a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2">here</a> for more):</p>

<ol>
	<li>There is one God.</li>
	<li>There are three Persons.</li>
	<li>Each of the three Persons is God.</li>
</ol>

<p><br>
HOW ARE WE SAVED?</p>

<p><em>If someone asked Jesus and the apostles, “What do I need to do to be saved,” what would they answer?</em></p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>John 6:28–29</strong>—Jesus’ answer.</li>
	<li><strong>Acts 16:30–31</strong>—The apostles’ answer.</li>
	<li><strong>1 Corinthians 15:1–4</strong>—Paul’s definition of the gospel by which we are saved.</li>
	<li><strong>Galatians 3:2–3</strong>—You are foolish if you say you need to be perfected by your works after receiving the Spirit by faith.</li>
	<li><strong>Galatians 3:23–26</strong>—We are no longer under the tutor of a Law.</li>
	<li><strong>Galatians 5:1–4</strong>—If you are seeking to be justified by following laws, you are severed from Christ.</li>
	<li><strong>Ephesians 2:8–9</strong>—Salvation is by grace, through faith, not as a result of works.</li>
	<li>Be sure to define what you mean by “salvation,” and see “<a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</a>” to respond to this inevitable objection.</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
CONCLUSION</p>

<p>If Mormonism does not teach the same God <em>and</em> gospel the Bible teaches, then either</p>

<ul>
	<li>the Bible has been changed, and Joseph Smith <em>could</em> be a true prophet, OR</li>
	<li>the Bible has not been changed, and Joseph Smith <em>is</em> a false prophet.</li>
</ul>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p>If you reach this point in a conversation with a Mormon, you’ll need to address the question of the reliability of the Bible. See <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman">here</a> for a post on that topic.</p>
</div>

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


title: R.C. Sproul and the Holiness of God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/24/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/r-c-sproul-and-the-holiness-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>R.C. Sproul spent much of his life thinking and teaching about the holiness of God. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Holiness-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842339655/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1532446730&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+holiness+of+god">His book</a> on this topic is one of the first books I recommend to anyone interested in apologetics because I think a glimpse of God’s holiness and our sin will resolve many questions about wrath, judgment, Hell, and God’s goodness, fairness, and grace.</p>

<p>In this video, you can see the consistency of Sproul’s message of God, His holiness, and the gospel over the decades. I’ve watched it a few times now, and I can’t get enough of it. His passion is infectious, and his God is glorious. May we be as faithful to the end of our lives.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="iK0NjiBXKN4" 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/iK0NjiBXKN4?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%2Fr-c-sproul-and-the-holiness-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fr-c-sproul-and-the-holiness-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fr-c-sproul-and-the-holiness-of-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should Followers of Christ Observe the Torah?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/05/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A great deal of the New Testament is devoted to the question of the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic Law in the Torah, but if the questions I receive from people are any indication, there’s an increasing amount of confusion among Christians on this topic. (I explain my theory as to why this is happening <a href="/w/living-biblically">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Here is one challenge I received from an STR podcast listener who believes that followers of Christ should follow the Torah laws:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If the Scriptures show that Paul, an apostle personally trained by Jesus, was still Torah observant some 25 years after his conversion, would that cause you to rethink the traditions of church fathers (men who did <em>not</em> write Scripture) who say the opposite?</p>
</blockquote>

<h3>Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Released Us from the Law</h3>

<p>It’s actually Paul’s words—particularly in Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians—that inform us most clearly about how the relationship between God’s followers and the Law changed after Jesus’ death and resurrection. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+2&amp;version=NASB">Ephesians 2</a> is explicit about what the work of Christ means for our relationship to the Law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups [i.e., Jews and Gentiles] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, <strong>by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances</strong>, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it <strong>having put to death the enmity</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Jesus’ death, “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished,” making it possible for Him to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to God as one new man, in Himself, with nothing dividing them. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A1-6&amp;version=NASB">Romans 7:1–6</a> explains why Jesus’ death “released [us] from the Law”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.</p>

<p>Therefore, my brethren, <strong>you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead</strong>, in order that we might bear fruit for God…. <strong>[N]ow we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those who have been united with Christ have died to the Law with Him and have been raised to new life with Him. The way we receive righteousness is by being in Christ, not by following the Law. The Law was “our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, <strong>we are no longer under a tutor</strong>” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3%3A15-29&amp;version=NASB">Gal. 3:24–25</a>). Likewise, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+8%3A7-13&amp;version=NASB">Hebrews 8</a> says the covenant of the Law is now “obsolete.”</p>

<h3>Paul Did Not Preach Circumcision</h3>

<p>Yes, Paul followed the Torah, “walking orderly, keeping the Law” among the Jews (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+21%3A17-26&amp;version=NASB">Acts 21:17–26</a>), <em>when among the Jews</em>.* We know this was not a matter of obedience for all followers of Christ at all times because he also says in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+9%3A19-23&amp;version=NASB">1 Corinthians 9</a> that he became “as without law” “to those who are without law”; and even when he says he became “to those who are under the Law, as under the Law,” he adds, “<strong>though not being myself under the Law</strong>.” In fact, he chastises the Galatians who were insisting that Christians needed to be circumcised (something required by the Law), saying,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace…. <strong>[I]n Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything</strong>, but faith working through love….</p>

<p>[T]he one who is disturbing you [by saying you need to be circumcised] will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But I, brethren, <strong>if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted</strong>? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A1-12&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Gal. 5:2–12</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Paul says he is being persecuted <em>because he’s not requiring obedience to the Torah</em>. This was the <em>source</em> of his persecution. He calls the idea that we are under the cross rather than the Torah “the stumbling block of the cross.” Then he says that those who say we need to be circumcised should go all the way and cut it all off! Serious words, indeed.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+2&amp;version=NASB">Galatians 2:3</a>, Paul again separates the Law from the New Covenant, saying, “[N]ot even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled [by the leaders of the church in Jerusalem] to be circumcised.” If Paul says circumcision is not a matter of obedience (and, in fact, could cause harm if considered a matter of obligation—<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Gal. 5:1–4</a>), then that speaks to the <em>whole</em> Law since the Law is one undivided, whole covenant (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A3&amp;version=NASB">Gal. 5:3</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+2%3A10&amp;version=NASB">James 2:10</a>). His statement that “receiving circumcision” will place them “under obligation to keep the whole Law” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A1-4&amp;version=NASB">Gal. 5:3</a>, quoted above) is not a prescription, but a warning, clearly indicating they are <em>not</em> under obligation to keep the whole Law under the New Covenant.</p>

<h3>We’re Not Under the Yoke of the Torah</h3>

<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+2%3A11-21&amp;version=NASB">Galatians 2:11–21</a>, Paul describes a confrontation he had with Peter, who, out of fear of the “party of the circumcision,” began to “withdraw and hold himself aloof” from the Gentiles, who weren’t following the Law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hen I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “<strong>If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?</strong></p>

<p>“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified…. <strong>For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.</strong> [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6&amp;version=NASB">Romans 6</a> explains what Paul means by this in more detail.] … [T]he life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+15%3A1-21&amp;version=NASB">Acts 15</a>, Peter is in agreement with this. In response to those who were saying, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,” he says to the Jerusalem Council,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[God] made no distinction between us and [Gentiles], 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 the end, the Council agreed, and the yoke of the Torah was not placed on the new followers of Christ.</p>

<p>For more on this topic, see “<a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">Why We’re Not Under the Mosaic Law</a>,” “<a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-" rel="" title="">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</a>” and Greg’s “<a href="/w/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today-" title="http://www.str.org/articles/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today#.V9x38ZMrJE4">How Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians Today?</a>”</p>

<p>____________________</p>

<p>*We see from this that it is perfectly fine to follow the Law if one wishes to do so as part of the Jewish culture or for the purpose of not offending Torah-following Jews as we spread the gospel (see, for example, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+16%3A3&amp;version=NASB">Acts 16:3</a>), just not as matter of obligation, obedience, or increasing one’s righteousness. Paul did not require obedience to the Torah, but neither did he require <em>disobedience</em> (as he was wrongly accused of in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+21%3A20-22&amp;version=NASB">Acts 21:20–22</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%2Fshould-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Danger of False Ideas about God
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/25/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-danger-of-false-ideas-about-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the first chapter of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Holy-Attributes-Meaning-Christian/dp/0060684127/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1532526987&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+knowledge+of+the+holy&amp;dpID=41b5llrmzOL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch"><em>The Knowledge of the Holy</em></a> - aptly titled “Why We Must Think Rightly About God”&nbsp;- A. W. Tozer writes, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”&nbsp;Our beliefs about God have consequences. Correct beliefs about God can stimulate worship, provide comfort, give encouragement, inspire wonder, and provoke fear.</p>

<p>But what are the consequences of thinking <em>wrongly</em> about God? A. W. Tozer has this to say:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology but to practical Christian living as well. It is to worship what the foundation is to the temple; where it is inadequate or out of plumb the whole structure must sooner or later collapse. I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God...</p>

<p>Among the sins to which the human heart is prone, hardly any other is more hateful to God than idolatry, for idolatry is at bottom a libel on His character. The idolatrous heart assumes that God is other than He is - in itself a monstrous sin - and substitutes for the true God one made after its own likeness. Always this God will conform to the image of the one who created it and will be base or pure, cruel or kind, according to the moral state of the mind from which it emerges...</p>

<p>Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of him. It begins in the mind and may be present where no overt act of worship has taken place...</p>

<p>Wrong ideas about God are not only the fountain from which the polluted waters of idolatry flow; they are themselves idolatrous. The idolater simply imagines things about God and acts as if they were true...</p>

<p>Before the Christian Church goes into eclipse anywhere there must first be a corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong answer to the question, “What is God like?”&nbsp;and goes on from there...The masses of her adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This should be a sober warning to all of us. Theology isn’t just for professional theologians. Every Christian should desire to know God. Sadly, there are many people (including professing Christians) claiming to know God who hardly know anything <em>about</em> Him. But this won’t work. In fact, as Tozer states, it leads to idolatry.</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-danger-of-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-danger-of-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-danger-of-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Jesus? Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-jesus-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I have always thought the idea of Jesus being some kind of savior made sense. The world has known many saviors of sorts, and regardless of one’s theology, Jesus would certainly be counted among them. However, the idea that Jesus was God has always seemed a bit odd. Since the Father is also God, and He is in Heaven and Jesus was on Earth, then they cannot be exactly the same.</p>

<p>As a Christian, though, I have never thought this odd thing to be a real difficulty - at least not scripturally, which is where issues like this must ultimately be settled by believers - because the notion that Jesus is a true man who is different from the Father, yet also fully God just like the Father, makes the most sense of all the biblical data.</p>

<p>Now I’m getting ahead of myself, though. Let us first go back to the basics for a moment - at least, the basics as the first Christians understood them.</p>

<p>Early followers of Christ used a simple symbol to summarize their core theology - two curved lines forming the shape of a fish, with Greek letters for the word “fish,”&nbsp;or <em>ichthus</em> (ΙΧΘΥΣ), nestled inside. The letters were an acronym summarizing the convictions ancient believers shared regarding the One they followed as Lord. The letters stood for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.”</p>

<p>In the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> - as part of STR’s 25th anniversary’s emphasis on essentials - I focused on the initial part of that foundation, “Jesus Christ.”&nbsp;I explained, first, that Jesus was a <em>true man</em> - He was one of us, like us in every way that mattered to being a human in a fallen world; second, that He was a <em>true man of history</em> - not a myth or a make-me-up recycled pagan redeemer; and third, He was the <em>true Christ</em>, the long-awaited Messiah - the blessing promised to Abraham that was ultimately meant for all men, both Jew and Gentile.</p>

<p>In this issue, I focus on the second part of that early foundation, “God’s Son, Savior”&nbsp;- the belief that Jesus, though a true human, was no mere mortal. Rather, He was and is God’s Son, the world’s unique, one-and-only Savior. Further, the two are inseparably woven together. Specifically, if Jesus were not God’s son - God the Son, that is - He could not be the Savior, either. The second is unavoidably dependent on the first.</p>

<p>The claim is not without its problems, though.</p>

<h2>The Problem of “God’s Son”</h2>

<p>I have suggested that Jesus and the Father are both God, but they are not both each other, strictly speaking.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> I have also suggested that, though odd, Jesus being God is not a scriptural problem, but rather a solution to a problem. More on that in a moment. There is another concern I must clear up first.</p>

<p>You may be thinking I have misspoken, that Jesus claimed to be the <em>Son</em> of God only and not <em>very God</em> Himself, and that would be understandable since “Son of God”&nbsp;is the usual language the Scripture employs. However, you also may have assumed something else based on that language that is not quite right.</p>

<p>Nowadays we all fancy ourselves sons and daughters of God in some way, and, after a fashion, that is correct. In our minds, being a son of (or a child of) God simply means “created by God.”&nbsp;He made everyone, so we are all sons and daughters of God in a manner of speaking. And on that point, we are right. We are all made by God, to be sure, and we are like Him in an important way since we bear His image.</p>

<p>Early Christians, however, did not mean what we mean today when we use the “Son of God”&nbsp;phrase 20 centuries later. We misunderstand their meaning because we are trying to translate a first-century Jewish expression by importing modern ideas into ancient vocabulary. It’s a common mistake.</p>

<p>Words do not get their meanings from a dictionary. That approach has the tail wagging the dog. Instead, they get their meanings from the way they are used by people in ordinary conversation, and then <em>those</em> meanings find their way into a dictionary. The regular use of a word (or a phrase) in daily parlance determines its meaning <em>for those people</em>. Keep calling a cat a <em>gato</em> (as they do in Mexico), and most people will know what you’re referring to.</p>

<p>The first Christians meant something particular and precise with the phrase, “God’s Son,”&nbsp;and they did not mean a generic child of God in the brotherhood of man. In their minds, when a father produces a true son, he bears a child who is <em>of the same nature</em> as himself. So, just as a human begets a human being, a god begets a divine being. Any “son of God,”&nbsp;then, would be a god Himself, and in a strictly monotheistic society, not <em>a</em> god, but <em>the</em> God.</p>

<p>This point was not lost on the Jews. John records, “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He...was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God”&nbsp;(Jn. 5:18). Later, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,”&nbsp;the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy “because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God”&nbsp;(Jn. 10:30, 33).</p>

<p>In this sense, then, Christ is a unique man among humans, sharing the same divine nature as the One who begot Him. Note Gabriel’s words in his annunciation to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called <em>the Son of God”</em>&nbsp;(Lk. 1:35).</p>

<p>Thus, the virgin birth was a singular event with a singular consequence. Through the miracle of Jesus’&nbsp;conception, Christ bears the <em>exact same nature</em> as His heavenly Father, a point the Story makes clear:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And He is the <em>radiance of His glory</em> and the <em>exact representation of His nature</em>, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Heb. 1:3)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and...</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>He is the image of the invisible God</em>...For in Him <em>all the fullness of Deity dwells</em> in bodily form. (Col. 1:15, 2:9)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus is the Son of God in a way no other “child of God”&nbsp;can be - the Son of God is <em>God</em>, the <em>Son</em>. This, of course, raises another difficulty.</p>

<h2>The Problem of Monotheism</h2>

<p>First-century Jews were fiercely monotheistic, their theology characterized by two features, “that the one God is sole Creator of all things and that the one God is sole Ruler of all things.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> God was the Lord and the Lord was God. This calculus was fundamental.</p>

<p>The first Christians were all Jews like that - faithful Jews, monotheistic Jews - yet they faced a circumstance they couldn’t entirely explain (at least initially), but neither could they easily dismiss. As C.S. Lewis put it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>People already knew about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed to be God, and yet He was not the sort of man you could dismiss as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met Him again after they had seen Him killed.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because they believed this Jewish Rabbi rose from the dead, these Christians’&nbsp;earliest testimony of Him was that Jesus was indeed <em>Lord</em>. Not a noble person of distinction. Not a mere governor, nor military liege, nor earthly monarch ruling a portion of creation. Rather, the Lord who <em>made</em> creation. The Lord who <em>held</em> creation together. Thus, the Lord of <em>all</em> creation. <em>The</em> Lord. The New Testament record unmistakably testifies that early Christians believed Jesus was both Creator of all things and, therefore, Ruler of everything - <em>the Lord God</em>, in short.</p>

<p>These early Christians were not trying to be theologically clever. Rather, their confession was the inevitable result of an encounter with the God who “showed up.”&nbsp;It’s what they concluded when they, as Jews, met their Messiah face to face. Clearly, Jesus was included in the unique divine identity from the earliest days of the church, yet this created a conundrum.</p>

<p>Here is the problem they faced. One, there is only one God (Is. 43:10, 45:5). Two, Jesus is a distinct person from the Father. We know this because Jesus interacts with the Father in personally distinct ways - He prays to the Father (Jn. 17); He submits to the Father (Matt. 26:39); the Father speaks when Jesus is present listening (Lk. 3:21-22), etc. Finally, Jesus is fully God. We know this because Jesus is called God (Jn. 1:1, Rom. 9:5), He possesses divine attributes (e.g., creator, Jn. 1:3), and He exercises divine privileges (e.g., received worship, Matt. 2:2, 11; 28:9).</p>

<p>These awkward facts are what led the early church to conclude, eventually, that although God is one in essence (strict monotheism), He is more than one in person.</p>

<p>It was the only way to resolve what at first seemed to be an irrepressible contradiction.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Thus, the deity of Christ turns out to be a solution to a problem, and not really a problem itself, the only understanding of the revelation that harmonizes all the parts.</p>

<h2>The Problem of “Savior”</h2>

<p>The deity of Christ meant everything to those first Christians for a number of reasons, including the centrality of Christ to the entire redemptive enterprise. It was the key issue of Jesus’&nbsp;life and the <em>sine qua non</em> - the absolutely indispensable, essential core - of Christianity.</p>

<p>The disciples had “insisted it is necessary to belong to Christ in order to have eternal life, and...that it is necessary to know and believe the right things about Him in order to belong to Him.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> God, Jesus demanded, must be worshipped “in Spirit and in <em>truth”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 4:24).</p>

<p>In the face of conflicting public reports, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do <em>you</em> say that I am?”&nbsp;It’s the most important question anyone can answer, and clearly only one answer will do - Peter’s: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”&nbsp;(Matt. 16:15-16). This is the truth Jesus staked His own life on, since He was executed not for anything He <em>did</em>, but for Who He said He <em>was</em> (Matt. 26:63-66).</p>

<p>Indeed, the entire Gospel of John had the singular purpose of answering that question decisively, and John tied his answer directly to salvation: “These have been written so that you may believe that <em>Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God</em>; and that believing <em>you may have life</em> in His name”&nbsp;(Jn. 20:31).</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;divine nature and His ability to save sinners were inseparable concepts. Clearly, Jesus came to save. The angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “[Mary] will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins”&nbsp;(Matt 1:21). Yet, only God could save: “I, even I, am the Lord; and there is <em>no savior besides Me”</em>&nbsp;(Is. 43:11). According to Peter, the two join together in Christ: “...by the righteousness of <em>our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”</em>&nbsp;(2 Pet. 1:1).</p>

<p>Paul put it plainly: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus <em>as Lord</em>, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, <em>you will be saved”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 10:9). Jesus told the Pharisees, “Unless you believe that <em>I am,</em> you will die in your sins”&nbsp;(literal translation of Jn. 8:24), and, “Before Abraham was, <em>I Am”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 8:58). Here, in both cases, Jesus used the Greek <em>ego eimi</em> to identify Himself with the ancient name of God given to Moses, “I Am Who I Am”&nbsp;(Ex. 3:14).<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> The Jews, understanding the point clearly, sought to stone Him (Jn. 8:59). Yet this strange metaphysical union of man and God solved a pressing problem.</p>

<p>I will introduce it with a question: What is the most famous verse in all the Bible? Easy. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life”&nbsp;(Jn. 3:16). This wonderful passage, though, raises a concern.</p>

<p>So, God takes a man who was <em>not</em> guilty and treats Him as if He were guilty, having Him suffer an unspeakably brutal death, as an expression of God’s love in pardoning those who actually are the guilty ones? Really? I can see how the cross would be evidence for <em>Jesus’</em>&nbsp;love in that scenario, but how is it evidence of <em>God’s</em> love? How is savaging someone innocent on behalf of the guilty a loving thing to do? How does God escape the charge of “cosmic child abuse”?</p>

<p>Here’s how. Humans were guilty, so a human must pay. Yet, what kind of human could make a boundless payment adequate to cover endless punishment due for the sins of the entire world? How does a mere man, Jesus, in the short span of three hours on a cross, pay for an eternity of even <em>one person’s</em> sin, much less the sins of <em>anyone</em> and <em>everyone</em> who believes? How is that mathematically possible?</p>

<p>Who could fulfill such a task? Only One: the God-man.</p>

<p>Only Jesus <em>as</em> God can turn His sacrifice on a cross into a testament of God’s love for the world, since it was <em>God’s</em> blood, shed by Christ, that purchased Christ’s church: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock...to shepherd the church of God <em>which He purchased with His own blood”</em>&nbsp;(Acts 20:28). When did God bleed? When He was crucified on a Roman cross.</p>

<p>Only in Jesus the Son of God could a man suffer a finite amount of time yet cover an eternal debt for a countless multitude, since the man was Himself the God of infinite grace.</p>

<p>Mercifully, God has provided an answer to all concerns, including one final problem.</p>

<h2>The Problem of Debt</h2>

<p>The famous preacher Harry Ironside used to tell a story about a young Russian soldier who, because his father was a friend of Czar Nicholas I, had been made paymaster in one of the barracks. <sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>The young man meant well, but his character was not up to his responsibility. He took to gambling and eventually gambled away a great deal of the government’s money, as well as all of his own. In due course, the young man received notice that a representative of the czar was coming to check accounts, and he knew he was in trouble.</p>

<p>That evening, he got out the books and totaled up the funds he owed. Then he went to the safe and got out his own pitifully small amount of money. As he sat and looked at the two, he was overwhelmed at the astronomical debt versus his meager funds. He was ruined.</p>

<p>The young soldier determined to take his life. He pulled out his revolver, placed it on the table before him, and wrote a summation of his misdeeds. At the bottom of the ledger where he had totaled up his obligation, he wrote: “A great debt! Who can pay?”&nbsp;He decided that at the stroke of midnight he would die.</p>

<p>As the evening wore on, the soldier grew drowsy and eventually fell asleep. That night, Czar Nicholas, as was sometimes his custom, made the rounds of the barracks. Seeing a light, he stopped, looked in, and saw the young man asleep. He recognized him immediately and, looking over his shoulder, saw the ledger and realized all that had taken place.</p>

<p>He was about to awaken him and put him under arrest when his eye fastened on the young man’s message: “A great debt! Who can pay?”&nbsp;Suddenly, with a surge of magnanimity, he reached over, wrote one word at the bottom of the ledger, and slipped out.</p>

<p>When the young man awoke, he glanced at the clock and saw that it was long after midnight. He reached for his revolver to end his life. But his eye fell upon the ledger, and he saw something he had not seen before. There, beneath his writing, “A great debt! Who can pay?”&nbsp;was written a single word: “Nicholas.”</p>

<p>He was dumbfounded. It was the Czar’s signature. He said to himself, “The czar must have come by when I was asleep. He has seen the book. He knows all. Still he is willing to forgive.”</p>

<p>The young soldier then trusted the word of the czar. The next morning a messenger came from the palace with exactly the amount needed to meet the deficit. Only the czar could pay, and the czar did pay.</p>

<p>We compare God’s righteousness to our own tawdry performance, and we ask: “A great debt to God! Who can pay?”&nbsp;But then a man of infinite resources steps forward and signs His name to our ledger - “Jesus of Nazareth.”</p>

<p>Only Jesus can pay, and pay He does. He hears our cry. He comes to our rescue. He cancels our debt. It is finished.</p>

<p>Therefore, because of God’s Son, the Savior, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). There is no one who is able snatch us out of the Father’s hand (Jn. 10:28-29). There is nothing that can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:38-39). There is no fear remaining for those the Father has given to Jesus since He loses none but raises them up on the last day (Jn. 6:39).</p>

<p>If you are looking for a psychological lift for the moment, a temporary bromide to relieve the distress of life - Marx’s “opiate of the people”&nbsp;- then you are welcome to any religious fantasy you fancy. Be advised, though, it might soothe for the moment, but it will never heal since it cannot cure.</p>

<p>If, however, you want genuine healing instead of emotional distraction, then you need a genuine Healer, a Rescuer. Only One can provide that: Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">“Why Jesus? - Part 1,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, May 2018, available online at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">I realize this is not a theologically precise way of putting it, but I think it shall do for the moment.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Richard Bauckham, <em>God Crucified</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 25.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 143.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">This, of course, is the doctrine of the Trinity, a topic I explore more thoroughly in earlier issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>, a two-part treatment of the issue titled “The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem,”&nbsp;available online at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Harold O. J. Brown, <em>Heresies</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), xxiii.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">For a detailed treatment of this point, see James White, <em>The Forgotten Trinity</em> (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1998), chap. 6.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Adapted from James Montgomery Boice in <em>The Christmas Story according to Jesus Christ</em> (P&amp;R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2009), 21-23. Find the original account in H. A. Ironside, <em>Illustrations of Bible Truth</em> (Chicago: Moody, 1945), 67-69. [Kindle 64-66].<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-jesus-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%2Fwhy-jesus-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%2Fwhy-jesus-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: The Bible Has Been Translated Many Times Over, so How Can It Be Reliable?
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-has-been-translated-many-times-over-so-how-can-it-be-reliable-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Bible can now be read in nearly 700 different languages. For the New Testament, the number jumps to over 1,500 languages. It’s not surprising, then, that the Bible is the most translated book in history.</p>

<p>Christians see the number of translations as a good thing - more people are able to read God’s word in their own language. Others, however, seem to think the number of translations is a bad thing. In fact, they cite the number of translations in order to call into question the Bible’s reliability.</p>

<p>In a Newsweek cover story titled “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html">The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin</a>,”&nbsp;journalist and author Kurt Eichenwald asserts,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a <em>bad translation</em> - <em>a translation of translations of translations</em> of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two different challenges in play here. The first concerns the <em>translation</em> of the text. The second concerns the <em>transmission</em> of the text. We will focus our attention on the former challenge since we’ve written on the latter challenge <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman">here</a>.</p>

<h2>The Challenge</h2>

<p>If there are <em>multiple</em> steps in the translation process, then it’s possible something gets lost in translation. Consequently, if our modern Bible translations are a translation of a translation of a translation of a...well, you get the point, then they probably don’t resemble what the authors intended. This would be akin to playing the Telephone Game with people who translate the message into a different language as they pass it along to the next person.</p>

<h2>Just the Facts, Ma’am</h2>

<p>For this challenge, we need to employ the “<a href="/w/the-columbo-tactic">Just the Facts, Ma’am</a>”&nbsp;tactic. Many challenges to Christianity are based on bad information. They don’t get the facts right. We can overcome these objections by a simple appeal to the facts.</p>

<p>So, what are the facts in this instance?</p>

<p>Eichenwald and those who continue to espouse this nonsense are wrong about how modern Bible translation works. In reality, the modern English translations go back to the <em>original</em> languages. In fact, those who can read the original languages - Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic - are in a position to know what the authors actually wrote in the original languages. As a result, there is only <em>one</em> step in the translation process - the original language to modern language. That’s right, every modern translation has only been translated <em>once</em>. It’s not “a translation of translations of translations”; it’s just <em>a</em> translation. Therefore, modern translators are in the best position possible to provide an accurate translation.</p>

<p>Our modern Bible <em>isn’t</em> a bad translation - a translation of translations of translations. Of course, this still leaves the question of the transmission of the text. But that’s a separate issue that <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman">we’ve addressed</a>. In the challenge before us, it is enough to point out that the number of translations doesn’t affect the reliability of the text.</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-has-been-translated-many-times-over-so-how-can-it-be-reliable-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-has-been-translated-many-times-over-so-how-can-it-be-reliable-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-has-been-translated-many-times-over-so-how-can-it-be-reliable-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Christian Ideas That Gave Rise to Modern Science
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/27/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-christian-ideas-that-gave-rise-to-modern-science
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Are naturalistic assumptions necessary for doing science? In the video below (or see the transcript <a href="https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/">here</a>), Stephen Meyer argues that not only is naturalism <em>not</em> necessary, but in fact, it was a <em>Christian</em> worldview that gave rise to modern science.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of those key ideas was the idea of intelligibility: that nature is intelligible. There’s an order and design that can be understood and discerned by the scientist because nature is the product of a rational mind, namely the mind of God, and that that same mind or creator who made nature with that rational order built into it made us and our reason, so that we could perceive and understand the reason that he built into nature. That was what gave people confidence to do the hard work of investigation to figure out the hidden order, the design that is beneath the appearances of natural phenomenon. [From the <a href="https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/">transcript</a>.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For more on this topic, I recommend Nancy Pearcey’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Science-Christian-Natural-Philosophy/dp/0891077669/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&amp;me=&amp;qid=1530123517">The Soul of Science</a></em>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="242152094" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/242152094?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=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-christian-ideas-that-gave-rise-to-modern-science" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-christian-ideas-that-gave-rise-to-modern-science" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-christian-ideas-that-gave-rise-to-modern-science" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Sam Allberry’s Advice for Conversations about Sexual Identity
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/19/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/sam-allberry-s-advice-for-conversations-about-sexual-identity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Desiring God has an interview with Sam Allberry on “<a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-to-navigate-conversations-about-sexual-identity">How to Navigate Conversations about Sexual Identity</a>,”&nbsp;and I thought this point was particularly helpful:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the things I want to try and show, as far as possible, is that Jesus treats us all the same. The gospel puts us in the same boat. So a principle I’ve taken from that is not to say to someone what I can’t say to everyone.</p>

<p>I can think of an event I was at recently where a young lady came up to me afterward and said, “Well, I’m a lesbian, so what do you think of that?”&nbsp;My response to her was to say, “Well actually, Jesus has some really interesting things to say about sexuality to all of us.”&nbsp;She said, “Why? What does he say?”</p>

<p>I talked to her a little bit about how Jesus shows that there’s a brokenness, there’s a skewedness, to all of us that plays out even in our sexuality, for every single one of us. I wanted to see how far I could go in the conversation without saying anything that is specific to her lesbianism.</p>

<p>I found that actually, we can have a very, very fruitful and long conversation without me having to touch on her specifics. I think that’s important because she’s not going to properly hear what Jesus thinks of her specific situation unless she’s heard what Jesus says to all of us...</p>

<p>Again, I’m not going to say to someone what I can’t say to everyone. I’m trying to show them the gospel isn’t unfair. It has the same humbling, challenging message to all of us that will work its way out in slightly different ways. But I wanted them to know that actually, the ground around the cross is level ground.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(You can see more of what that approach looks like <a href="/w/sexuality-identity-sin-and-denying-ourselves-to-follow-christ">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Allberry also noted something that surprised me, although it shouldn’t have:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]e think everyone is an activist and is out to jump up and down on us. But one of the things that was a bit of a revelation to me was that actually a lot of these students, particularly in the LGBT societies on campus, were more fearful of me than I was of them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Something very primal happens when someone tells us we’ve sinned and we suspect they’re right. It’s terrifying. Recently, while I was feeling convicted about a sin (warning: when you ask God to reveal your sin to you, He will!), I read the story of Paul’s trial before Governor Felix in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+24&amp;version=NASB">Acts 24</a>, and I felt the force of verses 24-25 for the first time:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Righteousness and judgment are terrifying without the gospel. We catch glimpses of this in our own lives from time to time in those moments after conviction of sin before we flee to the safety of the gospel, reminding ourselves of its truth. But what if you didn’t have the gospel? Don’t ever forget what your listeners are hearing and feeling when you speak of “righteousness and the judgment to come.”&nbsp;Have compassion, and never leave out the gospel.</p>

<p>Read the rest of Sam Allberry’s interview <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-to-navigate-conversations-about-sexual-identity">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%2Fsam-allberry-s-advice-for-conversations-about-sexual-identity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsam-allberry-s-advice-for-conversations-about-sexual-identity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsam-allberry-s-advice-for-conversations-about-sexual-identity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Hardest Question to Answer
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/17/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-hardest-question-to-answer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been asked hundreds of questions about Islam, homosexuality, the problem of evil, abortion, the Bible, and many other topics. Some questions are easy, while others are hard. The most difficult question, though, is never about those topics. It’s about God.</p>

<p>The hardest question to answer begins with “Why would God...?”&nbsp;For example, why would God create Lucifer if He knew he would rebel and become Satan? Why would God create some humans He knew He would send to Hell? Why is God willing to allow a two-year-old girl to suffer with an incurable condition for a year and then die? Why did God choose to send Jesus to Earth in the first century?</p>

<p>Some of you might think, <em>I can answer that!</em> Well, sure, there are plenty of theologians, philosophers, and apologists that give interesting answers. I can muster a plausible answer, too. I do it all the time.</p>

<p>But here’s why this question is the hardest to answer. When someone asks, “Why would God...?”&nbsp;they’re asking me to explain the mind of God. Unless God has given us insight into His thinking or rationale through His Word, it’s impossible to know for sure why He does something or thinks something. All I’m doing when I answer, then, is speculating. That’s what theologians, philosophers, and apologists are doing. That’s what you’re doing too.</p>

<p>There’s nothing wrong with speculation, of course. We do it all the time. We shouldn’t confuse that, though, with giving people knowledge about the mind of God when that knowledge has not been made available to us. I usually make it clear before I answer that kind of question that I’m speculating or offering some options (aka guesses) as to why God does what He does. As the Apostle Paul asks in Romans 11:34, “Who has known the mind of God?”</p>
</div>

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


title: Scripture vs. Self
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/scripture-vs-self
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is the Bible your authority? Most Christians would claim it is. That’s what they’re supposed to say. We love the Bible. It’s God’s word, and we’re supposed to uphold it. But is it <em>really</em> an authority over you, or are you an authority over it?</p>

<p>What do you do, for example, when you’ve done something Scripture forbids? What if you’ve advocated something the Bible prohibits? Is your first inclination to correct <em>your own thinking</em> or to try to change <em>the Bible’s meaning</em>?</p>

<p>I realize very few people would say, “I don’t agree with the Bible on this point, so I’m going to do a line-item veto on this verse.”&nbsp;That makes our rebellion too obvious. I know <em>I’m</em> more subtle about my sin.</p>

<p>Often when we come across a teaching we don’t like, we think to ourselves, <em>I wonder if there’s a different way to understand this passage.</em> Then we start digging around to see if someone has provided a possible interpretation that neutralizes the teaching we don’t like. This impulse, though, might reveal something about our heart. It could be we’re unwilling to submit to Scripture’s authority when it’s not convenient.</p>

<p>The most obvious example is Scripture’s sexual ethics. God has made His intentions perfectly clear on this subject. Sexual activity is reserved for a married man and woman. Period. No sex before marriage (fornication). No sex outside of marriage (adultery). No sex with people of the same sex (homosexuality). No sexual fantasy about people you’re not married to (lust). No sex with animals (bestiality). No sex with close relatives (incest).</p>

<p>God’s design for sex is clear. His boundaries are clear. His Word is clear. Yet, sexual urges are powerful and can feel overwhelming when unfulfilled. That’s why the temptation to find an alternative interpretation to biblical guidelines for sex is so strong.</p>

<p>Of course, sexual ethics is not the only area where we’re tempted to disobey. There are many others. Do we submit to God with our finances? If we’re married, do we obey Scripture’s commands on how to treat our spouse? Do we follow the Bible’s admonition on loving our brothers and sisters in Christ?</p>

<p>Now, don’t get me wrong. I realize there are verses in Scripture where Christians genuinely disagree on an interpretation. Do we have free will to choose God, or does He unilaterally elect us for salvation? Is the Lord’s Supper symbolic or something more? How will the end times unfold? I could name many others.</p>

<p>I’m talking, though, about matters that the Church has been unified on for thousands of years. Are we yielding to Scripture on those issues, or are we subjecting Scripture to us? This is a matter of the heart. Let me offer three quick suggestions that might help if you find yourself tempted to make the wrong choice. Although there are obviously more, consider this a quick start guide.</p>

<ol>
	<li>Pray and ask God for help. It’s God’s intention that you follow and obey Him and His Word. Asking for His help, therefore, is consistent with His will for your life. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will renew a spirit of obedience to God and submission to His Word.</li>
	<li>Meditate and memorize Scripture. By getting God’s word in our heart, it infiltrates our very being. It becomes a part of us, and our King’s commands are close at hand when we need them. Therefore, find a passage that relates to the area where you’re tempted to compromise on God’s command and memorize it. You can ask an accountability partner to hold you accountable to accomplish this. You don’t have an accountability partner, you say? Read my next suggestion.</li>
	<li>Get an accountability partner. There’s nothing more humbling than a close friend who asks pointed questions about an area you’re struggling with. Accountability partners are great at helping us submit to Scripture when we’re tempted to make it submit to us. If you’re in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (either dating, engaged, or married), this is an absolute must. You need someone to routinely ask you the hard questions no one else will: Are you honoring God with your relationship? Are you keeping appropriate boundaries with physical intimacy? You should give them explicit permission to feel free to ask you <em>any</em> question they want.</li>
</ol>

<p>Submitting to Scripture is a matter of obedience, one that is essential to being a Christian. Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will obey My commands”&nbsp;(Jn 14:15). Those commands, by the way, are found in Scripture. That’s why it makes no sense to profess faith in Christ but then to live like He (and His Word) has no place in your life.</p>
</div>

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


title: Teaching Kids about Why Bad Things Happen
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/07/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/teaching-kids-about-why-bad-things-happen
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When should we begin teaching our kids that Christianity is defensible? This question was on my mind as I began putting together another chapel talk for <a href="http://innovaacademy.ca/">Innova Academy</a>, the classical Christian school my daughters attend. (See “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/teaching-worldview-kids#.WxAIXXQrJmA">Teaching Worldview to Kids</a>”&nbsp;to read about my last chapel talk.)</p>

<p>How early should we talk about arguments for the existence of God, or the reliability of the Bible, or the problem of evil, or a whole host of other issues? The answer is, <em>as early as possible</em>.</p>

<p>Now, I know what some of you might be thinking, “Get real, Tim. Are you saying we should teach the <em>kalam</em> cosmological argument to kindergarteners or fine-tuning to five-year-olds?”</p>

<p>Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And here’s how.</p>

<h2>Throw the Ball so They Can Catch It</h2>

<p>When I began working at Stand to Reason, Greg Koukl taught me something that has stuck with me. It’s something I constantly think about as I’m creating new presentations. It’s a simple dictum: <em>Throw the ball so the audience can catch it.</em> The principle could also be stated, <em>know your audience</em>.</p>

<p>When I think about how we’ve been able to effectively communicate difficult topics to junior high and high school students, this aphorism holds true. We are able to teach students because we have trained ourselves to <em>think</em> like students. And once we are able to think like our audience, we’re able to <em>translate</em> the material so they can understand it.</p>

<p>In this case, my audience ranged from four-year-olds to fourteen-year-olds. So what was the “ball”&nbsp;I wanted them to catch? I wanted them to understand - even if only at a basic level - why God would allow bad things to happen.</p>

<h2>Here’s How I Did It</h2>

<p>Rather than jumping right into a response, I wanted to be sure each student understood the concept of badness.* To do this, I began by asking for some of their favorite stories. One student raised her hand and said, “Frozen.”&nbsp;Another student said, “Snow White.”&nbsp;A third emphatically stated, “Star Wars.”</p>

<p>After putting a list together, I made an observation. Each of these stories contains some <em>badness</em>. And much of the badness comes from a <em>bad guy - the villain.</em></p>

<p>To illustrate this point, I put a number of famous villains on the screen. The students immediately recognized these bad guys as well as the badness they caused.</p>

<p>This led to another important observation. We all recognize when someone is being bad, including the four-year-olds in my audience. No one has to tell us who the bad guys are. We all recognize when things aren’t the way they should be.</p>

<h2>Badness in the Real World</h2>

<p>So far we had only talked about <em>made-up</em> stories. They are <em>not</em> real. However, they tap into something true about the real world; namely, <em>there is badness in the world.</em></p>

<p>In the real world, things happen that we call <em>evil</em> or <em>bad</em>. For instance, people take things that don’t belong to them. People don’t always tell the truth. People fight for no good reason. People get sick and suffer. And all of these things seem wrong to us - like they aren’t supposed to be this way. That is, we know things <em>ought to be</em> different.</p>

<h2>A Good God Made a Good World</h2>

<p>At this point, we have established that from an early age we recognize that the world isn’t the way <em>it ought to be</em>. There is something wrong with the world. It’s broken.</p>

<p>So, where did <em>wrongness or badness</em> come from? The Christian worldview gives the answer. All we need to do is read the first three chapters of Genesis.</p>

<p>Genesis 1 uses the word “good”&nbsp;<em>seven times</em> to describe the world that God had made. The chapter ends with these striking words, “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was <em>very good</em>.”</p>

<p>Therefore, the original world contained no sickness, no tears, no conflict, no suffering. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God, each other, and the creation. There was <em>no</em> badness.</p>

<p>So, what happened? Well, just keep reading. Everything changed in Genesis 3. God put Adam and Eve in a perfect garden - called Eden - and gave them a <em>single</em> rule to follow. They could eat the fruit of every tree but one.</p>

<p>At this point, I asked the students, “Do you know what happened?”&nbsp;One student said, “Adam and Eve broke the rule.”&nbsp;She was right. They chose to disobey God, and this choice had catastrophic consequences.</p>

<p>Here’s how I summarized: “When Adam and Even broke the rule, they also broke the world.”&nbsp;Therefore, the current state of the world is not the way the world was <em>originally</em> created. We live in a world that humanity broke, and this broken world produces broken people and broken circumstances.</p>

<h2>Free Will Makes Badness Possible</h2>

<p>From the Fall forward, the world was a very different place. I think it is fair to ask, “Why didn’t God stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit?”&nbsp;Furthermore, why doesn’t God just stop people from doing bad things altogether?</p>

<p>Here’s part of the answer. When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them the freedom to choose between right and wrong, good and bad. They could use their free will to obey God, or they could use their free will to disobey God.</p>

<p>God could have created robots that are <em>forced</em> to always do good. But a robot could never enter into a genuine love relationship with God. Instead, God wanted to create human beings who could <em>freely</em> choose to love Him. But this kind of freedom allowed for the <em>possibility</em> of badness.</p>

<p>To help drive home this important point, I had the students compare my relationship with Siri - on my phone - and my relationship with my daughters. First, I pulled out my phone and asked Siri, “Who am I?��</p>

<p>Siri replied, “Your name is Tim, but since we are friends, you asked me to call you the love of my life.”</p>

<p>Next, I invited my daughters onto the stage. Without telling them what to say, I asked each of them, “Do you love me?”</p>

<p>With a big smile on their faces, they each declared - in their own words - their love for me.</p>

<p>The difference between these two declarations was clear. Siri may have <em>said</em> she loves me, but we all know that this wasn’t real love. In fact, the only reason she called me the love of her life was because I programmed her to. This was not a <em>free</em> decision.</p>

<p>My daughters, on the other hand, were created with the ability to freely choose to love me. There was no programming, no forcing, no coercing. Likewise, Adam and Eve used their freedom to disobey God and bring evil into the world.</p>

<h2>God Allows Badness to Bring Goodness</h2>

<p>There is something else that needs to be taken into account. I told the students, “God allows badness to bring goodness.”&nbsp;That is, God allows some bad things to happen in this world for a good purpose - even if we never know what that purpose is.</p>

<p>This is actually fairly simple to illustrate to kids. I asked the students, “How many of you have been to the doctor to get a shot?”</p>

<p>Every student raised his or her hand. “Good,”&nbsp;I said. “And how did it feel?”</p>

<p>The response was unanimous. Shots are painful.</p>

<p>I’ve taken each of my girls to get their shots, and each time, it’s heartbreaking. Young children don’t understand the reason for getting shots. They don’t realize that this particular pain is for their benefit. The shot is meant to <em>help them</em> even though it might temporarily <em>hurt them</em>.</p>

<p>In the same way, God permits pain and suffering in our lives that can serve a good purpose. This explanation is perfectly consistent with the Bible.</p>

<p>I had the students think about how Jesus suffered an excruciating death on a cross. I asked the rhetorical question, “What good could possibly come from all that badness?”</p>

<p>I’ll tell you what came from it: <em>salvation for the world.</em></p>

<p>The prophet Isaiah put it this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But He was pierced for our transgressions,</p>

<p>He was crushed for our iniquities;</p>

<p>the punishment that brought us peace was on Him,</p>

<p>and by His wounds we are healed. (Isa. 53:5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can be saved - and have eternal life - because of the crucifixion of Jesus. God can bring good out of evil and suffering. How do we know? Because He’s done it before.</p>

<h2>The Story Isn’t Over Yet</h2>

<p>I wanted to leave the students with one final thought. It makes no sense to stop in the <em>middle</em> of a story - any story - and complain that it didn’t turn out right. After all, the story isn’t finished.</p>

<p>This would be akin to watching <em>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</em> and stopping in the middle of the movie to complain about how Snow White is stuck under a sleeping spell and never going to wake up.</p>

<p>We know that would be foolish because the movie isn’t over yet. In fact, we know there is a happy ending to the story.</p>

<p>In the same way, Christians know how the story of reality ends. God will right every injustice. No bad deed will go unpunished. All the badness in the world will finally and ultimately be judged.</p>

<p>Furthermore, God will reward the righteous - those who have put their trust in Him. And God will make new heavens and a new earth, and there will be no more pain and suffering. As Christians who experience badness in the world, we look forward to that blessed hope.</p>

<p>In this short chapel talk, we covered one of the most difficult questions that any Christian can face. I did my best to <em>translate</em> the challenge and some of the responses in a way that each student could understand. Did every student comprehend every point? No. But I’m convinced every student left the chapel better equipped than when they entered.</p>

<p>*I intentionally chose to use the term “badness”&nbsp;over “evil”&nbsp;to help the younger students connect it with bad things that happen in the world. This would be an example of throwing the ball so they can catch it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-kids-about-why-bad-things-happen" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-kids-about-why-bad-things-happen" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteaching-kids-about-why-bad-things-happen" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 New Season of reTHINK Apologetics Student Conferences
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-new-season-of-rethink-apologetics-student-conferences
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’re a parent, teacher, or youth leader, and you’ve never taken your students (junior high through college) to one of our <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK conferences</a> in California, Texas, or Alabama, consider joining us this year! The first one up is in <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/orange-county-conference-2018/">Orange County on September 28-29</a>, and the theme this time around is the Bible - “Has God Spoken?”&nbsp;Take a look at our new promo, and then start making some plans!</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%2Fa-new-season-of-rethink-apologetics-student-conferences" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-new-season-of-rethink-apologetics-student-conferences" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-new-season-of-rethink-apologetics-student-conferences" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Paul’s Point in 1 Corinthians 15
topic: Theology
author: Keith Plummer
date: 06/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/paul-s-point-in-1-corinthians-15
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A large part of doing apologetics in an increasingly secular society is making a case for the existence of God and how His existence offers greater explanatory power than does a naturalistic worldview. This is valuable work, not to be discouraged. However, we need to be careful not to let this drive how we interpret Scripture. In other words, we need to be on guard against allowing the desire to defend God’s existence to become the hermeneutical lens through which we read the Scriptures. I don’t want my apologetic interests to govern my biblical interpretation. I was thinking about this recently as it relates to Paul’s well-known discourse on Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.</p>

<p>Apparently, some in Corinth were in danger of heeding a teaching that denied the possibility of bodily resurrection. Twice (vv. 13 and 16), Paul points out the necessary implication of such denial: If there is no such thing as bodily resurrection, then not even Jesus has been raised. And if Jesus was not raised from the dead, Paul reasons, a number of things follow concerning the worth of Christian faith. Paul describes it as being in vain (v. 14) and futile (v. 17). To further emphasize how crucial Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection is, the apostle concludes that if it did not happen, Christians “are of all people most to be pitied”&nbsp;(v. 19) for our misplaced and misguided trust.</p>

<p>I’ve sometimes seen this passage interpreted as if Paul was arguing that if Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection didn’t happen, then our faith is in vain because that would be evidence against the existence of God. It’s as though Paul was hanging the full weight of theism on the historicity of the resurrection. But a careful examination of what he actually wrote reveals that that was not the point he intended to make. Certainly, the apostle <em>is</em> offering an apologetic, but what he’s defending is not the existence of God. Here are some reasons we know this is so.</p>

<p>First, Paul reasons that if Jesus was not raised from death, then he and his fellow apostles have been bearing false witness against God, crediting Him with doing what He actually had not done - namely, raise Christ from the dead (v. 15). Obviously, misrepresenting someone presupposes that they actually exist. Paul’s argument isn’t that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, there’s no reason to believe God exists. His point is that if God the Father didn’t resurrect Jesus, then he and the other apostolic witnesses have been telling falsehoods about Him.</p>

<p>Second, when Paul says in verse 17 that if Christ has not been raised, the Corinthians’&nbsp;faith is in vain, he couldn’t have meant that their belief that God existed was in error because he goes on to say that the consequence of Christ not rising is that they are still in their sins and that their loved ones who had died in Christ had perished. Again, the idea of sin presupposes God’s existence, for sin is the violation of His law. Paul’s contention is that there is no assurance of rescue from God’s holy judgment if, in fact, Jesus was not raised from the dead. This is because, as Paul wrote in Romans 4:25, Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and <em>raised for our justification”</em>&nbsp;(emphasis mine). As New Testament theologian Dr. Thomas Schreiner <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Romans-Baker-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/0801021499/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1527016495&amp;sr=8-1">notes</a>: “To say that Jesus was raised because of our justification is to say that his resurrection authenticates and confirms that our justification has been secured.”</p>

<p>I’m not saying the resurrection isn’t evidence of God’s existence. I think it is. My only point here has been to show that that’s not <em>Paul’s</em> point in this familiar passage.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpaul-s-point-in-1-corinthians-15" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpaul-s-point-in-1-corinthians-15" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpaul-s-point-in-1-corinthians-15" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Remember That First-Century Mark Fragment?
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/29/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/remember-that-first-century-mark-fragment-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Six years ago, Dan Wallace <a href="/w/first-century-gospel-fragment-">announced in a debate</a> with Bart Ehrman that a paleographer had dated a recently-found papyrus fragment of Mark to the first century. Since then, I’ve received many requests for updates, and I finally have one to give.</p>

<p>The fragment has now been published, and there’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that its official date is late second or early third century. Dan Wallace has written <a href="https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/first-century-mark-fragment-update/">a post</a> explaining what happened and offering an apology. Here’s a brief excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a <em>first</em>-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting <em>any</em> sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>His warning is one we should all heed. <a href="https://www.michaeljkruger.com/is-there-a-first-century-fragment-of-marks-gospel-apparently-not/#.Wwf1ON7t3gw.twitter">Michael Kruger</a> adds to this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I suppose this whole affair is a good reminder about the nature of scholarship, particularly the study of ancient manuscripts. Any study of the ancient world needs to be approached with caution and patience, but particularly the study of ancient texts. A first impression of ancient manuscripts is just that, a first/preliminary impression. And sometimes further study and reflection can lead to different results.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A first-century fragment would certainly have been exciting, so obviously this news is disappointing in that sense, but Kruger <a href="https://www.michaeljkruger.com/is-there-a-first-century-fragment-of-marks-gospel-apparently-not/#.Wwf1ON7t3gw.twitter">notes</a> good and bad reasons for being disappointed, saying that in terms of scholarly impact, “Given how fragmentary it is, it is unlikely to have changed the debate over the reliability of the text in any meaningful way.”</p>

<p>You can read more of Wallace’s explanation and apology <a href="https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/first-century-mark-fragment-update/">here</a>. He was prevented by a non-disclosure agreement from discussing any of this until now, and I’m sure it must have been maddening for him to not be able to set the record straight.</p>

<p>Having said that, the <em>good</em> news is that the Mark fragment has been dated to the late second or early third century! <a href="https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/that-curious-fragment-of-the-gospel-of-now-published/">Larry Hurtado</a> reminds us not to lose perspective on this find:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Though not now judged to be “first-century,”&nbsp;this fragment of Mark is still important, doubling the number of manuscript witnesses to GMark from before 300 CE (the only other one being the Chester Beatty Gospels codex, P45).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He adds in <a href="https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/what-yet-lies-beneath-the-hoard-of-unpublished-oxyrhynchus-texts/">another post</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My note about the newly published items included in vol 83 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri [which included the Mark fragment in question] reminded me that to date, over 100 years after the excavations there, the vast hoard of papyri shipped to Britain by Grenfell &amp; Hunt (in hundreds of metal boxes) remains stored and unpublished. This latest volume brings the number of published items well past 5,000. But by some estimates this leaves several hundred thousands of papyrus fragments, perhaps more, yet to be studied and published.</p>

<p>That only in this latest volume do we have a remarkably early fragment of the Gospel of Mark, as well as fragments of a couple of other NT writings, shows that gems continue to be found in that hoard. And who knows what else lies there?</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fremember-that-first-century-mark-fragment-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fremember-that-first-century-mark-fragment-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fremember-that-first-century-mark-fragment-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Gospel Is for People Like Us
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/20/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-is-for-people-like-us
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A lot of people - including Christians - presume I teach on topics like abortion, homosexuality, and Islam because the people represented by these topics are <em>different</em> from us. It is thought that I believe Muslims, abortion-choice advocates, and those who identify as gay and lesbian are the enemy, the other. We need to reach out to them because they’re so different from us.</p>

<p>That’s not true.</p>

<p>We should reach out to them not because they’re <em>different</em> from us, but because they’re <em>like</em> us. We were in their shoes once. We were also rebellious and hostile towards God. We were God’s enemy, but now we’ve been reconciled to God. We’re now at peace with Him.</p>

<p>We may not have identified as gay or lesbian before (though some did), but we probably did satisfy desires that God said are wrong: the desire to lie, the desire to have more, the desire for sex outside of marriage, or the desire to control others.</p>

<p>We may not have been Muslim and worshipped Allah before (though some were), but we probably worshipped something else other than God: money, sex, grades, good looks, or our friends. We made that our god.</p>

<p>We may not have had an abortion before (though some have), but we probably made other choices that were wrong: we cheated on tests, crossed sexual boundaries, lied to our family, or betrayed our friends.</p>

<p>We’re supposed to reach out to these people - and others - not because they’re the enemy or the other. Instead, God has called us to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). That’s our identity. Remembering where we’ve come from and what we’ve been saved from gives us compassion and a longing for all to experience peace with God. Our mission is to proclaim the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19). That’s because the gospel is for people like 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%2Fthe-gospel-is-for-people-like-us" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-gospel-is-for-people-like-us" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-gospel-is-for-people-like-us" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Parent’s Guide to the 5 Skeptics Who Want to Shame Your Kids for Being Christian
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Natasha Crain
date: 06/19/2018
source:
https://www.str.org/w/a-parent-s-guide-to-the-5-skeptics-who-want-to-shame-your-kids-for-being-christian

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Having blogged for over six years now, I’ve received hundreds (and hundreds) of comments and emails from skeptics of Christianity. Once in a while, I receive one from a pleasant non-believer who is truly interested in discussing evidence, asking reasonable questions, and engaging in thoughtful discussion.</p>

<p>But that’s the exception.</p>

<p>Those who contact me typically wield the tool of <em>shaming</em> to make their point - something highly ironic given how much skeptics talk about the importance of evidence.</p>

<p>To be clear, none of the non-believers I personally know would use shaming tactics in person. But when people are behind their screens, it brings down the “barrier”&nbsp;of civility, and faith conversations often look very different. You can see it on social media (even with friends who wouldn’t say such things in person), comments on news articles, blog posts - everywhere.</p>

<p>Kids need to understand these emotion-laden shaming attempts they’ll encounter. Like so much else, this is something parents can and should prepare them for. Here are the five most common skeptics who want to shame your kids for being Christian.</p>

<h2>1. The Science Thumper</h2>

<p><em>Shame Tactic: Making the child believe they don’t have enough scientific expertise to understand that belief in God is unnecessary and silly.</em></p>

<p>The Science Thumper applies some notion of science to each and every conversation about Christianity, making it the final word on any given topic, and implying that science and Christianity are at irreconcilable odds.</p>

<p>For example, in response to one of my blog posts about the meaning of life in a theistic worldview, a skeptic commented:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You need to study the mechanisms of replication, mutation, natural selection if you want to understand why life exists and is the way it is. If life and existence are too amazing, astounding and astonishing to exist naturally...then how much more complex is god [sic] for having created it?...Did you invent superman as a panacea answer for everything you don’t understand?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Questions of faith and science are very important, but framing faith and science as a <em>choice</em> - one option for the unsophisticated and one for those in the know - is a cheap and false dichotomy.</p>

<p><em>Parent Solution: Thoroughly address faith and science topics so kids understand how shallow and unnuanced the Science Thumper’s claims are. See</em> <a href="/w/4-things-that-must-happen-before-more-christian-parents-will-care-about-questions-of-faith-and-science"><em>this post</em></a> <em>for more on how to do that.</em></p>

<h2>2. The Indoctrination Informer</h2>

<p><em>Shame Tactic: Informing the child that the ONLY reason they believe in Jesus is that they’ve been “indoctrinated”&nbsp;by their parents.</em></p>

<p>Indoctrination is a word that both Christians and skeptics use wrong. Skeptics often think a kid has been indoctrinated any time they’ve been taught a given religion is true. Christians often think indoctrination means teaching kids Christian doctrine. These misunderstandings lead to conversations that unfortunately sound like this:</p>

<p>Skeptic to Christian parent: “You’re indoctrinating your kids [by raising them in a Christian home]! Let them think for themselves.”</p>

<p>Christian parent to skeptic: “You’re right! I’m teaching my kids Christian doctrine, and I’m proud of it!”</p>

<p>Both skeptics and Christians need to understand that indoctrination means <em>teaching someone to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and <strong>to not consider</strong> other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.</em> In other words, indoctrination is a problem with <em>how</em> you teach someone something. It is not inherently related to any particular belief system, though religion is one type of belief system where indoctrination is possible.</p>

<p><em>Parent Solution: Intentionally introduce your kids to skeptics’&nbsp;challenges so they never feel the need to question whether you tried to shelter them from other beliefs. For more on the importance of this, see the post “</em><a href="http://christianmomthoughts.com/if-your-kids-are-someday-shocked-by-the-claims-of-skeptics-you-didnt-do-your-job/"><em>If Your Kids are Someday Shocked by the Claims of Skeptics, You Didn’t Do Your Job</em></a><em>.”</em></p>

<h2>3. The Miracle Mocker</h2>

<p><em>Shame Tactic: Making the child feel gullible for believing something that doesn’t happen according to natural laws.</em></p>

<p>Here’s a recent comment a skeptic left on my blog:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Just because some so-called holy book says something is true doesn’t make it true. Why do you believe outlandish claims about a god [sic] speaking things into existence, or about a man being swallowed by a fish for a few days and surviving, a worldwide flood [and ark] that fit all of the animals in it and eight people, or a story about a virgin getting pregnant? None of that makes sense, you don’t have any proof that it happened, but you still think it’s true. Why do you prefer to believe outlandish claims because they’re religious?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The logic here is what’s “outlandish”&nbsp;(no one believes all miraculous claims simply <em>because</em> they’re religious), but my point is not to critique the details of this particular comment. My point is to show how skeptics present miracles in a way that parades them as “obviously”&nbsp;absurd because (and by definition!), they don’t follow the course of nature.</p>

<p><em>Parent Solution: Teach kids the basic logic that if God exists, miracles are possible, and if God doesn’t exist, miracles are not possible (for more on this, see chapter 24 in</em> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Your-Kids-Gods-Side/dp/0736965084/"><em>Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side</em></a><em>). This brings the question of miracles back to the underlying question of the evidence for God’s existence so kids understand that the person claiming miracles are silly is simply presupposing God doesn’t exist.</em></p>

<h2>4. The Self-Sufficient Scoffer</h2>

<p><em>Shame Tactic: Boasting that the skeptic doesn’t “need”&nbsp;God - and implying that anyone who does has an inferior need for an emotional crutch to get through life.</em></p>

<p>Oftentimes, when ex-Christians recount their deconversion story, they conclude with a glib comment of how they moved on because they no longer “needed”&nbsp;God. The subtly condescending implication, of course, is that those who believe in God do so because they don’t have the emotional resources to make it through life admitting that we live in a universe of pitiless indifference.</p>

<p>This is a strange conclusion that betrays a lack of deeper insight.</p>

<p><strong>If God exists, we need Him.</strong> All things were created through and for Him; He is the Source and sustainer of everything by definition. Therefore, if God exists, it’s not a choice to need Him...it’s simply a fact that we do.</p>

<p><strong>If God doesn’t exist, we don’t need Him.</strong> We cannot need Him. We cannot need something that doesn’t exist.</p>

<p>In other words, saying that you don’t need God anymore is a nonsensical conclusion. Of course you don’t need God if He doesn’t exist. And if He does exist, you can’t choose to not need Him.</p>

<p>What this kind of statement betrays, therefore, is that the skeptic originally believed in God based on felt needs (desires) rather than on the conviction that He truly exists. When they realized they didn’t need to believe in God to satisfy those felt needs, they simply eliminated Him from the picture and met those needs in other ways.</p>

<p><em>Parent Solution: Be mindful of helping kids build a faith based on the conviction of God’s existence and the truth of Christianity - not on felt needs for things like being happy, being a good person, or finding meaning in life. In other words, if anyone ever asks your child why they’re a Christian, you should want their response to be, “Because Christianity is true!”&nbsp;For more on escaping the felt need pattern, see the post “</em><em><a href="http://christianmomthoughts.com/do-your-kids-know-why-they-need-god/">Do Your Kids Know Why They Need God?</a>”</em></p>

<h2>5. The Tolerance Enforcer</h2>

<p><em>Shame Tactic: Making the child feel like they are unloving and hateful for taking a biblical stance that doesn’t approve of all choices as morally acceptable.</em></p>

<p>In a spectacular display of irony, the Tolerance Enforcer shames kids into believing that they must be horrible people for disagreeing with non-believers on the morality of various issues. By labeling kids hateful and unloving rather than thoughtfully discussing the evidence for the truth of the underlying worldviews that produce divergent moral conclusions, they rely on purely emotional attacks. Kids without an intellectual foundation for the Christian worldview are left <em>feeling</em> that they must be wrong about the truth of their faith.</p>

<p><em>Parent Solution: Help kids understand the irony of a person championing tolerance who won’t tolerate Christian beliefs without labeling disagreement hateful. Then demonstrate how Christians and non-Christians will necessarily disagree on moral issues because we have a different source of authority - the Bible.</em> <a href="http://christianmomthoughts.com/what-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling-means-for-christian-parents/"><em>Here’s an example</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>In all of these cases, remember that shame, by definition, is “a painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness or disgrace.”&nbsp;In other words, the root of shame is feeling inadequate.</p>

<p>In order for our kids to feel (more than) adequate when they encounter shaming attempts, they need to have the deep conviction that what they believe is really true. Only then will they be able to fully see these shame tactics for what they are - shallow and baseless emotional attacks - and be able to say confidently with the apostle Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes”&nbsp;(Romans 1:16).</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-parent-s-guide-to-the-5-skeptics-who-want-to-shame-your-kids-for-being-christian" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-parent-s-guide-to-the-5-skeptics-who-want-to-shame-your-kids-for-being-christian" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-parent-s-guide-to-the-5-skeptics-who-want-to-shame-your-kids-for-being-christian" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Masterpiece Cakeshop Wins at the Supreme Court
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/04/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-at-the-supreme-court
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf">saying</a> that “the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’&nbsp;case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint”&nbsp;(see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/religious-liberty-case-not-about-refusing-serve-people-because-who-they-are#.WxWi2lOUvdc">here</a> and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/why-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case#.WxWy11OUvdc">here</a> for details on this case and links for more information). The Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally towards Phillips’s religious beliefs, expressing open hostility and failing to grant him the same freedom they granted in similar cases to other bakers who refused to promote messages they disagreed with.</p>

<p>As the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf">majority opinion’s syllabus</a> states, “[T]he law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,”&nbsp;but they found evidence to the contrary in this case:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case...</p>

<p>That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’&nbsp;case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’&nbsp;faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’&nbsp;case.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Court condemned the Commission’s insinuation that Phillips was insincerely using religion as a tool for discrimination and noted that the anti-discrimination law protects religion as well as sexual orientation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use”&nbsp;is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical - something insubstantial and even insincere...This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law - a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The success of those who would like to punish people like Jack Phillips depends on convincing people that <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue#.WxW5uFOUvdc">opposition to same-sex marriage</a> comes from a place of hatred and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/it-s-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women#.WxW6NlOUvdc">bigotry</a>, and the Court’s decision strongly opposes this idea, respecting Phillips’s view of marriage as a legitimate and sincerely-held religious belief. Further, the Court warned against the State selectively allowing or restricting people’s freedoms according to which views the State deems to be offensive:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Phillips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs. He argued that the Commission had treated the other bakers’&nbsp;conscience-based objections as legitimate, but treated his as illegitimate - thus sitting in judgment of his religious beliefs themselves. The Court of Appeals addressed the disparity only in passing and relegated its complete analysis of the issue to a footnote...In those cases, the court continued, there was no impermissible discrimination because “the Division found that the bakeries...refuse[d] the patron’s request...because of the offensive nature of the requested message.”</p>

<p>A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,”...it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive...The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’&nbsp;religious beliefs.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Justice Gorsuch added this in his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf">concurring opinion</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In this country, the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence”&nbsp;that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive...Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to serving as a refuge for religious freedom.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Today’s decision is focused on Phillips’s unique situation and doesn’t resolve the <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/why-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case#.WxWy11OUvdc">free-speech</a> question, but if it leads to the State treating both sides equally, I’ll take it. I hope it will at least result in a toning down of the rhetoric against those who sincerely believe in man-woman-only marriage, even if it’s only because they now have a pragmatic reason to do so.</p>
</div>

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


title: WWJD? Ask a Question
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/wwjd-ask-a-question
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The next time you’re discussing your Christian convictions, do what Jesus did: Ask a question. He did that a lot, in fact. He asked questions of both friend and foe. Why? Questions are powerful.</p>

<p>Missiologist Paul Weston counted the number of questions Jesus asked during evangelistic conversations in the Gospels. The total was 284. That’s a lot of questions for someone who has a lot of answers. He, after all, is the Creator of the universe and has insight into the most fundamental of all of life’s questions. Despite His potentially unlimited knowledge, He routinely asked questions—instead of merely making statements—to help others understand His message.</p>

<p>We, of course, know far less. We should take a cue from our Master. Use questions as a foundational means of communicating. It’s a powerful tool that’s easy to use. In fact, there are at least four benefits to asking questions.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Questions can be disarming and inoffensive.</strong> When you tell a person what you want them to think or believe, it’s common for them to get defensive. Their walls go up, and they become resistant to what you’re trying to say. It’s almost a reflexive reaction. Ask a question, though, and they become more open to engaging your idea. That’s because questions come across as disarming. They’re not aggressive if you ask them correctly. They can make people lower their defenses because you’re not coming across as dogmatic about your beliefs. It’s a mark of humility when you ask <em>them</em> for input through a question. Plus, it shows you value them as fellow image-bearers of God.</li>
	<li><strong>Questions can tell you what a person believes and why they believe it.</strong> This is the core of the <a href="/w/take-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-">Columbo tactic</a> you’ve probably heard us at Stand to Reason talk about. “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;and “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;are simple yet powerful questions that clarify a person’s position and their reasons for holding it. By better understanding their view, you will be far less likely to misrepresent it when and if you respond to them.</li>
	<li><strong>Questions can cause people to think about their view.</strong> When people are asked a question, it will often cause them to think about their answer and, in doing so, make them explain the rationale and details of their view. Many times, they will see a flaw or weakness in their view simply by being asked to defend it or express it out loud.</li>
	<li><strong>Questions can buy you valuable time.</strong> You might get nervous when you’re talking about your faith and convictions. When that happens, it’s easy to lose your train of thought or have a mental freeze. Now you’re stuck without knowing how to respond to a challenge or answer a question. When that happens, simply ask them a question that seeks to clarify their challenge. This will make <em>them</em> take a minute or two to answer your question. Guess what? You’ve just bought yourself some valuable time to think about what they’re saying and formulate a few thoughts for your response.</li>
</ol>

<p>As you can see, questions are powerful, but they require a key ingredient. No matter the question, you must be mindful of your tone. Every question should be asked with a kind, friendly, and inviting manner. Don’t come across like an FBI interrogator. The person you’re talking to is not your foe. You should think of yourself as sitting down with a friend or family member you love and embarking on an adventure to discover something previously unknown to you. That should be the attitude with which you approach the conversation.</p>

<p>Francis Schaeffer <a href="https://www.covenantseminary.edu/francis-schaeffer-the-man-and-his-message/">said</a> about the importance of questions, “If I have only an hour with someone, I will spend the first 55 minutes asking questions and finding out what is troubling their heart and mind, and then in the last 5 minutes I will share something of the truth.”</p>

<p>That’s amazing. A lot of us might think that if we allowed a Muslim acquaintance to take 55 minutes out of an hour to talk about <em>their</em> faith, <em>their</em> religious experience, and <em>their</em> opinion of Christians and we only shared something in the last five minutes, we would have squandered our opportunity. Or, if we allowed a friend who identified himself as gay to take 55 minutes to share about <em>his</em> life, <em>his</em> experience in a church, <em>his</em> fears, and <em>his</em> experience as a gay man, while we only took five minutes to share something of the truth, many of us might think we wasted our chance.</p>

<p>On the contrary, says Schaeffer. We should take that time to ask questions and find out what is going on inside their heart and soul. That way, when we do have our chance to say something, we will say exactly what that person needs to hear.</p>
</div>

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


title: An Example of Relativism?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/16/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-example-of-relativism-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s an interesting question I received from Jeremiah in Ohio:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My question is about relativism. I once heard an atheist say, “There is a type of truth that is relative. For example, my hair color is black and yours is brown. Therefore, that my hair is black is true for me but not true for you.”&nbsp;As a Christian new to apologetics, how do I respond to this? I already know that his statement is not a preference claim such as an ice cream flavor and also not moral claim. Please help me if you can.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The truth of a <em>subjective</em> claim (a claim of preference, such as, “Rocky Road is the most delicious ice cream”) is relative to the person - the subject - making the claim, so a preference claim can be “true for me but not for you.”&nbsp;But Jeremiah is right that the atheist’s example above is not a preference claim. The claim is an <em>objective</em> one. When the atheist says, “My hair is black,”&nbsp;the “my”&nbsp;is referring to himself; and the claim that <em>his</em> hair is black is either true or false for everyone. In other words, it’s true for him - let’s call him John - that John’s hair is black, and it’s true for everyone else that John’s hair is black.</p>

<p>Here’s where the confusion comes in: When you apply that same claim (“My hair is black”) to another person and say <em>that exact same claim</em> is now false (and therefore, an example of relativism), you are simply equivocating on the word “my.”&nbsp;By that, I mean you’re smuggling in two different definitions for the word “my”&nbsp;(i.e., you’re using it to mean both “John’s”&nbsp;and “Bill’s”). But changing the definition of that word changes the claim itself. It’s the fact that “my”&nbsp;is referring to <em>John’s</em> hair that makes the statement true, but if, now, you’re talking about <em>Bill’s</em> hair, you’re not applying <em>the exact same claim</em> to Bill; you’re simply making a different claim altogether!</p>

<p>When you clear up the equivocation by defining what is meant by “my,”&nbsp;this all becomes clear. Let’s replace “my”&nbsp;with what the word is actually referring to:</p>

<p>John’s hair is black, and Bill’s is brown.</p>

<p>“John’s hair is black”&nbsp;is true for John, and it’s true for Bill.</p>

<p>“Bill’s hair is black”&nbsp;is false for John, and it’s false for Bill.</p>

<p>“John’s hair is black”&nbsp;and “Bill’s hair is black”&nbsp;are two <em>different</em> objective claims. The atheist was obscuring the fact that these are two different claims by using the same word (“my”) to refer to <em>both</em> John and Bill, and you can see this clearly when you define the ambiguous term “my”&nbsp;in each instance. Defining it clears up the confusion.</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-example-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%2Fan-example-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%2Fan-example-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: Melinda Needs Our Help
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/17/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/melinda-needs-our-help
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We all know how badly Melinda Penner was <a href="/w/keep-praying-for-melinda">hurt in her accident</a> in December, and we know how much we miss her since she’s been gone. She really needs our help right now, though, and here’s how you can make a big difference in her life. Her family has opened a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/hope-for-melinda-the-enforcer">GoFundMe account</a>* for her that allows you to give directly to her to provide the financial help she desperately needs. Here’s what her GoFundMe page says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our dear family member and friend to so many, Melinda Penner - known affectionately by thousands as “The Enforcer”&nbsp;at Stand to Reason (the apologetics ministry she founded 25 years ago with dear friend Greg Koukl) - suffered a terrible accident on December 2. She fell from a ladder, hit the concrete pavement with the back of her head, and suffered a severe and traumatic brain injury (TBI) that left her unconscious for weeks. A portion of her skull was removed to save her life.</p>

<p>Melinda is in a medically stable situation now - though on a ventilator - but is largely immobile, completely incommunicado, and basically unresponsive at the moment. She needs financial help for physical therapy and to underwrite her costs at the subacute healthcare facility now providing the personal assistance needed for the long recovery period ahead of her. How much she is able to improve depends largely on the kind of rehabilitating treatment she is able to receive, medical help that her insurance, unfortunately, does not cover.</p>

<p>There is no way to know how much she will improve, but it’s unlikely she will progress without treatment that her present policies do not provide for. Your generous gifts will make it possible for Melinda to receive the loving, professional care she needs to give her the best chances for improvement. Her family and friends thank you for your prayers and support.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Melinda’s given so much to us these 25 years since she helped me found STR in 1993. Now it’s our turn to give back. Will you please be generous to Melinda today? You can also visit her <a href="https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/melindapenner/journal">CaringBridge page</a> for the most recent news about how she’s doing. Thank you so much.</p>

<p>*Please note that this GoFundMe page is not in conjunction with Stand to Reason, no monies go to Stand to Reason, and the gift is not tax deductible.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmelinda-needs-our-help" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmelinda-needs-our-help" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmelinda-needs-our-help" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 “Gospel for Believers” in 3 Quick Verses
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had a funny habit when I was a kid. As a youngster in the 50s riding in the back of our family station wagon, I’d watch the traffic ahead, being alert for a possible collision so I could knock out a quick prayer of contrition to save my soul in case I died in a car crash. Weird.</p>

<p>Why did I do such an odd thing? Because the religious tradition I was raised in (Roman Catholicism) offered me no confidence of my salvation. Thus my vigilant readiness to toss up a sincere apology before I met my end. In fact, even now it’s considered a bit cheeky to Catholics (and many Protestants) when someone seems certain of going to Heaven since it smacks of conceit.</p>

<p>There’s a reason for this. If salvation depends in part on my personal merit (which is precisely what I was taught), then assurance of Heaven must be <em>self</em>-assurance - spiritual arrogance - since I’d fancy myself good enough for God. You can see the point, of course, <em>if</em> salvation is based on merit - the only loophole being that quick prayer of genuine contrition fired off at the final moment of life.</p>

<p>The we-can’t-know view raises a question, though. If “gospel”&nbsp;means “good news,”&nbsp;what could possibly be good about uncertainty when one of the options is everlasting torment? Any news that doesn’t completely foreclose on the option of damnation could never really be called “good,”&nbsp;it seems to me. Hope without certitude is not good at all when the stakes are this high.</p>

<p>That’s why the news of God’s grace was so refreshing to me when I first heard it. Full and complete forgiveness was genuinely <em>good</em> news. No doubts. No lingering fears. No more furtive glances. Rather, confidence, assurance, and peace instead.</p>

<p>After I met Christ, these were sweet tidings that I wanted others to know, too, especially those in spiritual communities lacking the confidence that a proper understanding of the cross provides. How could I ground them in the same grace that saved me without making them defensive by a frontal attack on their denomination?</p>

<p>I found three verses that did the job, passages I could link together for anyone else who faced my boyhood fear. Let’s just call it “the Gospel for believers,”&nbsp;since so many who identify as Christians don’t understand the great news of unfailing grace.</p>

<p>When I talk to a Christian who lacks confidence - he <em>believes</em> in Jesus, but because he’s trusting in his own merit he does not <em>know</em> he’s saved - I ask if he’d like to see how, according to the Bible, he can <em>know</em> (not just hope) that his soul is secure. Then I grab a Bible and have him read my verses aloud, explaining each one before moving on to the next so he understands every step’s significance.</p>

<p>The first verse corrects the confusion about merit. It’s also the first one I learned as a new believer: “For by <em>grace</em> you have been saved <em>through faith</em>; and that <em>not</em> of yourselves, it is the gift of God; <em>not as a result of works</em>, so that no one may boast”&nbsp;(Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation is not ours to earn but God’s to give, received by simple trust (“faith”). Don’t move forward unless this foundation is in place. Add Romans 4:4-6 if necessary.</p>

<p>Next, I take him to John 1:12. “As many as <em>received</em> Him, to <em>them</em> He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who <em>believe in His name</em>.”&nbsp;Trusting Jesus - believing in Him - is <em>receiving</em> Him, making Jesus our own and making us members of God’s special family. Pretty straightforward, but again I wait to make sure he understands that step: Receiving Jesus - taking Him to ourselves by believing in His name - gives us Jesus <em>as our own</em>. That’s what John is saying.</p>

<p>The last passage is 1 John 5:11-13. It starts, “And the testimony is this, that God <em>has given</em> us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. <em>He who has the Son has the life</em>; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”&nbsp;I pause a moment to paraphrase. John says that for one group of people - those who have received Christ and thus “have the Son”&nbsp;- the gift of eternal life (which lasts forever) has <em>already</em> been given.</p>

<p>Then I finish the section with John’s crystal-clear affirmation of the confidence Christians can have in Christ: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, <em>so that you may know</em> that you have eternal life.”&nbsp;According to John, anyone can know <em>now</em> - currently, presently, at this moment - that they possess eternal life. If you have Jesus, you have life. Eternal, forever, and for sure.</p>

<p>Go back over the sequence with them if necessary. Salvation is a gift of God - not a reward we win or a payment we merit - based on simple trust. When we believe in Christ, we receive Him into our hearts. When we receive Him, we have Him, and if we have the Son, we <em>know</em> we have eternal life.</p>

<p>There it is, the “Gospel for believers”&nbsp;- three simple passages providing clear, straightforward, reliable confidence in Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Need an Advance Directive
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-need-an-advance-directive
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As most of you know, our beloved Melinda “The Enforcer”&nbsp;Penner suffered a <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/keep-praying-melinda#.Wxq1m1OUvdd">traumatic brain injury</a> six months ago. Kathryn Butler opens with Melinda’s story in an article for the Gospel Coalition explaining “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/believers-consider-advance-directives/">Why Believers Should Consider Advance Directives</a>.”&nbsp;She describes the need this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Advance care planning”&nbsp;is the process of documenting our wishes for medical care in the event we can no longer communicate. Documents include health-care proxy forms to designate surrogate decision-makers, and physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST) or living wills, to outline our treatment preferences. The goal is to ensure care consistent with our values in the event that life-threatening illness incapacitates us, and it equips our loved ones to act on our behalf.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Butler’s arguments are indeed worth considering. Life can change in an instant, and you never know when you might need your own advance directive. Here are the questions she recommends you think through and document <em>before</em> anything happens:</p>

<blockquote>
<h2>1. What are my goals for the end of life?</h2>

<p>This question pertains to how you wish to spend your final days. What matters to you as your life ends? Who matters? What places and people are most precious to you?</p>

<h2>2. How can I continue to serve God at the end of life?</h2>

<p>Think back to moments in your life when you reveled in the joy of the Lord. Consider the times you have praised him, thanked him, or endeavored to serve him. What did you require in those moments?</p>

<h2>3. How much suffering is too much?</h2>

<p>As you envision periods of pain and dependence, what would constitute undue suffering? What would so burden you as to strip away your ability to serve God with joy? What would be intolerable?</p>

<h2>4. What trials are you willing to endure to achieve your goals at the end of life?</h2>

<p>What are you comfortable sacrificing, and what would be unacceptable? As an example, if you aim to spend your final days at home with family, would you be willing to have a ventilator at home to enable this? Would you endure medical treatments that impair consciousness to extend life, or is it important to be in command of your mental faculties, even if declining treatment quickens the end?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the rest of the <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/believers-consider-advance-directives/">article</a>, Butler reminds us of truths about the gospel, about love, and about suffering that ought to guide these decisions, saying, “As Penner beautifully illustrates for us, in end-of-life care the best answers are those that point toward God’s grace manifest in Christ (<a href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%203.16">John 3:16</a>).”</p>

<p>(If you’d like to keep up with future updates about Melinda, see her <a href="https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/melindapenner/journal">Caring Bridge page</a>, and if you’re able to help her family pay for much-needed support services and therapies, they’ve set up a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/hope-for-melinda-the-enforcer">GoFundMe</a> for her. Please note that Melinda’s GoFundMe is unaffiliated with Stand to Reason - no money goes through us - and your gifts are not tax deductible.)</p>
</div>

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


title: Ireland’s Vote to Make Abortion Legal Doesn’t Make Abortion Moral
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/06/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/ireland-s-vote-to-make-abortion-legal-doesn-t-make-abortion-moral
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was sad to hear that Ireland voted on May 25 to repeal their constitution’s Eighth Amendment and, consequently, legalize abortion during the first trimester. I confess I had almost forgotten that Ireland even had a provision that gave equal value to the life of both the mother and her unborn child. The amendment that was passed back in 1983 reads:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s amazing to me that such an amendment was there because it’s a stark contrast to the liberal abortion provisions here in the United States. Ironically, although the amendment to protect unborn children <em>passed</em> in 1983 by 67% voting “yes”&nbsp;and 33% voting “no,”&nbsp;it was <em>repealed</em> last week by a similar 68% voting “yes”&nbsp;and 32% voting “no.”</p>

<p>There’s one thing we can be sure of, though: Making abortion legal will not make abortion moral. What’s right and wrong is not determined by a vote, and what’s legal is not necessarily what’s moral. The only thing we learned from Ireland’s vote on May 25 was that the majority of Ireland’s people voted to make abortion legal. But it is grotesque and immoral to kill innocent human beings in the womb today, and it always will be.</p>
</div>

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


title: When You Face Opposition
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/15/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-you-face-opposition
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At this year’s <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Conference</a> in Dallas, I was asked by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1/videos/">28:19</a> (Reasons to Believe’s show, named after the Great Commission passage, Matthew 28:19) about how we should think about and persevere through the opposition we’ll inevitably face. Enjoy!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="LWfatGnbRIc" 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/LWfatGnbRIc?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%2Fwhen-you-face-opposition" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-you-face-opposition" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-you-face-opposition" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Glimpse of the Field on Our 25th Birthday
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/30/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-glimpse-of-the-field-on-our-25th-birthday
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This month, Stand to Reason celebrates a quarter century of equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character. Here are three things that stand out for us at this juncture that we think you - as a thoughtful Christian - should be aware of:</p>

<p>1) <strong>The culture has gotten more outrageous than we ever thought possible.</strong> Count on Stand to Reason to continue providing you with the content and the tactics to engage your community thoughtfully and graciously on every challenge it makes to your values, convictions, and beliefs.</p>

<p>2) <strong>Attacks on the authority of the Bible have moved from the culture into the church</strong>. Currently, some of the biggest resistance to the Bible is not coming from skeptics, but from those calling themselves Christians. Whatever the attacks - and wherever they come from - STR will always defend God’s Word.</p>

<p>3) <strong>Despite claims to the contrary, young people really do want to think carefully about God and follow Him faithfully.</strong> We hear their questions, we see their excitement, and we witness their worship at every <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK conference</a> - now a multi-city, national strategy drawing thousands of young people, and their leaders and parents, from all over the country every year. We are aggressively passing the baton to the next generation.</p>

<p>This is a small glimpse of the field on our 25th birthday, but there is so much more. We know we have our work cut out for us, and we also know there’s great reason to hope as we continue to serve <em>this</em> generation while we also help <em>the next</em> generation rise up for Christ.</p>

<p><em>Thank you</em> for being part of our STR community as we work to provide <em>confidence</em> for every Christian, <em>clear thinking</em> for every challenge, and <em>courage and grace</em> for every encounter.</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-glimpse-of-the-field-on-our-25th-birthday" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-glimpse-of-the-field-on-our-25th-birthday" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-glimpse-of-the-field-on-our-25th-birthday" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Jesus on the Problem of Evil
topic: Theology
author: Aaron Brake
date: 05/31/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-on-the-problem-of-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Luke 13:1-5, we have Jesus’&nbsp;clearest teaching on the problem of evil:<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not only is this Jesus’&nbsp;clearest teaching on the problem of evil, but we also see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower in Siloam, which killed eighteen.</p>

<p>How did Jesus answer the problem of evil presented to Him? His answer is short and to the point: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent, you’ll die too.</p>

<p>D.A. Carson in his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Long-Lord-Reflections-Suffering/dp/0801031257/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1527629758&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=how+long+o+lord&amp;dpID=51Sgf7%2BKSdL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">How Long, O Lord?</a></em> provides several important insights into this passage. It would behoove us as Christians to reflect deeply on these points.</p>

<p>First, Jesus takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Second, because death is what we <em>all</em> deserve, it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Third, wars and natural disasters are always calls to repentance, and the fact that we question God’s goodness in times of calamity is a reflection of our own depravity and rebellion:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.</p>

<p>It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power - even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In his class on <em>Why God Allows Evil</em>, Dr. Clay Jones entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p><em>Questioner</em>: Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed, Jesus. What have you got to say?</p>

<p><em>Jesus</em>: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent, you’ll die too. Next?</p>

<p><em>Questioner</em>: Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here, Jesus! What have you got to say?</p>

<p><em>Jesus</em>: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent, you’ll die too. Next?</p>

<p><em>Questioner</em>: No, Jesus, don’t you get it?! Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil...</p>

<p><em>Jesus</em>: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent, you’ll die too. Next?</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;answer to the problem of evil is that all fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are worthy of death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved, and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.</p>

<h2>What implications does this have for Christian apologetics? At least three:</h2>

<p>First, it means that Christian apologists need to take the consequences of sin and the reality of human depravity seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder, then, we are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to <em>good</em> people?”&nbsp;A completely biblical, though partial, rejoinder is this: No one is good but God alone! Bad things don’t happen to good people because no one is good.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Jesus raised no qualms about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that the wages of sin is death. Christian apologists should do likewise.</p>

<p>Second, when addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists need to present a theodicy that <em>minimally</em> includes the biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. Why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin clearly before us. J.I. Packer <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801071054/sr=8-1/qid=1527629189/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&amp;me=&amp;qid=1527629189&amp;sr=8-1">stated</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The subject of sin is vital knowledge...If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy (justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good”&nbsp;and God is unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist must show these assumptions to be false and, in their place, put forth a theodicy (justification of God) that includes evidencing the depths of human depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil that He does. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin as well as the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Third, the present moral and natural evils we see are appropriate segues into our need to practice and preach repentance in light of the final eschatological judgment. Those who experience such evils are not any more deserving. Rather, these disasters serve as warnings to <em>all of us</em> that <em>final</em> disaster awaits everyone who remains hardhearted and unrepentant. Clay Jones <a href="http://www.clayjones.net/2011/11/disaster-is-always-a-call-to-repentance/">concludes</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So when disaster strikes, let us not wring our hands over the mysterious ways of God but encourage everyone to reflect on their sinful and doomed state in hopes that some will escape the Final Disaster that awaits the ultimately unrepentant.</p>
</blockquote>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for most of the material and insight presented here as well as for pointing me to the following passage by D.A. Carson. See Jones’s book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-God-Allow-Evil/dp/0736970444/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1527627195&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=clay+jones">Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions</a>,</em> for an excellent treatment of the Problem of Evil.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">This is a loose reconstruction, with some additions of my own.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Again, this is a partial rejoinder. I am not implying this is the only thing that can be said, especially to those in the midst of dealing emotionally with the POE. Paul also said that God “comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 1:4-5).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">For more on these first two points, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones’s “<a href="http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf">We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer</a>.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Did Jesus Demand We Kill His Enemies?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/22/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-jesus-demand-we-kill-his-enemies-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the gospel of Luke, Jesus says, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me.”&nbsp;Whoa, that doesn’t sound like the meek and mild-mannered Jesus we know. Did He wake up on the wrong side of the bed? What’s going on?</p>

<p>When I teach on “Never Read a Bible Verse,”&nbsp;I often cite this passage because it’s a great example of how someone who reads (or hears) only a single Bible verse out of context can easily mistake its meaning.</p>

<p>This verse, though, is not a command of Christ. When you read it in context, you quickly realize that Jesus is telling a parable (a fictitious story) about a king whose subjects hate him. It’s the king in the story, not Jesus, who issues the order to kill his enemies.</p>

<p>Though this resolves the contextual concern, it raises another question: Who is the king in the parable supposed to represent? Jesus’&nbsp;story is found in Luke 19:11-27. It’s the “Parable of the Minas.”&nbsp;In it, a nobleman travels to a distant country to be appointed king. Before he leaves, he gives ten of his servants minas (a mina is about a month’s wages) to invest until he returns. Many of his subjects hate him, though, and don’t want him to rule over them. So, they send a delegation to protest his appointment. Despite their protest, he still becomes king and returns. He calls his servants to account for their investments and also dispenses some rewards and punishments. Finally, he issues the command to kill those who protested his appointment.</p>

<p>The concern is that Jesus seems to be identifying Himself as the nobleman (or the king) in the story. Does that mean He was ordering His followers to round up those who refused to be under His rule and have them executed? No, for at least two reasons.</p>

<p><strong>First, Jesus is telling a parable to His listeners.</strong> This is something He often did to communicate an idea or illustrate a point. One of the interpretive guidelines for this genre of literature is to remember that not every element of a parable is intended to have real-world carryover. Rather, we’re supposed to figure out the purpose of the story. The listener (or reader in our case) is supposed to ask, what’s the point of the parable? What’s the take-home message Jesus wants us to understand?</p>

<p>In the case of this parable, there are two reasons Jesus told it. Luke tells us the first reason in verse 11. Jesus “went on to tell them a parable, <em>because He was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once”</em>&nbsp;(emphasis mine). Jesus’&nbsp;followers expected His kingdom to begin immediately, and He sought to correct them. A second point Jesus makes is to stress the importance of being a good steward with what God has given us until He returns. He illustrates this point with the minas.</p>

<p><strong>Second, Jesus includes the king’s execution order in the parable because it was a reference to a historical event.</strong> After King Herod died, his son Archelaus went to Rome to claim kingship over Judea. The Jews sent an envoy to petition against his appointment because they opposed his rule. Archelaus was crowned king, however, returned, and then issued the command to kill those who were against him.</p>

<p>Jesus references this historical event in His parable. Although that’s unusual, Jesus is <em>not</em> commanding His followers to round up His enemies and kill them. Rather, He is referencing a recent event His listeners were aware of - Archelaus’&nbsp;return and his order to execute his enemies.</p>

<p>Remember, with parables you want to ask, <em>What’s the point?</em> In this case, Jesus is telling His followers that He will go away and eventually return. When He does, He <em>will</em> exact judgment on His enemies (Rev. 19:11-16). His judgment, however, will be just and He will carry it out Himself.</p>

<p>Jesus, then, <em>does</em> identify Himself as the nobleman in the story. Although He’s not ordering us to round up and kill His enemies, there’s still a sober take-home message. While Jesus is away, we’re responsible for investing our resources for His kingdom. When He returns, He will hold us accountable for what we did with what we were given and judge those who did not trust Him as their King.</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-demand-we-kill-his-enemies-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-demand-we-kill-his-enemies-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-demand-we-kill-his-enemies-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Magical Birth Canal
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/12/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-magical-birth-canal
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If pro-lifers are going to convince the culture that abortion is wrong, we are going to have to find creative ways to communicate our arguments. And that’s exactly what <a href="https://www.choice42.com/">Choice42</a> has done with their <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgwsT295G8">latest video</a> (see below).</p>

<p>Pro-life proponents are convinced that every human being - regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, economic status, or age - is <em>intrinsically</em> valuable. Human beings aren’t valuable because of what they can do or some capacity they possess. They are valuable because of what they are. Furthermore, every member of the human community has fundamental human rights that should be protected. This includes the most basic human right of all: <em>the right to life</em>.</p>

<p>Abortion advocates, on the other hand, <em>do not</em> believe that human beings are all valuable. In fact, they claim that some members of the human community have <em>no</em> value and, therefore, <em>no</em> rights. Human value is only obtained <em>after</em> you meet some arbitrary criteria.</p>

<p>So, abortion advocates divide human beings into two groups: valuable humans and non-valuable humans. Valuable humans have rights. Non-valuable humans have no rights <em>and can be killed with impunity.</em></p>

<p>We must ask the question, what makes some humans valuable and some not valuable? What’s the difference that would allow you to kill the latter but not the former?</p>

<p>Well, abortion advocates point to four arbitrary qualities to exclude some humans from having value: <em>size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.</em> You can remember all four attributes with the acronym SLED.</p>

<h2>Your Location Doesn’t Determine Your Worth</h2>

<p>Many abortion advocates assert that a human isn’t valuable until he or she leaves the womb. But how does a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of a being from <em>non-valuable</em> human to <em>valuable</em> human person?</p>

<p>The simple answer is, <em>it doesn’t.</em></p>

<p>Human beings don’t lose or gain value by changing their location. For example, you didn’t lose value when you rolled over in bed last night. The 33 Chilean miners didn’t lose value when they were trapped 2,300 feet underground in 2010. Neil Armstrong didn’t lose value when he stepped on the moon. Environment doesn’t determine value.</p>

<p>Apologist Greg Koukl illustrates this point beautifully by sharing a story of a little girl named Rachel who was born premature at five months. When she was born, she weighed less than two pounds. She could rest in the palm of her daddy’s hand. Doctors worked heroically to save her life.</p>

<p>Now if a doctor came into the hospital room where little Rachel slept in her mother’s arms and killed her, we would consider him barbaric and a murderer. However, unborn little girls and boys at the same age are being killed by doctors through abortion procedures simply <em>because they are in a different location.</em></p>

<p>There is no good reason to think that traveling eight inches through the birth canal <em>magically</em> transforms a non-valuable human - with no rights - into a valuable human - with rights.</p>

<p>Watch as Choice42 demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the abortion-choice position:</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="CNgwsT295G8" 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/CNgwsT295G8?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-magical-birth-canal" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-magical-birth-canal" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-magical-birth-canal" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Obi-Wan Kenobi: Great Jedi Master, Terrible Philosopher
topic: Philosophy
author: J.T. Wynn
date: 05/25/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/obi-wan-kenobi-great-jedi-master-terrible-philosopher
content:
            <div> 
		<p>So now it’s finally upon us: <em>Solo: A Star Wars Story</em>! This stand-alone installment in the Star&nbsp;Wars franchise features the adventures of a young Han Solo before he met Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi at the Mos Eisley Cantina in <em>Stars Wars: A New Hope.</em></p>

<p>It will be interesting to see what veteran screenwriter of <em>The Empire Strikes Back</em>, Lawrence Kasdan, has imagined as Han’s backstory. Was Han always a charming, roguish smuggler, or was he once an idealistic recruit of the Empire who became disillusioned and turned into the Han Solo we’ve all come to know?</p>

<p>The exploration of the path from idealism to disillusionment is not new to the Star Wars universe, of course. The events immediately preceding <em>Solo: A Star Wars Story</em> centered on such a transformation in the form of Anakin Skywalker in <em>Revenge of the Sith</em>.</p>

<p>(Here’s where I usually issue a spoiler alert, but if you don’t already know by now that Anakin Skywalker eventually turns to the...left and walks up to the Mustafar Landing Platform to get away from the heat of the surrounding lava flow, then you’ll probably never watch <em>Revenge of the Sith</em> anyway.)</p>

<p>Anakin stands on the landing platform as Obi-Wan emerges from the Naboo cruiser to confront him. This is what it’s all been about. It’s the final fight. We know they won’t face each other again until master and student reunite on the Death Star decades in the future. They circle one another on the platform and argue, each expressing his worldview and trying to convince the other:</p>

<p>OBI-WAN</p>

<p>You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist</p>

<p>your mind until now...until now you</p>

<p>have become the very thing you swore to</p>

<p>destroy.</p>

<p>They circle each other until OBI-WAN is near PADME. He places his hand on her.</p>

<p>ANAKIN</p>

<p>Don’t lecture me, Obi-Wan. I see through</p>

<p>the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the</p>

<p>dark side as you do. I have brought peace,</p>

<p>freedom, justice, and security to my new</p>

<p>empire.</p>

<p>OBI-WAN</p>

<p>Your new empire?</p>

<p>ANAKIN</p>

<p>Don’t make me kill you.</p>

<p>OBI-WAN</p>

<p>Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic...</p>

<p>to democracy.</p>

<p>ANAKIN</p>

<p>If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.</p>

<p>OBI-WAN</p>

<p>Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do</p>

<p>what I must. (ignites his lightsaber)</p>

<p>ANAKIN</p>

<p>You will try...(ignites his lightsaber)</p>

<p>Only a Sith deals in absolutes? Are you <em>absolutely</em> sure about that Obi-Wan? Master Kenobi seems pretty certain about his own statement, especially since he’s willing to ignite his lightsaber over it. If only a Sith deals in absolutes, then Jedi Master Kenobi <em>cannot</em> be absolute about his own statement, right? But if he’s not absolute about his own statement, then that means that the Sith are <em>not the only</em> ones who deal in absolutes! Obi-Wan actually refutes himself in the very act of expressing himself.</p>

<p>These kinds of statements are usually expressed popularly as: “There are no absolute truths.”&nbsp;It’s meant to sound profound, tolerant, and open-minded. But an astute observer will see that it is a self-refuting statement. A self-refuting statement is one that refutes itself in the very acting of expressing itself. Some examples include:</p>

<ul>
	<li>This page intentionally left blank.</li>
	<li>“This song is just six words long.”&nbsp;- “Weird Al”&nbsp;Yankovic</li>
	<li>My brother is an only child.</li>
</ul>

<p>and of course,</p>

<ul>
	<li>There are no absolute truths.</li>
</ul>

<p>If it’s true that there are no absolute truths, then the above statement is false since there is at least <em>one</em> absolute truth, namely, that “there are no absolute truths.”&nbsp;So you see the inherent contradictions in these self-refuting statements? If they’re true, then they’re false. But if they’re false, then they’re <em>still</em> false. Either way, they’re false. Therefore, they’re necessarily false no matter which way you turn. Did Jedi training include Intro to Logic 101?</p>

<p>Screenwriters insert these sentiments, as dialogue, into the mouths of characters all the time. More importantly, they’re not just placed in the mouths of any character, but they’re placed in the mouths of the <em>protagonist</em>. And since filmmakers want us to identify with the protagonist, this tells us the filmmakers want us to adopt the view of the protagonist. It’s a technique to make you accept the filmmakers’&nbsp;views by using your <em>empathy</em> instead of your rationality.</p>

<p>The corollary is also true: Filmmakers will put views that they find distasteful into the mouths of the <em>antagonist</em>. And again, this makes us reject the view without thinking it through. It’s a technique to make us reject a view by using our <em>antipathy</em> instead of our rationality. “Well, if the guy that just force-choked his own wife, Padme, believes XYZ, then I don’t want to believe XYZ!”&nbsp;And in this instance, XYZ is the belief that “if you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.”</p>

<p>But what if you heard a similar view coming out of another mouth:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“He who is not with Me is against Me”&nbsp;(Matt 12:30a NASB).</li>
	<li>“He who is not with Me is against Me”&nbsp;(Luke 11:23a NASB).</li>
</ul>

<p>These words come not from a Sith Lord but from the Truth Lord, Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>It’s important that as active viewers of films, we be aware of these storytelling techniques. It’s not a far cry from saying, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes,”&nbsp;to saying, “And that’s because there are no absolute truths.”&nbsp;Don’t be fooled by this seemingly “open-minded”&nbsp;and “tolerant”&nbsp;denial of the existence of absolute truth. It’s neither open-minded (since they’re not open to the possibility of there actually being absolute truth), nor is it “tolerant”&nbsp;(notice Obi-Wan didn’t tolerate the dark side).</p>

<p>One of the motivations behind denying the existence of absolute truth is the desire to deny the existence of objective moral truths. If there are no objective moral truths, then morality is relative. But if morality is relative, then can there really be such a thing as objective sin? And if no sin, then why need a savior from said sin? And if no savior, then where does that leave a Christianity that teaches the absolute truth that an objectively morally perfect Savior saves humans from objective moral sins? I hope you see that denying absolute truth is one of the first steps in absolutely(!) falsifying Christianity.</p>

<p>Don’t be seduced by its pretensions to open-mindedness. Remember that the purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth - that is, to eventually close upon something solid, substantive, and nourishing; in the former, nourishing to the soul, and in the latter, nourishing to the body.</p>

<p>So be careful, my Padawan learners. Spend less time making rocks float and <em>more</em> time learning how to spot self-refuting statements. May the Truth be with 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%2Fobi-wan-kenobi-great-jedi-master-terrible-philosopher" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fobi-wan-kenobi-great-jedi-master-terrible-philosopher" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fobi-wan-kenobi-great-jedi-master-terrible-philosopher" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Courts Can’t Rule on the Legitimacy of Religious Beliefs
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/14/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/courts-can-t-rule-on-the-legitimacy-of-religious-beliefs
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Howard Slugh of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty has an <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeship-decision-protects-jewish-religious-freedom/?utm_source=Sailthru&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-06-12&amp;utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives">article</a> about the significance of this statement from the Masterpiece Cakeshop <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf">Supreme Court decision</a>: “It hardly requires restating that government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’&nbsp;conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate”&nbsp;(see my summary of the decision <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court#.WyGwBFOUvdc">here</a>, especially the similar comment from Justice Gorsuch).</p>

<p>Slugh explains that it <em>did</em> require restating because, he says, “Governmental entities have a nasty habit of refusing to protect religious practices that are, in their view, religiously mistaken or illegitimate.”</p>

<p>As an example, Slugh tells of a recent case where a prison was denying a Jewish prisoner the kosher food he required because, they argued, the prisoner was mistaken about what qualified as kosher. In this case, thankfully, the court rejected the prison’s argument:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The prison argued that Estes could not claim it had deprived him of religious liberty because the prison food was kosher enough to meet his religious needs. The prison rejected Estes’s claim that that the food was not kosher. It responded that, based on its understanding of Judaism, the food was kosher. The prison even hired a rabbi to testify that Estes misunderstood his faith. Estes hired his own rabbi to testify that the prison was not, in fact, properly preparing kosher food.</p>

<p>It should be immediately obvious that this sort of religious debate has no place in an American court. Judges are not qualified to determine which rabbi speaks for the only “True Judaism,”&nbsp;if such a thing even exists. And, even more important, the law would protect Estes’s right to religious liberty even if his personal faith differed from normative Judaism. Every American has a right to live in accordance with his conscience, regardless of whether he follows an orthodox faith.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the court saw through the prison’s nonsense. It decided that, for the purposes of Estes’s religious-liberty claim, the relevant question was whether eating the prison food would violate his own sincere religious beliefs. The court recognized that it had no business attempting to discover and apply the “true”&nbsp;Jewish law.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a step forward. Slugh cites past instances where courts denied religious liberty claims on the grounds that they thought the person’s beliefs were incorrect: “Since the court decided that the owner’s complicity would not be sinful, it saw no need to even consider granting a religious exemption.”</p>

<p>I <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/expect-to-see-this-argument-against-religious-freedom#.WyGvwVOUvdc">wrote</a> a few years ago that I expected to see just this kind of argument used against Christians in the future - i.e., something like this: Christianity can, and is currently, being interpreted by some to be affirming of same-sex marriage, therefore same-sex marriage is compatible with Christianity, and it’s not restricting a person’s Christian practice to require him or her to participate in affirming same-sex marriage. But of course, what “some Christians”&nbsp;believe is irrelevant. Conscience-based objections depend entirely on the conscience of the person objecting! That’s not something someone else can judge. The reasoning we find in the Masterpiece decision could bring this kind of argument against religious liberty to a halt, and that is very good news.</p>

<p>Slugh concludes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court’s opinion in <em>Masterpiece Cakeshop</em> did not resolve the tension between the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. That is disappointing. However, it still may have done adherents of minority faiths a great service in reminding governmental entities that they have “no role”&nbsp;in determining the validity of their sincere beliefs.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If the First Amendment doesn’t protect views that others find distasteful and false, then what on earth is it for? That’s its whole reason for existing! The fact that any court disagrees with a religious belief is irrelevant and should not enter into its decision to protect a person’s right to believe and practice it.</p>
</div>

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


title: Perception Is Truth?
topic: Philosophy
author: J.T. Wynn
date: 05/03/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/perception-is-truth-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In high school, I had an excellent history teacher who loved teaching American history. He is, to this day, one of the best teachers I’ve ever had, in history class or any other class, for that matter. He even came to class dressed up as Thomas Jefferson while lecturing on the Declaration of Independence. That’s how dedicated he was to using visuals to really cement the material in our heads. And that’s why, to this day, I’ll never forget Jefferson’s famous quote on “life, liberty, and something or other.”</p>

<p>Despite this, he subscribed to a faulty epistemological theory of truth. One of his favorite sayings was, “Truth is not truth, perception is truth.”&nbsp;And this was said in the context of a history class, no less! You STR fans immediately recognize the “Suicide Tactic”&nbsp;from Greg Koukl’s book <em><a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316">Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</a></em>. And yes, my teacher’s statement commits suicide, in that it is self-refuting. However, I’d like to focus on a different aspect of this popular ���perception is truth”&nbsp;theme.</p>

<p>Years later in college, I was required to take a class that satisfied the university’s diversity requirements, something that, as an Asian immigrant, and in my cultural context, I naively thought would mean I’d get to learn more about Western Civilization.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the only good things I can say about this class are 1) the professor and TAs were nice, and 2) it would provide me with much blog post material for years to come. Though this was a time before “microaggression”&nbsp;was popular, sadly it was a time when “micropassivity”&nbsp;was much in practice. They presented their ideas with confidence but shied away from responding to any of my rebuttals.</p>

<p>To be fair, and in their defense, I was the student the TAs greeted by ducking into the bathroom right before I approached them. I hadn’t yet fully absorbed STR’s teachings on KWC: An apologist ambassador embodies knowledge, WISDOM, and CHARACTER. I get that I came on strong in class, maybe too strong. But still, what they said was false, and it bothered me.</p>

<p>The one time my TA came close to a response was her comment on one of my papers, “You seem to want everything to make logical sense.”&nbsp;And this brings us back to perception and truth.</p>

<p>During one class, the professor showed us these two pictures:</p>

<p><img class="img-fluid" src="/documents/20123/0/perception-truth.jpg/871fa427-015f-fa47-a990-33ff4b4d10da?t=1564427655596"></p>

<p>“Do you see a vase, or do you see two faces?”&nbsp;my professor asked.</p>

<p>Again, she asked us, “Do you see an old woman looking down towards the left, or do you see a young woman looking away?”</p>

<p>I suppressed the urge to reply that I saw a young me wasting $2,000 of my tuition money.</p>

<p>Then the professor made the same claim I heard years earlier in high school, that we shouldn’t claim to know the Truth because truth is perspectival. She made her point by telling us of an anthropologist who studied an indigenous tribe in the dense rainforests of South America. Because the tribespeople had lived in such dense vegetation all their lives, they lacked extensive experience with depth perception.</p>

<p>One day, the anthropologist took a member of the tribe to the top of a hill, and they saw an animal coming towards them in the distance. The anthropologist noticed that as the animal came closer, the tribesman became increasingly agitated. The closer the animal came, the more agitated the tribesman grew, until finally, the anthropologist intervened. “What is bothering you so much?”&nbsp;To his surprise, the tribesman explained that he’d never seen an animal grow so large soooo quickly!</p>

<p>Aha! The anthropologist understood now: Since the tribesman was surrounded by densely populated rainforest vegetation all his life, he was not used to seeing vast stretches of empty distance, and from his perspective, the animal grew larger as it came closer and occupied more of his visual space. His perceptions determined what was true for him just as our perceptions determine what is true for us.</p>

<p>“Since we all have differing perspectives,”&nbsp;my professor reminded us students, “there are no True perspectives, and hence we shouldn’t force our own perspectives on others but should be tolerant and listen to everyone else’s perspectives.”&nbsp;The class nodded in agreement; my gut knotted in concern - and it wasn’t because I skipped lunch.</p>

<p>Though <s>decades</s> years have passed since college (not that many!), my professor’s story has stuck with me. Unfortunately, not for the reason she hoped. My concern in class that day is the same concern I have today.</p>

<p>Let’s assume this anecdote actually happened (which I do find hard to believe since the tribespeople’s survival and dependence on hunting wild game for their next meal would heighten their appreciation for depth perception, not diminish it). I think you can see what’s wrong with this illustration that purports to be an argument. Actually, I think it proves the opposite of what it intends.</p>

<p>Did the animal actually physically grow larger in that short amount of time as the tribesman believed? Or did it physically stay the same size but move closer, taking up more space in his visual field, as the anthropologist believed? Did the tribesman’s perspective turn out to correspond to reality or did the anthropologist’s perspective? It’s the latter. Thus, it seems that, at the very least, some perceptions <em>are</em> false, and at best, some perceptions may even be true.</p>

<p>If you disagree with me, well...then...my professor is right...and just remember that it’s my perspective, so it must be true.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fperception-is-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%2Fperception-is-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%2Fperception-is-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: How Should We Interact with the Uncivil?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-should-we-interact-with-the-uncivil-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Recently, I had a back-and-forth email exchange with an atheist where my extremely modest goal was merely to get past the barrier of his taunts and connect with him as a human being. I failed.</p>

<p>Today, I came across an <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/voice/new-atheism-may-be-finished-but-its-sad-legacy-lives-on.html">article</a> by Randal Rauser that expresses what I’ve been seeing over the last few years:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Incivility was always a New Atheist hallmark. New Atheists assumed that religion is irrational and dangerous. And when something is irrational and dangerous, you aren’t polite or respectful. Instead, you seek to discredit the danger in any way possible. If religion is the problem then you mock their religious leaders, lampoon their religious institutions, and berate their holy texts....</p>

<p>While many atheists no longer identify with the New Atheism, this disparaging attitude is still widespread. As a result, serious conversations with skeptics are often next-to-impossible because the atheist assumes the Christian is irrational, intellectually arrested, and perhaps morally suspect....</p>

<p>The basic problem is that when atheists begin with the assumption that Christians and other religious people are all irrational, delusional, and intellectually arrested, they lose any interest in understanding Christian beliefs with charity or nuance....</p>

<p>Today I regularly meet atheists and other skeptics who have no background in the formal study of theology, church history, or the Bible, and yet they believe themselves adequately informed to opine on each of these topics. And why not if theology is just “fairyology”?!...</p>

<p>There are many atheists who are thoughtful, charitable, and respectful of religion and Christianity.</p>

<p>But what about those atheists who exhibit the characteristic New Atheist hallmarks of incivility and anti-intellectualism? How should we interact with them?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ah, yes. That is the question. In fact, it’s the question I’ve been pondering all morning. The internet is a different world from what it was when I started blogging over a decade ago, and we need to start thinking about how to develop new skills. I don’t mean skills to help us make better arguments; I mean skills to help us interact with people who <em>aren’t</em> making arguments, skills to help us deal with the uncivil without dishonoring and misrepresenting Christ with our response.</p>

<p>Here are my initial thoughts on some things we need to intentionally develop:</p>

<p><strong><em>Confidence</em>.</strong> The more convinced you are of the truth of Christianity, the less riled up you’ll get when someone challenges you with insults. The less riled up you are, the more logical and gracious you’ll be. Building up confidence requires intellectual honesty (to admit where your knowledge is lacking) and study.</p>

<p><strong><em>A commitment to dignity</em>.</strong> Refuse to treat anyone with anything less than human dignity. I don’t just mean don’t mock him to his face; I mean don’t mock him in front of your friends. Don’t mock him, period. Weep for him. Pray for him. But do not mock.</p>

<p><strong><em>Trust in God’s sovereignty</em>.</strong> When you can’t get an atheist to move beyond his taunts into a substantive conversation—i.e., when the option to be rational is removed from you—you will be tempted to respond in kind out of desperation. But I promise you, just as the atheist’s insults are not remotely convincing to you, yours won’t be convincing to him. And worse, you’ll be misrepresenting Christ, making Him look ugly. So how can you avoid that desperation? Remember that <a href="/w/god-s-work-in-our-friends-salvation-frees-us-from-fear-and-gives-us-hope">God is in charge</a> of salvation. It’s right that you should care to the point of distress about the atheist seeing the truth and coming to know Jesus, but remember that it’s up to God whether or not a person’s eyes are opened, not you. Represent Christ as <a href="/w/strive-for-clarity">accurately</a> and <a href="/w/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace">graciously</a> as you can, for as long as the opportunity is open to you, and then leave the burden of that person’s salvation with God. Trust Him.</p>

<p><strong><em>Prayer</em>.</strong> This follows directly from the previous point. If salvation depends on God’s work, then prayer should be our first response. Develop a habit of praying for the uncivil people you encounter.</p>

<p><strong><em>Lack of pride</em>.</strong> You can’t care about what others think of you. Hurt pride will cause you to lash out at others when they insult you. To avoid this, you have to let go of the need to defend your name. There’s only one Name we need to promote, and the way to promote it is to reveal Him to others by responding as He did:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]hile being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. (1 Pet. 2:23–24)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus took abuse from others for the sake of their salvation. Let us do the same. By our wounds, <a href="/w/how-our-suffering-glorifies-god">some might be healed</a> when they see who Christ is in us.</p>

<p><strong><em>A soul shaped by Christ</em>.</strong> Where does this self-sacrificial humility, concerned prayerfulness, trust and rest in God, gracious kindness, and confident strength come from? These things pour out of a soul that’s been shaped by Christ, and we become like Christ by beholding Him: “[W]e all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image...” (2 Cor. 3:18). Immerse yourself <a href="/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible">in the Bible</a>. Look at Jesus. Let Him conform your soul to His.</p>

<p>The development of these characteristics is no less important to apologetics than the knowledge of any intellectual response to challenges. This is because the enterprise of apologetics is ultimately about a <em>Person—</em>a Person we love, a Person we want others to love—and I guarantee you, you have never convinced someone to love another person by the use of arguments. Sure, you may have corrected someone’s misunderstandings about another person through the use of argument, and that’s important too, but the way someone comes to <em>love</em> another person is by meeting him and seeing who he is. Don’t ever lose sight of that fact. For better or for worse, <em>you are showing others who Christ is</em>. And since doing that well is the highest goal of apologetics, it makes no sense to sacrifice it for the sake of making a lesser point.</p>

<p>Beyond these things, though, there’s still more for us to think about. Is there a way to connect with those who have been so thoroughly steeped in the incivility of internet culture? Should we? Is there a way for us to actively improve the state of discourse today? Our understanding of Jesus needs to <a href="/w/use-christian-apologetics-christianly">direct our answers</a> to these questions.</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%2Fhow-should-we-interact-with-the-uncivil-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-should-we-interact-with-the-uncivil-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-should-we-interact-with-the-uncivil-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


