# articles

title: Interview with Michael Kruger on Bart Ehrman
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/interview-with-michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>Stand to Reason Interview with Michael Kruger about Bart Ehrman’s <a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162306" target="_blank">Article</a>:</strong></p>

<p>Transcription from the <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman-s-claim-we-can-t-trust-the-holy-week-gospel-accounts-april-1-2016#.Vv7dise8t-A" target="_blank">podcast 4/1/2016</a></p>

<p>Greg: Bart Ehrman has written a new article “<a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162306" target="_blank">Are the Stories in the Bible about the Last Days and Hours of Jesus True?</a>”&nbsp;Many of you know of his popular work <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>. I have with me as a guest for this hour, one of my favorite people to talk with about Bart Ehrman, Dr. Michael Kruger. Mike it seems like every year or so we have you on to answer another Bart Ehrman article.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I think when Easter comes around you and I talk again about our friend Bart Ehrman.</p>

<p>Greg: You’ve written <em>The Heresy of Orthodoxy</em>, which we talked at length about in the past and you cover a lot of these bases. <em>The Question of the Canon</em> is another book you authored. It visits similar information from other directions. I recommend both of these books highly as critical books to deal with these issues because they are so well dealt with. Mike, tell us a little bit about who Bart Ehrman is, just to bring some of our listeners up to speed on this and then let’s go from there.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Most people probably heard his name in some capacity, Ehrman is now recognized as one of the leading authorities in the country. He is a religious studies professor at UNC Chapel Hill, which happens to be my alma mater. In fact, as undergraduate I had Bart Ehrman as a professor.</p>

<p>Greg: No kidding.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I have a personal, intimate knowledge of Bart as being a student of his in the past. Ehrman has written a number of books over the years attacking the integrity of the Bible. Most of this is borne out of his own stories. If you know the story of Bart Ehrman, he started out according to his own testimony as an evangelical Christian. Went to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, and then went to Princeton seminary for his seminary degree. He began to rethink everything and eventually ended up abandoning the faith. Ever since, he’s been writing books attacking and challenging the integrity of the Bible. He is now one of the bestselling authors in that subject.</p>

<p>Greg: Of course, we don’t want to dismiss him because of his bad experiences at Princeton and his own personal convictions. I think that does play a role later in our conversation. We’ve talked about this in the past but his credentials are clearly well deserved as I understand it. He’s earned his credentials.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: In academic circles, he is an excellent scholar, he is a critical thinker, he studied with Bruce Metzger at Princeton. No one certainly doubts his academic ability in terms of training. It’s second to none.</p>

<p>Greg: Generally, it seems to me his interpretation of the facts is the problem and what gets him at cross purposes with other biblical scholars.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right. In fact, I think the same can be said about the discipline as a whole, which is that most scholars don’t disagree about what’s out there in terms of data. Everyone has the same data. Most of it is determined by what you do with that data, how you frame it, how you situate it, how you interpret it and understand it. You can have the same exact facts as Bart Ehrman and reach radically different conclusions. It tells you something very important that I think all our listeners already know, which is that one’s broad view that they bring to the table when they interpret facts is really critical. It’s not just the debate over what the New Testament is or what it’s like. It’s the debate over what you think is true in general as you come to study it. There is a larger, bigger philosophical issue that needs to be discussed.</p>

<p>Greg: So we have Bart Ehrman who has weighed in against biblical reliability from a lot of different perspectives. He says the biblical manuscripts were changed on purpose; they were changed with theological intent. These are things that we’ve talked about in the past. This trades on memory and oral traditions. The question that was asked to me in the last segment of the broadcast had to do with Bart Ehrman’s observation that the earliest manuscripts show the greatest amount of variation, compared to the later manuscripts that show less variation.</p>

<p>The caller thought that was a compelling point against biblical reliability. I said to him, “You are looking at the wrong thing. What really matters is the nature of the variations. Whether they are meaningful, whether they are theologically significant.”&nbsp;It really comes down to the nature of the variations and whether, even with those variations early on, are we capable of recovering the original text with a high degree of confidence? That was my general approach to that question, how would you have approached that question, if it were asked of you, Mike?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I’m in general agreement. I don’t necessarily disagree with Bart’s assessment of the earliest stages of the text. In my book with Charles Hill called <em>The Early Text of the New Testament</em> with Oxford University Press we tackled that question. I think most people would agree that the earliest stages of the text that we have access to, which should be second century and later. Maybe third and fourth centuries are going to be the ones that exhibit the most variants. However, even if you acknowledge that, that doesn’t mean somehow the stories of the New Testament are now suddenly in doubt because, even though it exhibits more variety and more differences in later stages, they are so narrowly within a range of the kind of differences you are talking about that they don’t really threaten the integrity of New Testament.</p>

<p>We can see those changes. We can see how they compare to one another and note that they are there, but they don’t really challenge our ability to recover the original by comparing the large volume of manuscripts we have. One of the things that scholars pointed out over the years is what’s called the tenacity of the text. What that means is that the text really resists change. Even when a scribe changes it, actually even that change is maintained over time. There is rarely an opportunity for you to find a text that has been so changed that you can never see that it’s been changed. That’s a really key point that means that there is very little chance that the text has been changed in a monumental way and us not know it. That’s a really critical point.</p>

<p>Greg: When I wrote my piece for <em>Solid Ground</em> called “Misquoting Jesus,”&nbsp;this was the point that I made that, here are like ten verses that you thought were in the Bible that aren’t. He is really intending to put the last nail on the coffin. It struck me and I pointed this out, that if he is able to identify the verses that are not supposed to be in the Bible, that means that it’s possible to identify the original text.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s&nbsp;exactly right.</p>

<p>Greg: It struck me that undermined his entire case.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: His book, <em>The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture</em>, actually presumes that you could know what the corruptions are and what the original is. It really defeats his whole point, which is that that it doesn’t change the integrity of the text if you can know what the changes are.</p>

<p>Greg: I also was troubled when I looked at the list of changes. First of all, he had the woman caught in adultery from John and the long ending of Mark. These are no surprise to anybody who’s looked at these things closely. Most scholars do not consider these to be textually sound. Most Bibles will have those notes in the margin to show that. It isn’t like this is a big secret.</p>

<p>There were other places where I noticed that he would have a verse from one Gospel that was a questionable variant. One of the other Gospels had exactly the same account and it wasn’t a questionable variant. His claim was, these are the verses that aren’t in the Bible that you thought were in the Bible. It turns out that at least two of them, as I recall were in the Bible but they were just in a different Gospels than he’s pointed out. I thought that’s kind of cheating a little bit.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, you get the impression at times he is working really hard to try to get the readers to doubt. He is pulling everything out and reaching for every possible example he can, and the fact of the matter is, these are not new problems. These are things we’ve known about for generations and not at all something that should surprise anybody who’s studied the text. He presents them as if they are new, and he knows for most of his readers they are probably all new. The average Joe out there reading his book never heard of this before. When you start looking at the facts as a whole you realize there is not the danger that he presents.</p>

<p>Greg: He studied under Bruce Metzger you mentioned who, at the time (he’s gone now), was the number one scholar in New Testament.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yes, absolutely.</p>

<p>Greg: He did not agree with Bart Ehrman’s assessment, given the same set of facts.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: No, and what’s a little tricky here is that Ehrman doesn’t agree with himself. This is one of the things that scholars have pointed out. Which Bart Ehrman are we talking to? When you talk to the Bart Ehrman who is talking to scholarly friends in the world of textual criticism, he sounds very normal and very standard in terms of his views. Then when he gets into the popular level books, he becomes this hyper-skeptic. No doubt Metzger would probably agree with Ehrman when he writes for the more normal type of book of about textual criticism. But when he starts to attack the New Testament in his popular level books, he starts becoming more hyper-skeptical than the evidence allows. At that point we have to think that Metzger wouldn’t agree with him. I think Ehrman is a little in disagreement with himself. I think that as far as the challenges, you kind of wonder, Which Ehrman am I going to meet here?</p>

<p>Greg: What’s going on here?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: If you read his work, it’s clear that his views aren’t always the same depending on which one you are reading.</p>

<p>Greg: I also noted and this was ironic, I think <em>Misquoting Jesus</em> came out in 2005. The same year that the updated issue of <em>The Text of the New Testament</em> that he coauthored with Bruce Metzger, originally under Bruce Metzger’s authorship.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That right.</p>

<p>Greg: Then the updated version was with Bart Ehrman.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yes.</p>

<p>Greg: He’s got his name on two texts and maybe it would be charitable to say that maybe the text of the New Testament text reflected really more of Bruce Metzger’s views than Bart Ehrman’s, but the fact is both of their names are on it. There were statements in <em>The Text of the New Testament</em> that contradict, statements in <em>Misquoting Jesus</em> and both are released in the same year.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, that’s actually a pretty good example of the kind of problem we are facing is that when he is writing sort of academic book that’s designed just to explain the facts, he sounds pretty tame about most of things he is saying, but it’s when he is talking about the popular level books he tends to stray off course. We wish we still had the original version of Metzger’s early <em>Text of the New Testament</em>, but for the most part, there are few parts showing that Ehrman’s views hold sway more than Metzger’s. But it does not reflect his views in <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>.</p>

<p>Greg: How does he stack up to the cross section of New Testament scholars in this particular field? How does he match up with other scholars in his same field with regard to these opinions?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: It’s a little bit of a mixed bag. Historically, textual criticism has been much more in general about the recovery of the text. No one is naïve enough to think that we could recover every textual variant down to the minutest detail. Everyone knows there is some challenge there. As a whole, people have been fairly confident in the recovery of the text. The perfect example of this is Kurt and Barbra Aland in Germany who have been heading the Institute for New Testament Text there for years.</p>

<p>They had a fairly, what you might call, conservative view of the text. Yes, there are some challenges, but for the most part we think the original has been preserved. You’ve got that on one side, and then you’ve got Ehrman now apparently on the other. The field is rather split. There are still a number of folks that are sort of with Kurt and Barbara Aland. Then there are a number of folks, including David Parker, who sound a lot more like Bart Ehrman these days. It’s a bit of a mixed bag. In the past, it was almost always on the Metzger side of things.</p>

<p>Greg: I remember.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: The more hyper-skeptical stages of textual criticism has been really in the last twenty years.</p>

<p>Greg: I have given talks on this for a long, long time. I would give talks in defense of the text, the reliability of the text, the transmission of the text. I’d close by saying, “By the way, this isn’t even discussed anymore amongst scholars. It’s pretty much a done deal. They are on to other things.”&nbsp;Until Bart Ehrman shows up on the scene and then stirs the pot again. This has stimulated all kinds of additional responses that may not have been necessary in the past.</p>

<p>These are the same kinds of principles of recovering ancient text that we use to recover any text of antiquity. It isn’t something that is theologically fretted. It’s an academic exercise. It’s just a lot of mechanics of textual criticism to try to recover the original, regardless of whether the original is a biblical text or whether it’s some kind of classical work of antiquity, or even Shakespeare for that matter.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, all kinds of historical text we do textual criticism for, not just the Bible. A lot of people don’t realize that. It’s a standard practice for any historian when you have multiple manuscripts that disagree. It’s pretty standard fair. In the New Testament, I think what you said is generally the case, which is that, for a long time, New Testament textual critics figured it was pretty much a done deal. Not that you never had any sort of residual issues, but that as a whole, there was general agreement about what the text was. But that has changed in the last twenty years.</p>

<p>Greg: Bart Ehrman says that there is something like four hundred thousand variants in the New Testament of three hundred thousand words. It almost sounds like you can’t trust anything. The vast majority of those are spelling mistakes. How would you define a variant for the purpose of counting?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: What you have when you start talking about variants is, simply put, the disagreement amongst copies of the text you are looking at. Let’s imagine for example you have two copies of the Gospel of Mark, and in one particular verse, you notice that one copy has one word and another copy has a different word in that very spot. That’s what we would call a textual variant. There are other ways to get a variance. For example, word order changes can be considered a variant. Certain names that were used can be variants. Spelling changes can be variants.</p>

<p>Any difference in the text of any kind for the most part, except for punctuation, really would count as a textual variant. Ehrman suggests somewhere between two hundred thousand and four hundred thousand of textual variants. I actually don’t disagree with that. I don’t think there is any way to know how many variants there are, but even if Bart would be right, that’s not the whole story. There is more to it than that.</p>

<p>Greg: Yeah, it’s the nature of the variation that let’s us know whether we are going to have trouble recovering the original text. How do you get more variants than you have words in the New Testament? Because variants are counted multiple times because we have multiple manuscripts that have these variants in them.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, you are going to have a verse with a certain number of words in it. But if you have so many different copies of that same verse, your potential for variants is endless. This is one of the things that Ehrman doesn’t explain. It isn’t just the nature of them all. Although that’s very important, the vast majority of variants are going to be things like misspelling mistakes and other inconsequential changes. The larger part of the story is how we know about these variants, in other words, why are there so many?</p>

<p>The answer is because they are so many copies available to us. The more copies you get, the more potential there is for a scribe to goof up. You can do it a bunch of ways. You can misspell different words, you can add different words, change things, leave things out. In any given sentence, you can have many more potential variants than there are words in the sentence. That’s not hard to come up with. One reason you know about them, again, is they are so many copies of early New Testament manuscripts.</p>

<p>Greg: Thanks for that clarification. Now let’s talk about transmission. That speaks of the gap of time between the events in question. In this case, the Passion of Jesus, which in the Gospel of John is one third of the book. We know what John thinks is important. The events of the Passion and the time when they were recorded down is the issue of transmission. Sometimes when Christians read an article like this by Bart Ehrman they read through it and get the sweats, like, “Oh my gosh.”&nbsp;They are all shaken up. I understand that, but what I would encourage them to do is just to go step by step and look at the specific claims that are made, and then deal with the claims one by one.</p>

<p>I thought maybe we’d do that with the article. The first question he raises is, he talks about these stories of Jesus’&nbsp;last days, triumphal entry, cleansing of the Temple, last supper, betrayal of Judas, arrest trial, Pontius Pilate, crucifixion. He says, “For Christians they have always been theologically true. Does it really matter though if these memories of events from two thousand years ago are historically accurate?”&nbsp;He closes his article by answering his question at the beginning, No, it doesn’t really matter because, what matters is the meaning they give to the life of the religious community. That���s the first thing, does it matter whether these events happened or not? Does it matter to us as Christians? Can they just be theologically true without being historically true?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, for Christians the answer, historically and biblically is that it does very much matter whether it happened. What Ehrman is feeding his audience in the article is a very particular historical view of the way religion works. You might call it postmodern or an existential view of religion, which is religion is just defined as some sort of personal, internal experience you have. It’s not rooted to anything outside yourself. It’s rooted within your own internal experiences. If something gives you that experience, then great. It doesn’t matter if the thing that gives it to you is true of false, or right or wrong. All that matters is the experience itself. Most people in the world have that view of religion.</p>

<p>Religion is this private, internal, personal affair. In fact, that’s why in our culture today, we see everyone sort of misunderstanding Christians. Like why do you guys get so upset about things, can’t you just keep your religion private? They don’t understand it. We don’t have a view of religion that way. That’s the way Bart Ehrman is trying to convince his audience, “Look, you can still be encouraged by these stories even though they never happened.”&nbsp;That’s an existential approach to religion. The problem, of course, is that it’s a very non-Christian approach to religion. Biblically and historically, Christians have never held that idea of what religion means. For Christians religion actually doesn’t even really mean what most people think it means.</p>

<p>What Christians are talking about is the way God has intervened in history, in time and space. The acts of God and the person of Jesus Christ, did those acts take place and what significance do they have for us? It really does matter for a Christian whether they took place. It’s not just about an experience. It’s about objective, factual reality that’s been changed by the work of Christ. If Christ didn’t really live and didn’t really do those things, then our salvation is just a myth.</p>

<p>Greg: I think of Paul’s own comment in 1st Corinthians 15, which when I first read it was stunning to me. This is one reason I try to repeat it as much as possible because it shows how strongly the biblical writers felt about this question. What Paul said is essentially if Jesus has not been risen from the grave, if we believe in the resurrection counter to fact, then we are of most people to be pitied. People should feel sorry for us rather than saying, You have your theologically true doctrine that is meaningful for you but it has no relationship to history. Paul didn’t seem to think that was the case.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right. That’s an example and a very good one of what I mean when I say that the Bible itself doesn’t support that view of religion. There are other texts too, the way the biblical writers referred to the acts, when they referred to the floods, when they referred to creation, and then referred to other acts of God in the nation of Israel. These are all deemed to be not existential experiences; these are designed to be historical facts.</p>

<p>Greg: They are not mythological themes that speak to us about something greater, but they tell what actually took place. Adam and Eve would be another example of that, also under attack even from within Christianity nowadays. Anyway, just as a point of information, the book I mentioned that I’m working on right now for Zondervan, almost done is titled <em>The Story of Reality</em>.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Very good.</p>

<p>Greg: The subtitle is, How the World Began, How it Ends, and Everything Important that Happened in Between.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: You have a long subtitle, too.</p>

<p>Greg: We disagree with Ehrman—it does matter. It doesn’t matter to Bart Ehrman and a whole bunch of other people, but it matters to us and it’s our story, is kind of my point. Maybe Bart Ehrman doesn’t think these things have to be true because he doesn’t believe they are true and so it doesn’t matter to him. But this is our story and, if it doesn’t speak of reality, what really happened, then it means nothing to us, nothing whatsoever. That’s our call not his call. I guess is what I’m saying.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: In other words, he can’t just recast Christianity in his own mold. Christianity is what it is, and it’s historically been a religion about history.</p>

<p>Greg: Right. Next paragraph he says, for over a century, biblical scholars have been obsessed with this question about the historical accuracy. Widely challenged today is the age old view that the Gospels are accurate reports written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or companions of the apostles Mark and Luke the travelling companion of Paul. Two other claims here, one of them is the age old conservative view that the Gospels were accurate reports is now being widely challenged today.</p>

<p>I actually thought it was just the opposite in terms of the quest for the historical Jesus. The late 19th century and much of the 20th century is dominated by people who were looking for the Jesus behind the story. Liberal scholarship by and large saw these as not historical accounts, but rather embellishments over the years of a Jesus who had grown more deified over time. The core was this itinerate preacher of some sort that had religious bromides and euphemisms that he spotted.</p>

<p>The last fifty years, my understanding, has been things have taken quite a turn with a deeper understanding of first century Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls indirectly given us history about that time that the scholars in general have a much higher feel for the historical veracity of the New Testament document than they used to. Is that your take?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, there is no truth the Gospels are widely challenged today. One of the things that’s unclear based on Ehrman’s comments is he doesn’t really tell you about the history of Gospel criticism. As you’ve noted, the challenge to the reliability of the Gospels and maybe even more particular the authorship of the Gospels is not a new challenge, it’s an old challenge. You could argue in addition to that, as you just did, that there are new developments that suggest that we have various reasons to think that the authors attached to these Gospels are the ones who really wrote them. I think what Ehrman is probably trying to say there, and he did it a little clumsily I think, is that there is a consensus in modern scholarship, at least he thinks there is, that the Gospels were not written by the people whose names are attached. Of course, anytime you coin a consensus, that’s a tricky term because what Ehrman really means is the scholars he want to count agree with him.</p>

<p>Greg: Right.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: To put another way, all the scholars that agree with me form a consensus around this view. He doesn’t bother to mention the fact that there are many, many scholars in the evangelical world who profoundly disagree, but apparently they don’t count. That type of sleight of hand is a really unfortunate misleading of the readers. They tend to say, Then everyone agrees on this.</p>

<p>Greg: Not too long ago, William Lane Craig and, I think, Garry Habermas made statements to this effect regarding the resurrection. That on the main now, scholarships across New Testament scholarship, Jesus history scholarship, on the main acknowledge particular facts regarding the resurrection, like that Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross, that He was buried in a tomb, the tomb was empty, and the disciples had experiences they thought was the risen Christ, which gave rise to the early church. This is kind of the bare historical facts approached to arguing in favor of the resurrection. This characterization is that there are fairly commonly held details that are historically reliable from the text, regardless of one’s kind of individual theological commitments.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I would generally agree with that. There are going to be exceptions of course, again, it’s very hard to characterize modern scholarship because it’s such a diverse community. Whenever you say most agree or many agree or there is a consensus, it’s really tricky, but I think of the list of events you gave, certainly there are many modern scholars who’d be perfectly comfortable with that list. Even those who deny the resurrection would acknowledge the empty tomb, the early Christian beliefs in the resurrection, and the conviction that Jesus has risen from the dead as widely among early Christians.</p>

<p>Greg: Or that the disciples had an experience that they believed was Christ.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Sure.</p>

<p>Greg: Now, how you best explain that is where people go in different directions, but those are core facts. It does seem that in this first claim that nowadays things are being challenged that were just accepted in that past. That just isn’t a fair assessment. Maybe what he is challenging here it is a little unclear, but his claim is the accuracy of the reports. I’m not sure how, in your mind, how critical is the classical authorship Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to our case?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: It depends on which case we are making. We are claiming that the contents of the Gospels are reliable. Certainly it has helped our case tremendously to be able to argue that we know who the authors were and they would have had access to this information in a reliable way. In fact, Ehrman banked his case, if the readers out there end up getting his books. The one that just came out...</p>

<p>Greg: <em>Jesus Before the Gospels</em>?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yes,<em> Jesus Before the Gospels</em>, which I’m in the middle of writing a review on right now. If people end up getting that book what they’ll realize is that, this is the critical question for Ehrman. He wants to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels were not written by these men. That’s his main claim. Therefore, they must have gotten their material from somewhere else and could they have ever gotten reliable material from someone else, somewhere else? The answer is no, overtime the story would have changed so much that by the time they wrote the Gospels that they can be trusted.</p>

<p>Greg: This brings me to the next point that he makes. That is, the reasons why he doubts the classical authorship is that these Gospels are written by unusually well-educated authors from outside of Palestine, I’m quoting him now, “who composed their works in relatively high level Greek. Jesus’&nbsp;own followers were illiterate, Aramaic speaking persons from rural Galilee.”&nbsp;There is a lot going on here, just because you are Aramaic speaking persons from rural Galilee doesn’t mean you were illiterate, but it’s all thrown in there. How would you respond to that picture that he is showing?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: There are multiple layers of this. Let me just try to break it down. First is the question of literacy and writing in the ancient world. Generally speaking, Ehrman is right about this. Literacy rates were extraordinarily low in the ancient world, probably around 10% of the whole, but it could vary depending on the region. Let’s just imagine for the moment that we grant him that the disciples couldn’t read or write. I think there is reason to doubt that, especially when it comes to Matthew because he was a tax collector and may have had some level of education. Jesus read from the scrolls in the synagogue, but despite that He doesn’t seem to have any special education. Yet He obviously had learned to read. We just don’t know the literacy facts.</p>

<p>Greg: Luke is a physician. That doesn’t mean medical school like we think of it, but it seems to be somebody who...</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Luke would be particularly well educated, you can tell. What you have is, the fact that even though literacy rates are probably low, we just don’t know enough to be certain that they didn’t have the ability to read or write. Let’s just grant it for the sake of argument. The fact is, even if you couldn’t read or write, this doesn’t mean that you can’t speak multiple languages. In the ancient world, particularly in Palestine, a multilingual environment was quite normal. It won’t be unusual at all to find someone who could speak both Aramaic and Greek, and speak it rather well. If that was the case, when you wrote a book, you didn’t have to necessarily have to hold the pen. It was common again the in ancient world for people to use scribes or secretaries to write down the words. They could speak the words and have someone write down the words.</p>

<p>Greg: That means also...</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: There are all kinds of mix of options here that get us beyond this sort of overly basic claims that these guys were illiterate peasants. That is just sort of a misleading way of framing it.</p>

<p>Greg: It also trades on the fact that we are Americans, and Americans are, I don’t want to say illiterate peasants, but we tend not to be multilingual. There is this joke I heard, a person who speaks three languages is called trilingual, two languages is bilingual, one language is American. We are not good at languages.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: We think it’s impossible for people to do that, particularly in the ancient world. That’s right, we would see it as a challenge.</p>

<p>Greg: Four or five languages, they can’t read it or write it, but they can speak it because they have exposure to it in their multicultural envirionment.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: This is another flaw on Ehrman’s argument that we haven’t really gotten to yet. Ehrman makes a mistake that early Christianity was what we would call an oral culture. I think he is profoundly mistaken about this. There is no doubt that early Christians transmitted stories of Jesus orally. That’s not the same thing as saying that’s an oral culture. You can actually have a textual culture, and by that I mean a culture that’s concerned about the text of the document or the text of a book and basing their life on the text of a book and be completely illiterate. Scholars are showing that being illiterate, and not being able to read or write, doesn’t mean you live in an oral culture. This means that you may not be able to read or write, but you could still be very textually oriented and have access to that text in numerous other ways, public readings, and so on.</p>

<p>You’ll find that in his book, <em>Jesus Before the Gospels</em>, the assumption running throughout is that early Christianity was an oral culture. I profoundly disagree with that. I’ve actually covered this in my book, <em>The Question of Canon</em>. I devoted a whole chapter to the illiteracy or orality and textuality of early Christianity.</p>

<p>Greg: What Ehrman wants to argue is that the New Testament culture was an oral culture, which means things are just passed on orally and there are all kinds of problems as he cites in his article with oral transmission and memory.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Mmm-hmm (affirmative).</p>

<p>Greg: You are pushing back at that by saying, it was a textual culture not an oral culture, even though it may be the case that 90% of the people were illiterate. Not able to read or write.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg: It makes me think of when this book, you’re probably familiar with, <em>How the Irish Saved Civilization</em> and how, when European culture was kind of disintegrating, how the Irish in the monasteries kept all the texts and all the learning alive so that even though the people, and this is probably true in other ways too during that time. Even though the people were illiterate, still all the knowledge was preserved in written form, but those who kept watch over the libraries could eventually teach from that textual material that represented the core of the learning of classical western civilization. It strikes me, maybe there is a parallel here.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Yeah, I think there are to some extent, some parallels. I think what people misunderstand about early Christianity when they are told it’s an oral culture is they get this impression that no one cared about texts, no one cared about books, and no one cared about how you worded things. They get this impression that an oral culture is happy to sort of just tell stories and that they are happy to even change the stories, and no one is concerned about the preservation in a tight way of the story. The problem with that, though, is historically it hasn’t borne itself out, particularly in first century Judaism. You can’t use literacy as the sole determiner of whether a culture is textually oriented or orally oriented. It just doesn’t work that way.</p>

<p>You can have low literacy rates and still have a textually-oriented culture, particularly when you are looking at first century Judaism, and they are very textually oriented on the Old Testament, that was recited to them and they would memorize it. There is a sense in which they would have been a culture already used to books, already used to the way the book is read and worded. They would have had a high priority on the authority of text as a result of their high view of the Old Testament.</p>

<p>When you add all that in, then suddenly things change when you think about the way things were transmitted for early Christians. It wasn’t this oral free-for-all. No, you have a culture already understanding the value of text. Even though they couldn’t read them, they still understood the value of them and that makes a big difference when you understand how things are transmitted.</p>

<p>Greg: What he says here is that the stories were passed by word of mouth, not just for days or months, but for years and decades. Maybe we’ll come back to that in a minute because he wants to, I think, excessively late date the written Gospels.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg: He says, does a person who hears a story remember it accurately down to its minute details and retell it exactly in the same way? There seems to be a little bit of a strawman going on there because our view of the Gospel isn’t that its Memorex, that somebody was recording the precise words of Jesus all the time. In fact, Jesus probably gave the same sermon many times to different groups and said it in different ways, and what we have is accurate rendering of His ideas in these sermons even if we don’t have precisely the same words. Indeed, like now we have parallel accounts in different Gospels that don’t have exactly the same words.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg: I don’t see how that’s a problem.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: He listed another example, I think, of where Ehrman tried to approach inspiration almost like from a fundamentalist perspective.</p>

<p>Greg: Dictation.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: To some effect it’s dictation theory of inspiration, whereas historically people who believe in inspiration have never insisted that we have the exact words Jesus said. A lot of times we have summaries of them or paraphrases of them or rewordings of them. We have them condensed. This is a common way you did history in the ancient world. It’s told and the fact that someone told the story of Jesus and rewords it in their wording isn’t a problem. The question is, does it accurately represent what Jesus said? Of course, the Christian contention is yes, it has exactly represented what Jesus said. It doesn’t matter if they changed the wording in a way that makes it more understandable to the audience because it represents accurately what He taught.</p>

<p>Greg: To go back to our own doctrine of inspiration, inspiration goes to the words of the text so that whatever summarization was made by the authors, it is the summarization itself that we claim as the inspired thing.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s exactly right. We believe that the Holy Spirit presided over the process of summarization when the authors wrote. The other fact is that, if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which He probably did, and the Gospels are written in Greek, then of course we don’t have the exact words. We don’t have them in Aramaic. You already are dealing with a translation of Jesus’&nbsp;words. When people say, I’ve got to have the exact words I always say, “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;Because if I know what you are getting at and you want to have an accurate sense of what Jesus taught, then I 100% agree with that. But when you say, “I want to have the exact words,”&nbsp;now you are asking for something that we don’t have access to because we don’t have Aramaic content, only Greek.</p>

<p>Greg: Let me ask you this then, what is it, if you were to characterize your best understanding of the process in the early years of how the account of Jesus’&nbsp;life got recorded, and what Ehrman is speaking of specifically, of say the details of passion week. How do you think that took place? I understand, it’s kind of hard to reconstruct with any certainty, but he tries to reconstruct it in a way that is meant to create a tremendous amount of doubt of any reliability of the details. At least people told stories over and over for many, many years, and then somebody wrote them down. Then what they wrote down was what they remembered and then the writing got changed. That is <em>Misquoting Jesus</em> stuff. How would you best explain how this got passed down?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: The first thing I would tell people is that, look, it doesn’t work like the telephone game you played when you were kids. Where you whisper into someone’s ear and then they whisper in another person’s ear, and it goes around in a circle, and it comes out entirely different.</p>

<p>Greg: I actually don’t think kids play that game anymore but I know it, I played it when I was a kid. I don’t know if you did yourself, Mike.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Sure, we all know that game, it is a funny game and the reason is because it’s set up for you to change the story. You can only say it once, you can’t repeat it back to the person telling you, and so on. In the early church, no doubt, the earliest stories of Jesus were transmitted orally. I’m going to come back to that in a moment. They were transmitted orally, no one denies that. The question isn’t whether they were, the question is how they were? You have the eye witnesses of Jesus’&nbsp;life, the people who’ve been with Him, learned His stories, and memorized His teaching, and were authoritative teachers, if you will, of the story and they had disciples themselves whom they taught.</p>

<p>Those are the reliable sources that people would go back to again and again to make sure they get the story right. In other words, no one doubts the fact there were false stories of Jesus circulating. Of course there were. There were probably people that made up stories in the earliest stages. The question wasn’t whether that happened, the question is, when it came the time for the church to bank on the stories and ask, “Which ones could be trusted?”&nbsp;To whom did they turn?</p>

<p>We have a lot of reasons to think they would have turned to the eye witnesses who established the truth of what Jesus said. In conjunction with that, I would add the fact that we have reasons to think the stories were probably written down very, very early. I can’t rehearse the historical evidence for early notebooks and note taking in the ancient world, and even if the disciples were illiterate, they could have had scribes do this sort of thing. We have reasons to think that not only would they transmit it orally, but also have written in parallel with one another. This is another mistake I think Ehrman makes in his book. He says that the most oral traditions date to 70A.D. and I think that’s a misunderstanding of the way it took place.</p>

<p>Greg: As far as the dating of when we have reliable Gospels, he starts at 70 A.D. I’ve just seen a host of arguments that give us reason to believe that the Gospels themselves are written down much earlier. Look, in 64 A.D. you have the book of Acts ending, because here is Paul, he is still alive. He dies mid the 60s sometime. He’s still alive in his first imprisonment, they are in Rome. The story in Acts ends abruptly. It looks like he ends abruptly because there is nothing more for Luke to write at the time, he is at the end. He is at the present moment when he ends it.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right, I think Acts is certainly early 60s which puts Luke late 50s which will theoretically put Mark early 50s. If you were to assume what scholars assume about the use of acute documents, which has its own bunch of complexity that I won’t get into here, but even if you were to grant it, now you are looking at something like Matthew into the 40s. Certainly the gap of time that he’s described is quickly disappearing.</p>

<p>Greg: These are people that when you, given the nature of the material and what price they were willing to pay to protect it, that it seems it’s reasonable to expect they are going to be very, very careful about how that information is transmitted and kept and guarded.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: That’s right. We would believe the eye witnesses, the disciples and even other eye witnesses that weren’t disciples who would have worked very hard to make sure that the stories of Jesus were accurately maintained. That doesn’t mean they could have prevented false stories from circulating, no one thinks that. Of course you can’t prevent that entirely. You can be in one sense a trident of the correct stories, which means that you are the source that people would look to for making sure they get the stories right. That would have been a big part of preserving that accurately.</p>

<p>We believe, of course, that the eye witness testimony that was preserved over that period of time was eventually deposited in a written form in the Gospels. We believe that the stream of tradition of Jesus that was reliable ended up in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were other streams less reliable but they didn’t end up in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They ended up in the gospel of Thomas, or the gospel of Peter, and things like that.</p>

<p>Greg: That brings up my last point. I’m thinking, Mike, the core historical material that a lot of people agree on that we mentioned earlier from which one can properly infer the resurrection of Christ as the best explanation for the empty tomb. The appearances or what the Apostles took to be appearances to them. These aren’t hallucinations. None of those other explanations seem to work. The best explanation for the way things came down was that Jesus actually did rise from the dead.</p>

<p>Now, if we can infer that from these basic historical details, forget about all the other details that Bart Ehrman may raise questions about. If we can infer that from the very core historical details, then that means that Christ did in fact rise from the dead, as Paul says earlier in Romans and in Galatians, both early books. You have a high Christology right out of the gate, but you also have a Jesus who is the resurrected Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God. It seems to me, in light of what Jesus told the disciples in the upper room about how they are going to have the Spirit and they are going to be able to draw from their memories all the things they told him. That adds a supernatural element that is a huge player in the preserving of the original text.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I think you’re right, there is sort of an apologetic strategy which is look, if you get tired of getting tangled up in the Bart Ehrman’s discussions about the reliability of all the details of the Gospels, all you’ve got to do is go back to the place like 1 Corinthians 15 and realize the evidence of the resurrection predates that and is quite reliable. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then everything else follows from that.</p>

<p>Greg: That’s right.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: I think that’s a good argument to make. I think you can help people see that, Look, let’s just focus on the resurrection here. Plausible.</p>

<p>Greg: Thanks, Mike, once again for giving us your expertise on this. Dr. Michael Kruger, author of the <em>Question of Canon</em> and <em>The Heresy of Orthodoxy</em>, both I recommend. Why don’t you give us the title of your new book you are working on since the subtitle of it is really long?</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: The book I’m working on now is called <em>Christianity in the Second Century</em>. Thankfully at this point it has no subtitle, but I’m exploring Christianity during the second century and I cover a lot of material we discussed here.</p>

<p>Greg: Thank you so much, Mike, for your time. I really appreciate it. We’ll talk again.</p>

<p>Michael Kruger: Thanks, Greg, great to 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%2Finterview-with-michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Finterview-with-michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Finterview-with-michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Debunking the Religious Wars Myth
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/debunking-the-religious-wars-myth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Religion is the cause of most wars,”&nbsp;declared our atheist guest. A few students shot nervous glances at me, hoping I would jump in. I sat there silently, not responding, instead waiting for the students’&nbsp;training to kick in. We were in Berkeley, on a mission trip with more than 60 high schoolers and staff from Upland Christian Academy. Our atheist speaker, Victor, was outlining various objections to religion. He continued, “And Christianity can be blamed for many of those wars.”</p>

<p>The claim that religion is the source of most wars throughout human history has become a cultural mantra, uttered so often and with so much force, it has come to be accepted as an undeniable declaration. Prominent atheists like Sam Harris contribute to the chorus of voices, arguing religion is “the most prolific source of violence in our history.”&nbsp;Richard Dawkins claims, “There’s no doubt that throughout history religious faith has been a major motivator for war and for destruction.”</p>

<p>As we trained students for this Berkeley mission trip, we equipped them with a simple question to expose such claims: How did you come to that conclusion? When someone makes a claim, put the burden of proof on them by asking for their supporting reasons. When our atheist presenter was challenged to provide justification, he could only offer up the Crusades, 9-11, and the Spanish Inquisition. Certainly we recognize religion’s role in these specific cases, but three examples are inadequate to support the claim that <em>most</em> wars are caused by religion.</p>

<p>With a simple question students were able to demonstrate the paucity of evidence for this claim. In addition, we helped students turn the tables by appealing to the facts of history to show the exact opposite is true: Religion is the cause of a very small minority of wars. Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume <em>Encyclopedia of Wars</em> lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars - 1,763 total - only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature. Furthermore, if you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, that number is cut down to a little more than 3%. A second scholarly source, <em>The Encyclopedia of War</em> edited by Gordon Martel, confirms this data, concluding that only 6% of the wars listed in its pages can be labeled religious wars. Finally, a <a href="http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/news/1085" target="_blank">2014 report</a> from the Institute for Economics and Peace further debunks this myth.</p>

<p>We didn’t stop there. We showed students it actually gets worse for the atheists’&nbsp;claim. A strong case can be made that atheism, not religion, and certainly not Christianity, is responsible for a far greater degree of bloodshed. Indeed, R.J. Rummel’s work in his books, <em>Lethal Politics</em> and <em>Death by Government</em> has the secular body count at more than 100 million in the 20th century alone. Millions have died at the hands of atheist regimes like Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Vladmir Lenin, and others.</p>

<p>These students were able to see that a simple examination of the facts relieves religion from blame for most of the world’s wars. In addition, we were able to help cultivate in students a healthy skepticism of atheistic claims. If the skeptic will shout such an unsubstantiated claim so loudly and with so much force, what other skeptical claims might quickly fall apart under rational scrutiny? After debriefing students with the facts, their nervous glances were transformed into confident smiles. As we got students “off the sidelines and into the game,”&nbsp;they discovered that Christian truth holds firm in the face of atheistic objections.</p>
</div>

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


title: Resource: A Helpful List of Short Apologetic Videos
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/17/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/resource-a-helpful-list-of-short-apologetic-videos
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sunday school teachers, youth workers, small group leaders, pastors, and other church leaders are always on the lookout for good resources to help equip their people. So I thought it might be helpful to collect some of the best short apologetics videos that are online and available for free and put them into a single list. Use these to introduce an argument, spark a small group discussion, or even share with your unbelieving friend. And feel free to add your contribution to the list in the comments section.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJd380OzZC8" target="_blank">Faith Refocused</a> (answers the question “What is faith?”&nbsp;and describes the relationship between faith and reality)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vUWn1QuyLI" target="_blank">Truth Refocused</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0" target="_blank">Kalam Cosmological Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU" target="_blank">Moral Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA" target="_blank">Fine Tuning of the Universe</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL4ULAnu6hY" target="_blank">No Evidence</a> (3 arguments for the existence of God)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA" target="_blank">Is God Good?</a> (the problem of evil)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zuTz1nMCo" target="_blank">What Happens After I Die?</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPgZ2Mq1Ugw" target="_blank">Should marriage be changed to promote same-sex couples?</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YV2QTi3L0A" target="_blank">The Bible and Homosexuality</a></li>
	<li><a href=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUvjBBOZgE8" target="_blank">Does the Bible Contain Errors?</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4z9Y2u30Qs" target="_blank">The Logical Problem of Evil - Part 1</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWSGbDW3LU" target="_blank">The Logical Problem of Evil - Part 2</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L67dlpMgDa4" target="_blank">The Logical Problem of Evil - Part 3</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXnSE0uvwzM" target="_blank">What’s Your Worldview? Quiz</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi817IwU3DI" target="_blank">What Is an Ambassador for Christ?</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL_R0y1Utnw" target="_blank">Why Abortion Is Unjust Discrimination</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vvq87M03qk" target="_blank">Responding to Same-Sex Marriage</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXx_EQuQdQ" target="_blank">Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?</a></li>
	<li><a href=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvDS3k9NXgo" target="_blank">Is It OK to Question the Bible?</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

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


title: Challenge: The Bible Says Men Are Superior to Women
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/23/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/challenge-the-bible-says-men-are-superior-to-women
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’re back to “<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/26/40-problems-with-christianity/" target="_blank">40 Problems with Christianity</a>” again this week:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There are numerous scriptures in the Bible that clearly pronounce that a man is superior to a woman, which was consistent with the times it was written. Consider the following scriptures:</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>1 Corinthians 11:3</strong>: But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>1 Corinthians 11:8-9</strong>: For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.</p>

<p>But times have changed. Societies the world over have bent over backwards to give women equal status and opportunity. Most marriages are now viewed as a 50/50 venture, a two-person team, as opposed to a master and a helper. The sticking point is that a real God and those he allegedly inspired would have foreseen this ultimate evolution of societal mores.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are definitely some unstated assumptions behind this challenge, so there’s much to say here. I recommend starting by thinking through&nbsp;those Bible verses to determine whether or not they’re speaking of a hierarchy of value. (I think there’s enough in the first verse alone to prove otherwise.) His views on the grounding of morality (see his last sentence) and the place of roles in determining value are also problematic. I’d like to hear your positive case, as well: What does the Bible actually teach about the value of men and women?</p>

<p>Tell us how you would respond to this objection in the comments below, and Brett will post his video response on Thursday.</p>

<p>[Update: View Brett's video <a href="/w/challenge-response-the-bible-says-men-are-superior-to-women" target="_blank">response</a>. Explore past challenges&nbsp;<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/challenge-qa/" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/12/the-str-place-challenges.html" target="_blank">here</a>.]</p>
</div>

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


title: Where Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Get Their Name?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/09/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/where-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-get-their-name-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they <em>alone</em> are God’s chosen witnesses to the world. As justification for their self-designation, they cite Isaiah 43:10. It says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“You are my <em>witnesses</em>,”&nbsp;declares the Lord,</p>

<p>“and my servant whom I have <em>chosen</em>,</p>

<p>that you may know and believe me</p>

<p>and understand that I am he.</p>

<p>Before me no god was formed,</p>

<p>nor shall there be any after me.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>By applying this verse to themselves, Jehovah’s Witnesses testify that they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah. But is that what this verse is really communicating? Is Jehovah speaking about Jehovah’s Witnesses in this passage?</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason, we have a principle: <em>never read a Bible verse</em>. Simply put, every verse must be interpreted in light of the context. In this instance, the context is clear. Isaiah 43:10 is referring <em>to Israel</em>, not Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah declares, “<em>You</em> are my witnesses.”&nbsp;Who is the “<em>you”</em>&nbsp;being addressed? Isaiah tells us in verse 1. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But now thus says the Lord,</p>

<p>he who created you, <em>O Jacob</em>,</p>

<p>he who formed you, <em>O Israel</em>...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jehovah is speaking to Israel. The nation of Israel was to be a witness to God’s faithfulness, authority, power, and truth to the surrounding pagan cultures who worshipped false gods. Therefore, Israel is a witness to the only true Jehovah God. This is why Jehovah adds, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”</p>

<p>Theologian and cult apologist Ron Rhodes says, “It is a wild, wild leap to take a verse referring to Israel as God’s witness to the pagan nations in the Old Testament times (over seven centuries <em>before</em> the time of Christ) and claim its fulfillment in a modern-day religious group some nineteen centuries <em>after</em> the time of Christ.”* Rhodes is right. Jehovah’s Witnesses must rely on a gross misinterpretation of this text to derive their name.</p>

<p>Furthermore, we must ask our Jehovah’s Witness friends, if they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah, does that mean God was without a witness for over eighteen centuries before <em>The Watchtower</em> came along? Who was representing the true God during that time period? In addition, why would Jehovah wait over 1800 years before sending his only true witnesses? All of these questions demand an adequate response.</p>

<p>There is another issue that needs to be resolved. The Israelites were to be witnesses of Jehovah in the Old Testament, but the New Testament believers were to be witnesses of Jesus. In fact, Jesus said, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, <em>and you will be my witnesses</em> in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”&nbsp;(Acts 1:8). Christians today continue to be witnesses of Christ and <a href="/w/did-jesus-rise-physically-from-the-dead-" target="_blank">his bodily resurrection from the dead</a>. When Christians bear witness to the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ (Romans 10:9-10), they are bearing witness to Jehovah since <a href="/w/an-argument-for-jehovah-s-witnesses-jesus-is-jehovah" target="_blank">Jesus is Jehovah</a>. Ironically, by denying the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus, Jehovah’s Witnesses <em>fail</em> to be the true witnesses of Jesus, who is Jehovah.</p>

<p>*Ron Rhodes, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-Scriptures-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Rhodes/dp/0736924515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1452289547&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=reasoning+from+the+scriptures+with+the+jehovah%27s+witnesses" target="_blank">Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses</a></em> (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers), 29-30.</p>
</div>

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


title: Thinking Worldviewishly about Economics
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 01/19/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/thinking-worldviewishly-about-economics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This July, I’ll be leading a group of high school students and leaders from <a href="http://gracefellowshipchurch.org" target="_blank">Grace Fellowship Church</a> on a brand new experience. We’re calling it the Worldview Road Trip, and it’s designed to equip students to think Christianly about every single area of life. One topic we plan to cover is economics. We want students to know the central components of a Christian worldview and how they inform our views on poverty, money, the economy, free markets, and more. As we’ve been creating an outline for this training session, I’ve identified several key theological issues that are especially relevant to this topic:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The Image of God</li>
	<li>Fallen Human Nature</li>
	<li>The Nature of Marriage and Family</li>
	<li>Self-governance and Personal Responsibility</li>
	<li>The Role of the Family</li>
	<li>The Role of the Church</li>
</ul>

<p>And here are the key questions regarding economics that emerge from our theological reflections:</p>

<ul>
	<li>How does the Imago Dei inform our view of human activity? Why is man a creator, not merely consumer?</li>
	<li>How does fallen human nature inform our views about economics, markets, and human interaction in these arenas? How do various economic systems take into account, or ignore, our sinful and selfish nature? How might a free-market economy hold human nature in check and create accountability?</li>
	<li>What is “sphere sovereignty,”&nbsp;and how does this idea emerge in Scripture (e.g., Paul telling us that “if a man will not work, he shall not eat”&nbsp;in 2 Thess. 3:10)? Who is primarily responsible for taking care of us?</li>
	<li>Is there a distinction between self-interest and selfishness? How does appropriate self-interest inform our economic views?</li>
	<li>What should our approach be to the poor? How does our view of human nature inform our approach? How are free markets effective tools in fighting poverty in the world?</li>
	<li>How does God’s design for the family protect people from poverty (e.g., looking at how single parenting greatly increases chances of poverty and how married men with children are the most productive members of society)?</li>
	<li>What is man’s fundamental problem and need according to Scripture? How do we prioritize issues like poverty in light of the primacy of the Gospel (e.g., do people need wealth or Jesus more? Are we focusing more on social justice issues or the cross of Christ?)</li>
</ul>

<p>How would you answer these questions? We will equip students to see how the Christian worldview has tremendous insight into these topics. If you haven’t given this much thought, let me pass along some of the great resources we’re using to prepare this training session. You may find them helpful as you too think Christianly about all of life.</p>

<h2>BOOKS</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Virtues-Capitalism-Moral-Markets/dp/0802484565" target="_blank">The Virtues of Capitalism</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Money-Greed-God-Capitalism-Solution/dp/0061900575/" target="_blank">Money, Greed, and God</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://shop.acton.org/products/defending-the-free-market" target="_blank">Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://shop.acton.org/products/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village" target="_blank">Love and Economics</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>ARTICLES</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161018013635/http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/indepth/14281-introduction-to-the-christian-worldview" target="_blank">Introduction to the Christian Worldview</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://appreasons.org/biblical-worldview-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/" target="_blank">Biblical Worldview: What It Is and What It Is Not</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.gospelproject.com/2013/10/21/the-importance-of-a-christian-worldview/" target="_blank">The Importance of a Christian Worldview</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/articles/god-front-and-center#.VpiJ6DYVCIcvvv" target="_blank">Selfishness vs. Self-Interest</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/c-s-lewis-on-selfishness-vs-self-interest" target="_blank">C.S. Lewis on Selfishness vs. Self-Interest</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/202/sphere-sovereignty-101/" target="_blank">Sphere Sovereignty 101</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-our-hospitality-can-protect-sphere-sovereignty" target="_blank">How Our Hospitality Can Protect Sphere Sovereignty</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/worldview-at-work-running-companies-more-truly.html" target="_blank">Worldview at Work</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161008061134/http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-archive/entry/13/18486" target="_blank">Creating vs. Consuming</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/the-truth-about-marriage-and-poverty.html" target="_blank">The Truth about Marriage and Poverty</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/13/why-marriage-is-best-anti-poverty-program.html" target="_blank">Marriage Is America’s Most Effective Anti-Poverty Program</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://darrowmillerandfriends.com/2012/11/26/development-that-honors-people/" target="_blank">Creating Wealth Is Better than Curing Poverty</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://winteryknight.com/2015/12/01/jay-richards-eight-common-myths-about-wealth-poverty-and-the-free-market-3/" target="_blank">Jay Richards: Eight Common Myths about Wealth, Poverty, and the Free Market</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>VIDEOS</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONabI4OPeeI" target="_blank">The Virtues of Capitalism</a> - Milton Friedman</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XyJd4w5f1g" target="_blank">How to End Poverty in Ten Tough Steps</a> - Jay Richards</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kiYD0BRy5Q" target="_blank">Economics and the Gospel</a> - Jay Richards</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox9jcyR9wdg" target="_blank">Money, Greed, and God</a> - Jay Richards</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/fsustavros/clips/cse-f-ifwe-exchange-and-win-win-activities" target="_blank">Exchange and Win-Win Activities</a> - Jay Richards</li>
</ul>

<h2>VIDEOS/CURRICULUM FOR PURCHASE</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://shop.acton.org/products/flow-leaders-edition" target="_blank">For the Life of the World</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://shop.acton.org/products/povertycure-global-edition-dvd-1" target="_blank">Poverty Cure</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://shop.acton.org/products/call-of-the-entrepreneur" target="_blank">The Call of the Entrepreneur</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%2Fthinking-worldviewishly-about-economics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-worldviewishly-about-economics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-worldviewishly-about-economics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Another Muslim-Friendly Bible Translation
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/another-muslim-friendly-bible-translation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is it permissible to remove the terms “Son,”&nbsp;“Son of God,”&nbsp;and “Father”&nbsp;from Arabic translations of the Bible and insert more Muslim-friendly terms? That’s what some people do. It’s part of larger approach to reach Muslims called the <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-insider-movement" target="_blank">Insider Movement</a>.</p>

<p>My friend, Adam Simnowitz, has written a <a href="http://biblicalmissiology.org/2016/01/23/jeff-hayes-and-al-injil-another-mistranslation-of-the-new-testament-in-arabic-intended-for-insider-movements-of-muslims-or-c5-c5im/" target="_blank">great article</a> over at the Biblical Missiology site documenting his concerns with another Arabic translation of the Bible incorporating the “Muslim Idiom Translation”&nbsp;(MIT) approach. He writes:</p>

<p>As with most versions of MIT, the text of <em>Al-Injil</em> does not contain literal translations for “Father,”&nbsp;“Son/Son of God,”&nbsp;and “Son of Man,”&nbsp;apart from a very few occurrences. Other extreme liberties are taken with the text. These include inserting the first part of the <em>shah?da</em>, or Islamic confession of faith (i.e. “There is no god but God”) in more places than occur in the Qur’an; reducing the meaning of “eternal life”&nbsp;in John 3:16 to simply avoiding everlasting punishment; and obscuring and even eliminating the deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in numerous passages.</p>

<p>I’ve written about my concerns with these translations and other Insider Movement methods in a <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-insider-movement" target="_blank">previous Solid Ground</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%2Fanother-muslim-friendly-bible-translation" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-muslim-friendly-bible-translation" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanother-muslim-friendly-bible-translation" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 According to Columbo
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-according-to-columbo
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What if Lieutenant Columbo was a Christian? Instead of solving a crime, his task would be to present the Gospel. What would he say? How would he say it?</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason, we’ve always been intrigued by Columbo’s inquisitive style and believe it’s a powerful way to engage people. Here’s what I believe he’d say if he were to present the Gospel. He’d ask three questions. Do you believe people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? Have you ever committed a moral crime? Would you like to be pardoned? Let’s look at the reasoning behind each question.</p>

<p><strong>1. Do you believe people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?</strong> The first question gets the ball rolling. It’s supposed to be an obvious question that most honest people will affirm. They intuitively recognize that guilty people deserve to be punished. It’s an established principle in our country and, indeed, many others.</p>

<p>In rare cases, a person will answer no. I’ve found these people are often just trying to be difficult. Their insincerity can be exposed with a clear-case scenario. I ask them, “If a man murders your mother, would you be content with the judge letting him go free without any punishment?”&nbsp;Chances are they’ll say no. That’s because human nature demands that guilty people be punished. Now they’re ready for Columbo’s second question.</p>

<p><strong>2. Have <em>you</em> ever committed a moral crime?</strong> This question takes the conversation from the abstract to the personal. That’s because the Gospel isn’t mere theory, but affects real people.</p>

<p>It’s important they understand that by “crime,”&nbsp;we’re not talking about rape, murder, or other ghastly offenses. Those count, but most people haven’t committed such egregious acts. A moral crime entails breaking <em>any</em> law or moral code, no matter how seemingly small. Lying, cheating on tests, fudging your tax returns, maligning a person’s character, jealousy, and greed are all examples of moral crimes. They may not be against the law, but they’re crimes according to God. That matters because we live in His universe and, therefore, are under His jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Again, most people answer yes to this question because they all recognize they’ve done wrong. In fact, we’ve all done a lot of wrong. We <em>feel</em> guilty because we <em>are</em> guilty.</p>

<p>Notice what follows after the first two questions. The person believes that people who commit moral crimes deserve to be punished <em>and</em> they believe they have committed a moral crime. That’s bad news. They’re in trouble because they know they deserve to be punished. This prompts Columbo to ask the final and most important question.</p>

<p><strong>3. Would you like to be pardoned?</strong> Now that people understand the problem, providing Jesus as the solution makes sense. God is willing to give guilty people a chance to go free. He, however, determines the terms of the pardon. God is willing to have His Son pay the penalty for the crimes you’ve committed, and in return you give Him a lifetime of allegiance. You can accept the pardon and go free or pay the penalty yourself. It’s your choice.</p>

<p>There you have it - the Gospel according to Columbo. Three questions that help a person understand the bad news <em>and</em> (hopefully accept) the good news.</p>

<p>Presenting the Gospel according to Columbo isn’t just a cute, hypothetical exercise. It’s practical for three reasons. First, it makes the Gospel brief. We’re not always given a chance to explain the Gospel over a prolonged dinner. Sometimes our time is limited and we have to get right to the point. These three questions distill the key elements of the Gospel in a concise way.</p>

<p>Second, using questions engages the mind. Instead of being a passive listener, a person must process a question, which forces them to comprehend the point. This helps them understand the precise problem and why the solution works.</p>

<p>Third, it avoids what I call “Christianese.”&nbsp;That’s a term that describes the way Christians talk about their faith with each other. They use religiously-loaded language. The problem is that Christianese is largely incoherent to non-Christians. Saying “Jesus died for your sins”&nbsp;might be easily understood by believers, but it’s meaningless to unchurched people. They might wonder what you mean. <em>What is sin? What does death accomplish? Why did Jesus die? How is He involved with me?</em> Explaining the Gospel using the language of crimes, punishment, and pardons makes the Gospel understandable. People get that. When people understand, they’re more likely to respond.</p>

<p>So, next time you have a chance to explain the good news of Jesus, think about how Lieutenant Columbo would do it...and ask three good questions.</p>
</div>

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


title: God’s Glory Is United with Love, Not Selfishness
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/19/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-s-glory-is-united-with-love-not-selfishness
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christopher Morgan, co-editor of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Theology-Community/dp/1581349785/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1455842781&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank">The Glory of God</a></em>, gave a fantastic response in a recent <a href="http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-christopher-w-morgan-co-editor-of-the-glory-of-god-part-2" target="_blank">interview</a> to the question “If God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify himself, does that mean God is selfish?”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The bare response [that “good behavior seeks the highest end, so God making himself his own ultimate end is appropriate”] understates God’s genuine desire for the good of his creatures, and it fails to show how God’s love and his glory are united. Passages like Ephesians 1:3-14 and 2:1-10 showcase how God saves us out of love, displays his kindness toward us for all eternity, and is glorified through the entire display. Indeed, as we appropriately highlight the God-centeredness of God, we should stress the self-exalting God is also self-giving. As both self-exalting and self-giving, God saves us for his glory and our good. He gives himself to us, which simultaneously meets our needs and demonstrates his sufficiency. Thus, his love and glory cohere.</p>

<p>That God is simultaneously self-giving and self-exalting is also displayed in the mutual glorification of the persons of the Trinity. The glorious Father sends the glorious Son, who voluntarily humbles himself and glorifies the Father through his incarnation, obedient life, and substitutionary death (Phil. 2:5-11; cf. John 1:18; 6, 7:18; 10:1-30; 14:13; 17). In response the Father glorifies the Son, resurrecting him from the dead and exalting him to the highest place (Acts 3:13-15; Rom. 6:4; Phil. 2:9-11). The Father sends the glorious Spirit who glorifies the Son (John 16:14). And this all takes place to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:11).</p>

<p>Each member of the Trinity gives to the others as a display of love and as a way of accomplishing cosmic redemption...</p>

<p>Does any of this sound selfish? Not at all! The Father is out to bless the Son, and the Son is out to bless the Father! The mutuality and reciprocating love of God displayed within the Trinity flows outward even to bless us. Through union with Christ, we are recipients of God’s love and his manifold blessings, including forgiveness of our sins, adoption into his family, and final glorification (17:22). And because it is God who accomplishes all of this, it is for his glory, and it is for our good.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s the Trinitarian nature of God that makes all the difference here. Read the rest of the <a href="http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-christopher-w-morgan-co-editor-of-the-glory-of-god-part-2" target="_blank">interview</a>.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://twitter.com/XianMind/status/699933541099008000" target="_blank">Keith Plummer</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%2Fgod-s-glory-is-united-with-love-not-selfishness" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-glory-is-united-with-love-not-selfishness" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-glory-is-united-with-love-not-selfishness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 I Don’t Speak about Absolute Truth
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/12/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-i-don-t-speak-about-absolute-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently had the opportunity to speak to a group of youth at a homeschool conference. I am always impressed at the high level of questions I get from homeschoolers, and this event was no exception. After my talk titled “The Truth about Truth,”&nbsp;a young girl asked me why I didn’t use the term “absolute”&nbsp;when describing truth. How could I give a 45-minute talk on truth and not once use the word <em>absolute</em>?</p>

<p>There is actually a <em>strategic</em> reason why I prefer not to use the term “absolute.”&nbsp;When I get into conversations with people, one of my goals is to be as clear as possible. This means using the most accurate and helpful terminology possible. As it turns out, the term “absolute”&nbsp;can end up doing more harm than good if it isn’t carefully qualified.</p>

<p>Take the claim “<em>It’s absolutely wrong to lie</em>.”&nbsp;This statement communicates that it’s wrong to lie at <em>all times</em>, in <em>all places</em> and for <em>all people</em>. It’s an <em>absolute,</em> after all. So when I say it’s <em>absolutely</em> wrong to lie, they hear it’s <em>always</em> wrong to lie. But is that really the case? Is it always wrong to lie?</p>

<p>Consider a situation in which a German family is hiding Jews in their home to protect them from the Nazis during World War II. If a platoon of Nazis show up at their front door and ask if there are any Jews in the house, what should they do? On the one hand, if they tell the truth, these Jews will be sent to a concentration camp where they will be tortured and killed. Therefore, as a consequence of telling the truth—a moral good—this German family ends up helping the Nazis in their quest to exterminate the Jewish race.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if the family tells a lie to protect the Jews under their roof, they save the Jews from a fatal end, but not without breaking the ninth commandment in the process.</p>

<p>In philosophy, this is called a <em>moral dilemma</em>. It is a choice between two conflicting moral goods. I think most people would agree that lying in this situation is the morally right thing to do; it’s morally <em>justified</em>. It is a greater good to tell a lie to save a life than to tell the truth and have a life be taken as a consequence.</p>

<p>At this point we need to ask ourselves, what has become of our original claim? Can we still affirm that it’s <em>absolutely wrong to lie</em>?</p>

<p>I think we can; however, it’s going to take some careful <em>qualifications</em> to the original claim. This is why I’ve strategically decided to avoid using the term “absolute.”&nbsp;I opt to use a different term to describe truth, especially moral truth. Instead of talking about <em>absolute truth</em>, I talk about <em>objective truth</em>.</p>

<p>Using the word “objective”&nbsp;communicates that truth is independent of anyone’s beliefs about it, but doesn’t carry the added baggage of making universal statements <em>apart from context</em>. The claim that it’s <em>objectively wrong to lie</em> communicates that lying violates an objective moral standard—God’s moral law. That is to say, it’s not a <em>subjective truth</em> that is ultimately dependent upon the subject. On the contrary, there is a fact of the matter that is external to anyone’s personal preference.</p>

<p>Furthermore, objective truth always depends on the circumstances. You could say that objective truth is <em>relative to the situation</em>. Listen very carefully to what I’m saying here. I’m <em>not</em> saying truth is relative to the individual, or that it is up to the individual or culture to decide what’s true. That would be <em>relativism</em>. What I am saying is that <em>every</em> moral decision is <em>always</em> made within a context that cannot be ignored. Under most circumstances, it is wrong to lie. But for the situation described above, it’s objectively right to lie, given the fact that if you don’t, the Jews will probably be killed. Lying is the greater good.</p>

<p>I think this assessment also finds explicit biblical support. Recall the story of Rahab hiding the two Israelite spies:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.”&nbsp;But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. And she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them”&nbsp;(Joshua 2:3-5).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Rahab hid the spies but told the king’s men that they had left. She lied to save the spies. The New Testament writers affirm that Rahab’s actions were justified. In fact, it was this faithful act of protecting the spies that gets Rahab listed with Abraham and Moses in what is commonly called the “hall of faith”&nbsp;(Hebrews 11:31). James also specifically commends Rahab’s actions: “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”&nbsp;(James 2:25).</p>

<p>Do you see the difference using <em>objective</em> rather than <em>absolute</em>? Using a term like “absolute”&nbsp;makes you vulnerable to examples like the one I cited above. But the word “objective”&nbsp;does not, because it always takes into consideration the circumstance. It only says that there <em>is</em> an objectively right choice in every particular situation. So lying to save a human life is the objectively right thing to do for anyone in that situation. It’s the greater good. If anyone else was in <em>that</em> situation, then they should lie, too. In fact, they would be morally <em>obligated</em> to lie. If Rahab, for example, would have told the truth and given the Israelite spies over to the king of Jericho, then she and her family would have been judged with the rest of city, and their lives would not have been spared (cf. Josh. 2:14).</p>

<p>Knowing how to navigate these moral dilemmas is not easy, but it’s a reality that we each face. Thankfully, God has not left us to fend for ourselves but has written the Moral Law on our hearts. The apostle Paul writes, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts”&nbsp;(Rom. 2:14-15). In addition, God has given us moral commands in His special revelation and the personal inner witness of the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>As Christian ambassadors we must strive to be as effective as possible at communicating our point of view. This entails using accurate and helpful terminology. Unfortunately, some words that we use have an inherent liability and, as a result, should be avoided.</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-i-don-t-speak-about-absolute-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-i-don-t-speak-about-absolute-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-i-don-t-speak-about-absolute-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: Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Feeling That You Don’t Deserve Hell
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/30/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-shouldn-t-trust-the-feeling-that-you-don-t-deserve-hell
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was having a <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/01/how-to-respond-when-someone-doesnt-want-heaven.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c80d8579970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c80d8579970b" target="_blank">conversation</a> in the comments section the other day about whether or not Hell is just, and I made the point that I don’t trust our ability as human beings to accurately apprehend our level of goodness or the punishment we deserve for our evil.</p>

<p>Yes, I recognize that many people don’t feel like their moral crimes deserve Hell, but the fact that people <em>feel</em> this way doesn’t mean the feeling is based on truth. In fact, I have reason to think the feeling is quite inaccurate—not only because of what God has said about it, but also because of what I’ve observed. As I wrote before in “<a href="/w/we-re-not-good-at-estimating-our-goodness" target="_blank">We’re Not Good at Estimating Our Goodness</a>”&nbsp;(citing research to support the claim), we human beings seem to be particularly good at self-deception when it comes to our moral condition.</p>

<p>And then this morning, I heard about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-adolf-eichmann-holocaust.html" target="_blank">this article</a> on <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/architect-of-the-holocaust-sentenced-to-die" target="_blank">Adolf Eichmann</a> that supports this idea once again. Eichmann, who is often referred to as the architect of the Holocaust, oversaw the deportation of millions of Jews to death camps.</p>

<p>But he didn’t feel guilty.</p>

<p><em>The New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-adolf-eichmann-holocaust.html" target="_blank">reports</a> on Eichmann’s plea for a pardon that recently came to light:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“There is a need to draw a line between the leaders responsible and the people like me forced to serve as mere instruments in the hands of the leaders,”&nbsp;pleaded Eichmann—the Nazi war criminal who oversaw the lethal logistics of the Holocaust—in a letter dated May 29, 1962, the day that Israel’s Supreme Court rejected his appeal.</p>

<p>Eichmann asked the Israeli president, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, for a pardon, arguing, “I was not a responsible leader, and as such do not feel myself guilty.”...</p>

<p>He wrote that the judges who convicted him were “not able to empathize with the time and situation in which I found myself during the war years.”...</p>

<p>“I am not able to recognize the court’s ruling as just, and I ask, Your Honor Mr. President, to exercise your right to grant pardons, and order that the death penalty not be carried out,”&nbsp;he concluded, before signing his name in blue ink on lined paper.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He did not feel guilty. His circumstances weren’t taken into account. The judges lacked empathy. His penalty wasn’t just. Sound familiar?</p>

<p>“But,”&nbsp;you say, “I’m not a monster!”&nbsp;Did Eichmann appear to be a monster? Not according to one witness of his trial, Hannah Arendt. From the <em><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil" target="_blank">Guardian</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In her famous account of the trial, the philosopher Hannah Arendt described Eichmann as a small-minded functionary, more concerned with the managerial hows of his job than the moral or existential whys. According to Arendt, Eichmann wasn’t a man for asking difficult questions, he just got on with the job of managing timetables and calculating travel costs—thus her famous phrase “the banality of evil”.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From another article in the <em><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil" target="_blank">Guardian</a></em> on Arendt’s phrase:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]f a crime against humanity had become in some sense “banal”&nbsp;it was precisely because it was committed in a daily way, systematically, without being adequately named and opposed. In a sense, by calling a crime against humanity “banal”, she was trying to point to the way in which the crime had become for the criminals accepted, routinized, and implemented without moral revulsion and political indignation and resistance.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If man has the ability to turn this kind of evil into something “accepted, routinized, and implemented without moral revulsion,”&nbsp;simply because “everyone’s doing it”&nbsp;(just as we see happening in <a href="/w/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil" target="_blank">our own day</a>), it’s not hard to imagine how much of our own evil remains undetected by us. Everyone is doing it. Everyone, that is, except God, who can see all of our evil perfectly because He has <em>no</em> evil within Himself. Such a perfect being will punish perfectly.</p>

<p>Eichmann’s excuses didn’t help him in the end, and neither will ours. We don’t need excuses; <a href="/w/god-solved-the-justice/grace-problem" target="_blank">we need grace</a>.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/01/29/the-briefing-01-29-16/" target="_blank">The Briefing</a>)</p>
</div>

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


title: What Is the Ultimate Source of Morality?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-the-ultimate-source-of-morality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the PragerU video “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM" target="_blank">Where Do Good and Evil Come From?</a>”&nbsp;philosopher Peter Kreeft explains why objective morality can only come from a source higher than anything in the natural world. Enjoy!</p>

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

<p>(HT: <a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/84782-where-do-good-and-evil-come-from.html" target="_blank">Joe Carter</a>)</p>
</div>

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


title: LGBT Activist Says We Should Be Allowed to Discriminate against Ideas
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/20/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After refusing to bake a cake that said “support gay marriage,”&nbsp;a couple in Northern Ireland was convicted of political and sexual orientation discrimination. Now LGBT activist Peter Tatchell is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion?CMP=share_btn_tw" target="_blank">publicly disagreeing</a> with the court’s decision, saying, “Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]he court erred by <a href="http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a> that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.</p>

<p>His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. Despite this, Judge Isobel Brownlie said that refusing the pro-gay marriage slogan was unlawful indirect sexual orientation discrimination. On the question of political discrimination, the judge said Ashers had denied Lee service based on his request for a message supporting same-sex marriage. She noted: “If the plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words ’support marriage’&nbsp;or ’support heterosexual marriage’&nbsp;I have no doubt that such a cake would have been provided.”&nbsp;Brownlie thus concluded that by refusing to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage wording Ashers had treated him less favourably, contrary to the law.</p>

<p>This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict. They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.</p>

<p>The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful”&nbsp;message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.</p>

<p>In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Tatchell gets it. He didn’t just reflexively cheer the punishment of his political opponents; he recognized the principle behind the ruling (a denial of freedom of conscience), considered what the result would be if the same principle were to be applied to everyone (including his political friends), saw that it was an unjust infringement of a natural right, and realized the whole society is better off when we protect <em>everyone’s</em> political and religious freedom of conscience. He put <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/rfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle#.W392dpMzrdc" target="_blank">principle and natural rights above agenda</a>, and I find that very encouraging.</p>
</div>

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


title: Bad Design Is a Bad Argument against ID
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/27/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/bad-design-is-a-bad-argument-against-id
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of my favorite things to talk about is the evidence for intelligent design. In particular, I’m fascinated by the work of Stephen Meyer in <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK378" target="_blank">Darwin’s Doubt</a></em> and <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1453919787&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=signature+in+the+cell" target="_blank">Signature in the Cell</a></em>. When I speak about intelligent design to secular audiences, there is always some pushback. Probably the most common objection to my case is the claim there are examples of bad design. Critics of ID are quick to point to the specific features in the biosphere that they believe to be poorly designed. The human esophagus, junk DNA, the panda’s thumb, and the human eye are just a few of the many examples cited.</p>

<p>Although each example of bad design should be carefully considered, I think there are <em>three</em> broad reasons why this kind of argument is weak.</p>

<p>First, this is not a <em>scientific</em> objection; it is a <em>theological</em> objection. The challenge is a shot against the designer’s intelligence, not intelligent design proper. Critics of ID cite how if they were the designer, they would do things differently. For instance, they would engineer an eye without a blind spot. But just because <em>they</em> would design something differently doesn’t mean there was no design to begin with. Many of the criticism of design presume to know the <em>intent</em> of the designer. The designer is criticized on a failure to meet that intention.</p>

<p>We are told that critics of ID are the champions of science, yet <em>they</em> offer a non-scientific rebuttal to ID. If they want to persist with this theological challenge, then they shouldn’t be surprised to get a theological response. The orthodox Christian must take into account the effects of the fall. It is clear from Scripture that “the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:22). This isn’t the very good creation that God created in the beginning. The Christian, who holds to ID, isn’t surprised at spoiled design. But spoiled design is not no design. This leads nicely to the second point.</p>

<p>Second, bad design is still design. The <em>2001 Pontiac Aztec</em> is arguably one of the worst cars ever invented. We can all name cars that are <em>better</em> designed. But does the <em>2001 Pontiac Aztec</em> need to function as well as a <em>2016 Chevrolet Corvette</em> for us to conclude that it’s designed? Obviously not! You do not need to have <em>maximum optimality</em> to exhibit design. Different designs have various levels of optimality. In a world of physical constraints, all design will entail trade-offs.</p>

<p>In fact there will come a day when the <em>2016 Chevrolet Corvette</em> will look like a flawed design. Therefore, design is not nullified just because you can think up a better design. Flawed design is not no design.</p>

<p>Third, many examples of bad design have turned out to be examples of <em>good</em> design. It is ironic that often-cited examples of bad design turn out to be great examples of good design. For example, Junk DNA was the poster child of bad design. ID critics of all stripes have asked, “Why would an intelligent designer litter our genome with junk?”&nbsp;However, new developments in genetics, especially from the ENCODE Project, have discovered that much of the so-called junk DNA isn’t junk at all. Therefore, just because something might appear to be bad design at first glance doesn’t mean it actually is bad design.</p>

<p>So the bad design argument turns out to be a bad argument. First, it doesn’t address intelligent design proper. Second, bad design is not the same thing as no design. And, third, many of the examples touted as bad design have turned out to be just the opposite when more information was discovered.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbad-design-is-a-bad-argument-against-id" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbad-design-is-a-bad-argument-against-id" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbad-design-is-a-bad-argument-against-id" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Clarification on How Bible Variants Are Counted
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/16/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-clarification-on-how-bible-variants-are-counted
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a <a href="http://danielbwallace.com/2016/02/12/debunking-silly-statements-in-greg-gilberts-debunking-silly-statements-about-the-bible-an-exercise-in-biblical-transmission/" target="_blank">guest post</a> on Dan Wallace’s blog, Robert Marcello confronts “a common mistake in apologetic circles”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Gilbert perpetuates a common mistake in apologetic circles. He states, “Second, keep in mind that ’400,000 variants’&nbsp;here doesn’t mean 400,000 unique readings.”&nbsp;In fact, that is exactly what it means. He illustrates his point by claiming, “What it means is that if <em>one</em> manuscript says, ’I am innocent of this man’s blood’&nbsp;and <em>ten</em> others say, ’I am innocent of this righteous blood,’&nbsp;then you get to count all <em>eleven</em> as ’variants.’”&nbsp;In reality, that would merely count as one variant. This is a common mistake beginning with the 1963 publication of Neil Lightfoot’s, <em>How We Got the Bible</em>, and perpetuated by other apologists.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Marcello points to an <a href="http://danielbwallace.com/2013/09/09/the-number-of-textual-variants-an-evangelical-miscalculation/" target="_blank">earlier post by Dan Wallace</a> that explains further:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Lightfoot was claiming that textual variants are counted by <em>the number of manuscripts</em> that support such variants, rather than by the <em>wording</em> of the variants. His method was to count the number of manuscripts <em>times</em> the wording error. This book has been widely influential in evangelical circles. I believe over a million copies of it have been sold. And this particular definition of textual variants has found its way into countless apologetic works.</p>

<p>The problem is, the definition is wrong. <em>Terribly wrong</em>. A textual variant is simply any difference from a standard text (e.g., a printed text, a particular manuscript, etc.) that involves spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution, or a total rewrite of the text. No textual critic defines a textual variant the way that Lightfoot and those who have followed him have done.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s understandable that people have depended on respected sources like Lightfoot and Geisler and repeated this error, but as apologists, we need to get this right in the future. Wallace sums up what we need to know this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A] variant is simply the difference in wording found in a single manuscript or a group of manuscripts (either way, it’s still only one variant) that disagrees with a base text.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To learn more about textual criticism, see Dan Wallace’s free iTunes U course, “<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/basics-new-testament-textual/id446655163?mt=10" target="_blank">The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism</a>.”</p>
</div>

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


title: Jehovah’s Witnesses Can’t Consistently Affirm the Reliability of the New Testament
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/15/2016
source:
https://www.str.org/w/jehovah-s-witnesses-can-t-consistently-affirm-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly refer to modern translations of the Bible as “Lord Bibles.”&nbsp;It is often used as a pejorative. They claim that so-called “Lord Bibles”&nbsp;remove the name of Jehovah more than 7,000 times and replace it with the word Lord. Only they have the <em>true</em> Bible, because their New World Translation (NWT) uses the name Jehovah. All other versions are rejected because they’re thought to be unreliable.</p>

<p>Even though Jehovah’s Witnesses make a big deal out of using the name Jehovah when referring to God, the New Testament writers <em>never once</em> address God as Jehovah. In fact, in the nearly 5,900 Greek New Testament manuscripts that have been discovered, none use the name Jehovah. Now think about this. If the name Jehovah was to be the <em>sole</em> name for God for all generations, why is the name not used a single time in the New Testament?</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses have a response to this. They assert that the scribes who copied the original New Testament documents <em>deliberately</em> changed the text. On their view, Jehovah’s name <em>was</em> in the originals, but the copyists took it out and replaced it with the word Lord [Greek: <em>kurios</em>]. Please try to understand the implications of this belief. This means that the manuscripts, or copies, that we have to reconstruct the New Testament <em>do not</em> contain what the apostles actually wrote.</p>

<p>What kind of evidence do Jehovah’s Witnesses provide to back up this extraordinary claim? First, they do not have <em>any</em> early textual evidence. As I have already stated, <em>all</em> of the manuscript evidence has the word Lord [Greek: <em>kurios</em>], not Jehovah. Furthermore, the New Testament authors even use the word Lord in their quotations of the Old Testament.</p>

<p>For example, in his letter to the church in Rome, Paul writes,</p>

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

<p>Try to follow the flow of Paul’s argument. Specifically, look at how Paul explicitly uses the term Lord throughout this passage. Paul tells us that one must confess that <em>Jesus is Lord to be saved</em>. Next, he tells us that the <em>same</em> Lord is Lord of all. Paul is explicit that this not a different Lord; it’s the same Lord who is Lord over all. Given that he has just told us that Jesus is Lord, the only rational conclusion is that he is still talking about Jesus.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the Lord bestows riches on all <em>who call on Him</em>. Now he is going to back up this claim by giving a quote from the Old Testament. Paul says, “For everyone who calls on the name of the <em>Lord</em> will be saved”&nbsp;(Rom. 10:13 ESV).</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to point out that this is a quote from the prophet Joel, which says, “And everyone who calls on the name of <em>Jehovah</em> will be saved”&nbsp;(Joel 2:32 NWT). Since Joel used the name Jehovah, they assume Paul must have as well. It is from this <em>assumption</em> that they assert that the early scribes intentionally changed Paul’s original words.</p>

<p>However, this reasoning completely misses the apostle Paul’s point in Romans 10:9-13. Every Greek-speaking Jew would have understood what Paul was doing. He had already said that everyone, whether Greek or Jew, must confess Jesus is <em>kurios</em> to be saved. Consequently, he backs this claim by citing the prophet Joel from the Old Testament. However, when Paul quotes Joel, he says, “Everyone who calls upon the <em>kurios</em> will be saved.”&nbsp;Therefore, Paul takes Joel 2:32 and <em>applies</em> it to Jesus. Joel tells people to call on Jehovah to be saved. However, Paul reveals that the name that everyone must call on to be saved is <em>Jesus</em>. There can be no mistake that Paul is intentionally applying a text about Jehovah from the Old Testament to Jesus because he believes that <a href="/w/an-argument-for-jehovah-s-witnesses-jesus-is-jehovah" target="_blank">Jesus is Jehovah</a>.</p>

<p>This conclusion is unacceptable to a Jehovah’s Witness. Therefore, the NWT changes Romans 10:13 to say, “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”&nbsp;But Paul doesn’t actually use the name Jehovah. It turns out that the NWT has inserted the name Jehovah into the New Testament over 270 times without any textual basis for doing so. Many of these unsupported insertions end up distorting the original intention of the biblical authors.</p>

<p>It seems to me that Jehovah’s Witnesses are caught in a dilemma. They cannot both affirm that the earliest scribes changed important texts of the New Testament <em>without leaving any evidence of a change</em>, and affirm the reliability of the New Testament.</p>

<p>They want to stress the importance of using God’s correct name. However, when you point out that the name Jehovah is <em>never</em> used in the New Testament, they are forced to assert that the name was actually in the originals, but removed from all copies. This is a direct attack on the reliability of the New Testament. Think about it. This means that all of the scribes were <em>not</em> faithful copyists. All were willing to allow their own bias to determine which words could and could not be in the text. Furthermore, all of the scribes conspired to deliberately change the name of God without leaving any trace of the original wording. But if this is true, what else could they have changed without leaving any trace of the original wording?</p>

<p>The Jehovah’s Witnesses’&nbsp;unsubstantiated assertion is a double-edged sword. Consider the following illustration. What if I merely asserted that Romans 10:9 <em>originally</em> said, “If you confess with your mouth that <em>Jesus is Jehovah</em> and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”&nbsp;My Jehovah’s Witness friend is likely to protest that we have no textual evidence that Paul wrote, “Jesus is Jehovah”&nbsp;in Roman 10:9. On the contrary, every manuscript says, “Jesus is Lord.”&nbsp;However, using the <em>same logic</em> as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I could reply that the copyist deliberately conspired to change the text without leaving any trace of the original “Jesus is Jehovah”&nbsp;wording. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.</p>

<p>Given their outlandish understanding of the transmission of the New Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot <em>consistently</em> affirm the reliability of the New Testament. Obviously, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’&nbsp;ultimate authority is not Scripture. Instead, the Watchtower dictates what Scripture says, even to the point where they will make up what it says by inserting and replacing words that are not in any manuscript.</p>

<p>Finally, when I’m derided for using a so-called “Lord Bible,”&nbsp;I point out that it was the New Testament writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who chose to use the term Lord [<em>kurios</em>] for Jesus <em>and</em> Jehovah. Modern translators didn’t make this stuff up. So their complaint is not with modern Bible translators, but with the New Testament authors and God Himself.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjehovah-s-witnesses-can-t-consistently-affirm-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjehovah-s-witnesses-can-t-consistently-affirm-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjehovah-s-witnesses-can-t-consistently-affirm-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Religion the Cause of Most Wars?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/18/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On Sunday, I returned home from another Berkeley Mission trip, where I intentionally exposed high school students to some of my atheist friends in the Bay Area. For the last six months, we’ve taught apologetics to these high schoolers from Upland Christian Academy. Now it was time for them to “get off the sidelines and into the game”&nbsp;and engage non-Christians with the truth. Of course, my atheist friends are more than happy to oblige, so they meet with our missions teams, challenge them with a short lecture, and then dive into some rigorous dialogue.</p>

<p>Without fail, a couple of our atheist guests will contend, “Religion is the cause of most wars.”&nbsp;This cultural mantra has been uttered so often and with so much force, it has come to be accepted as an undeniable declaration. Prominent atheists like Sam Harris contribute to the chorus of voices, arguing religion is “the most prolific source of violence in our history”&nbsp;(<em>The End of Faith</em> page 27). <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfYrNz3zhno" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins claims</a>, “There’s no doubt that throughout history religious faith has been a major motivator for war and for destruction.”</p>

<p>But as we trained students for this trip, we equipped them with a simple question to expose such claims: “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;(also known as <a href="/w/the-columbo-tactic" target="_blank">Columbo Question #2</a>). We simply taught students to recognize when someone makes a claim and then to request their supporting reasons. When our atheist presenters were challenged to provide justification, they could only offer up the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9-11, or vague references to Islamic terrorism. Certainly we recognize religion’s role in these examples, but three or four references cannot support the claim that <strong>most</strong> wars are caused by religion.</p>

<p>Not only were students able to demonstrate the paucity of evidence for this claim, but we helped them discover that the facts of history show the opposite: religion is the cause of a very small minority of wars. Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Volume-Library-History/dp/0816028516" target="_blank">Encyclopedia of Wars</a></em> lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature (according to author Vox Day in the book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1941631622/" target="_blank">The Irrational Atheist</a></em>). If you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, it cuts the number down to a little more than 3%. A second scholarly source, <em><a href="http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140519037X.html">The Encyclopedia of War</a></em> edited by Gordon Martel, confirms this data, concluding that only 6% of the wars listed in its pages can be labelled religious wars. Thirdly, William Cavanaugh’s book, <em>The Myth of Religious Violence</em>, exposes the “wars of religion”&nbsp;claim. And finally, <a href="http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/news/1085" target="_blank">a recent report</a> (2014) from the Institute for Economics and Peace further debunks this myth.</p>

<p>We didn’t stop there. We showed students it gets worse for the atheists’&nbsp;claim. A strong case can be made that atheism, not religion, and certainly not Christianity, is responsible for a <a href="/w/the-real-murderers-atheism-or-christianity-" target="_blank">far greater degree of bloodshed</a>. Indeed, R.J. Rummel’s work in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Politics-Soviet-Genocide-Murder/dp/1560008873" target="_blank">Lethal Politics</a></em> and <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-R-J-Rummel/dp/1560001453/" target="_blank">Death by Government</a></em> has the secular body count at more than 100 million... in the 20th century alone.</p>

<p>Our students were able to see that a simple examination of the facts relieves religion from blame for most of the world’s wars. In addition, we were able to help cultivate in students a healthy skepticism of atheistic claims. If the skeptic will shout such an unsubstantiated claim so loudly and with so much force, what other skeptical claims might quickly fall apart under rational scrutiny?</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-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 It Wrong to Claim a Religion Is True?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/04/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-wrong-to-claim-a-religion-is-true-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a challenge I received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>No-one can “validate”&nbsp;his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can “invalidate”&nbsp;any other religion. I believe in some type of god/gods, but I choose not to associate that belief with any specific religious teachings, because I’ve never felt qualified to refute the equally unprovable beliefs of other cultures. You can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be “right”&nbsp;or “wrong”&nbsp;when it’s all based on conjecture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I can’t help but draw your attention to the self-refuting nature of the last sentence. We need to ask the question, is the belief that “you can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong,”&nbsp;<em>based on conjecture</em>? If so, why is he telling me it’s <em>wrong</em> to “claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong?”&nbsp;Doesn’t he think he’s right? Isn’t that why he’s correcting me? He thinks my claims about my beliefs are wrong and his claims about his beliefs are right.</p>

<p>Having said that, let’s get back to responding to the broad challenge—you can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong. This person has expressed a very common confusion. He’s confused objective truth with subjective truth. Let me define what I mean by these terms.</p>

<p>By subjective truth I mean that the belief or claim is made true by the subject’s personal preference. So if I said, “The best flavor of ice cream is Butterscotch Ripple,”&nbsp;and you said, “The best flavor of ice cream is Chocolate Peanut Butter,”&nbsp;both claims about the best flavor of ice cream would be true. But how can the best flavor of ice cream be both Butterscotch Ripple <em>and</em> Chocolate Peanut Butter? That’s simple! It’s because the claim is true <em>for you</em>. That is to say, the truth of the belief only depends on the one who believes it. It turns out that when I claim that Butterscotch Ripple is the best flavor of ice cream, I’m not actually saying anything about the ice cream. I’m only talking <em>about me</em>. That’s how subjective truth claims work.</p>

<p>Now just imagine how ridiculous it would be if I said, “Your belief that Chocolate Peanut Butter is the best ice cream is <em>wrong.”</em>&nbsp;Why is this so ridiculous? Well, it’s because you can’t tell someone that his or her personal preference is wrong. It’s <em>their</em> preference after all. Thus, no one can invalidate your <em>personal preferences</em>. I think this is what the challenger is trying to get at when he says, “No-one can ’validate’&nbsp;his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can ’invalidate’&nbsp;any other religion.”&nbsp;The only problem is he has <em>assumed</em> that religious claims are personal, subjective preference truths.</p>

<p>Objective truth is very different. Objective truth is about the way the world really is. It’s when a belief or claim <em>corresponds with</em> reality. If I say, “Insulin regulates diabetes,”&nbsp;then I am making an objective truth claim about the real world. If I have diabetes, it doesn’t matter if I <em>like</em> insulin or not, or if I <em>believe</em> it works or not. My beliefs and preferences don’t change the fact of the matter; insulin controls diabetes. So objective “insulin”&nbsp;truths are very different from subjective “ice cream”&nbsp;truths.</p>

<p>As I hope you are beginning to see, our challenger believes that religious truths are simply subjective “ice cream”&nbsp;truths. However, he couldn’t be more wrong.</p>

<p>Every world religion makes claims about the real world. Just take the central claim of Christianity that Jesus physically rose from the dead. This is a historical claim. It’s about an event that took place in time and space. It either happened or it didn’t. He either rose or He didn’t. But, make no mistake, it’s not the kind of thing that can be true for me but not for you. Notice that if this claim is <em>true</em>, then Christianity is validated and many other religions are invalidated by default. Let me show you.</p>

<p>The Muslim will tell you that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because He didn’t actually die on the cross, but rather, a substitute took His place. (Some say that Judas Iscariot was made to look like Jesus and the Romans actually crucified Judas.) So, Muslims don’t believe in the resurrection. A Jewish person will tell you that Jesus was a false messiah, and that after He was crucified He stayed dead. The Christian teaches that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and on the third day rose physically from the dead.</p>

<p>Now if it turns out that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then Christianity is vindicated, and Islam, Judaism, and every other religion that <em>denies</em> Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection would be wrong. This is simple logic.</p>

<p>Therefore, Christianity is not the kind of thing that can be true for you and not for me. It makes objective truth claims about reality. So, in principle, it can be falsified. The Apostle Paul said it himself in his first letter to the Corinthians.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These words are absolutely striking. Essentially, he’s saying that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are really wrong. Paul knew he was making an objective truth claim about the resurrection. Now whether that objective claim is indeed true is another question.</p>

<p>I answer the question “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?”&nbsp;in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvahrvCSlU" target="_blank">this</a> presentation. You can book me to come to speak at your church on this topic by clicking <a href="http://www.str.org/training/speakers/tim-barnett" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-it-wrong-to-claim-a-religion-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%2Fis-it-wrong-to-claim-a-religion-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%2Fis-it-wrong-to-claim-a-religion-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: Students Don’t Have to Be Intimidated by Evolution
topic: Science
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/students-don-t-have-to-be-intimidated-by-evolution
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When was the last time you went to a birthday party for a dead guy? Here’s your chance. On February 12, evolutionists everywhere will gather for Darwin Day, a celebration of Charles Darwin’s birthday. Darwin can’t make it, but that won’t stop the celebrations planned worldwide.</p>

<p>Well, you’ll probably skip this one. Darwin’s legacy is no secret. He provided an explanation of life’s origin that removes God from the picture. The famed Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins explains the impact: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”&nbsp;Before Darwin, atheists had a problem. If God does not exist, how did life begin? Darwin’s theory of evolution provided atheists an answer to that troublesome question. And that’s good reason for an atheist to party.</p>

<p>Christian students are often intimidated by Darwin’s theory. When their high school biology teacher or college professor covers evolution, they cower. They feel ill-equipped to counter the scientific case for evolution. They don’t even know where to begin. So I give them a simple starting point: define evolution.</p>

<p><em>Definition #1: Evolution is change over time.</em></p>

<p>As we observe our world we see things changing day by day, month by month, year by year. An oak changes as it goes from sapling to tree. A newborn changes as she grows into a toddler. Seasons change. Clothing styles change. Everything changes. But is this kind of evolution a problem for Christians? Of course not. If this is what someone means when they say “evolution,”&nbsp;no problem.</p>

<p><em>Definition #2: Evolution is the process where small scale genetic change occurs in an organism to produce new characteristics.</em></p>

<p>In his seminal work, <em>On the Origin of Species</em>, Darwin distinguished two additional types of evolution. Our second definition is Darwin’s special theory of evolution or <em>microevolution</em>. On this view, environmental pressure forces an organism to adapt—“evolve”—in order to survive.</p>

<p>A classic “evidence”&nbsp;found in biology textbooks today is Darwin’s finches. They’re a species of bird on the Galápagos Islands where Darwin did much of his original research. Scientists have discovered the average finch beak size fluctuates during drought, when food is more scarce, and during periods where the climate produces plentiful food. Scientists proclaim that changing finch beaks are an example of and evidence for evolution.</p>

<p>However, this definition is uncontroversial for Christians as well. Yes, we certainly observe microevolutionary changes within species throughout the natural world. Again, if this is what someone means when they say “evolution,”&nbsp;no problem. But notice, microevolution does not explain how finches got their beaks in the first place. For that, a third definition is required.</p>

<p><em>Definition #3: Evolution is the process by which large scale genetic changes take place in a population to produce new kinds of organisms.</em></p>

<p>Look at Definition #2 again. Notice the difference here. On this third definition, we have large scale changes and new organisms. This is Darwin’s general theory of evolution or <em>macroevolution</em>. Macroevolution is microevolution on steroids. This was Darwin’s revolutionary idea. This is the reason Darwin gets the big birthday party.</p>

<p>Darwin saw microevolution happening <em>within</em> a species, like the finches. However, he didn’t see limits to that change. Given enough change and enough time, a species can develop new body parts and become an entirely new organism. Eventually, toads become turkeys. Over millions of years, wolves become whales. For Darwin, the process of macroevolution could explain all life’s diversity. And when the biology professor argues for macroevolution, now we have a problem.</p>

<p>To help students navigate the scientific case for evolution, I tell them to ask a simple question: Is the particular evidence being offered an example of microevolution or macroevolution? Virtually every shred of evidence offered—changing beak sizes, changing colors in peppered moths, additional wings on fruit flies, changing human genes—is evidence of microevolution, <em>not</em> macroevolution.</p>

<p>Why should this matter to Christian students? Remember what atheist Richard Dawkins said: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”&nbsp;Instead of a personal and purposeful Creator as the explanation of life’s origin, atheists argue we are the product of blind, physical, evolutionary processes. There are two choices. We are here on purpose or by accident. Evolution robs humanity of its special dignity. We’re no longer made in the image of God but in the image of a common ancestor. Yes, evolutionary ideas have consequences. It’s up to us to teach a new generation of Christian students they have nothing to fear from science, but can harness it to proclaim the truth of their Creator through the glory of His creation.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudents-don-t-have-to-be-intimidated-by-evolution" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudents-don-t-have-to-be-intimidated-by-evolution" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstudents-don-t-have-to-be-intimidated-by-evolution" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Adam a Real Person?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/22/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-adam-a-real-person-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month I was asked to speak at a church on the question “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?”&nbsp;The way you answer this question depends entirely on what you mean by evolution. Broadly speaking, evolution can be divided into two categories: <em>micro</em>evolution and <em>macro</em>evolution. Microevolution, or small-scale biological change, is obviously true and is virtually accepted by everyone. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is much more controversial. This is the idea that all of the diversity of life is descended from a common ancestor through an unguided, natural process.</p>

<p>In this talk, I give three overarching reasons for why I believe Christians should <em>not</em> embrace macroevolution. The first is a <em>logical</em> argument. I do not believe orthodox neo-Darwinian evolution, as taught by the evolutionists themselves, is logically compatible with a theistic Creator of all biological life. The second is a <em>scientific</em> argument. I do not find the evidence given in favor of macroevolution to be convincing. In fact, I believe there are features of the biological realm that make an intelligent designer absolutely necessary.</p>

<p>The third is a <em>theological</em> argument. This is the argument I’d like to share with you. Most theistic evolutionists believe there is overwhelming evidence for human evolution—enough to confidently reject the existence of a historical Adam. For them, the weight of the scientific evidence demands that Christians reinterpret Adam and Eve as literary figures.</p>

<p>But, is this a <em>valid</em> option? What’s at stake in denying the historicity of an original Adam? Theistic evolutionists insist that there is no great loss. For instance, in his book <em>Evolutionary Creation</em>, Denis Lamoureux states, “My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, <em>and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity</em>.”&nbsp;I adamantly disagree. In fact, I believe that there are serious consequences in rejecting Adam as a historical person.</p>

<p>First, the consistent testimony of Scripture is that the human race goes back to a historical Adam. The authors of the Bible consistently present genealogies that <em>begin</em> with Adam. Genesis 5 provides a lineage of Adam to Noah and his three sons. Genesis 11 picks up this lineage from Noah’s son Shem and continues until Abraham. First Chronicles extends these genealogies even further. In fact, nine chapters are devoted to showing the connection between Adam and the twelve tribes of Israel.</p>

<p>And this isn’t simply an Old Testament thing. The Gospel of Luke also contains a genealogy that goes back to Adam. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, traces the ancestry from Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus, back to “Adam, the son of God”&nbsp;(Luke 3:38). These long genealogies are the verses most people skip over during their morning devotions. It’s reasonable to ask, <em>Why are they even in the Bible?</em> The answer is clear: They are in the Bible to show us that the nation of Israel is <em>biologically</em> connected to a real Adam.</p>

<p>Second, the biblical authors speak as if Adam is a real person. Most notably, Jesus assumes Adam and Eve were real people when He addressed the issue of divorce.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”&nbsp;He answered, “Have you not read that he who created <em>them from the beginning made them male and female</em>, and said, ’Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate.”&nbsp;(Matt. 19:3-6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If Adam was not a real person, then <em>either</em> Jesus didn’t know that, <em>or</em> He knowingly deceived the Pharisees to make His point. Both of these options are untenable for the believer. Furthermore, if Adam and Eve were not the first married couple, then it’s hard to see how Jesus’&nbsp;argument for marriage being a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman holds up. Jesus grounds marriage in the <em>created order</em>, not a fairy tale.</p>

<p>Similarly, the apostle Paul refers to Adam as a historical person on numerous occasions. For instance, during his sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians, Paul says, “And he made from <em>one man</em> every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth”&nbsp;(Acts 17:26). In his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes, “For <em>Adam was formed first</em>, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”&nbsp;(1 Tim. 2:13-14). And in First Corinthians, Paul writes, “For as <em>by a man came death</em>, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For <em>as in Adam all die</em>, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 15:21-22).</p>

<p>It is undeniable that Paul believed Adam was a real person. But where does this leave the theistic evolutionist who denies the existence of Adam? Theologian Peter Enns answers this question for us. He says, “One approach that is helpful to me is that I think Paul certainly assumed that Adam was a person and the progenitor of the human race. And I would expect nothing less from Paul being a first-century man.”&nbsp;Theistic evolutionists, like Enns, are left to defend the position that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, <em>got it wrong</em>.</p>

<p>Third, the doctrine of the fall is firmly grounded in a historical event involving a historical Adam. Probably the most important theological passage that relies on a historical Adam is found in Romans 5. What makes this argument so profound is that it contrasts the work of Adam with the work of Jesus. Paul begins by establishing Adam as the <em>originator</em> of human sin and death in the world.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, just as <em>sin came into the world through one man</em>, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Y<em>et death reigned from Adam to Moses</em>, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom. 5:12-14)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A real historical man brought human sin and death into the world. Adam’s actions had real consequences for everyone who has come after him. If you remove Adam as a historical individual, then you have removed what Paul describes as the <em>cause</em> of sin and death. A myth cannot bring sin into the world; only a real moral agent can do that.</p>

<p>You may be wondering, <em>If there is no Adam, who (or what) brought sin in the world?</em> Theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson clears that up for us in his book <em>Saving Darwin</em>. He argues that sin was there in human beings from the very beginning: “Selfishness...drives the evolutionary process. Unselfish creatures died, and their unselfish genes perished with them. Selfish creatures, who attended to their own needs for food, power, and sex, flourished and passed on these genes to their offspring. After many generations selfishness was so fully programmed in our genomes that it was a significant part of what we now call human nature.”</p>

<p>On this view, there was no Fall. There was no good creation in the beginning. Humanity has evolution to thank for its sinful nature. Humans never became fallen; they always were fallen. The problems don’t stop there. Paul continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:18-19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice that Paul is contrasting the consequences of the work of Adam and Christ. This is why he uses the “as...so”&nbsp;terminology. As representative head of the human race, Adam’s sin brought condemnation on all men. When Paul writes that many were <em>made</em> sinners, he literally means that Adam’s sin <em>caused us to be sinners</em>. Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race. In the same way, Christ’s righteousness gets imputed to anyone who receives his gift of grace. All are <em>in Adam</em> in virtue of their physical birth because all are biological descendants of Adam. However, only those who undergo new birth are <em>in Christ</em>.</p>

<p>So the historicity and actions of Adam are inextricably linked to the actions of the Redeemer. This means that <em>without</em> a historical Adam, there is no historical fall. And if no fall, then there is no original sin nature that is passed to all men. That is, we are no longer <em>made sinners</em> as Paul puts it. And if we are not made sinners through Adam’s historical disobedience, then the necessity of a historical Redeemer comes into question.</p>

<p>Paul connects our real, historical <em>problem</em> with a real, historical <em>solution</em>.</p>

<p>Let me leave you with an illustration to help drive home Paul’s point. Imagine a young boy sits next to his grandfather, and a large scar across his grandfather’s cheek catches the boy’s attention. The boy asks, “Grandpa, how did you get that scar on your face?”&nbsp;The grandfather replies, “Well, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...”&nbsp;Immediately the boy interrupts his grandfather, “No grandpa, I don’t want a fairy tale, I want to know how you got <em>that</em> real scar on your face.”</p>

<p>The problem of sin is real. We experience it every day. A fictional tale does not explain the fall of humanity into sin.</p>

<p>There are a host of reasons why I believe Christians should not embrace macroevolution. Among the most serious is the theistic evolutionist’s rejection of a historical Adam. As we have seen, denying a real Adam creates many more problems than it solves.</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-adam-a-real-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%2Fwas-adam-a-real-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%2Fwas-adam-a-real-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: How the New Meaning of “Dignity” Is Changing Everything
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/17/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-the-new-meaning-of-dignity-is-changing-everything
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/11/15948/" target="_blank">article on Public Discourse</a>, Roberta Green Ahmanson explains why our culture’s new understanding of human dignity “may well be the harbinger of a social transformation the likes of which we have not seen in the West for 1400 years”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Dignity apparently justifies abortion, transgenderism, the redefinition of marriage, and physician-assisted suicide.</p>

<p>But what exactly constitutes this New Dignity? The work of George Kateb, professor emeritus at Princeton, provides a clue. In a book titled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Human-Dignity-George-Kateb/dp/0674284178" target="_blank"><em>Human Dignity</em></a>, Kateb writes: “Since nature has no <em>telos</em>, the human species is at its greatest when it breaks out of nature.”&nbsp;Human dignity is grounded, according to Kateb, in our ability to defy nature—to go beyond natural limitations and thereby create ourselves anew. Kateb agrees with Sartre: the freedom to “become different through an upsurge of free creativity,”&nbsp;which “can never be conclusively defined or delimited,”&nbsp;is “the philosophical anthropology that underlies human dignity.”&nbsp;This is the meaning of human dignity in a world with no clear origin, no purposeful end, no intrinsic meaning, and nothing real beyond matter in motion.</p>

<p>The New Dignity demands new positive freedoms, freedoms <em>to</em>—to remake our gender, to marry someone without regard to sex or the procreative potential of the union, to choose our time to die and enlist the medical profession in ending our lives, to not only abort a child developing in the womb but also to harvest his or her body parts for commercial gain. It also calls for new negative freedom, freedoms <em>from</em>—from all unwanted pain or discomfort, from limitations on what I can do to or with my body, from language or ideas that offend me or that challenge decisions I have made.</p>

<p>Dignity is no longer so much about <em>who</em> or <em>what</em> we are; it is about what our unfettered will can do, and what it can forbid others to do.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ahmanson’s observation explains much of what’s happening today. (Remember <a href="http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/clarence_thomas_wrote_one_of_the_most_offensive_statements_in_the_supreme_court_marriage_decision" target="_blank">this controversy</a>?) She goes on to describe how the Christian view of human dignity—intrinsic human value resulting from being made in the image of God, a dignity which cannot be granted or revoked by any government—changed the world, beginning with new sexual norms that revolutionized all of society (see “<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/04/sexual-expression-is-a-worldview-issue.html" target="_blank">Sexual Expression Is a Worldview Issue</a>”&nbsp;for more on this).</p>

<p>This is all heading towards a very bad end because it’s based on a false foundation. We <em>cannot</em> remake ourselves into whatever we want to be because nature <em>does</em> have <em>telos</em>. Sooner or later, our society <em>will</em> lose its fight against human nature. Reality will win. And it’s likely to beat us up pretty badly in the process.</p>
</div>

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


title: Your Prayers Don’t Have to Be Monotonous—Mentoring Letter February, 2016
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-prayers-don-t-have-to-be-monotonous-mentoring-letter-february-2016
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Simply put, let Scripture guide your conversation with God.</em></p>

<p>Prayer is hard. There’s no getting around it. I know there must be saints who find it easy, but I don’t know any.</p>

<p>Part of the problem is monotony. How do we avoid, as one person put it, saying the same old things about the same old things? Recently, though, I’ve discovered an approach that has helped me immensely, and I want to pass it on to you.</p>

<p>In the past when I spent time with God, I’d start with prayer, then read my Bible. Now, I reverse the order and combine the two into one. I start with God’s Word, then let the words in the passage guide my prayers. There are three different ways to “pray Scripture”&nbsp;that I have used. Each is easy to employ.</p>

<p>Here’s the first: Pray the prayers of the Bible as if they were your own. For years, I prayed for my family using Paul’s wonderful prayer to the Colossians found in Col. 1:9b-12. At first I had to turn to the passage each time, but soon I knew it by heart. Here is how I paraphrased Paul’s words for my own girls:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Lord, I pray that they may be filled with the knowledge of Your will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that they would walk in a manner worthy of You, Lord, to please You in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in their knowledge of You. Strengthen them with all power according to Your glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience, joyously giving thanks to You, Lord.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Profound, satisfying, simple.</p>

<p>There are lots of prayers like this in the Bible and they’re perfect for those closest to you: children, spouse, friends, disciples. Some are short, like 2 Thess. 3:16 (“May the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance”) or Ps. 19:14 (“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer”). Others are longer, but exceedingly rich, like Eph. 3:16-19, Eph. 1:17-19a, and Phil. 1:9-11.</p>

<p>Guard against repeating these prayers mechanically, taking the life out of them. Rather, pray the words slowly, with meaning, putting your own emotion into them.</p>

<p>Choose a passage and write the verse on a 3x5 card if you like, though soon you won’t need the reminder. The words will be hidden in your heart, faithful friends ready to serve you at any moment. Consider Col. 2:2-3, 1 Thess. 3:12-13 or 5:23, 2 Thess. 2:16-17, or Heb. 13:20-21 (also a wonderful benediction to conclude a church service).</p>

<p>Second, pray the content of a passage. Pick a Psalm or a New Testament chapter and read through it slowly, talking to God about its meaning in context. Don’t get creative; just stick with the flow of thought. Reflect carefully on the theology as you converse with God and apply it through prayer. Pray the words, express wonder, give thanks, offer praise, confess shortcomings, ask questions.</p>

<p>Often you can make the whole passage your prayer. I frequently pray Ps. 51, using David’s words as my own confession. Sometimes at night I’ll lie in bed, slowly and silently praying the 23rd Psalm as I drift off to sleep, thinking about its wonderful truth. The Lord is my Shepherd. He restores my soul. Surely, goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.</p>

<p>Finally, read through Scripture praying about whatever thoughts come to mind that are triggered by the passage, even if they have nothing to do with the text’s intended meaning. This is the method Donald Whitney develops in his wonderful little book, Praying the Bible. “This isn’t reading something into the text,”&nbsp;he writes, but rather “using the language of the text to speak to God about what has come into your mind.”&nbsp;When, for example, you read Ps. 23, you might think of others who need special shepherding from the Lord or need their souls restored. Pray for them.</p>

<p>These three ways of praying Scripture are incredibly simple, and have the added bonus of taking passages you visit frequently and binding them to your heart forever. I still pray most of the same things I used to pray for (my “list”), but I pray for them differently, often incorporating my standard requests into my scriptural prayers.</p>

<p>Simply put, let Scripture guide your conversation with God. Pray 1) the prayers of Scripture, 2) the content of Scripture, or 3) your thoughts as you read Scripture. Start right away and you’ll be surprised at the difference it makes.</p>

<p>I’d like to help you get started by sending you Donald Whitney’s book, <em>Praying the Bible</em>. It’s packed with insight and practical direction to transform your prayer life by praying the words of Scripture. And it’s yours when you support STR with a gift this month.</p>

<p>Will you do that? Your generosity now will make a real and immediate difference to help us continue to equip you and fellow Christians to stand firm in the faith.</p>

<p>Remember to ask for <em>Praying the Bible</em> when you give. You’ll grow closer to Christ and more committed to prayer from its easy-to-grasp method of praying God’s Word.</p>

<p>I’m truly grateful for your friendship and support.</p>

<p>Yours because His,</p>

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

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-prayers-don-t-have-to-be-monotonous-mentoring-letter-february-2016" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-prayers-don-t-have-to-be-monotonous-mentoring-letter-february-2016" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-prayers-don-t-have-to-be-monotonous-mentoring-letter-february-2016" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is the Biblical Stance against Homosexuality Necessarily Unloving?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/13/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-biblical-stance-against-homosexuality-necessarily-unloving-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What would you do if your homosexual friend or family member were to interpret your biblical stance against homosexual behavior as a <em>lack of love</em> towards them? Does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong automatically make you a hateful person? Can the Christian hold to the clear biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful while remaining loving towards the homosexual?</p>

<p>You need to understand that our 21st century culture has adopted a new view of tolerance. They now define tolerance to mean that you must <em>agree</em> that everyone’s point of view is correct. However, it wasn’t that long ago when tolerance actually meant just the opposite. To tolerate a view meant that you <em>disagreed</em> with the person, but that you would fight for their right to hold their view.</p>

<p>Now, when your homosexual friend or family member says, “You need to <em>tolerate</em> my behavior,”&nbsp;what he means is, “You need to come to the place where you don’t see what I’m doing as sinful.”&nbsp;He is looking for you to accept and even agree with his behavior.</p>

<p>This puts the Christian in a very difficult and awkward position. He must either <em>deny</em> the straightforward teaching of the Old and New Testaments on homosexual behavior, or he will be seen as <em>intolerant</em> and <em>unloving</em> or <em>worse</em>. But are these the only viable options?</p>

<p>Consider this strategic point when you get into emotionally charged conservations: If the person you are talking to doesn’t <em>feel</em> loved by you, it does not automatically mean that you are being unloving towards him.</p>

<p>Whether or not I’m unloving towards someone is measured by my <em>actions towards him</em>, not by how he feels about me and my beliefs. If you let his emotions be the trump card in determining whether or not you are being unloving, then the only way he will ever feel loved by you is if you <em>completely change your view</em> and <em>agree with everything he says</em>.</p>

<p>But doesn’t love transcend differing beliefs and opinions? Or are we to believe that love only agrees?</p>

<p>Of course, it should go without saying that we need to treat homosexuals as Jesus would. By the way, that means doing a lot better job then we have been doing up to this point. But don’t let people get away with saying that just because they don’t <em>feel</em> loved, therefore you must be unloving—that just doesn’t follow.</p>

<p>If you find yourself in a situation akin to the one I’m describing, I want you to keep a very important question in mind. Simply ask your homosexual friend or relative, “Are you able to love me <em>in spite of my views that you think are so wrong</em>?”&nbsp;If he says, “Yes,”&nbsp;then gently and graciously respond, “Why will you not give me the same courtesy and assume that I can love you in spite of your views that I think are wrong?”</p>

<p>If he can love you even though he disagrees with you, then surely you could love him even while disagreeing with his sexual behavior.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you can only truly love someone eternally and meaningfully by loving him <em>in truth</em> because biblical love rejoices in the truth. Therefore, simply agreeing with a person engaging in this behavior would be the most unloving thing you could do because that pseudo-love would be devoid of truth.</p>

<p>Think about biblical truth like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Paul says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”</p>

<p>For the most part, this is just a list of sins to avoid. Why would anyone rejoice in <em>this</em> truth? It’s because when we learn about our sin, we are able to repent of it and be redeemed. Knowledge of sin <em>brings hope</em> because Jesus died for sins. Remember, Jesus said, “The truth will sets you free.”&nbsp;The flip side of this is that not knowing the truth will keep people in <em>bondage</em>. No one repents of sins that he is ignorant of.</p>

<p>Finally, Christians need to make sure they are properly communicating the fact that <em>everyone</em> needs to come to the place where he acknowledges that he is a sinner—not just the person engaging in homosexual behavior—and that <em>everyone</em> needs to put his trust in Jesus. It’s the same gospel for everyone, regardless of your particular sins.</p>

<p>Make it your goal that every person you have a conversation with will simultaneously experience the <em>love of Christ</em> and the <em>truth of God’s word</em>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Letting You Know About a Great Resource: Credo Courses
topic: Announcements
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/07/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/letting-you-know-about-a-great-resource-credo-courses
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of the marks of a good ambassador for Christ is an <em>accurately informed</em> mind. The mind must be informed with knowledge adequate for its task. For instance, a Christian ambassador must understand the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to communicate and defend it. Therefore, Christians have the responsibility of educating themselves.</p>

<p>There are a number of ways to get yourself informed. Resources abound. There are books, articles, blogs, podcasts, videos, and conferences. However, this past Christmas break I discovered a resource that I think every Christian ambassador needs to know about. It’s called <a href="http://www.credocourses.com/" target="_blank">Credo Courses</a>.</p>

<p>Most people don’t have the time or the money to go back to school to get a master’s degree in apologetics or theology. Yet, these same people want to go deeper into theological topics like the reliability of the New Testament or the resurrection of Jesus. For them, a one-hour lecture isn’t enough. They want more.</p>

<p>There is now a way to get yourself equipped by some of the top scholars in the world on some of the most important topics <em>without</em> enrolling in a seminary to do it. Imagine learning textual criticism from Dr. Daniel Wallace, one of the leading New Testament textual critics in the world. Or, imagine taking a course on the resurrection from Dr. Gary Habermas, one of the leading resurrection scholars in the world. With Credo Courses, you can do just that.</p>

<p>Each course has about 30 lessons, and each lesson is about 30 minutes long. You are free to watch videos or listen to the audio at your own pace. The videos have a “classroom feel”&nbsp;to them since they were recorded in front of an audience.</p>

<p>At this point, I’ve gone through Dr. Wallace’s course on New Testament <a href="http://www.credocourses.com/product/textual-criticism/" target="_blank">Textual Criticism</a> and Dr. Habermas’s course on <a href="http://www.credocourses.com/product/the-resurrection-of-jesus/" target="_blank">The Resurrection of Jesus</a>. I would <em>highly</em> recommend both. Not only are these brilliant men who are teaching in their specific area of expertise, but they are also great communicators who are easy to listen to. This is a combination I have come to really appreciate after many years of post-secondary education.</p>

<p>I would even recommend these courses to high school students. In fact, I know high school Bible teachers who have even used these courses in their classrooms, and the students loved it.</p>

<p>I’m looking forward to continuing through more of these courses as time allows, and I cannot wait to see what courses they will add in the future.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fletting-you-know-about-a-great-resource-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%2Fletting-you-know-about-a-great-resource-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%2Fletting-you-know-about-a-great-resource-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: When Homosexuals Show up at Church
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/05/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-homosexuals-show-up-at-church
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At a recent event, I was asked how Christians should respond when those who identify as gay or lesbian come to their church. A common answer to that question suggests the Church should be “affirming.”&nbsp;That, however, usually means saying homosexual behavior is <em>not</em> sin. There’s no need to jettison biblical doctrine, though. We can be affirming of people without affirming behaviors the Bible prohibits. That’s what we’re supposed to do with <em>anyone</em> who comes through our church doors. Therefore, treat those who identify as gay or lesbian exactly like we treat <em>any</em> guest. Here are three quick points related to that approach.</p>

<p>Welcome homosexuals to your church. That doesn’t mean just letting them in, but also making them <em>feel</em> welcome. Greet them, tell them you’re glad they’ve come, help them find a good seat, and invite them to other church functions (picnics, concerts, Bible studies, etc.). After all, you should be excited when guests show up at your church. Assuming the pastor is preaching the Word of God, you want non-believers to hear what’s preached from the pulpit. You also want them to experience fellowship with a community of believers. This, of course, applies to any non-believer who visits your church, not just those who identify as gay or lesbian.</p>

<p>Church leadership is off limits, though. Practicing homosexuals can’t participate in positions of influence (worship team, teaching team, etc.). This is not a special rule for homosexuals. It applies to all church attenders. Anyone engaged in ongoing, unrepentant sin is not fit for leadership.</p>

<p>This rule does not apply to Christians who merely have same-sex attraction but choose to obey Scripture’s sexual guidelines. These brothers and sisters in Christ should be treated like other believers. They can participate in leadership roles at the church. That’s because they <em>are</em> like other believers in one sense: They have sinful proclivities just like any other Christian. Their particular temptation happens to involve same-sex attraction.</p>

<p>I have these tips, as well as many others, in my book, <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK379" target="_blank">The Ambassador’s Guide to Understanding Homosexuality</a>.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-homosexuals-show-up-at-church" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-homosexuals-show-up-at-church" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-homosexuals-show-up-at-church" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Deity of Christ and the Reality of the Trinity
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/06/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-and-the-reality-of-the-trinity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sometimes things that confound us have a simple side to them. In a certain sense, this is true with the Trinity. The mystery may be confounding, but the biblical facts on the matter are really not that hard. The only thing required is a clear definition, then a little Bible “kitchen work.”&nbsp;That’s what I’ve provided for you in <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2" target="_blank">this month’s <em>Solid Ground</em></a>.</p>

<p>In <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1" target="_blank">part one</a> of The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem, I discussed the <em>significance</em> of the Trinity, the <em>problem</em> of the Trinity, the <em>definition</em> of the Trinity, and the alleged <em>contradiction</em> of the Trinity. In this <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2" target="_blank">second part</a>, I resolve the question of the deity of Christ (and therefore strengthen the case for the Trinity) by going back to the text, letting God’s Word speak for itself:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My method is simple: provide clear scriptural support for each element that is essential to the definition of the Trinity as it applies to the person of Christ. There are three components. One, there is only one God. Two, Jesus is a distinct person from the Father. Three, Jesus is fully God. We know this because Jesus is called God, He possesses divine attributes, and He exercises divine privileges.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read <a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2" target="_blank">The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem - Part 2</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: It’s Not Wrong to Long for Justice
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/05/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/it-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over the past year, I’ve listened to my best friend tell me about her little church—how attentive, kind, and caring the elders are, how close the people are, how they preach the Gospel, speak the truth, and worship God. I even got to see it for myself just a few weeks ago.</p>

<p>This was the <a href="http://www.hopechapelcs.org/" target="_blank">church</a> of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/garrett-swasey-officer-killed-in-colorado-is-recalled-for-courage-and-faith.html" target="_blank">Garrett Swasey</a>, the police officer and church elder who was killed in Colorado Springs last week, and it has been surreal, to say the least, to see this elder and his congregation suddenly propelled into the limelight—to hear everyone I regularly read and listen to speak about this man and even <a href="http://thecripplegate.com/swaseys-last-sermon/" target="_blank">link to his sermons</a>. I’m thankful that the ordinary Christians in this solid little church were ready and able to glorify God by responding with the Gospel in the face of evil. I’m awed by the way Garrett has preached the Gospel even in his death, to an untold number of people—both by dying for others and through his last sermon, which has been downloaded thousands and thousands of times over the last week. None of us ever knows when and how God will use us, and I stand in awe of what He has done through this church in the last week. I know Garrett would echo Paul’s <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A12-25&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">rejoicing</a> that “Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.”</p>

<p>Many have written excellent responses to the accusations made against pro-lifers as a result of last week’s murders (see <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/why-the-pro-life-movement-opposes-violence/" target="_blank">Ross Douthat</a>, <a href="http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/?utm_content=buffer49adc&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">Tim Brahm</a>, and <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2015/11/30/in-their-own-words-prolifers-arent-the-only-ones-who-call-abortion-killing-n2086417/page/full" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a>—see also what I’ve <a href="/w/bomb-discovered-at-abortion-clinic" target="_blank">written previously</a> in condemnation of violence against abortion clinics), so I direct you to them for those discussions.</p>

<p>I want to say something about justice.</p>

<p>We have seen much evil over the past week, and it’s not wrong to long for justice. After hearing about Garrett’s funeral last night, my Bible reading happened to be in Psalm 9, and its praise of God’s judgment of the wicked and rescue of the afflicted was what I needed to hear:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart;<br>
I will tell of all Your wonder.<br>
I will be glad and exult in You;<br>
I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.</p>

<p>When my enemies turn back,<br>
They stumble and perish before You.<br>
For You have maintained my just cause;<br>
You have sat on the throne judging righteously.<br>
You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked;<br>
You have blotted out their name forever and ever.<br>
The enemy has come to an end in perpetual ruins,<br>
And You have uprooted the cities;<br>
The very memory of them has perished.</p>

<p>But the Lord abides forever;<br>
He has established His throne for judgment,<br>
And He will judge the world in righteousness;<br>
He will execute judgment for the people with equity.<br>
The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed,<br>
A stronghold in times of trouble;<br>
And those who know Your name will put their trust in You,<br>
For You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You.</p>

<p>Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion;<br>
Declare among the peoples His deeds.<br>
For He who requires blood remembers them;<br>
He does not forget the cry of the afflicted.<br>
Be gracious to me, O Lord;<br>
See my affliction from those who hate me,<br>
You who lift me up from the gates of death,<br>
That I may tell of all Your praises,<br>
That in the gates of the daughter of Zion<br>
I may rejoice in Your salvation.<br>
The nations have sunk down in the pit which they have made;<br>
In the net which they hid, their own foot has been caught.<br>
The Lord has made Himself known;<br>
He has executed judgment.<br>
In the work of his own hands the wicked is snared....</p>

<p>The wicked will return to Sheol,<br>
Even all the nations who forget God.<br>
For the needy will not always be forgotten,<br>
Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.<br>
Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail;<br>
Let the nations be judged before You.<br>
Put them in fear, O Lord;<br>
Let the nations know that they are but men.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We human beings are odd. We both desire just judgment and intensely hate it. This is why you’ll hear people rail against God for not bringing about justice, while in the next breath they call God unjust for judging people in Hell.</p>

<p>Justice is terrible and good. We all know this. We love justice because we long to uphold the good. Yet we know perfect justice <em>perfectly</em> upholds the good, and so we fear it. It’s terrible (that is, formidable and awesome in its greatness) in the sense that true justice absolutely and unforgivingly deals out what is deserved.</p>

<p>You can’t understand the Gospel if you don’t love justice.</p>

<p>Our love of justice is a reflection of our love for the perfections of God’s character. He is righteous. He is loving. He is good. In the deepest part of us, we know that everyone who rips away at God’s reflection on earth rightfully deserves condemnation, and we desire the fulfillment of that condemnation. It’s when we recognize that this applies even to <em>our own</em> sins that we become desperate for grace.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness...so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because of my love of justice and need for grace, those are my favorite words in the Bible. The amazing truth we know as Christians is that <em>God is both just and the justifier</em>. God will not cheat His justice. We need not worry that any evil will ultimately go unpunished, but neither need we fear the fact that <em>no</em> evil will go unpunished. For all of us who come to Jesus, desperate for grace, He has achieved perfect justice by bearing our sins. Those who do not come to Jesus for grace will bear their own sins. The justice we long for will be complete.</p>

<p>We “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+12%3A14-21&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">never take our own revenge</a>, but leave room for the wrath of God” not because justice is wrong, but because we can trust justice in God’s hands. On earth, government is the authority <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+13%3A1-7&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">established by God</a> to act “as a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil,” and the cross is our <em>guarantee</em> of both justice and grace, now and in the future.* For this reason, says <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+12%3A14-21&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 12</a>, when our enemy is hungry, we can feed him, and if he is thirsty, we can give him a drink. We rest in God’s righteous statement, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:18-20&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Vengeance is Mine</a>, I will repay,” and in doing so, we are free to show mercy and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+2%3A24-26&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">pray for the repentance of others</a> without denying our love for God and our desire to see goodness vindicated.</p>

<p>_________________</p>

<p>*This includes the guarantee of justice through judgment in Hell for those who are not united to Christ; for if the wrath of God endured by Jesus on the cross was necessary to fulfill justice on behalf of those united to Him, then those who are not united to Him will be required to endure that same wrath of God. Since we, unlike Jesus, are limited beings, that will require Hell.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fit-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Immune Response against Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-immune-response-against-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When a pregnant woman says “My body, my choice,”&nbsp;her own body disagrees. The proof doesn’t come from a pro-life person’s persuasive arguments. It comes from the “testimony”&nbsp;of her body’s physiology.</p>

<p>During pregnancy, the mother’s circulatory system and the unborn’s circulatory system come very close together in the placenta, but they don’t mix. This allows oxygen and nutrients to pass to the unborn while simultaneously allowing carbon dioxide and waste products to return to the mother.</p>

<p>In some abnormal conditions, the unborn’s blood enters into the mother’s bloodstream. If this happens, it evokes an immune response by the mother. Her body creates antibodies that attack the unborn inside her. That’s because the mother’s body recognizes the unborn’s body as a <em>foreign</em> body, not merely an extension of her own body.</p>

<p>The mother’s immune system doesn’t create antibodies against her appendix, her tonsils, or her teeth because these are part of her body. She can correctly state, “My body, my choice,”&nbsp;regarding those parts and—without committing a moral crime—procure an appendectomy, tonsillectomy, or tooth extraction.</p>

<p>Procuring an abortion, however, doesn’t remove a part of her own body, but rather, a different body. That’s the unbiased testimony of a pregnant woman’s own physiology.</p>

<p>Related post: <a href="http://www.str.org/videos/my-body-my-choice" target="_blank">My Body, My Choice?</a></p>
</div>

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


title: Challenge to Equip More Ambassadors - Mentoring Letter December 2015
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/challenge-to-equip-more-ambassadors-mentoring-letter-december-2015
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><strong>I can’t tell you how much it means to us at STR to help raise up a new generation of confident, clear-thinking, courageous, gracious ambassadors for Christ.</strong></em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>As I reflect during this time of year, I think about all that’s happened in my personal life and in the life of Stand to Reason. I’m thrilled to watch my daughters grow spiritually. I’m thrilled to see STR continue to have an amazing impact—especially among youth—changing lives in a way that you have had a hand in.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Last year I talked about our incredible momentum with the reTHINK student apologetics conferences and our desire to reach beyond Southern California. Because of your generous support, we’ve been doing that.</p>

<p>First, Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, CA, hosted our 4th annual reTHINK conference and it was incredible. <strong>Over 1,500 excited students, parents, and youth leaders were there</strong>. Here’s what students said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“This whole experience is <strong>life changing</strong>.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> “<strong>Gives me confidence in my faith</strong> in a secular world.”&nbsp;</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> “I would recommend reTHINK to anyone who is <strong>passionate about owning their own faith</strong>.” &nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Parents wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“A powerful event I know <strong>strengthened</strong> me and my 17-year-old son’s faith.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“My daughter and I will have <strong>conversations for weeks</strong>, even months to come, as she processes what she heard.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Then, we also broke ground with our first reTHINK conference in Dallas, TX. We were praying for 500, yet even with the floods in Dallas, we still packed in <strong>over 800 young people who traveled from more than 15 states</strong>. In some cases, whole church youth groups made the road trip. And the kids—and parents and leaders—stayed focused and alert the entire time—taking notes, interacting, getting equipped to face the world. &nbsp;</p>

<p>We are very thankful to God for what He continues to do through STR. The reTHINK vote of confidence inspires us. It has also inspired a group of dedicated supporters to pledge a <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>$143,000 Challenge Gift</strong></span> this year. They’re expressing their confidence in STR, but also in you and other friends to rise and meet the challenge to <strong>give generously by December 31 to equal or exceed their wonderful gift. Will you send a generous gift today while we have this special opportunity?</strong></p>

<p>I can��t tell you how much it means to us at STR to help raise up a new generation of confident, clear-thinking, courageous, gracious ambassadors for Christ. And in the near future, with your help, we will expand reTHINK to even more locations around the country. In fact, we already have requests from churches around the U.S. &nbsp;</p>

<p>In addition to that, we’ve consistently been giving tools to help Christians of all ages address headline issues like same-sex marriage, the Bible and homosexuality, gender confusion, abortion, the recent Planned Parenthood baby-body-parts revelation, the existence of God, the reliability of Scripture, and a host of other topics—all to help to accomplish STR’s vision:</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Confidence for every Christian</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Clear thinking for every challenge</p>

<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Courage and grace for every encounter</p>

<p>Donor support has also helped us add a terrific new speaker, Canadian Tim Barnett, to stretch our active reach to a whole new area. There’s so much we can do together—you and STR—even in the midst of the increasing opposition we’re facing in the culture. That’s why we need your prayers and support more than ever.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And here’s an encouragement. This month when you send your gift to STR, I want to send you a signed copy of <em>God’s Crime Scene</em>, the latest offering by cold-case homicide detective, J. Warner Wallace.</p>

<p>To a detective, a death becomes a homicide investigation if there’s evidence of a perpetrator. Wallace looks at the universe like a massive crime scene, then asks if there’s any indication someone on the outside has been active on the inside. He then reveals nine lines of evidence that all point, unmistakably, to the same “suspect”—God. &nbsp;</p>

<p>I’ve simply never seen another approach on the existence of God like it. That’s why I want you to have it. &nbsp;</p>

<p>2015 is coming rapidly to a close, and December is a critical month for us financially as nearly 25% of our revenue is received then. We don’t want to fall short. &nbsp;Please consider the Challenge. &nbsp;Every dollar you give will move STR that much closer to meeting and hopefully, exceeding the $143,000 Challenge amount. &nbsp;</p>

<p>I look forward to hearing from you, and to sending <em>God’s Crime Scene</em> to you as a thanks for your partnership and for your prayers, both of which we depend on.</p>

<p>May God fill your heart this Christmas with confidence, clarity, courage, and grace in pursuit of Him and His glorious Gospel.</p>

<p>So thankful for you,</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gregory Koukl</p>


<p><a href="https://www.str.org/donate" target="_blank">SUPPORT STR</a></p>

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

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


title: Did Jesus Receive Worship?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/11/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-jesus-receive-worship-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Does the New Testament teach us to worship Jesus? Absolutely. We can find multiple instances throughout the New Testament of various people worshipping Jesus. So, how is it that Jehovah’s Witnesses can claim that Jesus was <em>never</em> worshipped?</p>

<p>To enter into this debate, you must understand the Greek term for worship: <em>proskuneo</em>. Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to point out that <em>proskuneo</em> can refer to the act of bowing low to the ground before someone. This act was used to express respect or reverence towards a superior (e.g. a king). In these situations, <em>proskuneo</em> is better translated or bow down, not worship. However, when <em>proskuneo</em> is used in a religious context, it is an act of acknowledging deity. Therefore, <em>context</em> is key in determining whether or not Jesus was actually worshipped.</p>

<p>Let’s look at an example from the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew reports what happened when the women disciples meet the risen Jesus. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And behold, Jesus met them and said, “<em>Greetings!”</em>&nbsp;And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped [proskuneo] him (Matt. 28:9).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is an important text for at least two reasons. First, the context is religiously significant because Jesus has just raised Himself from the dead. This supernatural event vindicated His claims to be the Son of God. Anything less than full-on worship at this point would be a deficient response. Second, Matthew gives us a significant, yet seemingly trivial detail. He says that they “took hold of his feet.”&nbsp;This means the women were already bowed down on the ground when they worshipped. Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses must understand Matthew to be saying, “They took hold of his feet and bowed down.”&nbsp;This is redundant, and clearly not what Matthew was communicating.</p>

<p>Another important passage that teaches the worship of Jesus is found in Hebrews 1. The author of Hebrews is making a case that the Son is greater than the angels. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels <em>worship</em> him” (Heb. 1:6).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The New World Translation mistranslates this, “And let all of God’s angels <em>do obeisance</em> to him.”&nbsp;However, given the context of Hebrews 1 this translation is untenable. The One who receives worship from the angels is also the One who created and upholds the entire universe (1:2, 3), who is the radiance of the glory of God (1:3), who is the exact imprint of God’s nature (1:3), who is referred to as God by the Father (1:8); and who is the eternal, immutable Creator described by David as Jehovah (1:10-12). It is in <em>this</em> context that we must properly translate Hebrews 1:6.</p>

<p>Furthermore, verse 6 is a quote from the Old Testament (Ps. 97:7; cf. Deut. 32:43). In the original context, it is Jehovah who receives worship, not merely obeisance, from the angels. Therefore, there is no basis for changing the meaning of <em>proskuneo</em> in this verse. It is a <em>unitarian</em> bias that awkwardly forces Jehovah’s Witnesses to mistranslate this straightforward text.</p>

<p>Finally, John tells us in the Book of Revelation that <em>all</em> will worship Jesus.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”&nbsp;And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne <em>and to the Lamb</em> be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”&nbsp;And the four living creatures said, “Amen!”&nbsp;and the elders <em>fell down and worshiped</em> (Rev. 5:12-14).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Every created thing worships Him who sits on the throne <em>and</em> the Lamb. If the Lamb, Jesus Christ, were a creature, He would be one of the creatures joining in this worship chorus. Instead, this passage clearly teaches Jesus is the <em>object</em> of the worship chorus.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to counter all this evidence with Matthew 4:10. It says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will <em>fall down</em> and <em>worship me</em>.”&nbsp;Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ’You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve’” (Matt. 4:8-10).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here Jesus is restating an Old Testament command to worship God alone. Jehovah’s Witnesses think this ends the debate. On their view, Jesus could not accept worship because He said that we must only worship God. But this assumes that Jesus is not God. If Jesus is God, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are commanded to join Christians in worshiping Him.</p>

<p>Not only does the New Testament teach us to acknowledge Jesus as God, but it also teaches us to <em>respond</em> to Him as God. This is accomplished through worship. Theologian John Stott said, “Nobody can call himself a Christian who does not worship Jesus. To worship him, if he is not God, is idolatry; to withhold worship from him, if he is, is apostasy.”</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-receive-worship-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-receive-worship-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-receive-worship-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Rise Physically from the Dead?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-jesus-rise-physically-from-the-dead-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians around the world celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This unique, historical event is foundational to Christianity. In fact, the apostle Paul says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:17-19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Christians are not the only ones who believe in the resurrection. Jehovah’s Witnesses also claim that Jesus rose from the dead. However, Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the resurrection of Jesus from the dead very differently.</p>

<p>It is often the case, when dealing with contemporary cults, that they will use the same language as Christians, but they mean very <a href="/w/mormonism-same-language-different-meanings" target="_blank">different things</a>. One way to expose this confusion is to ask questions. One of the most important questions in your arsenal is the clarifying question “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;Applying this question to the resurrection, we need to ask, “What do they mean by ’Jesus rose from the dead’?”</p>

<p>What you will find out is that Jehovah’s Witnesses take the resurrection of Jesus to be <em>non-physical</em>. Jesus’&nbsp;physical body did not rise; He only rose as a spirit being. Conversely, Christians hold that Jesus rose <em>physically</em> from the dead. The same body that died on the cross is the same body that rose three days later, leaving an empty tomb.</p>

<p>Let’s be clear. Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot both be right. Jesus either physically rose from the dead, or He did not. To settle this issue, we need to go straight to the text of Scripture. Specifically, let’s examine two passages that <em>explicitly</em> affirm the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. John records a heated exchange between some of the Jewish leaders and Jesus:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So the Jews said to Him, “What sign do You show us for doing these things?”&nbsp;Jesus answered them, “Destroy <em>this</em> temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”&nbsp;The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”&nbsp;But He was speaking about <em>the temple of His body</em>. (John 2:18-21)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read these words carefully. Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”&nbsp;What were the Jews going to destroy? Jesus’&nbsp;body. What was Jesus going to raise up after three days? Jesus’&nbsp;body. This is a clear admission from Jesus that His physical body would be resurrected.</p>

<p>Furthermore, Jesus referring to His body as a temple is consistent with Paul’s writing. He says, “Or do you not know that <em>your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit</em> within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 6:19-20).</p>

<p>Luke provides an even stronger testimony to the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Ironically, this comes from the <em>resurrected</em> Jesus Himself.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. <em>For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”</em>&nbsp;And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet&nbsp;(Luke 24:38-40).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here Jesus is <em>explicitly</em> pointing out that His resurrected body is not merely an immaterial spirit. First, He tells them it is <em>I myself</em>. He is belaboring the point that it is Jesus standing before them. It’s not a spiritual version of Jesus. It is the same Jesus that they walked, talked, and ate with throughout His ministry.</p>

<p>Second, He tells them His resurrected body is <em>made of flesh and bones</em>, not just made to look like it is flesh and bones. Jesus then provides two evidences for the disciples. The first evidence is that He presents His hands and feet to properly examine. He tells them to touch and see. Is there a reason why Jesus “shows them His hands and His feet”? The answer is, yes. Jesus was showing the disciples the very scars His resurrected body retained from the crucifixion. In fact, when you read the parallel account in John’s Gospel, Jesus “showed them His hands <em>and His side”</em>&nbsp;(John 20:20). As proof of His bodily resurrection, Jesus shows His disciples the place His body was pierced with a spear.</p>

<p>The second evidence is in the following two verses. Luke writes, “And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, He said to them, ’Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, <em>and He took it and ate before them”</em>&nbsp;(Luke 24:41-43). Did you catch that? Jesus <em>demonstrates</em> that His body is made of flesh and bones by eating a flesh-and-bones fish right in front of them. This seemingly trivial detail about Jesus eating lunch is incredibly significant to the question of the nature of Jesus’&nbsp;body. It is not a coincidence that Luke includes this detail within the context of this story.</p>

<p>Your Witness friend might reply that angels are also able to eat by manifesting themselves in physical form (Gen. 18:8). This is true, but it misses the point. Jesus explicitly tells them that He is not merely a spirit, and He provides evidence of this by getting them to touch His body and by eating in front of them. What more could He do to display that this is the same physical body that left the tomb empty?</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses like to point to a few verses in support of their claim. Their go-to proof text for the non-physical resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. Here Paul is contrasting the earthly body with the resurrected body. The earthly body is perishable, dishonorable, weak, and natural. The resurrected body is imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a <em>natural</em> [<em>psychikos</em>] <em>body</em>; it is raised a <em>spiritual</em> [<em>pneumatikos</em>] <em>body</em>. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:42-44)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Your Jehovah’s Witness friend will say, “See, Paul describes our present, earthly bodies as ’natural,’&nbsp;and our future, resurrected bodies as ’spiritual.’”&nbsp;However, they wrongly assume that natural and spiritual mean physical and nonphysical, respectively. The question is: What does Paul mean by the terms “natural”&nbsp;and “spiritual”?</p>

<p>Paul uses the exact same words earlier in his first letter to the Corinthians. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The natural [<em>psychikos</em>] person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual [<em>pneumatikos</em>] person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. (1 Cor. 2:14-15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice the natural person <em>does not</em> mean a physical person, but rather a person oriented toward human nature or soul. In fact, <em>psychikos</em>, which is translated “natural,”&nbsp;literally means <em>soul-ish</em>. Similarly, the spiritual person <em>does not</em> mean a non-physical, spirit person. Rather, it’s a person oriented toward the Spirit. Paul is contrasting soul-led persons with Spirit-led persons. The contrast is <em>not</em> one of physicality, but of orientation.</p>

<p>Therefore, Paul is explaining that the future resurrected body will be freed from slavery to the weak, mortal, dishonorable, sinful human nature. The resurrected body will be led, sustained, empowered, and made glorious by the Spirit. As Christians, we believe in a future bodily, physical, spiritual resurrection, because this is what the New Testament teaches.</p>

<p>[<em>Article updated and expanded on 4/26/16.</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%2Fdid-jesus-rise-physically-from-the-dead-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-rise-physically-from-the-dead-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-rise-physically-from-the-dead-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Social Justice Begins at Conception
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/social-justice-begins-at-conception
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Social justice is trendy nowadays. Homelessness. Poverty. Human trafficking. It’s cool to care about these social ills, even among non-Christians.</em></p>

<p>Curiously absent from the list is abortion. Indeed, many people complain that Christians focus too much on unborn babies and not enough on born people. Jesus said nothing about abortion, but said plenty about the poor and the hungry. So why do I talk about abortion so much.</p>

<p>If what we believe about abortion is true—that it kills an innocent human being—then abortion rises to the most important social justice issue of our day. That’s because it’s legal in all 50 states, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and for virtually any reason. According to Planned Parenthood statistics, 3,315 unborn children are killed <em>each day</em>.*</p>

<p>Last time I checked, it wasn’t legal to starve people, force them to live on the streets, or traffic them for money. But it is legal to kill them before they’re born. Not only does our government protect that “right,”&nbsp;we help pay for it with our tax dollars.</p>

<p>So while Christians <em>and</em> non-Christians are united in helping people who are poor, homeless, and trafficked, the same care is not extended to unborn children. Most non-believers and even some believers don’t think abortion is morally equivalent to killing children. And the believers that do, seldom act to protect the unborn. Indeed, 27% of women who abort claim to be Catholic and 33% profess to be Protestant. That means Christians are killing their own children.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about people who are homeless, poor, and trafficked. The Church needs to intervene and serve these people. It does through thousands of programs around the globe. But surely killing them is a greater evil. Call me old-fashioned and un-trendy. Maybe my mission won’t be as exciting and cutting-edge. But I won’t stop until abortion is abolished. Nor should you.</p>

<p>Now it’s true that Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion, but that’s because children were almost universally considered a blessing. Had abortion been widely practiced, Jesus would have spoken against it.</p>

<p>He did address it indirectly, though. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor and explained what that looks like with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:27-37). He expects us to aid those who are vulnerable and defenseless. Without question, unborn children are the most vulnerable and defenseless. Ironically, when a child is in the womb—a place of protection and nurture—she is most at risk of attack by her mother. Once she’s born, though, all of the state’s laws and protections fall upon the newborn. The government will ensure her well-being.</p>

<p>I know you’ve heard about abortion almost all your life. You might be tired of hearing about it, perhaps even from me. But I urge you to never ignore it, never downplay it, and never stop acting to end it.</p>

<p>*“Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States”&nbsp;in <em>Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health</em>, 2011, 43(1): 41-50.</p>

<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter originally published May 2013</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%2Fsocial-justice-begins-at-conception" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsocial-justice-begins-at-conception" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsocial-justice-begins-at-conception" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Eternal Punishment Just?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-eternal-punishment-just-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After a recent keynote address at an ACSI teacher’s convention, a young middle school teacher challenged me on something I had said. In my talk on the problem of evil, I made an off-the-cuff remark about Hell being a place of eternal, conscious punishment. This young Christian schoolteacher took issue with the idea that a loving God would send a person to Hell for eternity for a finite number of sins committed while on earth. “It just doesn’t seem right,”&nbsp;she exclaimed.</p>

<p>This is a question that the former Mars Hill pastor, Rob Bell, brings up in his book <em>Love Wins</em>. Bell asks, “Have billions of people been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment, suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they spent on earth?”&nbsp;At first blush, this question seems to resonate with our moral intuitions concerning justice and fairness. However, at the heart of the question lies a fundamental misunderstanding about man and God. Specifically, we minimize the seriousness of man’s sin and guilt, and we distort the perfection of God’s holiness and justice.</p>

<p>First, we minimize our sin. We all do it. It’s part of our fallen nature. I remember the first time I read the account of the death of Lot’s wife. Do you remember what happened to Lot’s wife? God turned her into a pillar of salt as she was leaving Sodom. Do you remember her crime? Nothing more than a backward glance (Gen. 19:26). Reading that story might provoke many to ask the question, “Was that really an offense worthy of death?”</p>

<p>This was not an isolated event. As you explore the Bible, other accounts of God’s judgment appear equally severe. Nadab and Abihu deviated from the priestly procedures, so God consumed them with fire (Lev. 10:1-2); one man gathered wood on the Sabbath, so God commanded Moses to stone him (Num. 15:35); Achan took a few forbidden items from the spoils of Jericho, so God commanded Joshua to stone him along with his entire family (Josh. 7:24-25); Uzzah kept the ark of God from falling into the mud by reaching out his hand and taking hold of it, so God immediately struck him dead (2 Sam. 6:6-7); Ananias and Sapphira lied to the apostles, so God killed them both in front of the entire church (Acts 5:1-10). We have a tendency to think that God was overreacting in these situations. However, this only serves to illustrate our fallenness. We do not see our sin the way God sees our sin.</p>

<p>One of the most basic tenets of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. So, if the ultimate punishment for those who die without Christ is eternity in Hell, then what is the crime? What do men do to merit the eternal sentence of Hell? The answer is <em>sin</em>.</p>

<p>Many inside and outside the church treat sin as no big deal. However, the Bible describes our sin as “rebellion,”&nbsp;“ungodliness,”&nbsp;“lawlessness,”&nbsp;“wickedness,”&nbsp;and an “abomination”&nbsp;(Lev. 26:27; Is. 32:6; 1 Jn. 3:4; Ezek. 18:27; Pr. 15:9). Therefore, sinners are traitors, refusing to love, thank, serve, and obey the God who gave them life, breath, and every good thing.</p>

<p>I find it ironic that those who protest the idea of eternal, conscious punishment deride the doctrine with words like, “cruel,”&nbsp;“morally revolting,”&nbsp;“monstrous,”&nbsp;and “repugnant.”&nbsp;Why don’t they employ the same terms of outrage to describe their sin? The answer is clear. They are not outraged by sin because <em>they fail to see sin as God sees sin</em>. If we cannot see our sin as God sees it, then it stands to reason that we will not see the just judgment of Hell like He sees it either.</p>

<p>Second, we distort God’s holiness. Not only do we refuse to come to grips with the enormity of human sin, but we also misunderstand the holiness of the God being sinned against. It hardly seems fair for God to inflict <em>infinite</em> suffering for a <em>finite</em> number of sins committed and accumulated over a few short years. That is, of course, until one considers the <em>infinite</em> Being that is sinned against.</p>

<p>The idea of viewing the <em>severity of punishment</em> in terms of the person offended against is common sense. When I explain this to students, I get them to imagine the consequences of punching their friend in the face. Their friend might punch them back, or stop being their friend, or even report them to the police. If they were to punch their teacher, they would be suspended, or even expelled from the school. If they strike a policeman, the punishment escalates even further. They will probably end up in a jail cell. Finally, if they attempt to punch the President of the United States, they are going to prison for a long time. Notice the crime was the same in each case; however, the punishment escalated based on the one the crime was committed against.</p>

<p>Clearly, we live by an established principle: the seriousness of a crime is measured not only by its inherent nature, <em>but also by the one offended against</em>. When we sin, who is the One being offended against? He is the Highest Authority, the blazingly holy God.</p>

<p>In our human courts, we judge crimes against animals as more heinous than crimes against plants. We judge crimes against humans as more heinous than crimes against animals. How much more should we judge the crimes against a Being of infinite goodness and holiness? <em>Crimes against an infinite Being deserve an infinite punishment.</em> Therefore, eternity in Hell is a punishment that both accounts for the inherent nature of the crime <em>and</em> the One whom the crime is committed against.</p>

<p>The biblical doctrine of an eternal Hell gives us yet another reason to praise God for the Gospel. Think about it. It took an eternal Person to satisfy the eternal penalty of sins committed against an eternal God. This disqualifies the entire human race, except one Person—Jesus Christ. He is the Son of man and the eternal Son of God. When Jesus laid down His life, His sacrifice satisfied <em>every</em> requirement of divine justice. For those who trust in Jesus Christ as their Substitute, His death has satisfied the eternal wrath of God.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, those who do not put their faith in Christ are left to bear the punishment of their offenses. Consequently, they will spend eternity in Hell, never able to satisfy God’s eternal wrath.</p>

<p>I hope the doctrine of eternal punishment sobers you. My prayer is that this doctrine will fill you with awe that God sacrificed His own Son to save you from eternal punishment. I hope that it will ignite in you a passion to proclaim the Gospel to those poor souls who are unaware of the terror that awaits them outside the mercy 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%2Fis-eternal-punishment-just-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-eternal-punishment-just-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-eternal-punishment-just-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Imprint of King Hezekiah’s Seal Found in Jerusalem
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/12/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/imprint-of-king-hezekiah-s-seal-found-in-jerusalem
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/biblical-king-hezekiah-royal-seal-unearthed-in-jerusalem/" target="_blank">exciting</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The royal seal of an ancient biblical king has been unearthed near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.</p>

<p>The seal, a clay impression depicting a two-winged sun with two ankh symbols on either side, was once used to seal papyrus documents associated with King Hezekiah, who ruled the kingdom of Judea from 727 B.C. to 698 B.C. The seal was unearthed in a trash heap near the walls of the ancient Temple Mount...</p>

<p>King Hezekiah is one of the most famous of the Israelite kings. During his reign, he rooted out idol worship, spruced up the decrepit temple and centralized power, as told in biblical accounts.</p>

<p>His reign is also one of the best documented by nonbiblical sources. The chronicles of the Assyrian kings Sargon II and Sennacherib, who laid siege to Jerusalem under Hezekiah’s watch, describe the Israelite ruler paying tribute to them to fend off attacks. The Assyrians laid siege to Jerusalem but did not vanquish the Judean kingdom in Hezekiah’s lifetime, according to the Assyrian chronicles.</p>

<p>The team found the seal while sifting through archaeological remains from a trash heap found outside what was once the Royal Building, essentially the food pantry for the ancient kingdom.</p>

<p>When the researchers took a closer look, they realized the item was a seal with the following inscription: “Belonging to Hezekiah, [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/biblical-king-hezekiah-royal-seal-unearthed-in-jerusalem/" target="_blank">article</a>. One aspect of Christianity (and the Judaism it began with) that makes it unique among religions is its connection to history. Christianity is not a collection of wise sayings received by a guru; it’s the story of history—of reality. I love hearing periodic <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/07/the-cyrus-cylinder.html" target="_blank">reminders</a> of this from the work of <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/12/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology-corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament.html" target="_blank">archaeologists</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%2Fimprint-of-king-hezekiah-s-seal-found-in-jerusalem" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fimprint-of-king-hezekiah-s-seal-found-in-jerusalem" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fimprint-of-king-hezekiah-s-seal-found-in-jerusalem" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Am I against Abortion Just Because I’m a Christian?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/05/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/am-i-against-abortion-just-because-i-m-a-christian-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>He thought he had me. I had presented a scientific case against abortion, but then he popped the question: “Wait a minute... are you a Christian?”&nbsp;“Yes,”&nbsp;I answered. “I get it,”&nbsp;he said, “It’s your religious beliefs that drive your thinking. The only reason you’re against abortion is because you’re a Christian.”</p>

<p>Is that true? Am I really against abortion <em>just because</em> I’m a Christian? Actually... yes. That’s true. If I wasn’t a Christian, I wouldn’t be against abortion. That’s because the Christian worldview can explain how humans have value. It teaches that God made man in His image (Gen. 1:27). Human beings—even those still in the womb—are therefore intrinsically valuable and deserve to be protected. That’s why Christians are typically pro-life.</p>

<p>Atheism, on the other hand, denies God’s existence. Therefore, if I was an atheist, three things related to abortion would logically follow.</p>

<p><strong>#1: I would believe killing the <em>unborn</em> is morally permissible.</strong> After all, atheists can’t justify the belief that human beings are valuable. They don’t believe humans are made in God’s image. Their worldview teaches that humans are ultimately stardust, accidental products of a mindless and valueless process known as evolution. The same mechanism that led to the emergence of rats also led to the emergence of humans. On the atheistic and evolutionary worldview, humans are no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos. That’s why many atheists are abortion-choice advocates.</p>

<p><strong>#2: I would believe killing <em>born</em> human beings is also morally permissible.</strong> Think about it. If there’s no value-giving Creator, then nothing is ultimately valuable. Born human beings are just as value-less as unborn ones. There’s no reason why killing them would be prohibited. In fact, every person will die one day and eventually the universe will end in a thermal heat death. No one will exist at that point and it won’t matter because nothing ever mattered.</p>

<p><strong>#3: I would believe that <em>nothing</em> is morally wrong.</strong> Not only would killing unborn and born humans be morally permissible because they have no value, but killing them would not be wrong because <em>nothing</em> would be ultimately wrong. Since there’s no God, on the atheistic worldview, there’s no moral lawgiver. Without a moral lawgiver, there are no objective laws. Everything goes. What’s right and wrong would be relative to each person, culture, or country. Those standards could change based on the whims of people, lawmakers, or the head of state.</p>

<p>But because I’m a Christian, I don’t have to adopt the above absurd conclusions. God provides an objective standard for morality. Every act we commit can be measured against that standard. Good deeds are closer to the standard, whereas bad deeds depart from it. Regarding abortion, God’s moral law is clear: killing innocent human beings is wrong. Plus, He’s indwelt human beings with value by making them in His image. That’s why killing them is wrong.</p>

<p>Here’s the key point. If a person wants to disqualify my view against abortion because it’s based on my religious beliefs, they’ll have to also disqualify the view that killing <em>anyone</em> is wrong. Because once you get rid of God, you get rid of the foundation for why anyone is valuable or anything is wrong.</p>

<p>Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m <em>not</em> saying atheists believe killing humans is morally permissible. Nor am I saying that they can’t act morally. Rather, I’m claiming their worldview can’t explain <em>how</em> humans have value or <em>why</em> anything is right or wrong.</p>

<p>So, am I against abortion because I’m a Christian? The answer is a resounding yes. Christianity provides a framework for being against the killing of human beings, even those who are yet to be born.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean, though, that I can’t make a scientific case against abortion. Most times when I present the pro-life position to a secular audience, I give a scientific and philosophical defense for my view. I don’t need to give a religious rationale. Most people—even non-Christians—agree with me that it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. My only task, then, is to show them that the unborn is also a human being, using the science of embryology.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fam-i-against-abortion-just-because-i-m-a-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%2Fam-i-against-abortion-just-because-i-m-a-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%2Fam-i-against-abortion-just-because-i-m-a-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: The Contingency Argument
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-contingency-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has a new apologetics video on Leibniz’s contingency argument for the existence of God. Enjoy!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="FPCzEP0oD7I" 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/FPCzEP0oD7I?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>If you liked this one, be sure to watch their other videos on the <a href="/w/could-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-" target="_blank">moral argument</a> and the <a href="/w/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument" target="_blank">kalam cosmological argument</a>. All of these videos are simple and clear—good introductions of the ideas involved.</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-contingency-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-contingency-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-contingency-argument" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Not long ago, I gave a presentation on the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus at the University of Waterloo. This was a great event put on by Power to Change with many Christians and non-Christians in attendance.</p>

<p>Immediately following my talk, there was a Q&amp;A time where people could text in their questions to a phone number that was on the screen. One particular question that came up that night was, “Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?”</p>

<p>This is such a common question that I thought I would sketch a brief outline of my response.</p>

<p>First, the answer is “No!”&nbsp;Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. Claims—extraordinary or otherwise—only require <em>evidence</em>. If there is good evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus, then it is completely rational to hold that Jesus rose from the dead.</p>

<p>Second, the question needs to be asked: Why does the adjective applied to the claim need to be the <em>same</em> adjective applied to the evidence? For example, do <em>hilarious</em> claims require <em>hilarious</em> evidence? Of course not! So even though the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”&nbsp;may sound catchy, there isn’t any good reason to think it’s actually true.</p>

<p>Furthermore, whenever this claim comes up in conversations I always have a question ready. I ask, “What would count as extraordinary evidence?”</p>

<p>Clearly, whether or not a particular evidence is extraordinary will depend on how the person <em>defines</em> extraordinary. If by extraordinary they mean “really good,”&nbsp;then I think the evidence for the resurrection meets that expectation. Certainly, I believe that the evidence I offered for the resurrection—namely, the burial, the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’&nbsp;belief—is extraordinary.</p>

<p>If by extraordinary they mean “supernatural,”&nbsp;then I think the evidence surrounding the resurrection includes that as well—although I don’t think it must. “Natural”&nbsp;evidence—like the observation of an empty tomb—can lend itself very nicely to a supernatural explanation when taken in conjunction with other evidence—like the post-mortem appearance of Jesus after his death and burial.</p>

<p>Think of the claim that the “universe came from nothing.”&nbsp;Almost all physicists and cosmologists agree that at some point in the finite past the universe begin to exist. In other words, there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy—and then there was something. This could certainly be taken as an extraordinary claim of the supernatural variety. That is, of course, unless you have a naturalistic bias that excludes the supernatural <em>before</em> looking at the evidence. But notice, all the evidence for the beginning of the universe is completely natural—second law of thermodynamics and the cosmic expansion of the universe. Obviously this argument could be fleshed out in much more detail, but I think, at least <em>in principle</em>, we have clear example of how natural evidence could support a supernatural claim.</p>

<p>In all honesty, I believe that this slogan is often used as a smoke screen to hide behind. Rather than deal with the universally accepted evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus, the skeptic simply throws up his hands and claims that the evidence isn’t extraordinary <em>enough</em> for him. In other words, they set the bar for so-called “extraordinary evidence”&nbsp;impossibly high, and then when the evidence won’t meet their unrealistic expectation, they simply dismiss it with a shoulder shrug.</p>

<p>Don’t let people get away with making such a vacuous claim. Hold their feet to the fire and make them define what they mean by extraordinary evidence and get them to defend why extraordinary claims must require extraordinary 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%2Fdo-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Go Overboard in Our Holiday Celebrations? Bah, Humbug!
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 12/30/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/go-overboard-in-our-holiday-celebrations-bah-humbug-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A few years ago, I read a Christianity Today article titled “<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/december-web-only/go-overboard-celebrating-christmas.html" target="_blank">Go Overboard Celebrating Christmas</a>.”&nbsp;A provocative title, especially given the Evangelical tendency to decry materialism and consumerism this time of year. Of course, those warnings are important to heed, but sometimes warnings and alarm and outrage are the entirety of our message to the world. So the author’s perspective was a breath of fresh air:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Celebrate the stuff. Use fudge and eggnog and wine and roast beef. Use presents and wrapping paper. Embedded in many of the common complaints you hear about the holidays (consumerism, shopping, gluttony, etc.) are false assumptions about the point of the celebration. You do not prepare for a real celebration of the Incarnation through thirty days of Advent Gnosticism.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Celebrate the stuff?! I could imagine such a message rubbing Evangelicals the wrong way. As if an exhortation to embrace celebration and gifts and food is inherently selfish and therefore wrong. If that’s your first impulse when you hear this, let me suggest a helpful distinction to free you up a bit from what I think is a distorted view. We must distinguish between selfishness and appropriate self-interest. This distinction is vital to grasp. Self-interest is not wrong. Do you desire food and shelter? Do you wish to take care of your loved ones? I hope so. Are these just greedy, selfish desires? Of course not. Indeed, appropriate self-interest is assumed by Jesus. How does He tell us we ought to love others? As we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).</p>

<p>I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’s explanation in his essay “The Weight of Glory”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you had asked almost any of the great Christians of old, he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive... The negative idea of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Does self-interest have limits? Of course. When appropriate self-interest is abandoned and we move into selfishness, we have crossed the line into sin. Paul tells us, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests [appropriate self-interest], but also to the interests of others”&nbsp;(Phil. 2:4). But selfishness must be dealt with within the individual’s heart and not merely pawned off on the “stuff”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At the same time, remembering your Puritan fathers, you must hate the sin while loving the stuff. Sin [is] not resident in the stuff. Sin is found in the human heart—in the hearts of both true gluttons and true scrooges—both those who drink much wine and those who drink much prune juice. If you are called up to the front of the class, and you get the problem all wrong, it would be bad form to blame the blackboard. That is just where you registered your error. In the same way, we register our sin on the stuff. But—because Jesus was born in this material world, that is where we register our piety as well. If your godliness won’t imprint on fudge, then it is not true godliness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So in your holiday celebrations, go overboard. Did not God go overboard for us?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Some may be disturbed by this. It seems a little out of control, as though I am urging you to “go overboard.”&nbsp;But of <em>course</em> I am urging you to go overboard. Think about it—when this world was “in sin and error pining,”&nbsp;did God give us a teaspoon of grace to make our dungeon a tad more pleasant? No. He went <em>overboard</em>.</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%2Fgo-overboard-in-our-holiday-celebrations-bah-humbug-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgo-overboard-in-our-holiday-celebrations-bah-humbug-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgo-overboard-in-our-holiday-celebrations-bah-humbug-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If Jesus Is God, Why Does He Call the Father “My God?”
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-jesus-is-god-why-does-he-call-the-father-my-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When Jesus was dying on the cross, he cried, “<em>My God, my God,</em> why have you forsaken me”&nbsp;(Matt. 27:46)? After Jesus resurrection from the dead, he appears to Mary Magdalene, and she immediately clings to Him. In response Jesus says to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ’I am ascending to my Father and your Father, <em>to my God and your God’”</em>&nbsp;(John 20:17; cf. Rev. 3:2, 12). In each case, Jesus explicitly calls the Father “my God.”&nbsp;Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude from these passages (and others like them) that Jesus cannot possibly be God.</p>

<p>According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus cannot have a God if He is God! Implicit in this kind of assertion is the assumption of <em>unitarianism.</em> Unitarianism is the belief that God is only one person. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are all unitarians. By contrast, trinitarians believe that God is three distinct persons.</p>

<p>To a Jehovah’s Witness, who has already presupposed unitarianism, these passages can only mean one thing: Jesus is not God. Think about it. If person A calls person B “my God,”&nbsp;then logically speaking person A cannot be God. Of course, this argument only works <em>if</em> unitarianism is true. But what if God isn’t one person? What if God is <em>three</em> persons? Notice how the force of the logical argument collapses.</p>

<p>If the Son and the Father are both distinct members of the Godhead, which is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, then there is nothing logically incoherent about God the Son calling God the Father “my God.”</p>

<p>Even though it’s not logically contradictory, it might still sound strange to some. Why would Jesus, who is God, call the Father “my God?”</p>

<p>Here are two points to think about. First, Jesus isn’t merely God. Unlike the Father, He is truly God and truly man. He is the God-man. As the God-man, He is a perfect man, who worships, honors, obeys and prays to God the Father. In fact, the incarnate Son is dependent on the Father (John 5:30). How could the Son be dependent if He is God? The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us a glimpse into the Son’s humiliation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but <em>emptied himself</em>, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, <em>He humbled himself</em> by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”&nbsp;(Phil. 2:6-8).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the incarnation, the Son sets aside His independent authority and heavenly glory. Instead, He humbled Himself by taking on a human nature. It is within <em>this</em> context that one must read the Jesus’&nbsp;“my God”&nbsp;statements.</p>

<p>Second, the Father and the Son have different roles within the economy of the Trinity. There is equality in <em>nature</em>, but subordination in their personal roles. For instance, the Son submits to the Father, but not vice versa. Therefore, when God the Son calls God the Father “my God,”&nbsp;He is affirming His relationally subordinate role without denying His full deity.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-jesus-is-god-why-does-he-call-the-father-my-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%2Fif-jesus-is-god-why-does-he-call-the-father-my-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%2Fif-jesus-is-god-why-does-he-call-the-father-my-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: Does Proverbs 8:22 Teach That Jesus Was Created?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/24/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When you tell Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is uncreated, they are likely to take you directly to Proverbs 8:22-30 in their New World Translation (NWT). They believe this is undeniable proof that Jesus was the first created creature. Before looking specifically at this passage, we should familiarize ourselves with the context. This chapter begins with a <em>personification</em> of wisdom as a woman calling out in the streets. A personification is a figure of speech where human qualities are given to non-human things. For example, telling my wife that opportunity is knocking at her door is a personification of opportunity. It would be foolish for her to go check the door to see if <em>someone</em> is literally there knocking. Opportunity is not an actual person. In the case of Proverbs 8, personal qualities are attributed to the virtue of wisdom so that it sounds like a person (Prov. 8:12), but it’s not <em>really</em> a person.</p>

<p>Solomon’s primary intent of verses 22-30 is to communicate that God used wisdom when He created the world. God was wise from the beginning. David echoes this idea in the Psalms. He writes, “O Lord, how manifold are your works! <em>In wisdom</em> have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures”&nbsp;(Psa. 104:24). Solomon stresses the same point. He writes, “The Lord possessed me [wisdom] at the beginning of his work”&nbsp;and “I [wisdom] was beside Him, like a master workman...”&nbsp;(Prov. 8:22, 30). The question is, is this passage about <em>more than</em> wisdom?</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that this description moves beyond a personification to describing a <em>personality</em>; namely, it describes the person of Christ. Furthermore, their NWT translates verse 22 as “Jehovah <em>produced</em> me as the beginning of His way”&nbsp;(Prov. 8:22). According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, if wisdom was created, and the wisdom of God is Jesus (1 Cor. 1:30), then Solomon must be saying that Jesus was created.</p>

<p>The Jehovah’s Witnesses’&nbsp;argument hinges on the meaning of the verb <em>qanah,</em> which they translate as <em>produced,</em> or <em>created</em>. There are two reasons to reject the NWT’s rendering. First, most Bible scholars, think that <em>possess</em> is the best translation of the original language. Therefore, Solomon is saying that Jehovah possessed wisdom, not that He created it. If Jehovah didn’t create wisdom, then their argument that Jesus was created disappears.</p>

<p>Second, <em>logic</em> demands that the Jehovah’s Witness translation be disregarded. Clearly, Jehovah could not have <em>produced</em> wisdom. Wisdom is one of His essential attributes that Jehovah has possessed from eternity. If the NWT is correct, then Jehovah <em>lacked</em> wisdom until He produced it. Since Jehovah is eternal, this means that He eternally existed without the virtue of wisdom until He produced it a finite time ago.</p>

<p>If this passage comes up in discussion with your Jehovah’s Witness friends, ask them, “<em>Do you believe that Jehovah lacked wisdom?”</em>&nbsp;This question puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they answer <em>yes</em>, then their view of God is mistaken. The God of the Bible is <em>omnisapient</em>, which means all-wise. Therefore, there cannot be a time when He lacked wisdom.</p>

<p>If they say <em>no</em>, then their translation of verse 22 is mistaken. The NWT clearly says, “Jehovah <em>produced</em> wisdom.”&nbsp;God could not have produced wisdom since He already possessed it.</p>

<p>Your Jehovah’s Witness friends might object at this point. “This passage isn’t about wisdom; it’s about Jesus,”&nbsp;they might exclaim. However, this response makes a gross exegetical error. Whether or not someone believes this passage applies to Christ, we all recognize that it is <em>at least</em> talking about the virtue of wisdom. It may be about the virtue of wisdom only, or it may be about the virtue of wisdom <em>and</em> Jesus. But the context will not allow this text to be about Jesus <em>alone</em>.</p>

<p>At this point, I need to employ an important hermeneutical principle. When it comes to Scripture, you always interpret what is unclear <em>in light</em> of what is clear. That is, you start with what is clear and work out to what is less clear. Reinterpreting clear passages to make them fit with less clear passages is bad hermeneutics. Yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses do this all the time.</p>

<p>For example, I was discussing John 1:3 with a Jehovah’s Witness to establish that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. He responded by citing Proverbs 8:22 and stating, “Jesus is Jehovah’s first creation.”&nbsp;Given what I’ve have already said about John 1:3 and Proverbs 8:22, it should be obvious to any honest person that the former is much more clear than the latter. Consequently, it would be an egregious error to <em>re</em>interpret a straightforward passage, like John 1:3, to accommodate a debatable reading of Proverbs 8:22.</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-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 It Unloving to Tell People They Are Sinners?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/19/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-unloving-to-tell-people-they-are-sinners-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is it unloving to tell people they are sinners? While thinking about this question, an analogy immediately came to mind that I think brilliantly articulates why telling people they are sinners is not only <em>loving</em>, but also <em>life-giving</em>. I hope that you find this illustration as helpful as I have.</p>

<p><em>Imagine a young man named Joe goes to the doctor to get a couple of routine tests done. A few days later, the test results come back, and each test shows that Joe has cancer. This particular cancer is completely curable if Joe gets the right treatment. However, the doctor cares too much to give Joe that bad news. He has known Joe for quite some time and considers him a good friend. He knows this news will be emotionally upsetting. Furthermore, this diagnosis is going to alter Joe’s current lifestyle. The treatment will be intense, so Joe won’t have the energy to do what he used to, he will need more bed rest, and he will even need to change his diet. Since the doctor doesn’t want to come across as unloving, he changes one of the test results to indicate that Joe doesn’t have cancer and flat out ignores the other tests. Rather than give the truth, the doctor chooses to misrepresent and even ignore the truth.</em></p>

<p>I believe this illustrates the mentality of many Christians in the church today. For example, some Christians are so worried about coming across as unloving, bigoted, intolerant, and judgmental to their homosexual friends or relatives that they would rather <em>alter</em> the clear teaching of Scripture or just flat out ignore it. Of course, whoever does this isn’t <em>really</em> doing his homosexual friend any favors. His friend needs to <em>know</em> his sin before he can repent of it, in the same way a man with cancer needs to know he’s sick before he will seek out the cure.</p>

<p>The gospel—that Christ died for our sins—is the good news for sinners. However, it only makes sense in light of the bad news—that we are sinners. One of the earliest oral creeds recorded in the New Testament is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+15%3A3-7&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:3-7</a>. This Christian oral tradition dates back to within a few years of Jesus’&nbsp;death and resurrection. The message our brothers and sisters from the 1st century were communicating was “that Christ died for our sins.”&nbsp;But this doesn’t mean anything to people who are ignorant of their sins. Think about it! Healthy people don’t need a doctor; sick people do. Likewise, righteous people don’t need a Savior; sinners do.</p>

<p>Getting back to the illustration: The most loving thing that the doctor can do is to gently and graciously share the truth with his patient that he has a deadly disease. Only then can he offer the <em>lifesaving</em> cure. In exactly the same way, humbly and graciously telling people that they are sinners—like you, and I, and the rest of mankind—is the <em>most loving</em> thing you can do, because only then will they turn to the <em>life-giving</em> Savior.</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-it-unloving-to-tell-people-they-are-sinners-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-it-unloving-to-tell-people-they-are-sinners-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-it-unloving-to-tell-people-they-are-sinners-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: There’s No Such Thing as Ordinary Life
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/there-s-no-such-thing-as-ordinary-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father... It is the Lord Christ whom you serve&nbsp;(Colossians 3:17-24).</p>

<p>It’s the beginning of the new year, and it’s tempting to think that only our <em>big</em> plans for this year matter. Jeanne Harrison <a href="https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/dear-god-i-dont-want-serve-you-way/" target="_blank">reminds us</a> that <em>every</em> action of each day is meaningful if done to the glory of God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The truth is sometimes I really love “whatever I’m doing,”&nbsp;and sometimes I really hate it. Isn’t that life in every season? There are parts we relish, parts we tolerate, and parts we despise. Parts that make us laugh and parts that make us cry and parts that make the veins in our forehead pop out. And yet through all of it, God urges, “<em>Whatever you d</em>o... do it in MY name! Do it for MY glory! Do it to serve Me.”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+3%3A23-24&amp;version=ESV" target="_blank">Verses 23-24</a> actually go on to promise that we will receive a reward when we work with our whole hearts as unto the Lord.</p>

<p>Do you realize what that means? It means there is <em>value</em> in the most menial corners of our lives. It means we have purpose, always. We have the opportunity to worship, always. I meditated on these verses all day long, as I scrubbed dishes and cleaned countertops. I thought about Jesus as I checked homework and brushed hair and swept floors and packed lunch boxes. And right around the time I was pulling that little lint trap out of the dryer, I felt it. Overwhelming gratitude...</p>

<p>In my stale little laundry room, I felt the staggering weight of God’s generosity—that He would allow me to be part of His story, that He would redeem the most insignificant moments of my day, that He would stoop down to take a gift out of my dirty hands.</p>

<p>Standing in my laundry room, I realized that I serve a God so generous that He’s willing to make ordinary moments sacred.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of her <a href="https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/dear-god-i-dont-want-serve-you-way/" target="_blank">post</a>, and take heart! We have purpose, always.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.challies.com/a-la-carte/a-la-carte-december-22-0" target="_blank">Tim Challies</a>)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-s-no-such-thing-as-ordinary-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-s-no-such-thing-as-ordinary-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-s-no-such-thing-as-ordinary-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/21/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1">Read part 1 here</a></p>

<p>Few doctrines of the Christian faith are as awkward as the Trinity, yet few are as important to understand and affirm. Get the basic nature of God wrong and much of what follows theologically will falter, being built on the wrong foundation. For that reason, I have devoted two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> to the topic. My broad goal is to make a clear case for God’s Triune nature with a particular focus on the deity of Christ.</p>

<p>In the first installment,[i] I emphasized four things: the <em>significance</em> of the Trinity, the <em>problem</em> of the Trinity, the <em>definition</em> of the Trinity, and the alleged <em>contradiction</em> of the Trinity. My basic thesis: The Trinity is not a problem, but a solution. It’s the only way of understanding God that is consistent with His own self-revelation in both Testaments. Without it, the biblical record deteriorates into contradiction.</p>

<p>In this second installment, I want to center on the biblical <em>fact</em> of the Trinity[ii] by making a scriptural case for the unique deity of Christ. I won’t deal here with the deity of the Spirit, not because the third person of the Trinity has second-class status, but rather as a practical concern.</p>

<p>That the Father is God is not controversial, biblically. The deity of Christ is the issue most fiercely challenged and has historically been the center of the theological controversy. Once we’ve established the second person of the Godhead, adding another is easy <em>if the Scripture warrants it for the same reasons it warrants belief in the deity of Christ</em>.</p>

<p>My method is simple: provide clear scriptural support for each element that is essential to the definition of the Trinity as it applies to the person of Christ.[iii] There are three components. One, there is only one God. Two, Jesus is a distinct person from the Father. Three, Jesus is fully God. We know this because Jesus is called God, He possesses divine attributes, and He exercises divine privileges.</p>

<p>One thing I will not do is invite you to “picture”&nbsp;the Trinity by reducing it to an illustration. There are built-in problems with any attempts to visualize the Godhead in this way.</p>

<p>One, illustrations appeal to faculties that simply are not capable of helping us. God’s nature cannot be captured in an image (indeed, the 2nd commandment forbids it). Second, most illustrations depict a heretical notion of the Trinity (modalism, for example).[iv] Third, illustrations risk making the Trinity credible because it’s visual, not because it’s revealed. We know God’s nature because He’s told us about Himself. Therefore, my appeal will be entirely to His Word.</p>

<h2>Hints of Promise</h2>

<p>The idea that God Himself would come to the earth was hinted at in the teachings of the ancient Hebrew prophets.</p>

<p>Micah told of an eternal One being born in Bethlehem: “His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity”&nbsp;(Micah 5:2). Isaiah said a child born of a virgin would be called God: “...you shall call His name Immanuel”&nbsp;[lit. “God with us”] (Is. 7:14), and “His name will be called... Mighty God[v]... Eternal Father”&nbsp;(Is. 9:6 ). Jeremiah added:</p>

<p>“Behold the days are coming,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “when I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch... And this is His name by which He will be called, ’The Lord our righteousness’”&nbsp;(Jer. 23:5-6).</p>

<p>The prophet Malachi told of a future messenger who would declare God’s arrival to earth: “Behold I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before <em>Me”</em>&nbsp;(Mal. 3:1). Isaiah said that messenger would be a voice calling, “Clear the way for <em>the Lord</em> in the wilderness. Make smooth in the desert a highway for <em>our God”</em>&nbsp;(Is. 40:3). Luke identifies John the Baptist as that voice (Lk. 3:4-6) who came to bear witness to <em>Jesus</em>: “I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God”&nbsp;(Jn. 1:34).[vi]</p>

<p>These are mere hints, though, not the kind of clear statements needed to establish our doctrine. Instead, the case for the deity of Christ rests on more explicit textual evidence showing that Scripture teaches, 1) there is only one God, 2) Jesus and the Father are personally distinct, and 3) Jesus shares the Father’s Divine nature.</p>

<h2>There Is Only One God</h2>

<p>The unmistakable teaching of the Bible is there is only one who is God in essence. This foundational element of Hebrew theology is found in Deut. 6:4, the great <em>Sh’ma Yisrael</em>: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!”&nbsp;Isaiah also speaks with clarity that there is no God but one:</p>

<p>Is. 43:10 “You are My witnesses,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. <em>Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me</em>.”</p>

<p>Is. 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ’I am the first and I am the last, and <em>there is no God besides Me</em>.’”</p>

<p>Is. 45:5 “<em>I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God</em>.”</p>

<p>Is. 45:21b, 22 “And <em>there is no other God besides Me</em>, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth, <em>for I am God, and there is no other.”[vii]</em></p>

<p>Since there is no true God but Yahweh, all other so-called “gods”&nbsp;- idols, spirit beings, etc. - are false gods:</p>

<p>We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor. 8:4b-6).</p>

<h2>Jesus Is Distinct from the Father</h2>

<p>Jesus is a separate person from the Father, not merely a different “mode”&nbsp;of God (i.e., God was in the “Father”&nbsp;mode in the Old Testament and the “son”&nbsp;mode in the Gospels, the way a woman is in “mother”&nbsp;mode at home and “worker”&nbsp;mode at the office). How do we know? From the many instances in Scripture where Jesus interacts with the Father in personal ways, clearly distinguishing each from the other.</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;baptism is one example. Both the Father and the Son are present, but one speaks and the other is silent. Note Luke 3:21-22:</p>

<p>Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”</p>

<p>John 3:16 famously states that God <em>gave</em> His Son. The first gave the second. In John 17, Jesus prays to the Father. Jesus was talking to another, not to Himself. Later that night in Gethsemane, Jesus submits Himself to the Father’s plan with, “Not as I will, but as You will”&nbsp;(Matt. 26:39). A person cannot surrender to himself, but only to another party. Paul tells Timothy, “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”&nbsp;(1 Tim. 2:5). A mediator stands between two parties and is distinct from each.</p>

<h2>Jesus Is Fully God</h2>

<p>Three lines of scriptural evidence demonstrate Christ’s Divinity: Jesus was called God, Jesus had divine attributes, and Jesus exercised divine prerogatives.</p>

<p>The Scripture is replete with examples of Jesus being called or equated with God in unmistakable terms, and Jesus Himself made the claim.</p>

<p>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and <em>the Word was God</em>... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory... (Jn. 1:1,14 ).</p>

<p>...from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, <em>God blessed forever</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 9:5).</p>

<p><em>God our Savior... Jesus our Savior</em> (Titus 1:3-4).</p>

<p>God our Savior...&nbsp;<em>our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ</em>... (Titus 2:10, 13).</p>

<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&nbsp;(Col. 1:15, 2:9).</p>

<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&nbsp;(Heb. 1:3).</p>

<p>Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, <em>before Abraham was born, I am”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 8:58).</p>

<p>And note this stunning statement in Acts 20:28: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God <em>which He purchased with His own blood</em>.”&nbsp;When did God bleed? When He was crucified on a Roman cross.</p>

<p>Jesus also had divine attributes. First, notice Isaiah’s unequivocal statement about the ultimate source of all things in Is. 44:24:</p>

<p>Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “<em>I, the Lord, am the maker of all things</em>, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth <em>all alone</em>.”</p>

<p>Yet at the same time, the New Testament teaches that Jesus created all things. The point is made in a couple of places, but none more clear than John 1:3, providing one of the most decisive biblical evidences for the deity of Christ.</p>

<h2>The Irrefutable Argument</h2>

<p>The opening verses of John’s Gospel offer a scriptural proof for Christ’s divinity that is so simple you can sketch it out on a napkin from memory the next time a missionary knocks on your door.</p>

<p>John 1:3 states, “All things came into being through Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”[viii] Have your visitor read the verse out loud. Then take out a piece of paper and draw a large box, explaining that the box represents everything that exists. Run a line right through the middle of the box, dividing everything that exists into two categories. It will look like this:</p>

<p><img class="img-fluid" data-fileentryid="212339" src="/documents/portlet_file_entry/20123/everything-exists+%281%29.png/4ed74e9d-ae12-9bbf-b456-706c1ab02e3b" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>On the left side write, “all things that never came into being,”&nbsp;that is, all things that exist, but have never been created. Ask your friend, “What goes in that side?”&nbsp;If he says “God,”&nbsp;he got the right answer. God alone is eternal and uncreated. Put the word “God”&nbsp;in the left-hand side of your box.</p>

<p>Label the right side “all things that came into being,”&nbsp;that is, all created things (write that in, too). According to John 1:3, everything on this side was created through Jesus. Ask your friend if he understands that. Now write “created through Jesus”&nbsp;outside the box and run an arrow to the right side. Your box should now look like this:</p>

<p><img class="img-fluid" data-fileentryid="212342" src="/documents/portlet_file_entry/20123/everthingthatexists+%281%29.png/8806df88-582b-98ce-2a29-ad9f6fa367f7" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>

<p>Take a moment to point out to your guest how this illustration is structured. The larger box includes everything there is, was, or ever will be. Every existing thing falls into one - and only one - of those two categories: created or not created. Simple.</p>

<p>Next, take a coin from your pocket and tell your guest the coin represents Jesus. Hand him the coin and ask him to place the Jesus coin on the side where He belongs. This is where things get interesting.</p>

<p>The first impulse of a Jehovah’s Witness is to place Jesus in the category of created things because that’s what his theology dictates. But the verse doesn’t allow that option. John says, “All things came into being by Him [or through Him], and apart from Him <em>nothing came into being that has come into being</em>,”&nbsp;not even one thing.</p>

<p>John’s meaning is unequivocal and unmistakable: Everything that ever came into being owes its existence to Jesus, who caused it all to happen. If Jesus <em>caused</em> all created things <em>to come</em> into existence, then He must have existed <em>before</em> all created things <em>came</em> into existence. Therefore, the Word could not have been created. If He was, He would have created Himself, which is impossible.</p>

<p>The coin cannot be placed on the right side, and it can’t be placed anywhere on the paper outside the larger box (which he may attempt), since there is nothing out there. These categories are all-encompassing and mutually exclusive; there’s no “place”&nbsp;outside to put Him. Everything goes in one side of the larger box or the other.</p>

<p>If Jesus can’t be placed in the right side with created things, then He must go in the left side with uncreated things. Jesus was the uncreated Creator. Therefore, Jesus is God.</p>

<p>Counters that Jesus is distinguished from the Father in other passages (as when He prays to the Father in John 17) merely reinforce our defense of the Trinity. Agreed, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus can talk to the Father because each is a separate person, but as Creator, Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. That was John’s point, which is why he calls the Word “God”&nbsp;in John 1:1.</p>

<p>The final evidence that Jesus is God is that He exercises prerogatives reserved for God alone. The most vivid example is Jesus receiving worship.</p>

<h2>“Bowing Down”</h2>

<p>The word <em>proskuneo</em> (translated “worship,”&nbsp;or “bow down”) occurs 59 times in the New Testament in five different contexts. Clearly, there is a sense where someone could “bow down”&nbsp;in homage or obeisance in a way that does not entail worship. This happened with Jesus, for example, when the leper came to Him for healing (Matt. 8:2).</p>

<p>However, there is a type of “bowing down”&nbsp;reserved for God alone. When John “fell at his feet to worship”&nbsp;[<em>proskuneo</em>] the angel in Rev. 22:8, the angel rebuked him. When the gentile Cornelius did the same thing with Peter in Acts 10:25, he was likewise corrected. How were these two instances of <em>proskuneo</em> different from mere homage or respect?</p>

<p>Here’s the difference. Cornelius could not fall at Peter’s feet and <em>then</em> bow down. He was already down. John didn’t fall down at the angel’s feet and <em>then</em> bow down. He was already down. Whenever the phrase “fall down”&nbsp;is followed by <em>proskuneo</em>, that word cannot simply mean “bow down,”&nbsp;<em>since the person is already down</em>.</p>

<p>Remember the devil’s words at Jesus’&nbsp;temptation in Matthew 4:9: “And he said to Him, ’All these things will I give You, if You <em>fall down and worship</em> me.’”&nbsp;Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ’You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”&nbsp;This was the same pattern as with John in Revelation and Cornelius in Acts.</p>

<p>So, do we ever see that pattern - a “falling down”&nbsp;followed by the word <em>proskuneo</em> - with others toward Jesus? Only the context can tell us. I’ll give you two examples.</p>

<p>In the birth narratives, the wise men asked, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him”&nbsp;(Matt. 2:2). When they found Him, “after coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother, and <em>they fell to the ground</em> and <em>worshiped</em> Him”&nbsp;(Matt. 2:11).</p>

<p>After Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection, Jesus met the women at the tomb. After He greeted them, “they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him”&nbsp;(Matt. 28:9). Notice that when the women take hold of Jesus��&nbsp;feet, they are already down. When <em>proskuneo</em> is added once they are down, it can only mean worship.</p>

<p>Worship is reserved for God alone, yet clearly Jesus was worshiped as God.</p>

<p>God will also not share His glory: “Thus says the Lord God... ’I am the Lord, that is My name; <em>I will not give My glory to another’”</em>&nbsp;(Is. 42:5, 8). Yet Jesus claimed, “The Father... has given all judgment to the Son so that <em>all will honor the Son even as they honor the Fathe</em>r”&nbsp;(Jn. 5:22-23). Peter made the same point: “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. <em>To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity</em>. Amen”&nbsp;(2 Pet. 3:18).</p>

<h2>God Is... Jesus Is</h2>

<p>There is yet another powerful line of scriptural evidence that Jesus is God: characteristics or privileges unique to God in the Old Testament are applied to Jesus in the New Testament. There are many examples of this. Here are a few:</p>

<p>“I have sworn by Myself... that <em>to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear</em> allegiance”&nbsp;(Is. 45:23).</p>

<p>“That <em>at the name of Jesus every knee will bow... every tongue will confess</em> that Jesus Christ is Lord...”&nbsp;(Phil. 2:10).</p>

<p>“I, even I, am the Lord; and there is <em>no savior besides Me”</em>&nbsp;(Is. 43:11).</p>

<p>“...by the righteousness of <em>our God and Savior Jesus Christ”</em>&nbsp;(2 Pet. 1:1).</p>

<p>“Is there any God besides Me, or <em>is there any other Rock</em>? I know of none”&nbsp;(Is. 44:8).</p>

<p>“All drank the same spiritual drink [in the wilderness], for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and <em>the rock was Christ”</em>&nbsp;(1 Cor. 10:4).</p>

<p>“God said to Moses... say to the sons of Israel, ’<em>I AM has sent me to you’”</em>&nbsp;(Ex. 3:14).</p>

<p>“Jesus said to them, ’Truly, truly, I say to you, <em>before Abraham was born, I AM’”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 8:58).</p>

<p>“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ’<em>I am the first and I am the last</em>, and there is no God besides Me’”&nbsp;(Is. 44:6).</p>

<p>“<em>I am the first and the last</em>, and the living One, and I was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore”&nbsp;(Rev. 1:17-18).</p>

<h2>The Glorious Solution</h2>

<p>In the final analysis, the Trinity is a mystery. It’s a revealed doctrine, not an invented one. Our job was to find out what the Bible teaches, not unravel the mystery. We did that.</p>

<p>If there is only one God, and if the Father and Son and the Spirit are distinct in personal ways, and if are all affirmed to be God in Scripture, then the only explanation that makes sense of God’s own self-revelation is the Trinity.</p>

<p>The Trinity is the ground of God’s love. It is the foundation of the work of the Cross. It is the basis of Christian community. It encompasses all aspects of our salvation.</p>

<p>Is the Trinity a problem? No. It’s a solution - a magnificent, marvelous, glorious, solution.</p>

<div>
<div id="edn1">
<p>[i] Available in enhanced digital form at str.org.</p>

<div id="edn2">
<p>[ii] For an engaging treatment of the Trinity’s <em>significance</em>, see Fred Sanders’s <em>The Deep Things of God</em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).</p>

<div id="edn3">
<p>[iii] The exact same approach can be used to establish the Deity of the Spirit.</p>

<div id="edn4">
<p>[iv] Find a clever characterization of this problem at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=.</p>

<div id="edn5">
<p>[v] Note the same language in Jer. 32:17-18: “Ah Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power... O great and <em>mighty God</em>.”</p>

<div id="edn6">
<p>[vi] Note also, “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ’After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me’”&nbsp;(Jn. 1:30), even though John was born six months before Jesus.</p>

<div id="edn7">
<p>[vii] These passages, favorites of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also say God is the only <em>Lord</em> and the only <em>Savior</em>, the <em>first and the last</em>, all characteristics applied to Jesus in the New Testament, as we’ll see.</p>

<div id="edn8">
<p>[viii] The Jehovah’s Witness’s <em>New World Translation</em> has virtually the same wording in this verse, so you won’t run into any difficulty here.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-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%2Fthe-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-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%2Fthe-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-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: An Argument for Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jesus Is Jehovah
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-argument-for-jehovah-s-witnesses-jesus-is-jehovah
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How should we speak to Jehovah’s Witnesses about Jesus? That was the topic of a recent one-hour <a href="http://speaklife.org.uk/2015/10/14/tep114/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEvangelistsPodcast+%28The+Evangelists%27+Podcast+from+Speak+Life%29" target="_blank">interview</a> I did for <em>The Evangelist’s Podcast</em>. Most of us have had the experience of hearing a knock at the door only to discover that it’s a pair of well-dressed Jehovah’s Witnesses wanting to talk about the latest <em>Watchtower</em> publication.</p>

<p>I used to dread these encounters. In fact, while they would be introducing themselves, I would be thinking up excuses to get out of the conversation. However, I came to realize that this fear of Jehovah’s Witnesses came from the fact that I was <em>ill-equipped</em> to handle myself in a discussion with them. They knew their stuff. I didn’t. They trained for hours prior to our conversation. I hadn’t trained at all.</p>

<p>I only knew <em>what</em> I believed, but I didn’t know <em>why</em> I believed it. I would get into these conversations with the belief that Jesus is God, but when the pressure was on I couldn’t provide good reasons for my belief. As a result, I would leave the discussion feeling beat up and unsure about my own convictions. Unfortunately, many Christians feel the same way.</p>

<p>I want to offer you one persuasive argument that I have found very effective while talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses. It involves two straightforward passages of Scripture. For the biblical texts we will be exploring, I want to encourage you to use the Jehovah’s Witness Bible—the New World Translation (NWT). Please don’t misunderstand me. I believe NWT is a <em>mistranslation</em>, but it can be utilized by Christians to make our point. Get them to open their NWT, and have them read the passages to you. There are two reasons why I find this tactic very helpful.</p>

<p>First, it will completely avoid a debate over whose translation is more accurate. By using the translation they trust, you sidestep these debates altogether.</p>

<p>Second, your argument will have a greater impact since you are using a book they believe is trustworthy. I will readily admit that when I read a book from another religion or cult, I’m inherently skeptical. So then, why should we expect anything less from a Jehovah’s Witness? When you start reading from your NIV or your ESV, they are going to be equally skeptical. But they trust the New World Translation. Therefore, for this particular argument, we will only be citing the NWT.</p>

<p>Third, Jehovah’s Witnesses probably won’t take and read literature that you give them. However, they will always leave your house with their NWT. Therefore, if we can show them who Jesus is from their own book, then they will take the truth with them.</p>

<p>Where do we start with the Jehovah’s Witness? Don’t get sidetracked with all the other issues that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to talk about, like soul sleep, Heaven, Hell, and the Holy Spirit. These are all important issues, but they are not the <em>most</em> important issue. Make the goal of your conversation about answering one question: <em>Who is Jesus?</em> How you answer this question changes everything. All other questions, although interesting and important, simply pale in comparison. Christianity stands or falls on its view of Jesus Christ. If it could be demonstrated that Jesus is identified as Jehovah, then the foundation of the Jehovah’s Witness’s belief comes crashing down.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the salvation of everyone, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, depends on an accurate understanding and belief in God the Son. Jesus said, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins”&nbsp;(John 8:24). Therefore, if you only have a few minutes to talk, it’s best to zero in on Jesus.</p>

<p>With these preliminary comments out of the way, let’s dive into the argument. This argument involves two rather straightforward passages of Scripture: one from the New Testament, and one from the Old Testament. We will begin with the latter first.</p>

<p>Ask your visitors to take out their NWT and have them flip to Psalm 102:25-27. The psalmist writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[25] Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,</p>

<p>And the heavens are the work of your hands.</p>

<p>[26] They will perish, but you will remain;</p>

<p>Just like a garment they will all wear out.</p>

<p>Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.</p>

<p>[27] But you are the same, and your years will never end.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two key questions you need to ask about this passage. First, <em>who</em> is this text about? That is, who is the “you”&nbsp;being referred to? Make sure you get a straight answer. If they know their Bible, they will recognize that this text is about Jehovah. This is clear from the context of the passage. The first verse of Psalm 102 declares, “O Jehovah, hear my prayer; Let my cry for help reach you...”&nbsp;(Psa. 102:1). This is a short prayer directed to Jehovah that uses His name seven times.</p>

<p>Second, <em>how</em> is Jehovah described in this text? We are told that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth (Psa. 102:25). We are also told that Jehovah does not change; He is immutable (Psa. 102:26-27). Finally, we are told that Jehovah is eternal (102:27). Therefore, we have established that this text is describing the unique eternal, changeless, creator Jehovah.</p>

<p>Once you have agreed upon this point, it’s time to flip over to the New Testament. Kindly ask your guests to turn in their NWT to Hebrews 1:10-12. It is very important that you take your time and establish the context of these verses. I usually start back at verse 6. The author of Hebrews writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[6] But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”&nbsp;[7] Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”&nbsp;[8] <em>But about the So</em>n, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, these verses are speaking about the Son. At this point, I would also suggest passing over the dangling carrot in verse 8. Here the Father says to the Son, “Your throne, O God.”&nbsp;Of course, the NWT must reinterpret this passage to say, “God is your throne.”&nbsp;Also, verse 6 has the angels doing <em>obeisance</em> to the Son. Every modern translation uses the term <em>worship</em>. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’&nbsp;presuppositions will not allow for angels to worship Jesus, so they avoid the term.</p>

<p>Putting these erroneous interpretations aside, you need to emphasize the beginning of verse 8, “But of the Son he says.”&nbsp;Now, still talking about the Son, the author of Hebrews continues:</p>

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

<p>Do you recognize these words? This is a quote from Psalm 102:25-27. Remember that our new Jehovah’s Witness friend has <em>already</em> agreed that Psalm 102:25-27 is a description of the eternal, changeless, creator Jehovah. The “you”&nbsp;in Psalm 102:25-27 is Jehovah! Yet, the author of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly attributes this <em>same identification</em> to the Son. The “you”&nbsp;in Hebrews 1:10-12 is Jesus! Therefore, Jesus is being identified as Jehovah. So is Psalm 102:25-27 about Jesus, or is it about Jehovah? The answer is, yes, because Jesus <em>is</em> Jehovah.</p>

<p>I’ve used this argument on Jehovah’s Witnesses and have yet to receive a reasonable response back. The only response available to the Jehovah’s Witness is to downplay the attributes in Hebrews 1 to fit the description of a created creature. But this won’t work, because the same attributes are applied to Jehovah. Are we to believe that the God of the universe is being described in the <em>same terms</em> as a mere creature? Psalm 102 is <em>not</em> the description of a created, finite, changing creature; rather, it is a description of the eternal, unchanging Creator. The only honest way to make sense of these two passages is to affirm that Jesus is Jehovah.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospels-aren-t-ancient-fiction
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some fun for today: Bernard Howard has imagined a conspiracy-creating conversation based on Dawkins’s assertion that “The Gospels are ancient fiction.”&nbsp;I love it. Here are a few lines to get you started. Then you must head over to the Gospel Coalition to read the rest of “<a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/if-richard-dawkins-is-right" target="_blank">If Richard Dawkins Is Right</a>.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Luke:</strong> Well, to make a conspiracy credible you need precise details. So we’ll invent stories where Jesus interacts with people in specific locations.</p>

<p><strong>Matthew:</strong> Won’t people just disprove the stories by visiting those places and asking around?</p>

<p><strong>Luke:</strong> There’s no need to worry about that. We could invent a story about a synagogue ruler’s terminally ill daughter being healed, give the synagogue ruler a name, set it all in a particular place, and still no one—absolutely no one, not even the people living in that place—would trouble to fact-check. Everyone would simply swallow the story whole!</p>

<p><strong>Mark:</strong> It sounds like we’re on safe ground there. But if we want people to follow Jesus, he’ll need a message. People have been waiting for the Messiah for centuries. He’s got to be worth listening to when he finally appears.</p>

<p><strong>John:</strong> Good point. I’ll cook up some deep quotes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/if-richard-dawkins-is-right" target="_blank">rest</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-gospels-aren-t-ancient-fiction" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-gospels-aren-t-ancient-fiction" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-gospels-aren-t-ancient-fiction" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 the First Created Being?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/13/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-the-first-created-being-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Scripture is clear that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated One.</em></p>

<p>When Christians try to argue for the deity of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to bring up Colossians 1:15. Paul writes, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”&nbsp;(Col. 1:15). The modern English translations and the New World Translation agree on the translation of the text. However, the Christian and Jehovah’s Witness differ with their interpretation of the text.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the word firstborn to mean the “first created.”&nbsp;This fits their Arian presupposition that Jesus is a created being. However, firstborn does not have to be taken in a literal, physical sense. Firstborn can mean first in preeminence or rank. For instance, God calls David the firstborn even though he was the youngest son of Jesse. The psalmist writes, “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”&nbsp;(Psa. 89:27). David was the last one born in his family, yet he is called the firstborn.</p>

<p>The question remains, how should we interpret this text? There are a number of reasons why the Jehovah’s Witnesses have the wrong interpretation. First, they must assume Jesus was created to make their interpretation work. However, Scripture is clear that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated One. In John’s Gospel, he writes, “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made”&nbsp;(John 1:3). Think about that for a minute. John is not merely saying that Jesus made all things. He is saying much more than that. Without Jesus, nothing was made that was made. So there are only two categories: things made and things not made. If it was made, then Jesus made it. Do you see what this means? Jesus cannot be one of the made things, because He made all of the made things. This would mean that Jesus made Himself, which is logically impossible. John goes out of his way to communicate that Jesus is the uncreated Creator, who created all things that were created.</p>

<p>Second, the context of Colossians demands that Jesus is the uncreated God. Verse 15 cannot be read in isolation. Right after Paul says that Jesus is preeminent over all creation, he says, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell...”&nbsp;(Col. 16-19). This is not the description of a finite, created being. In fact, in the very next chapter, Paul writes, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily...”&nbsp;(Col. 2:9).</p>

<p>Given the overall context, Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make Colossians 1:15 say what they need it to say. However, an honest evaluation of the text demonstrates that Jesus is the Creator 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%2Fwas-jesus-the-first-created-being-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-the-first-created-being-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-the-first-created-being-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Does It Mean That Jesus Is God’s Only Begotten Son?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-god-s-only-begotten-son-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The phrase “only begotten”&nbsp;has been ammunition for false teachers since at least the fourth century at the Council of Nicea. This expression appears in one of the most memorized verses in the Bible. Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his <em>only begotten</em> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16 KJV).</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cults, have taken this to mean that Jesus was <em>literally</em> begotten. If Jesus was begotten, then he is a created being. Therefore, he cannot be God. Many Christians are unequipped to address this challenge primarily because it trades on the definition of a Greek word. However, once you understand the definition of the Greek word&nbsp;in play, the challenge evaporates.</p>

<p>When a Jehovah’s Witnesses offers this challenge, I have a question. It’s the first Columbo question, <em>what do you mean by that?</em> More specifically, what does the original author mean by “only begotten?”&nbsp;Of course, the original author didn’t write in English; he wrote in Greek. The single Greek word translated “only begotten”&nbsp;is <em>monogenes</em>. Ancient writers often used this adjective to describe a child’s unique <em>relationship</em> with their parent. Moreover, the emphasis was on the specific relationship, not the physical <em>begetting</em> itself. In fact, <em>monogenes</em> is better understood to describe a relationship as “one-of-a-kind”&nbsp;or “unique.”&nbsp;This is exactly how the biblical writers would have understood the word.</p>

<p>Consider when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as an offering. God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only [<em>monogenes</em>] son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you”&nbsp;(Gen. 22:2). Of course, before Abraham can carry out this command, God stops Abraham and says, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only <em>[monogenes</em>] son, from me”&nbsp;(Gen. 22:12).</p>

<p>The author of Hebrews picks up on this expression and writes, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [<em>monogenes</em>] son...”&nbsp;(Heb. 11:17 KJV). We know that Isaac wasn’t <em>literally</em> Abraham’s only begotten son. Isaac was the second son. Ishmael was Abraham’s first-born son. If you understand <em>monogenes</em> as a literal begetting, then God clearly got His facts wrong. However, if you understand <em>monogenes</em> as a unique, one-of-a-kind relationship, then God can accurately describe Isaac his “only”&nbsp;or “only begotten”&nbsp;son. Isaac was the only son of the covenant.</p>

<p>Likewise, Jesus is God’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son. You can call him the “only begotten”&nbsp;Son if you like, but remember, this word isn’t about procreation. It’s about a unique relationship between the Father and Son.</p>

<p>When many modern ears hear that Jesus is the Father’s “only begotten”&nbsp;Son, they immediately think He must have been created at a point in time. However, this is not the literal begetting of a son from a father. This would grossly distort the author’s original intent, and is why many modern translators have chosen to use “only”&nbsp;(ESV), or “one and only”&nbsp;(NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET) instead of “only begotten”&nbsp;(KJV, NASB). They are trying to avoid unnecessary 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%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-god-s-only-begotten-son-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-god-s-only-begotten-son-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-god-s-only-begotten-son-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can We Escape the Law of Non-Contradiction?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/31/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-we-escape-the-law-of-non-contradiction-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A while back, I met with a local pastor to talk about apologetics—the defense of the Christian faith. During our friendly discussion, we got on to the subject of the nature of truth, at which time I made a case for the correspondence theory of truth.</p>

<p>This particular pastor subscribed to a postmodern view of truth—that there is no objective truth and that truth is a social construction based on linguistic practices.</p>

<p>While making my case, I referred to the laws of logic, and specifically, to the law of non-contradiction. The pastor immediately denied the law of non-contradiction. I was completely taken aback and could not believe what I was hearing. It was bad enough that I had to argue for truth, but now I found myself arguing for something as foundational as the laws of logic.</p>

<p>For those who don’t know, <em>the law of non-contradiction</em> states that A and not-A (where A is a proposition) cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, my car cannot be parked in my driveway and not parked in my driveway at the same time and in the same sense. This just seems so obviously true, and yet this notion was being rejected.</p>

<p>This pastor was convinced that the law of non-contradiction is just a Western convention. Furthermore, he indicated to me that he believes that Western “Either-Or”&nbsp;logic is too arrogant, dogmatic, and exclusive. He prefers to use the Eastern “Both-And”&nbsp;system of logic. Fortunately for me, this conversation that I found myself in was beginning to sound a lot like a story I heard Ravi Zacharias tell during one of his keynote addresses. You can listen to the story in the video below. (If you’re in a rush, you can start listening at the 2:25 minute mark.)</p>

<p>During my conversation with this pastor, I asked the very same question that Dr. Ravi Zacharias asked the American philosophy professor in his story. I asked, “Are you saying that it’s either the Eastern ’Both-And’&nbsp;system or nothing else?”&nbsp;He didn’t catch it the first time, and simply responded, “Yes!”&nbsp;The question was worth repeating, but this time I put emphasis on two significant words.</p>

<p>I asked, “Are you saying that it’s <em>either</em> the Eastern ’Both-And’&nbsp;system <em>or</em> nothing else?”&nbsp;That’s when you could see the light bulb go on. A simple smile let me know that he got it!</p>

<p>The “Either-Or”&nbsp;logic is impossible to avoid. Ironically, this person needed the law of non-contradiction to try to prove the “Both-And”&nbsp;system. The very fact that he disagreed with me communicated that he really <em>did</em> believe in the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction isn’t just a Western convention. In fact, it’s not a convention at all. The laws of logic aren’t invented; they’re <em>discovered</em>. They are facts about reality—the way the world really is.</p>

<p>There’s no doubt in my mind that this challenge would have caught me off guard if it wasn’t for this video by Dr. Zacharias. This short YouTube clip changed everything. Don’t ever underestimate the power of a 10-minute YouTube video or a podcast. You just never know when God is going to use what you’ve learned for his glory!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="9pDs1wlmshg" 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/TVsNEIOXTQc?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%2Fcan-we-escape-the-law-of-non-contradiction-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-we-escape-the-law-of-non-contradiction-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-we-escape-the-law-of-non-contradiction-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Make Jesus Central to Your Conversations with Muslims
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/make-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Islam is growing fast. One out of every five people on the planet is a Muslim. That makes them one of the largest unreached people groups. Sadly, 38,000 Muslims die every day and enter eternity without Christ. We need to hone our skills so we’re more effective at sharing the truth with them.</p>

<p>The opportunity to tell Muslims about the Gospel is huge. You no longer have to cross the ocean to reach them. It’s possible that all you have to do is cross the street. Muslims live in most cities across our country, and many of them are eager to discuss spiritual topics.</p>

<p>We need to think carefully, though, about the content of our message and the manner of our speech. Knowing that every Christian is an ambassador of Jesus, Paul gives us some guidelines. He writes, “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone”&nbsp;(Col. 4:5-6).</p>

<p>If we don’t heed Paul’s guidelines, we can short-circuit our efforts to communicate the truth to Muslims. That’s why I don’t recommend bringing up jihad, denigrating Mohammed, or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. These topics simply raise defenses and make the Muslim less receptive to more important issues. Instead, when talking to Muslims, make Jesus central to your conversation. Here are three reasons why.</p>

<p><strong>Reason #1: Jesus is a prophet in Islam.</strong> That means Muslims <em>must</em> believe in Him. To be clear, Muslims hold a very different Christology. They don’t believe He’s the Son of God, a divine being, or part of the Trinity. They also deny His crucifixion, resurrection, and atoning work.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, they revere Jesus as a prophet because the Qur’an speaks very highly of Him. It teaches that Jesus’&nbsp;birth was announced by angels (Surah 3:44-45), that He was born of the Virgin Mary (Surah 19:20), and that He lived a sinless life (Surah 19:19). It also says Jesus was able to perform miracles and raise the dead (Surah 3:49). Jesus will even be a sign of the end times (Surah 43:61). These are just some of the admirable characteristics attributed to Him.</p>

<p>You can feel comfortable bringing up Jesus in your conversation because Muslims hold Christ in high esteem. Therefore, bring Him up and tell them about the Gospel, which is the message He wants you to share with Muslims and, indeed, everyone.</p>

<p><strong>Reason #2: Jesus’&nbsp;Gospel is considered a true revelation.</strong> Muslims believe Allah has given divine scripture to various prophets. Since Jesus is one of their prophets, they believe Allah gave Him the Gospel. Unfortunately, Muslims also believe this Gospel revelation became corrupted over time. This is not only the most common objection you’ll hear from Muslims, but it’s also the most serious. That’s because the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) give the true identity of Christ and describe the only means of salvation. Without this message, the Muslim remains lost.</p>

<p>In my book, <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK331" target="_blank"><em>The Ambassador’s Guide to Islam</em></a>, I teach how to deal with this objection. In a nutshell, I demonstrate that the Qur’an teaches two things that undermine the Muslim charge of corruption. First, the Qur’an teaches that no one can change or corrupt the words of God (Surah 6:34, 6:115, 10:64, 18:27, etc.). Second, the Qur’an teaches the Gospel is an example of the word of God (Surah 3:3, 2:136, 4:136, 29:46, etc.). Therefore, it follows that the Gospel is the unchanged/uncorrupted word of God. Since the Qur’an is the highest authority in Islam, Muslims must accept what it teaches.</p>

<p>Once your Muslim friend accepts the Gospel is not corrupted, then you can tell them the true identity of Christ and plan of salvation found in Him.</p>

<p><strong>Reason #3: Jesus can guarantee salvation.</strong> I always ask Muslims if they are 100% sure they are going to Heaven. I’ve never had a Muslim tell me “yes.”&nbsp;That’s because Islam operates on a meritorious based system of salvation. Two angels record all your good and bad deeds you commit in life. These deeds are weighed at the final judgment. If your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, then you go to Heaven. If your bad deeds outweigh your good deeds, then you go to Hell. Since Muslims can’t know their “account status,”&nbsp;they can’t know—with certainty—their ultimate fate.</p>

<p>But Jesus can. According to the Gospel, people who put their trust in Christ have all of their bad deeds atoned for—paid completely—by the work of Christ on the cross. That’s a message Christians can tell Muslims: Jesus <em>can</em> guarantee their salvation. That’s good news!</p>

<p>The great thing about making Jesus the focus of your conversation is that you already know Him and His message. You don’t need to take a course on Islam. You’re already prepared to talk to Muslims. Sure, you can always learn more about Islam in the future, but for now the Gospel is what Muslims need 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%2Fmake-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmake-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmake-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: 5 Tools to Equip Your Kids
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 11/17/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/5-tools-to-equip-your-kids
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The goal of this video is to help parents and pastors be more focused and intentional in their discipleship of the next generation. I’ll talk to you about the tried-and-true classical method of education and offer some very specific ideas and practical tools to equip families and churches.</p>

<p>[Update: Because of technical difficulties, the first eight minutes are audio only.]</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="HpZpfSSWvP4" 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/HpZpfSSWvP4?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p><strong>Classical education:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://welltrainedmind.com/a/classical-education/" target="_blank">What Is Classical Education?</a> by Susan Wise Bauer</li>
	<li><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk409.htm" target="_blank">A New Kind of Apologist</a> - Chapter by Brett Kunkle</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Tool #1: Partners</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>Spouse</li>
	<li>Local church</li>
	<li>Christian organizations</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.summit.org/conferences/student/" target="_blank">Summit Ministries</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://impact360institute.org/" target="_blank">Impact 360</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences</a></li>
	<li>Donate to Brett’s youth ministry work</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Tool #2: The Bible</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.circeinstitute.org/audio" target="_blank">On Morning Time</a> - Audio by Cindy Rollins</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Story-Bible-ebook/dp/B00A0XSBVW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1398395069&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+big+picture+story+bible" target="_blank">The Big Picure Story Bible</a> by David Helm</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Biggest-Story-Crusher-Brings-Garden/dp/1433542447/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447812230&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+biggest+story" target="_blank">The Biggest Story</a> by Kevin DeYoung</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Illustrated-Bible-Selina-Hastings/dp/0756609356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1398395183&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+children%27s+illustrated+bible" target="_blank">The Children’s Illustrated Bible</a> by Selina Hastings</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Bible-Golden-Books/dp/0307165205/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447812157&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+golden+bible" target="_blank">The Golden Children’s Bible</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Picture-Bible-Iva-Hoth/dp/0781430550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1398397238&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+picture+bible" target="_blank">The Picture Bible</a> by Iva Hoth and and Andre Le Blanc</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brick-Bible-Complete-Set/dp/1626361770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447812280&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+brick+bible" target="_blank">The Brick Bible</a> by Brendan Powell Smith</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Tool #3: Books</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://welltrainedmind.com/a/classical-education/" target="_blank">What Is Classical Education?</a> by Susan Wise Bauer</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&amp;field-keywords=%22little+lights%22+mackenzie&amp;rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A%22little+lights%22+mackenzie" target="_blank">Little Lights</a> - Biographies</li>
	<li><a href="http://cbfyr.com/" target="_blank">Christian Biographies for Young Readers</a></li>
	<li>“<a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&amp;field-keywords=%22what+is+god+like%22+dr.+craig&amp;rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A%22what+is+god+like%22+dr.+craig" target="_blank">What Is God Like?</a>”&nbsp;- Series by William Lane Craig</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Read-Aloud-Bible-Stories-1/dp/0802471633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447813203&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=read-aloud+bible+stories" target="_blank">Read-Aloud Bible Stories</a> by Ella Lindvall and H. Kent Puckett</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ology-Ancient-Truths-Ever-New/dp/194257228X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447813129&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+ology" target="_blank">The Ology: Ancient Truths, Ever True</a> by Marty Machowski</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-ABCs-Augustine-Heroes/dp/1433514729/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447813273&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=church+history+abcs" target="_blank">The Church History ABCs: Augustine and 25 Other Heroes of the Faith</a> by Stephen Nichols and Ned Bustard</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-God-Really-There/dp/1935495968/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447816849&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=melissa+cain+travis" target="_blank">How Do We Know God Is Really There?</a> by Melissa Cain Travis</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Times-Survey-Competing-Worldviews/dp/1434709582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1447812994&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=understanding+the+times" target="_blank">Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews</a> by Jeff Myers &amp; David Noebel</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Tool #4: Memorization</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.gcp.org/ProductDetail.aspx?Item=020030" target="_blank">First Catechism</a> (also available <a href="http://www.opc.org/cce/FirstCatechism.html" target="_blank">online</a>)</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/apostles-creed" target="_blank">Apostles’&nbsp;Creed</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed" target="_blank">Nicene Creed</a></li>
	<li>Ten Commandments</li>
	<li>The Lord’s Prayer</li>
	<li>Psalm 23</li>
	<li>The Beatitudes</li>
	<li>The Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-39)</li>
	<li>The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20)</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Tool #5: Technology</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://torchlighters.org/heroes/" target="_blank">Torchlighters DVDs</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://illustramedia.com/productions/" target="_blank">Illustra Media DVDs</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.explorationfilms.com/The_Master_Designer_The_Song.html" target="_blank">The Master Designer</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://lamplighter.net/c/" target="_blank">Lamplighter Theater</a> (Audio and books)</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%2F5-tools-to-equip-your-kids" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F5-tools-to-equip-your-kids" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F5-tools-to-equip-your-kids" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Some Practical Advice for Teaching
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 11/24/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/some-practical-advice-for-teaching
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When you’re teaching, whether it’s apologetics or any other topic, it’s not just the information but also the presentation that counts. You may be able to dump theological knowledge on your audience, but that doesn’t mean it will stick and have the impact you’re hoping for, so you’ve got to work on your presentation skills too. This is especially important with youth audiences.</p>

<p>When I’m asked for advice on teaching youth, here are some of my suggestions:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Have a strong opener for your talk: Use stories, object lessons, and illustrations to draw them in, gain their attention, and earn their trust. And get into it quickly. Don’t waste time with filler (e.g. “Glad to be here with all of you...”).</li>
	<li>Cut content to the most essential elements: Often you have such limited teaching time (30-40 minutes), so make sure you’re focusing on the most essential material for each topic. Avoid an “information dump”&nbsp;where you regurgitate every single aspect you’ve studied. You may study hours upon hours for a single talk, but you’ll need to boil it down to the key ideas and arguments for your audience.</li>
	<li>Illustrate, illustrate, illustrate: As you explain spiritual truths and abstract concepts, you will need to illustrate these for your audience. For example, we use the <a href="http://www.str.org/quickthoughts/insulin-or-ice-cream#.VlR6ud-rRZo" target="_blank">ice cream/medicine</a> illustration to explain objective/subjective truth. In addition, I created a “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAWrk-leQGc&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Truth Test</a>”&nbsp;years ago to further illustrate the distinction between the two.</li>
	<li>Close your talks with ways that hit home: Show your audience how ideas have consequences. Illustrate how what you’ve taught plays out in real life. Use powerful stories to close. Help them see the relevance of your teaching to life. This will help give your talks a strong finish.</li>
	<li>Hang out with your audience: If I’m speaking to a group I don’t know, I will take the initiative to get to know my audience (as much as possible) beforehand. Greet people as they come in, walk around, introduce yourself, ask questions and mingle with them as they wait for the event to begin. If I’m at a camp or conference, I’ll try to have meals with them and even participate in some of the camp activities with them. And afterwards, make yourself available for further questions and interactions. I typically try to be one of the last to leave the event. All of this will help the audience connect with you personally and, therefore, help them connect with your teaching at a deeper level.</li>
</ol>

<p>If you do a lot of teaching, I suggest you get a copy of Timothy Koegel’s book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Exceptional-Presenter-Proven-Formula-Open/dp/1929774443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1448376189&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+exceptional+presenter" target="_blank">The Exceptional Presenter</a></em>. You’ll benefit from it tremendously and so will your audience.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-practical-advice-for-teaching" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-practical-advice-for-teaching" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsome-practical-advice-for-teaching" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 All Worship Equally Acceptable to God?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-all-worship-equally-acceptable-to-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I have become increasingly concerned at the cavalier attitude many people have about how they approach God. There are many people who believe that it doesn’t matter <em>how</em> you come to God, so long as you come. They believe that the true God will take their worship—in whatever form and to whatever god—and transpose it onto Himself. On this view, it doesn’t really matter how I worship, as long as I’m sincere. Implicit in this thinking is the belief that all religions worship the same God.</p>

<p>For example, devoted Hindus sincerely worship Brahma as creator, Vishnu as protector, and Shiva as judge. Are we to understand that the true God will take the worship given to these three different gods and apply it to Himself? On this view, God isn’t really interested in the details of how and whom you worship, so long as you are giving it your best effort.</p>

<p>People inside and outside of the Church believe this is how God operates. They believe that He is more concerned with the individual’s <em>sincerity</em> than the veracity of what the person believes about God. However, there are two passages from Scripture that shed some light on this issue. First, look at Genesis 4:1-5:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”&nbsp;And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, <em>but for Cain and his offering he had no regard</em>. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Was Cain worshiping the wrong God? Was Cain not being sincere? I think we can answer “no”&nbsp;to both of these questions. Then why didn’t God accept Cain’s offering? I believe the answer is clear: Even though Cain wasn’t coming to the wrong God, he was coming to the right God in the <em>wrong way</em>. Cain didn’t believe in God any less than Abel. Cain was sincere in his offering. He was a worker of the ground and thought that offering “fruit from the ground”&nbsp;would be acceptable. It turns out that even though Cain was sincere, he was sincerely wrong.</p>

<p>The problem was with how Cain <em>approached</em> God. Cain offered what <em>he</em> wanted, not what <em>God</em> had prescribed. (Imagine how much worse it would have been if Cain had approached a different god altogether!)</p>

<p>You can see the same thing in Leviticus 10:1-3:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it <em>and offered unauthorized fire</em> before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ’Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’”&nbsp;And Aaron held his peace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here we see that same thing happen again, but this time God executes immediate judgment. Notice how, like Cain (and unlike those who worship Vishnu and Shiva), Nadab and Abihu weren’t worshiping a false god. From what we can tell, they were trying to worship and please the one true God. However, <em>how</em> they worshiped was not how God had directed them, and God punished them for their error.</p>

<p>I think these two examples demonstrate the importance of <em>how we approach God</em>. We need to get the details right. If it matters <em>how</em> we worship, how much more does it matter <em>whom</em> we worship! God is blazingly holy and will be worshiped on His terms, not ours. And His terms are that we must come to Him through Jesus Christ alone.</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-all-worship-equally-acceptable-to-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-all-worship-equally-acceptable-to-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-all-worship-equally-acceptable-to-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should He Tithe If It Will Hurt His Family?
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 11/27/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-he-tithe-if-it-will-hurt-his-family-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a question I recently received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Hi Brett, I have a theological dilemma that I need your advice on. A friend, who is married and has 3 young kids and a wife that isn’t working, has guilt about not being able to tithe.</p>

<p>I have tried all the usual tactics about being under the New Covenant and tithing isn’t required anymore, but that you should give as much as you can. Then he brought up the widow’s offering in Mark 12:41-44, saying that it is excellent in Jesus’&nbsp;eyes to give to the point that it hurts. I think that’s a valid point. But then I think it’s also a valid argument that God expects him to take care of his family—right? If he takes away from his family to give alms, isn’t that also wrong?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My answer:</p>

<p>(1) It doesn’t seem Jesus’&nbsp;point is that on a <em>normative</em> basis we should give until it hurts. Particularly given the immediate context, it seems like the larger point is a comparison between the outward righteousness of the religious authorities not being a true demonstration of love for God and what true love for God does actually look like. So I don’t think we’re obligated to take that passage as a command to give until it hurts, even though there is occasion to do so.</p>

<p>(2) Secondly, your friend is not in a parallel situation to the widow, who does not seem to have family to care for, so you cannot simply draw a direct comparison between the two. Your friend has a wife and kids, so he has to balance giving with his obligations to feed, clothe, and shelter them. The Bible does offer clear guidance on taking care of one’s family.</p>

<p>(3) Giving isn’t just about giving money. When one isn’t in a position to give monetarily, it doesn’t mean he or she has nothing to give. We can give of our time, our service, our current resources like a car, home, etc. So maybe during this season of financial struggle, giving to the Lord’s work looks different from just putting money in the offering plate. Maybe it’s taking a skill he has and offering it to someone else in need.</p>

<p>(4) Lastly, sometimes there is a time and place to give when it hurts. Maybe this is one of those times. But I think this has to be done in harmony with his wife so that they are of one mind. If she doesn’t agree, I would say don’t do it. And they must take into consideration whether or not giving <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+8%3A12-15&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">puts their own family in jeopardy</a>. If so, don’t do 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%2Fshould-he-tithe-if-it-will-hurt-his-family-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-he-tithe-if-it-will-hurt-his-family-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-he-tithe-if-it-will-hurt-his-family-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Does It Mean for Jesus to Be the Son of God?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-the-son-of-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Jesus never calls Himself God,”&nbsp;exclaimed my Jehovah’s Witness friend in a moment of frustration. “He calls Himself the Son of God, not God. There is a huge difference.”</p>

<p>This is another common assertion made by well-meaning, but misinformed Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, if Jesus is the Son of God, then He isn’t God. For example, if Andy Barnett is the <em>son</em> of Ed Barnett, then Andy isn’t Ed.</p>

<p>Let’s be very clear from the outset, Jesus is not God’s Son <em>in a human sense</em>. God didn’t have sex with Mary and produce a son. He is God’s Son in the sense that the second person of the Trinity took on the flesh (John 1:14). Indeed, the virgin Mary bore a son, but “the child... will be called holy—the Son of God”&nbsp;(Luke 1:35).</p>

<p>Of course, Christians agree that the Son is distinct from the Father. Where we disagree is the nature of God. The Jehovah’s Witness challenge depends upon the assumption of unitarianism; God is only one person, not three. However, the consistent testimony of Scripture reveals that God is one in Being, yet three distinct persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally God. Therefore, there is no <em>logical</em> contradiction in Jesus being called the Son of God <em>and</em> Jesus being God Himself.</p>

<p>Furthermore, when Jesus calls Himself the Son of God, he is communicating the He is God. This is most fully revealed in the Gospel of John. The apostle John records an exchange between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath, and, as a result, the Jews were persecuting Him. In response, Jesus says, “My Father is working until now, and I am working”&nbsp;(John 5:17). As part of John’s inspired commentary on this event, he immediately writes:</p>

<p>“This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, <em>but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”</em>&nbsp;(John 5:18).</p>

<p>John recognizes the enormous theological implications of calling God His own Father. In John’s words, Jesus was “making Himself equal with God.”&nbsp;This statement becomes even more significant when we turn over to John 19. This is John’s account of the trial of Jesus. The Jews drag Jesus before Pilate, but he could find no guilt in Him. Now notice the charge the Jews bring against Jesus.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.”&nbsp;The Jews answered him, “<em>We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God”</em>&nbsp;(John 19:6-7).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What was the particular law the Jews were referring to? This is where things get interesting. We have the Mosaic Law and there was no capital law against calling yourself the Son of God. However, it was a capital crime for Jesus to make Himself equal with God. The Mosaic Law says, “Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death”&nbsp;(Lev. 24:16).</p>

<p>Look at their charge again. They say, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die <em>because he has made himself the Son of God.”</em>&nbsp;Obviously, the Jews understood Jesus’&nbsp;claim to be the Son of God to be equal to the claim to be God. And that was blasphemy.</p>

<p>What these Jews understood to be a <em>blasphemous</em> claim, the authors of the New Testament understood to be an <em>accurate</em> claim. The author of Hebrews writes, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the <em>exact imprint of his nature”</em>&nbsp;(Heb. 1:3). Paul echoes this same concept to the Colossians, “For in him <em>all the fullness of God</em> was pleased to dwell”&nbsp;and “For in him the <em>whole fullness of deity</em> dwells bodily”&nbsp;(Col. 1:19; 2:9). The Bible is clear. The Son of God is God in the flesh.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-the-son-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%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-the-son-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%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-the-son-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: Twisting Jesus’ Words
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/10/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/twisting-jesus-words
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I can overlook bad biblical interpretation every once and while. You’re probably the same. You see interpretive mistakes here and there, but you don’t always make a ruckus about it.</p>

<p>When my daughter came home with a badly-interpreted Bible lesson one day, though, I didn’t tolerate it. I spoke up.</p>

<p>She came to me with a handout she got from Sunday school. That morning’s topic was called, “The Night Neighbor,”&nbsp;a lesson from Luke 11:5-8 (NIRV).</p>

<p>Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend. You go to him at midnight and say, ’Friend, lend me three loaves of bread. A friend of mine on a journey has come to stay with me. I have no food to give him.’&nbsp;And suppose the one inside answers, ’Don’t bother me. The door is already locked. My children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’&nbsp;I tell you, that person will not get up. And he won’t give you bread just because he is your friend. But because you keep bothering him, he will surely get up. He will give you as much as you need.”</p>

<p>After citing the above text, the handout had a list of “Application Points.”</p>

<p>“Even though you are small, you can do big things with God’s help.</p>

<p>Sharing big means sharing before you’re even asked.</p>

<p>What can you share today before you’re even asked?”</p>

<p>In other words, whoever wrote this curriculum (and it’s a big-budget, highly produced lesson series used by many churches) believed that Jesus’&nbsp;point in this passage was to teach about <em>sharing</em>. The Sunday school student is supposed to take note of the neighbor who was awoken at midnight, notice that he initially was reluctant to share his food, but that he eventually realized the error of his ways and gave his friend some bread.</p>

<p>Why was I so frustrated? Because Jesus was not trying to teach about <em>sharing</em>. How do I know? I follow a principle we teach at Stand to Reason: <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/never-read-a-bible-verse#.Vj1u5K6rRZo" target="_blank">Never read a Bible verse</a>. Always read the context. It’s the words before and after a passage that clarifies the meaning of the smaller unit of text. Indeed, as we’ll see in this passage, Jesus even explains the point of his “night neighbor”&nbsp;parable.</p>

<p>To be fair, I could see how a person might interpret this passage as a point about sharing. If the only thing you read was Luke 11:5-8 and didn’t read any context, then it makes sense that sharing might be a possible interpretation. It would be even more tempting to come to that conclusion if your goal was to teach children to share. But the context <em>is</em> available so there’s no excuse.</p>

<p>Notice the context of Luke 11:5-8. Jesus begins by telling his disciples the “Lord’s Prayer,”&nbsp;answering their request to teach them how to pray. After He tells them the prayer, He tells them the parable of the “night neighbor.”&nbsp;Then, Jesus concludes with these famous words: “So here is what I say to you. Ask, and it will be given to you. Search, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you. Everyone who asks will receive. The one who searches will find. And the door will be opened to the one who knocks.”</p>

<p>In other words, the context (the words before and after the “night neighbor”&nbsp;parable) is about how to pray and make your requests known to God. Jesus wants us to be persistent in our prayer. That’s His point.</p>

<p>The Sunday school lesson not only missed that point, but it also focused on the wrong person in the parable. Notice the handout points you to the neighbor. It asks you to consider being the person who’s awoken at midnight and asked to share. That’s not the person Jesus is asking us to look at in the parable, though, when taken in context. Jesus’&nbsp;point is that you act like the friend who comes over and asks for bread. The friend was persistent in asking for help. Jesus also wants you to be persistent in your request to God. The Sunday school lesson identifies the wrong person in the parable because they ignored the context.</p>

<p>Some might think I’m overreacting. After all, it’s just a Sunday school lesson for kids. Sharing is still a great value. It’s no big deal.</p>

<p>I disagree. It <em>is</em> a big deal. First of all, if sharing (or giving) is a biblical mandate, then use passages that teach that. There’s plenty of them. Second, making a lesson from a passage that teaches a different point is bad hermeneutics (the art and science of interpreting the Bible). That means you’re not only misinterpreting the Bible, but you’re modeling bad interpretive principles to impressionable young children. Third, you’re ignoring an important message that Jesus is trying to teach: persistence in prayer. This is a great lesson for all people to learn, including children. Fourth, you’re twisting Jesus’&nbsp;words to say something He didn’t mean. That’s a huge deal. We reasonably get angry when someone twists our words. How much more grievous of a mistake is it to do that to the words of God!</p>

<p>The solution is to never read a Bible verse. Always read the context, the parts before and after the passage you’re looking at. The only skill required to discover that context is—wait for it—reading. That’s it! You don’t need a fancy seminary education. If you can read a verse or passage <em>out</em> of context, you already have the tool you need to read it <em>in</em> context.</p>
</div>

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


title: Ex-Atheist: The Existence of Evil Makes Atheism Implausible
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/21/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/ex-atheist-the-existence-of-evil-makes-atheism-implausible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>French ex-atheist Guillaume Bignon has an <a href="http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/French-ex-atheist-only-God-can-make-sense-of-the-evil-in-Paris" target="_blank">article</a> in Premiere Christianity explaining why he thinks the evil perpetrated against his country last week points to the existence of God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The only option for French atheists (among whose ranks I used to count myself), is to maintain that there isn’t <em>really</em> any such thing as evil. When one denies the existence of God as a transcendent creator of the universe who ordains how humans <em>ought</em> to live their lives, one is left only with conflicting opinions about what individuals <em>like</em> and <em>dislike</em>. If there is no God then there is no objective <em>truth</em> about the good and the bad...</p>

<p>[I]n reality, to be a consistent atheist one must affirm that the Islamic terrorists in Paris didn’t do anything ’wrong’, as such. They only acted out of line with our personal preferences, (and in line with theirs). If there’s no ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, that’s all we are left with.</p>

<p>Maybe that way of reasoning about good and evil strikes you as crazy. ’Of course the terrorists were wrong and their acts were evil’&nbsp;the atheist says. I agree, which is why I think the reality of the evil we just witnessed makes atheism so implausible...</p>

<p>But of course, maintaining the existence of God in the face of such evil isn’t without its difficulties. If he exists and is perfectly good, why didn’t God prevent this evil?...</p>

<p>Hearts are heavy, and thinking objectively is difficult when it hurts. But ultimately, as the French face this seemingly purposeless evil, <em>one side must deny that it’s evil, and the other must deny that it’s purposeless.</em></p>

<p>As a former-atheist-turned-Christian-theologian there’s no hiding which option I favour.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Bignon fleshes out these arguments a bit more in the full article. Read the rest <a href="http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/French-ex-atheist-only-God-can-make-sense-of-the-evil-in-Paris" target="_blank">here</a>. And if you’re interested in hearing how a French atheist became a Christian, Greg talks about it <a href="https://str-legacy.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/podcast/weekly/112613.mp3" target="_blank">here</a> (starting at 9:28), or you can read about it <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/november/how-french-atheist-becomes-theologian.html" target="_blank">here</a>. It’s a great story!</p>
</div>

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


title: Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/12/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The question “If Jesus pays for all your sins, then why not sin?” is an objection to grace anticipated by Paul in Romans 6:15: “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” The objection reflects a misunderstanding of who Christians are as regenerated “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A16-19&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">new creatures</a>” and how we view our new life in Christ.</p>

<p>Yes, Christians are justified because of the perfect work of Christ on the cross and His application of this work to us in His work <a href="/w/what-does-christ-s-resurrection-mean-for-us-" target="_blank">as our high priest</a>. His righteousness becomes our righteousness when we turn to Him and are united to Him through faith in Him and His work for us. We’re <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+3%3A7-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">righteous because of His works</a>, not ours. But that’s not all there is to understand about the relationship between Christians and sin.</p>

<p>When we trust in Christ to save us from the punishment we deserve, we are acknowledging our sinfulness and need for Him. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+6&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 6</a> explains that when we’re united to Christ, we’re “crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with”—we die with Him, and then we’re raised with Him to a new life. Because of this, we’re to “consider ourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.”</p>

<p>We are new people now, no longer slaves to sin. We belong to Christ. Therefore, we’re told, “Do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” We gave up our old bodies of sin when we died with Christ. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+3%3A1-17&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Colossians 3</a> explains more:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God....</p>

<p>Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is how Christians now view sin. We renounced it all when we died with Christ.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 6:1–4</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At the same time, because we are still fallen in a fallen world, because our bodies have not been fully redeemed as they will be in the resurrection, everything we do is tainted by our sinful fallenness. This is why we’re told in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+1%3A8-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 John 1:8–10</a>, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”</p>

<p>This means that as we continue in our lives, fully justified because of receiving the forgiveness and righteousness of Christ through faith, and considering ourselves to be dead to sin, we will yet sin. When we do, we confess those sins, and He cleanses us from them. This is an ongoing part of our lives. To deny this is to call God a liar (see “<a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned" target="_blank">Free to Say We’ve Sinned</a>”). In other words, it’s not <em>sinlessness</em> that marks a Christian, it’s the attitude towards sin.</p>

<p>We rejoice in the grace that removes our guilt, but we don’t use it as an excuse for licentiousness. This is because, as Christians, our attitude towards sin has completely changed. We now hate it. We don’t cherish or protect sin. Instead, we confess it and ask for forgiveness. This is the attitude towards sin that has marked Christians from the beginning. In fact, both 1 John and Jude teach that we can recognize false Christians by their view of sin. “Ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness” are unequivocally condemned. They’re condemned as false Christians not because they’re not good enough to be Christians (no one is good enough to merit God’s grace!), but because their attitude towards sin proves they never died and rose with Christ. Those who have been changed by God and united to Christ <em>will</em> have a new view of sin. These are the ones who say with Paul, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”</p>

<p>To assume that Christians will use grace as an excuse to sin is to assume that Christianity is false—that God has not, in truth, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter+2:9&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">called us</a>&nbsp;“out of darkness into His marvelous light,”&nbsp;that we have not <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+6%3A1-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">died with Christ</a> and were not raised with Him as <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A16-19&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">new creatures</a>, that the old things have not <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A16-19&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">passed away</a> for us. It’s understandable that non-Christians would raise this objection, but it does not reflect the Christian view of our new life in Christ and our relationship to sin.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why Did Christ Need to Die in Order for Us to Be Saved?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 10/26/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-did-christ-need-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-be-saved-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Brett explains why Jesus’&nbsp;death was the just payment for our sins.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="143422539" 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/143422539?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>Why did Christ need to die in order for us to be saved? Very simply, the consequence for sin is death. Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death.”</p>

<p>Some may follow up and say, “Why is that the consequence? Why would that be the consequence that God has laid out?”&nbsp;I would say because sin is so serious. The consequence is death because sin is serious, and God takes sin seriously.</p>

<p>I think the judge analogy is helpful here. Think about a judge who has a criminal in front of him who has been convicted of a crime. Let’s say the crime is murder, and the judge says, “I’m going to fine you $100, and then you can go. You’re guilty, but just $100 fine, and you’re free to go.”&nbsp;We would all look at that go, “Wait a second. That’s not just!”&nbsp;Right? That’s not justice. That punishment doesn’t fit that crime.</p>

<p>In the same way, when we look at the issue of sin and the consequences, if God let us off the hook like that judge who let that murderer off the hook, justice would not be satisfied. Since the consequence of sin is death, death is what was required to satisfy the justice of God. That is why Jesus had to die to save 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%2Fwhy-did-christ-need-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-be-saved-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-did-christ-need-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-be-saved-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-did-christ-need-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-be-saved-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/30/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to start by asking three questions I hope will alert you to problems I’m willing to bet you’ve never thought about as a Christian.</p>

<h2>Three Questions, Three Problems</h2>

<p>Here’s the first question: What is the one thing that everyone who believes in God agrees on about what God is like? The answer, by common assent, is that God is love.</p>

<p>Further, we are convinced that God doesn’t just <em>happen</em> to be loving, and could easily have been something else—nasty, mean, cruel, or evil. Rather, love is <em>essential</em> to God, vital to His nature, and without it God would be less than God. It’s one of His moral perfections.</p>

<p>Good so far. Now I want you to imagine yourself completely alone on a remote island. Would really, really loving your solitary self be an example of perfect and profound love? Of course not. It would be an example of perfect and profound conceit.</p>

<p>Deep affection for yourself does not constitute a moral perfection. Love by its very nature involves giving oneself away. When all the “loving”&nbsp;is merely self-loving, it’s not love; it’s narcissism.</p>

<p>Yet before God created anything, wasn’t He all alone with only His solitary self to love? So how could God be truly loving, then, before anyone else existed to give Himself in love to? Do you see the problem?</p>

<p>It gets worse. I have a second question: What is the most famous verse in 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>According to Christians, God takes a man who was not guilty and treats Him as if He were, by giving Him over to an unspeakably brutal death, so God could show His love in pardoning those who actually are guilty. Now, 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?</p>

<p>This problem is not lost on Steve Chalke, an influential leader in UK Emergent Church Movement. In <em>The Lost Message of Jesus</em>, he characterizes substitutionary atonement—the classic “Jesus paid for your sins”&nbsp;view—as...</p>

<blockquote>
<p>...a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.”&nbsp;If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind, but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’&nbsp;own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>“Cosmic child abuse”? Indeed, that’s what it sounds like. How will you answer him? Do you see the problem?</p>

<p>I have one last question. According to John 3:16, <em>who</em> is rescued by Jesus’&nbsp;death? The verse says, “whoever believes.”&nbsp;That means <em>anyone</em> who believes, and <em>everyone</em> who believes. And if someone doesn’t believe for everlasting life, what is his fate instead? Everlasting death: punishment, banishment, and torment forever.</p>

<p>So here’s the real question: 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? Do you see the problem?</p>

<p>I pose these three concerns to you for a reason. Many people think the Trinity is largely irrelevant. It’s so much high theology best left to the doctrinal nitpickers and not imposed on ordinary folk of simple faith. Plus it’s confusing. Like the infield fly rule, everybody believes it, but nobody understands it. Anyway, it usually only comes up when people knock on our front door and challenge it, and most of the time we hide when we see them coming.</p>

<p>Yet, when you think about it, only the Trinity can answer the challenge of our three questions. Only the Trinity can make sense of the love of God as an intrinsic moral excellence, a holy affection continuously given and received from eternity past among the divine persons.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Only the Trinity can turn Jesus’&nbsp;sacrifice on a cross into a testament of God’s love for the world, since it was <em>God’s</em> blood, shed by Christ, that purchased Christ’s church (Acts 20:28). And only with the Trinity can a man suffer a finite amount of time, yet cover an eternal debt for a countless multitude, since the man was Himself the God of infinite grace.</p>

<h2>The Centrality of the Trinity</h2>

<p>Put simply, the Trinity and the Gospel are inseparable. “The gospel is Trinitarian, and the Trinity is the gospel,”&nbsp;theologian Fred Sanders writes. “Christian salvation comes from the Trinity, happens through the Trinity, and brings us home to the Trinity.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> The first-century church understood this.</p>

<p>True, the doctrine didn’t fill out in a robust form until centuries later. The word “Trinity”&nbsp;wasn’t used in Christian literature until the mid-second century by Theophilus,<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> and the doctrine itself wasn’t officially formulated until the early fourth century when it was directly attacked by Arius.</p>

<p>Still, the <em>elements</em> of the Trinity were all in place—understood, accepted, and taught—early in the history of the church having been handed down by apostolic witness. The most ancient testimony of Christ was, “Jesus is Lord”—Jesus the Messiah (the Savior) is God, that is. In the opening days of the church, Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead after lying to the Holy Spirit since they had “not lied to men, but to God”&nbsp;(Acts 5:1-4). Within 20 years of the cross, Paul confidently notes that Jesus had been ���declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:4). And within 30 years, the ancient <em>Didache</em> records, the Trinitarian formula of Matt. 28:19 was in regular use at baptisms.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>These early Christians’&nbsp;understanding did not arise out of speculative, philosophical theology. Rather, it was the inevitable result of an encounter with the God who “showed up.”&nbsp;It’s what happened when the Jews met their Messiah face to face. Note Lewis:</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. And then, after they had been formed into a little society or community, they found God somehow inside them as well: directing them, making them able to do things they could not do before. And when they worked it all out, they found they had arrived at the Christian definition of the three-personal God.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The deity of Christ meant everything to those first Christians, for a number of reasons. First, the centrality of Christ. The identity of Christ was the key issue of His life and the <em>sine qua non</em>—the absolutely indispensable and 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:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> God, Jesus said, 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 not any answer is adequate. Only Peter’s will do: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”&nbsp;(Matt. 16:15-16).</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 things 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). 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>Second, the testimony of Scripture. Paul said 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 shall be saved”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 10:9). He also warned of “another Jesus”&nbsp;connected to “another Gospel”&nbsp;that believers were falling prey to (2 Cor. 11:4). Jesus, who warned of misleading “false Christ”&nbsp;imposters (Matt. 24:24), told the Pharisees bluntly, “Unless you believe that <em>I am,</em> you will die in your sins” (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:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The Jews, understanding the point clearly, sought to stone Him (Jn. 8:59).</p>

<p>Third: the meaning of the cross. There is a reason the Word took on a human nature. The gap between man and God could only be bridged by the God-man. Beisner cites Ignatius (A.D. 110-120) saying, “The Lord our God”&nbsp;became man “that he might free our souls.”&nbsp;Beisner then adds, “In the New Testament we find the same teaching (Heb. 2:5-17; 9:14), the idea being that he only can mediate properly between God and man who is equal with both parties” (1 Tim. 2:5).<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> Further, man was guilty, so man must pay. Yet what kind of man could make a boundless payment adequate to cover endless punishment due for the sins of the entire world? Only the God-man. Man was obliged to pay the price for sin, but only God could.</p>

<p>Fourth: persecution. In the first 300 years of the Christian faith, martyrdom was a real possibility for most believers. What motivated them to be willing to pay the supreme price for their faithfulness? “The early Christians... could trust Christ in the midst of persecution precisely because they were persuaded that certain very specific things about Him are true.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> To them, the particulars mattered. Indeed, they were so important the first believers were willing to sacrifice their lives rather than deny them.</p>

<p>Simply put, a correct Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead matters to everything we do and everything we believe as Christians. To a true knowledge of God. To the intelligibility of God’s love expressed through Jesus’&nbsp;sacrifice. To a proper understanding of the work of the cross. Indeed, to salvation itself. Note Sanders:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The good news of salvation is ultimately that God opens his Trinitarian life to us. Every other blessing is either a preparation for that or a result of it, but the thing itself is God’s graciously taking us into the fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be our salvation.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>The Trinity—Problem or Solution?</h2>

<p>Immediately, though, we run into a problem. Maybe you can sympathize with Robert Ingersol who wrote this reflection on the Trinity in <em>The Classics of Free Thought</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christ, according to the faith, is the second person of the Trinity, the Father being the first, and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten—just the same before as after.</p>

<p>Christ is just as old as His Father, and the Father is just as young as His Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before He proceeded, that is to say, before He existed, but He is of the same age as the other two.</p>

<p>So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and that these three Gods make one God.</p>

<p>According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one we have but one. Each one is equal to Himself and the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are all kinds of inaccuracies and distortions in this statement, but we can understand Ingersol’s frustration. The Trinity is so odd to the theologically untutored it borders on contradiction. Lewis, though, finds a hidden virtue in the conundrum of the Trinity when he writes, “We cannot compete in simplicity with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course, anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>His point is a good one. Invented religions (“God to me”) have the luxury of being simple and relatively straightforward. Revealed religion is another thing entirely, since facts are stubborn things. And in our case the facts—at least initially—seem to create another intractable problem for Bible believers.</p>

<p>The Scripture teaches three different things that seem at odds with each other. First, there is only One who is God in His essential nature. Second, the Father is not the Son, and neither of them is the Holy Spirit; they are each somehow personally distinct. Three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each identified as God in numerous ways. The critic understandably asks, “How can these things be? How can Jesus be God, and talk to God, and send the Spirit who is God, if God is one Being?”</p>

<p>This problem has a solution, though. It’s called the Trinity.</p>

<p>Here is my simple thesis: <em>The Trinity, properly understood, is a solution, not a problem</em>. Why? Because if you believe in the Bible, yet reject the Trinity, you’re faced with serious and unsolvable textual conflicts. There’s only one solution that makes sense of all the data. <em>The Trinity is the only way of understanding God’s nature that holds all of the Scriptural data in tact.</em> That’s why I say the Trinity is a solution, not a problem.</p>

<h2>What Kind of Three in One?</h2>

<p>Since most of the objections against the Trinity are based on a misunderstanding of the orthodox view, the key to the solution is in the definition (“the Trinity, <em>properly understood</em>...”).</p>

<p>The Athanasian Creed (A.D. 450), the classical creedal formulation, starts this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity, neither confounding [blending, mixing together] their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>James White’s definition in <em>The Forgotten Trinity</em> is more compact and concise: “Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>Note, the persons are distinct, but the substance is one. The Trinity is, therefore, tri-personal, but monotheistic. There are three distinct centers of consciousness (three first-person points of view) who each share the same, individual essential nature—put simply, one “what”&nbsp;and three “whos.”</p>

<p>Notice three essential elements in these definitions. First, there’s only one God. Second, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and separate persons. Third, each of these persons is fully God.</p>

<p>These three affirmations stand in contrast to the aberrant teachings of current popular groups often thought to be Christian, but are not.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses are thoroughgoing monotheists who also affirm that Jesus and the Father are different persons. Yet, in their view, <em>Jesus is a created being, not God</em>. In this they are kin to the ancient Arians who held that the Word was not God, but rather a lesser “semi-divine”&nbsp;being of who they said, “There was when the Word was not.”</p>

<p>Oneness Pentecostals<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> also believe in one God and affirm the deity of Christ. Yet, for them <em>Jesus is not a distinct person from the Father</em>. Instead, Jesus and the Spirit are the same person as the Father under a different guise or mode (e.g., “When Dad’s at home he’s a husband and a father; when he’s at work he’s a banker,”&nbsp;or “Water can appear as a liquid, a solid, or a gas”). Called “modalism,”&nbsp;this ancient heresy “is the most common theological error among people who think themselves orthodox.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>Mormons affirm a true distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and acknowledge they are each fully God. Yet, in their view <em>there are multiple Gods, not one God</em>. They are united in purpose, plan, and perfection of attributes, but “are separate and distinct personages and beings.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> Mormonism is explicitly polytheistic.</p>

<p>Notice that an objector cannot properly argue against the Trinity (as they often do) by pointing to Scripture showing that there is only one God or that Jesus and the Father are distinguished from each other and therefore must be different persons. We agree with both points, which constitute two of the three legs of our definition.</p>

<h2>Escaping the Contradiction</h2>

<p>I hope you have noticed something else: As odd as the Trinity may be, there is nothing incoherent or contradictory about it.</p>

<p>Consider three scenarios. Suppose I said there is only one God, <em>and</em> I also said there are three separate, distinct, and individual gods. Would that be a contradiction? Yes, but it’s not the Christian view. The first half is the Christian view, but the second half is the Mormon view.</p>

<p>Suppose I said God is three distinct persons, <em>and</em> I said God is a perfect unity of only one person with one nature. Would that be a contradiction? Yes, but it’s not the Christian view. The first half is the Christian view, but the second half is the Jehovah’s Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, and Muslim view.</p>

<p>What if I said there is only one who is God by nature, <em>and</em> I said the one God subsists in three distinct persons? He is one individual divine being with three distinct centers of consciousness. Would that be a contradiction? No, it is not.</p>

<p>The first two scenarios describe a contradiction, but neither is the Christian view. Only the third captures the Christian Trinity, and only the third escapes contradiction.</p>

<p>Not all three-in-ones entail contradictions. One triangle can have three angles. One family can have three members. These are not illustrations of the Trinity, but they do show that not all three-in-ones are contradictions.</p>

<p>The Christian view is not contradictory, period, so let’s put that complaint to bed right now. Anyone who says the Trinity is contradictory is not listening carefully to our view and has fallen prey to the “straw man”&nbsp;fallacy. That does not mean the doctrine is true. It does not mean the doctrine is biblical. It simply means the Trinity, properly understood, is not contradictory.</p>

<p>Demonstrating that the Trinity is truly biblical is another task, and that will be the focus of <a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2">part 2 of “The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem.”</a></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, <em>The Lost Message of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182-183. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">This is a problem, by the way, for the Muslim conception of God. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Fred Sanders, <em>The Deep Things of God</em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., <em>The Ante-Nicene Fathers</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpg.), Vol. II, 100, 101, <em>Epistle to Autolycus</em>, II, XV. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">J.B. Lightfoot, ed., <em>The Apostolic Fathers</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 126. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 143. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Harold O.J. Brown, <em>Heresies</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), xxiii. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">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:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">E. Calvin Beisner, <em>God in Three Persons</em> (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1984), 49. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Brown, 21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Sanders, 191. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Lewis, 145. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">White, 26. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">This specific group is not to be confused with Pentecostals in general who are characteristically Trinitarian. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Brown, 99. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">“The Godhead consists of three personages: God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost. [Joseph Smith] referred to these three as God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.”&nbsp;Millet, Olson, Skinner, and Top, <em>LDS Beliefs—A Doctrinal Reference</em> (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 2011), 263. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


