# articles

title: Why It’s Hard for Muslims to Convert
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/09/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-it-s-hard-for-muslims-to-convert
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Recently, I was asked how most Muslims become Muslim and why it’s difficult for them to convert to another religion. It seems several factors are at play.</p>

<p>First, most Muslims are born in a Muslim country and/or a Muslim family and simply adopt Islam as their religion by default. What that means is that there is a strong cultural and familial component to being Muslim. Abandoning Islam often means abandoning their family and tradition. That is hard to overcome.</p>

<p>Second, the Islamic worldview is all-encompassing, especially when living in an Islamic culture. Consider a pie cut into eight pieces and imagine that each slice represents part of a person’s life. One slice is their career, another is their family, another is their religion, another is their friends, another is their culture, etc. For many Westerners, changing their religion means replacing one slice of pie for another. For many Middle-Easterners, Islam is the whole pie. It affects their family, friends, religion, laws, culture - everything! Changing their religion means changing out the whole pie. That’s a big price to pay.</p>

<p>Third, apostasy is considered a capital crime in some Muslim cultures. Converts to Christianity, for example, are vigorously pressured to recant their turn to Christ. If they resist, the punishment is death. I’ve seen former Muslims go on the run, leaving their family and community and living in safe houses. Such consequences are a huge deterrent to apostasy.</p>

<p>Despite these challenges, we’ve seen how the Holy Spirit can move past these obstacles and still reach those He wishes to reach. That’s why Christians need to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to intercede. It’s only through the power of God that people can come to faith.</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-it-s-hard-for-muslims-to-convert" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-it-s-hard-for-muslims-to-convert" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-it-s-hard-for-muslims-to-convert" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Encouragement to Remain Faithful
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/05/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-encouragement-to-remain-faithful
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/early-christians-odd-too/">The Early Christians Were Odd, Too</a>,”&nbsp;Michael Kruger describes how four aspects of early Christianity offended the Romans. Despite this offense, the church flourished and grew; and, Kruger says, this should be an encouragement to us to remain faithful:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There were many things about Christianity that it made it odd - exclusive worship, controversial doctrines, strange moral proclivities, and a hyper-focus on books.</p>

<p>And these aren’t fringe aspects of Christianity; they’re core parts of Christian identity.</p>

<p>We’re reminded, then, that we have much in common with the second-century church. Therefore there is much cause for hope. That weak, fledgling, persecuted church not only survived, but eventually spread across the empire and the entire world.</p>

<p>That didn’t happen because the early Christians abandoned these distinctives. It happened for precisely the opposite reason: they stayed faithful to them.</p>

<p>If we in the modern church remain faithful to them, we can share in the same hope.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/early-christians-odd-too/">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%2Fan-encouragement-to-remain-faithful" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-encouragement-to-remain-faithful" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-encouragement-to-remain-faithful" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Apologetics Is Secondary to the Gospel
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/apologetics-is-secondary-to-the-gospel
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are a few voices out there that say my work is misguided because I care about apologetics more than the Gospel. I shouldn’t be teaching on subjects like Islam, homosexuality, and abortion. They say if I start talking to a non-Christian, I shouldn’t bring up apologetics, but rather tell them about the Gospel.</p>

<p>I agree. That is, I agree the first thing we should focus on is the Gospel. I don’t agree that I care more about apologetics or that my work is misguided. Let me explain.</p>

<p>Yes, the Gospel is of utmost importance. We are commanded to proclaim the message of reconciliation to all people (2 Cor. 5:18-19). That should be our primary goal.</p>

<p>Many times, however, people don’t accept Christ and express doubts, objections, or concerns with Christianity. That’s when apologetics comes in. The purpose at that point is to listen carefully to the person’s concern and ask God to help you clarify the truth. Apologetics, therefore, is about removing obstacles people have to the Gospel. That’s why being acquainted with various objections (like the ones I teach about and many others) is helpful.</p>

<p>Notice, then, that I believe everything is secondary to the Gospel. All apologetics is secondary, albeit still important, to the message of reconciliation we’re called to communicate to non-Christians. How does this work out in my teaching? Here are some examples using three topics I often teach on.</p>

<p><strong>Islam</strong>: Christians often ask me how to cleverly discuss jihad, problems with the Quran, or Mohammed’s moral character with Muslims they know. I discourage that, however. If they can start a conversation with a Muslim, I want them to present the Gospel. That’s the more fundamental concern. Even if you convinced a Muslim to abandon his view of jihad or the Quran, his eternal destiny would still be in jeopardy. That’s why focusing on the Gospel is the best approach. If the Muslim accepts Christ, then all his other views about Islam will subsequently change as well.</p>

<p>Having said that, if a conversation comes up on the Quran, Mohammed, or other Islamic topics, I still want believers to be trained to navigate that discussion well. So, apologetics is still critical, but it’s secondary to the Gospel.</p>

<p><strong>Homosexuality</strong>: I also train believers on apologetics pertaining to the subject of homosexuality. But my take-home message is this: Our hope for homosexuals is not heterosexuality but holiness. We’re not trying to make them straight but to lead them straight to Jesus. The point of my training is not so that Christians bring up the morality of homosexuality or the wrongness of same-sex marriage in every conversation with a person who identifies as gay or lesbian. Rather, I want them to present the Gospel. Every person on the planet, including those in the LGBT community, are guilty before God and desperately need a pardon. That’s what God is offering, and as ambassadors for Christ, that should be our primary message.</p>

<p>Having knowledge of apologetic topics surrounding the subject of homosexuality is still important. Many men and women who identify as gay or lesbian reject the Gospel for various reasons, and having the ability to graciously address those reasons is essential.</p>

<p><strong>Abortion</strong>: The same is true with abortion. If you’re talking to someone who you know is pro-choice, and you have the chance to take the conversation anywhere, I <em>don’t</em> recommend you bring up abortion. Although what a person thinks about abortion is important, what she thinks about Jesus is more fundamental. Even if you persuade her to be pro-life, her eternal destiny would still be in jeopardy if she hasn’t accepted Christ. That’s why the Gospel conversation should be primary. Besides, if she accepts Christ and becomes a believer, then it will often naturally follow that she’ll believe protecting unborn children is important.</p>

<p>If the topic of abortion <em>does</em> come up, I’m not suggesting you avoid it. Engage the person’s ideas in a gracious manner. Remember, I’m a pro-life advocate and am deeply disturbed by abortion. I train believers in the art of pro-life persuasion all the time. My point is that people’s views on abortion are secondary to what they do with Jesus. How you dialogue with them should reflect that priority and order.</p>

<p>My point is not to downplay the importance of apologetics; it’s to elevate the significance of the Gospel and tie apologetics to evangelism. Skillful ambassadors for Christ should know how to present the Gospel <em>and</em> remove obstacles that get in the way of non-Christians accepting 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%2Fapologetics-is-secondary-to-the-gospel" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapologetics-is-secondary-to-the-gospel" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fapologetics-is-secondary-to-the-gospel" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can Christians Have Doubts about God?
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/08/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-christians-have-doubts-about-god-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Every Christian has had doubts at some point in their Christian life. We’re all finite creatures. We don’t know everything. Sometimes we get things wrong. And this possibility can cause us to doubt our beliefs.</p>

<p>But this isn’t unique to Christians. Everyone has doubts. So the question isn’t really, “Can Christians have doubts?”&nbsp;but rather, “What should we do when doubts come?”</p>

<p>Doubts can be a good thing. They can cause us to look more closely at <em>what</em> we believe and <em>why</em> we believe it. For example, a Christian who is going through a period of suffering may not <em>feel</em> God’s presence in his or her life and may have some doubts about God’s existence. This forces that person to reflect on how he or she knows God is real. Is their belief in God only based upon emotions, or is it based upon evidence?</p>

<p>Our <em>feelings</em> about God’s immediate presence may come and go, but that doesn’t change the <em>fact of the matter</em>. Those who have good reasons for God - who He is and what He has done - can stand upon those bedrock convictions in times of doubt. This is because those convictions are based on firm evidence, not fickle emotions.</p>

<p>We see this play out in Scripture. As John the Baptist sat in prison for his faithfulness to God, he was afflicted with doubts about Jesus. In fact, John sends word to Jesus by his disciples and asks, “<em>Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”</em></p>

<p>Remember, this is the same John who, at one time, leaped in his mother’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. This is the same John who confidently declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”&nbsp;This is the same John who baptized Jesus and heard the voice from Heaven say, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”</p>

<p>But now John is sitting in a Roman prison, awaiting a probable execution, and he’s wondering if he got it all wrong. He spent his life proclaiming that the Messiah would come and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire, but the chaff isn’t burning. They are partying. So John begins to doubt.</p>

<p>Now notice Jesus’s response to John’s disciples:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.”&nbsp;(Matt. 11:4-5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus <em>doesn’t</em> tell John to look inside his heart for some subjective feeling. He <em>doesn’t</em> tell John to ignore his doubts and just blindly believe. Rather, Jesus points to objective evidence to substantiate who He is. The blind are seeing. The lame are walking. The deaf are hearing. In sum, Jesus tells him to believe based on the works He is doing.</p>

<p>Also notice that Jesus never scolds John for doubting. He doesn’t question his spiritually or call John a “bad”&nbsp;Christian. On the contrary, Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist”&nbsp;(Matt. 11:11). Remember, Jesus says this <em>after</em> John had wavered in his belief.</p>

<p>There are two practical takeaways for every Christian from this exchange between Jesus and John the Baptist. First, <em>raise your doubts</em>. Don’t suppress them; express them. Doubts that are left ignored and unanswered can drive you to despair. Instead, follow the example of John the Baptist and articulate your doubts.</p>

<p>Sometimes we can be ashamed to admit we have doubts, especially if we’re in positions of leadership in the church. Take heart. If the prophet John the Baptist can raise his doubts to Jesus, so can you.</p>

<p>Once you raise your doubts, don’t stop there.</p>

<p>Second, <em>doubt your doubts</em>. Try framing your doubts as a question, then search for good answers. More specifically, look for reasons to doubt your doubts. Not all doubts are equal. There are some doubts that stand up against tough scrutiny. As a result, these doubts require us to change our beliefs. However, there are other doubts that collapse under the weight of the evidence. This is what happened to John’s doubt. Jesus gave John good evidence - veridical miraculous deeds - to doubt his doubts.</p>

<p>Doubts will come. That’s a given. But this is <em>not</em> something Christians need to fear. Remember John and raise your doubts, then remember Jesus and doubt them.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-christians-have-doubts-about-god-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%2Fcan-christians-have-doubts-about-god-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%2Fcan-christians-have-doubts-about-god-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: Why Is There So Much Wasted Space in the Universe?
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/11/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-is-there-so-much-wasted-space-in-the-universe-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If this universe was designed, why is there so much lifeless “wasted space”? John Piper reflects on the reason for the mind-boggling size of the universe in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Glory-Christian-Scriptures-Truthfulness/dp/1433552639/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1515650143&amp;sr=8-1">A Peculiar Glory</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“The heavens declare the glory of God”&nbsp;(Ps. 19:1). This is why God made them - to put his majestic glory on display. The Hubble Space Telescope sends back infrared images of faint galaxies perhaps twelve billion light-years away (twelve billion times six trillion miles). Even within our Milky Way, there are stars so great as to defy description, like Eta Carinae, which is five million times brighter than our sun.</p>

<p>If you stumble over this vastness, thinking that it seems disproportionately large compared to the infinitesimally small man and his habitation, remember that the meaning of this magnitude is not mainly about us. It’s about God. “The heavens declare the glory of <em>God</em>.”&nbsp;The reason for “wasting”&nbsp;so much space on a universe to house a speck of humanity is to make a point about our Maker, not us. “Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing”&nbsp;(Isa. 40:26).</p>

<p>God intends for the created world to communicate his majesty.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God knew when He created matter that its properties would necessitate a massive universe in order to support life (see <a href="http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/is-the-universe-full-of-wasted-space">here</a>), so why create the kind of matter He created? To reveal His glory to us. That is the purpose of all creation, with all of it leading to the highest revelation of His glory: Jesus’&nbsp;humble, loving, sacrificial death for 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-is-there-so-much-wasted-space-in-the-universe-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-there-so-much-wasted-space-in-the-universe-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-is-there-so-much-wasted-space-in-the-universe-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Melinda Is Showing Signs of Progress
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/19/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/melinda-is-showing-signs-of-progress
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>[See <a href="/w/urgent-prayer-request-for-melinda">here</a> and <a href="/w/an-update-on-melinda-s-condition">here</a> for information about Melinda’s accident and previous updates on her condition.]</em></p>

<p>I saw Melinda on Tuesday morning (1/16/18) and was happy to notice a jump of improvement since my last visit with her at UCLA intensive care on Christmas Eve. It was the first time since the accident that Melinda seemed to me to be fully awake and somewhat alert, clearly visually engaging her environment, though not talking.</p>

<p>She’s been moved to a private rehab hospital closer to her sister (who has the main responsibility for her now) making it easier for her to visit and to monitor Melinda’s care. In the new facility, she’s receiving medical attention in an environment where she can rest and slowly heal - which is what she needs right now.</p>

<p>When I came in and said, “Hi, Melinda, it’s Greg,”&nbsp;she looked right at me and smiled just a bit. It was the first time I had any sense I was connecting a little with my dear friend since she suffered her injury. She also cracked a tiny, momentary smirk when I told her my daughters were fine but still warring with each other over dumb things (as sisters do). Good sign.</p>

<p>Other than those slight smiles, she was incommunicado. I talked with her a while about newsy things, and she stared at me most of the time with no expression on her face. It was hard to know what was going on inside - if she was understanding everything yet unable to respond, understanding some but not all, or missing most of it. Clearly, though, there was alertness in her eyes that was not there before.</p>

<p>I suspect Melinda is somewhat aware of what’s going on but can’t reach through her brain injury yet to connect and engage - which would be really frustrating for her if her mind is working well, yet she can’t communicate through her broken body.</p>

<p>Many of you have sent cards, and when those come in we read them to her when we visit. Every bit helps, so please don’t stop. And keep praying. Melinda needs prayer. These first six months are really critical, and we want to see lots of progress.</p>

<p>Thank you for your kindness on Melinda’s behalf, and please keep praying for mercy for her healing.</p>
</div>

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


title: Good Literature Provides More Than Amusement
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/23/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/good-literature-provides-more-than-amusement
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of the reasons my wife and I give our children good literature to read (which is often not the literature of today but of decades past) is that good literature is more than just an amusing story. Great stories also educate, uplift, and convey morals. They don’t do it in a heavy handed, preachy way. Rather, the reader can find meaning, purpose, and morality as they see the ethics of virtuous and evil characters play out in the story.</p>

<p>I really like how Mitchell Kalpakgian ends his book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Childrens-Literature-Mitchell-Kalpakgian/dp/0911845992/" target="_blank">The Mysteries of Life in Children’s Literature: Books that Inspire a Love of Life</a>.</em> He concludes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Hence, if human life is not sacred and children are not heavenly gifts, stories also lose their mystery. They are no longer like Diamond’s dreams or nursery rhymes which mirror the country of Paradise at the back of the North Wind. They are no longer like clear windows which open to a higher world or which receive the light of the moon or the stars. They are no longer a link between the supernatural and the natural or between the past and the present, the transmitters of perennial wisdom and universal truths. Instead stories degenerate to the level of the topical and the political (stories which are multicultural and non-sexist) and to ideology and indoctrination as exemplified in books like <em>Heather Has Two Mommies</em> and <em>Daddy’s Roommate</em>. Like all other mysteries, stories also lose their sacramental character when they are stripped of their spiritual and moral content.</p>

<p>Thus the culture of death profanes everything, degrading and cheapening all of life’s mysteries from the miracle of birth to the magic of childhood to the sublimity of love to the sanctity of the home to the mystery of nature to the wonder of Divine Providence to the secret of happiness to the beauty of art. Killing babies, robbing children of their innocence, violating chastity, ruining marriages, destroying homes, altering nature, and deconstructing stories all have a common origin - the attack on the sacredness and inviolability of life. If the gift of human life is not sacred, then nothing is sacred.</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%2Fgood-literature-provides-more-than-amusement" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgood-literature-provides-more-than-amusement" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgood-literature-provides-more-than-amusement" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Social Media Help or Harm Our Kids?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/30/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-social-media-help-or-harm-our-kids-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Just kidding. I’m not really asking that question. Most of us already think the answer is obvious. Still, I’m planning to go see an upcoming documentary called <em>Connect</em> that will be showing in select theaters February 27 and March 1.</p>

<p>The film will address the effects of smartphones and social media to help parents navigate the challenges in this technology-filled world.</p>

<p>Check out the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D59doIXtzts" target="_blank">trailer</a> and then see if it will be <a href="https://www.fathomevents.com/events/kirk-cameron-connect" target="_blank">showing in a theater</a> near you.</p>

<p>If you go, be sure to connect with other like-minded parents to discuss the points of the film. And keep your smartphone stowed away during the conversation!</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-social-media-help-or-harm-our-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%2Fdoes-social-media-help-or-harm-our-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%2Fdoes-social-media-help-or-harm-our-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: Focus on What Matters
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/focus-on-what-matters
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I always give Christians two pieces of advice if they want to talk Muslims. First, focus your message on what really matters: the Gospel. After all, we’re commanded to tell people about the message of reconciliation as ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-20). Muslims believe Jesus is a prophet and was given the Gospel as a revelation. So, they’ll be somewhat open to talking about Jesus and His message.</p>

<p>Second, avoid conversations that distract from the Gospel and/or create a defensive posture. For example, bringing up violent jihad, making denigrating comments about Mohammed, or debating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict typically raise defenses and distract from the main message that God wants them to hear: His offer to them to be reconciled to Him. I’ve found it much harder to get back to the Gospel once the conversation has moved to topics that put the Muslim on the defensive.</p>

<p>As Greg Koukl has said, “The Gospel is offensive enough. Don’t add any more offense to 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%2Ffocus-on-what-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffocus-on-what-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffocus-on-what-matters" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Downplaying God’s Wrath
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/10/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/downplaying-god-s-wrath
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are aspects of God’s nature that make people uncomfortable. God’s wrath is one of them. In fact, fewer and fewer churches nowadays will openly preach about the wrath of God. The topic is taboo to our modern sensibilities. While some ignore the biblical teaching of God’s wrath, others flat out deny it.</p>

<p>In a <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/4-problems-downplaying-divine-wrath/">recent post</a> from <em>The Gospel Coalition</em>, Gavin Ortlund offers four problems with downplaying God’s wrath. Of the four problems the author cites, the first seems to be the weightiest. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If we want to move away from the notion of an angry God while retaining an authoritative Bible, we have some pretty heavy revisionist lifting to do. I would say the effort is roughly comparable to Thomas Jefferson’s attempt to scissor-cut the supernatural out of the Bible. Just type in “Lord wrath”&nbsp;or “God angry”&nbsp;to a <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/">Bible Gateway</a> search. There are more than 600 references to divine wrath in Scripture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He’s right. The doctrine of God’s wrath against the wicked is clearly taught throughout Scripture. Listen to how the prophet Nahum describes God’s wrath against Ninevah.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Lord is a jealous and avenging God;</p>

<p>the Lord is avenging and wrathful;</p>

<p>the Lord takes vengeance on His adversaries</p>

<p>and keeps wrath for His enemies.</p>

<p>The Lord is slow to anger and great in power,</p>

<p>and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty.</p>

<p>His way is in whirlwind and storm,</p>

<p>and the clouds are the dust of His feet.</p>

<p>He rebukes the sea and makes it dry;</p>

<p>He dries up all the rivers;</p>

<p>Bashan and Carmel wither;</p>

<p>the bloom of Lebanon withers.</p>

<p>The mountains quake before him;</p>

<p>the hills melt;</p>

<p>the earth heaves before Him,</p>

<p>the world and all who dwell in it.</p>

<p>Who can stand before His indignation?</p>

<p>Who can endure the heat of His anger?</p>

<p>His wrath is poured out like fire,</p>

<p>and the rocks are broken into pieces by Him.</p>

<p>The Lord is good,</p>

<p>a stronghold in the day of trouble;</p>

<p>He knows those who take refuge in him.</p>

<p>But with an overflowing flood</p>

<p>He will make a complete end of the adversaries,</p>

<p>and will pursue His enemies into darkness. (Nahum 1:2-8)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I cited this lengthy passage for a reason. Most people are happy to quote verses like “The Lord is slow to anger”&nbsp;(v.3) and “The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble”&nbsp;(v.7), yet they ignore verses like “The Lord is avenging and wrathful”&nbsp;(v.2) and “His wrath is poured out like fire”&nbsp;(v.6). They want to take the former but leave the latter. However, this minor prophet won’t allow it. God’s goodness and wrath are inseparably interwoven <em>within the same text</em>.</p>

<p>Many people have the mistaken impression that the character of God is split in the Bible - the God of the Old Testament is angry and wrathful, and the God of the New Testament is gracious and merciful. This simply isn’t true. And I can prove it. Not only does Nahum’s own words allude to God’s goodness and mercy (v.7), but Nahum’s audience was well aware of God’s goodness.</p>

<p>Nahum is writing to the Ninevites. These are the same Ninevites to whom God sent Jonah. These are the same wicked people who had repented and received mercy from God. Moreover, in response to God sparing the Ninevites, Jonah declared, “For I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster”&nbsp;(Jonah 4:2).</p>

<p>Over a century has passed since Jonah’s oracle, and the Ninevites have turned back to their wicked ways. Now these people, who had received God’s mercy, are going to receive God’s wrath.</p>

<p>The tragic history of the Ninevites displays two aspects of God’s nature, and both are <em>equally</em> true. God is gracious and merciful. But He is also avenging and wrathful. Sound theology never pits one against the other.</p>
</div>

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


title: Discount for 2018 AMP Conference
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/04/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/discount-for-2018-amp-conference
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasons to Believe’s <a href="http://www.ampconference.com/">AMP Conference</a> is coming up on February 23-24 in San Dimas, CA, and they’ve generously given us a discount again this year. Just enter the promotional code “AMPPartner”&nbsp;when you select your tickets to get 20% off registration.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>AMP features multiple speakers, all leaders in Christian apologetics, in hopes to cultivate sound reason and awareness in key issues in today’s outreach efforts. AMP’s mission - Equip to Evangelize - is designed to prepare Christians to use apologetic tools in evangelism to become confident witnesses to a skeptical world.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The speakers this year include J.P. Moreland, Fazale Rana, Hugh Ross, Paul Copan, Jeff Zweerink, and more. See the full list of speakers and topics <a href="http://www.ampconference.com/schedule">here</a>, and I hope to see you there!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdiscount-for-2018-amp-conference" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdiscount-for-2018-amp-conference" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdiscount-for-2018-amp-conference" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Top Ten Posts of 2017
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/29/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-top-ten-posts-of-2017
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Below are the ten posts from 2017 that had the most views. The collection itself is an interesting commentary on what our culture is currently searching for online. (I didn’t include two film reviews since the films are no longer current, but for those who are interested, see also Melinda’s review of <em><a href="/w/-the-shack-movie-review">The Shack</a></em> and Alan’s commentary on <em><a href="/w/false-dichotomy-in-is-genesis-history-">Is Genesis History?</a></em>)</p>

<ol>
	<li><a href="/w/did-old-testament-men-treat-their-wives-like-property-">Did Old Testament Men Treat Their Wives Like Property?</a> - “Granted, I’m sure there were some men who did, just as there are terrible husbands now; but in the main, the passages I read in the Bible about husbands and wives don’t look at all like men viewing their wives as property.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/never-read-a-qur-anic-verse">Never Read a Qur’anic Verse</a> - “As we say at Stand to Reason...’Never read a Bible verse.’&nbsp;Always read the whole paragraph, chapter, or more. Never try to understand the meaning of a passage without considering the context. This should apply to Islamic texts as well...In the case of Surah 5:32, the context is critical.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/when-does-life-begin-">When Does Life Begin?</a> - “When does life begin? It’s not really as hard to answer that question as many think.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/rethinking-god-hates-the-sin-but-loves-the-sinner-">Rethinking “God Hates the Sin but Loves the Sinner</a>”&nbsp;- “There are at least two problems, as I see it, with this statement. One is practical, and the other is theological.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/is-homosexuality-natural-">Is Homosexuality Natural?</a> - “The answer to this question depends on how you define ’natural.’”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god-">Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?</a> - “Christians and Muslims seek to honor God while believing that different <em>persons</em> occupy that office. They believe in the same <em>what</em> - a deity who created the universe, administrates history, and judges human actions and motivations - but they believe differently in <em>who</em> fills that role.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/should-the-apocrypha-be-in-the-bible-">Should the Apocrypha Be in the Bible?</a> - “Should the Bible include the Apocrypha? Here is where I think Jesus can help. Specifically, I believe Jesus’&nbsp;words lead us to the conclusion that the Apocrypha is not Scripture.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/urgent-prayer-request-for-melinda">Urgent Prayer Request for Melinda</a> - If you haven’t already read this post explaining Melinda’s serious accident, I hope you will take a few minutes to read and pray.</li>
	<li><a href="/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal">If Naturalistic Evolution Is True, People Are Not Equal</a> - “If reality is coherent, an acknowledgement of reality in one area (say, the idea that we evolved and were not created by God) will necessarily affect our understanding of reality in another area (say, the idea of universal human rights). Rather than being two completely separate ideas, they’re related to each other in a coherent worldview.”</li>
	<li><a href="/w/the-apology-to-the-lgbt-community-that-needs-an-apology">The Apology to the LGBT Community That Needs an Apology</a> - This post had the most views <em>by far</em>: “Last week I was sent a video titled <em>Confessions of a Christian Nation - LGBTQ Discrimination</em>. The short, six-minute video features Brian McLaren, Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, and Bruxy Cavey taking turns apologizing for the mistreatment of the LGBT community by the Church.”&nbsp;Tim responds to the apology in this post.</li>
</ol>
</div>

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


title: Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen and yet Believe
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/26/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/blessed-are-those-who-have-not-seen-and-yet-believe
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Despite popular opinion, faith <em>isn’t</em> believing without evidence. In fact, it’s the opposite. Biblical faith is trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true. And there is <a href="/w/getting-faith-right">plenty of biblical evidence</a> to back this up.</p>

<p>There are some people, however, who have attempted to use the Bible to defend this false understanding of faith. The most common passage cited is the story of the risen Jesus appearing to Thomas. Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence...The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held to us as worthy of imitation.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>We’re told that Thomas demanded evidence and the other disciples didn’t. Moreover, we should denounce the <em>reasonable</em> faith of the former and imitate the <em>blind</em> faith of the latter. After all, Jesus said, “Have you believed because you have seen me? <em>Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 20:29). So, it is argued, the kind of faith endorsed by the Bible is baseless and unwarranted.</p>

<p>Ironically, this text actually teaches the exact opposite of what Dawkins and others believe. This is fairly easy to demonstrate.</p>

<h2>Never Read a Bible Verse</h2>

<p>Properly interpreting any isolated verse of Scripture requires an adequate understanding of its context.</p>

<p>Beginning at verse 19, John describes how Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room after His resurrection. However, we’re told that Thomas was not present. When Thomas finds out what happened, he does not believe the testimony of the disciples. Rather, he says, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe”&nbsp;(Jn. 20:25).</p>

<p>At this point, Thomas has evidence for the resurrection: <em>eyewitness testimony.</em> Unfortunately, Thomas is not content with <em>this</em> evidence. He wants more.</p>

<p>John continues,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”&nbsp;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”&nbsp;Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”&nbsp;Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”&nbsp;(John 20:26-29).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;response is very important. He describes <em>two groups</em> of people: those who <em>see</em> and believe, and those who <em>never see</em> and believe. All of the disciples saw the risen Jesus and believed.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> However, the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived have not seen and have come to believe - including Christians alive today.</p>

<p>Doesn’t this mean that faith isn’t based on evidence? Absolutely not! We have a different kind of evidence. We don’t get to physically see and touch the wounds of the resurrected Christ, but we have the eyewitness testimony of those who did.</p>

<h2>Keep Reading</h2>

<p>Most people stop reading at verse 29, but the next two verses are crucial in understanding how evidence and belief work together. Jesus just finished saying, “<em>Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed</em>.”&nbsp;Then John immediately comments,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>”Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; <em>but these are written so that you may believe</em> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”&nbsp;(John 20:29-31; emphasis added.)<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do you see it? This text isn’t <em>against</em> evidence for faith. In fact, this text is part of the evidence for faith. There are those who <em>see</em> the evidence and believe, and there are those who <em>read</em> the evidence and believe. But make no mistake; both rest on the firm foundation of the evidence.</p>

<p>John tells us that Jesus did many miracles that were never recorded, but these miracles - including Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection appearances - are recorded so that we can read the evidence and respond in faith.</p>

<p>It’s ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds since John includes the story for one simple reason: <em>evidence for belief.</em></p>

<p>Biblical faith is based on evidence. That’s what the story of doubting Thomas is all about.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>That which was from the beginning, which we have <em>heard</em>, which we have <em>seen with our eyes</em>, which we <em>looked upon</em> and have <em>touched with our hands</em>, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have <em>seen it</em>, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us - that which we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us. (1 John 1:1-3b; emphasis added.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice again, John proclaimed the evidence - what they heard, saw, and touched - so that those who came after the disciples would believe and have fellowship with them.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Richard Dawkins, <em>The Selfish Gene</em>, 198.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">The only disciple who believed <em>before</em> seeing the risen Christ was John. “Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed”&nbsp;(John 20:1).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">John writes something very similar at the beginning of his first epistle:<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fblessed-are-those-who-have-not-seen-and-yet-believe" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fblessed-are-those-who-have-not-seen-and-yet-believe" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fblessed-are-those-who-have-not-seen-and-yet-believe" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 God? Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2018
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-god-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em>, Dostoevsky famously noted that if God does not exist, then all is permitted. If there is no Lawmaker, there can be no Law - none of any consequence, at least - and if no Law, then no Evil, and if no Evil, then nothing properly forbidden.</p>

<p>Worse, if no God, then no <em>Good</em>, either. Since nothing can be required, nothing can be obeyed. And no Plan and no Purpose as well. As atheist Richard Dawkins bluntly admits, “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Grim tidings for mankind, if so. For many (including Dawkins), though, this is not sad news, but a happy discovery signaling limitless liberties. No God means no boundaries and no restrictions, and that’s the way they want it, at least when it comes to their own personal indulgences.</p>

<p>All this to say that the answer to the God question dictates one of two trajectories leading in opposite directions based on who is in charge - the creature or the Creator, the Potter or the clay.</p>

<p>All the big questions, then - issues of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny - and all the secondary concerns, too - issues of sex, gender, liberty, equality, bodily rights, etc. - eventually come down to one. Are we our own, or do we belong to Someone else? If there is a God, then, to borrow from Lewis, we are the tenants and He is the Landlord. If there is no God, then all is clay and nothing but clay.</p>

<p>Thus, the God question is the first question whose answer lays the foundation for answers to all the others. That foundational question comes in two steps for modern people: Does God exist? If so, is He good? For Christianity to make sense in the face of the social pushback and the spirit of this age, both issues need to be addressed.</p>

<p>And on this question the culture, for the most part, has come to the wrong conclusion. Either there is no God, or the God they fashion for themselves is so tame or so benign he is irrelevant to the affairs of men. Which is exactly how they want it.</p>

<p>Our task as disciples is to tell the truth and do so with confidence, intelligence, and grace. In these next two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I am going to help you with that task. I’ll begin with a simple, but profound principle.</p>

<h2>The Simplest Strategy</h2>

<p>Let me offer you, in a nutshell, what I think is the easiest, most powerful way, strategically, to make your case for God. I have been using it a long time in a variety of ways, though it really came together for me quite by accident when my eldest daughter, then about eight years old, asked me an important question.</p>

<p>“Papa,”&nbsp;Annabeth asked, “how do we know God is true?”&nbsp;She was already a Christian, baptized at six, but was now trying to connect the dots, not regarding the “What?”&nbsp;but regarding the “Why?”&nbsp;“Why God?”&nbsp;was her question.</p>

<p>What do you say to a youngster who already believes in God but is not sure why belief in God is defensible? That was my challenge. And nothing technical would do, not at her age.</p>

<p>I thought for a moment how I could say something meaningful in a simple way. Then an idea crystalized in my mind. “Annabeth,”&nbsp;I said, “the reason we believe God is true is that <em>God is the best explanation for the way things are</em>.”&nbsp;The minute I said it I realized I had summed up in a single sentence a major thrust of how I had approached defending Christianity for decades.</p>

<p>So much of my effort in making the case for God and Jesus and the Bible and even critical elements of Christian morality hinges on what I take to be the common-sense fit between what Christianity claims about the world and the way the world actually is.</p>

<p>In a way, it provides a simple but profound principle for our thoughtful engagement with a culture increasingly skeptical of Christian claims and hostile towards Christians and the Christ they follow.</p>

<p>You might call the principle the <em>explanatory power</em> of Christian theism; that is, the important details of the Christian worldview make good sense of what we actually discover the world to be like. It turns out that the picture of reality the Bible presents fits the world as we discover it and resonates with our deepest intuitions about origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.</p>

<p>This “fit”&nbsp;is the classical definition of truth, by the way.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> When a claim we make or belief we have matches the way the world actually is, then we say the claim or the belief is <em>true</em>. Aristotle put it plainly: Truth is when you say that it is, and it is, or when you say that it isn’t, and it isn’t. On the flip side, when one’s belief about reality does not match the world as it actually is, then we know the belief is false.</p>

<p>Note the advantage to this “best explanation”&nbsp;strategy. There’s no need to dismissively deny the <em>possibility</em> of other options. We can give fair consideration to the alternatives. We’re not offering the <em>only</em> explanation, just the <em>best</em> one, all things considered.</p>

<p>Our confidence is based on a point I have made before, but it’s worth repeating since it’s such a powerful concept: Reality is on our side. My point with Annabeth was that Christianity explains reality best, that the existence of God makes sense of features of the world that, without Him, would be unlikely in the extreme. Other worldview stories do not fare well by this standard because certain obvious features of the world simply do not fit into their narrative, putting them on a collision course with reality.</p>

<p>So fix this fact first in your mind: <em>God is the best explanation for the way things are</em>. That is your starting point to answering the question, “Why God?”&nbsp;Now, two applications of this principle, one amazingly simple to grasp (and, therefore, quite persuasive, I think), the other more complex but incredibly powerful largely because it leverages the problem of evil <em>in our favor</em>.</p>

<h2>Beginning at the Beginning</h2>

<p>I was once asked during an audience Q&amp;A to give some compelling evidence for the existence of God. “Can I ask you a few questions to get us rolling?”&nbsp;I said to the challenger. He nodded. “First, do you think things exist? Is the material universe real?”</p>

<p>“Yes, of course,”&nbsp;he answered.</p>

<p>“Good. Second question: Have the things in the universe <em>always</em> existed. Is the universe eternal?”</p>

<p>“No,”&nbsp;he said. “The universe came into being at the Big Bang.”</p>

<p>“Okay, I’m with you.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Now the final question: What <em>caused</em> the Big Bang?”</p>

<p>At this point he balked. “How do I know?”&nbsp;he said. “I’m no scientist.”</p>

<p>“Neither am I,”&nbsp;I admitted, “but there are really only two choices: something or no thing.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> What do you think? Do you think something outside the natural universe caused it to come into being, or do you think it simply popped into existence with no cause, for no reason?”</p>

<p>At this point, the skeptic who prides himself on his use of reason finds himself in a rational box. Both the law of excluded middle (it can’t be neither option) and the law of non-contradiction (it can’t be both) oblige him to choose one of the only two logical possibilities available.</p>

<p>To admit that something outside the natural, physical, time-bound universe is its cause would be to contradict his naturalistic atheism. Yet, what thoughtful person would opt for the alternative? Even if he thinks it <em>possible</em> the universe popped into existence, uncaused, out of no thing, it’s clearly <em>not the odds-on favorite</em>.</p>

<p>Imagine a man’s wife asking where the new Mercedes Benz SL parked in their garage came from. I doubt she’d be satisfied if he told her, “Honey, it didn’t come from anywhere. It just popped into existence out of nothing. No problem. That’s how the universe began, you know.”&nbsp;Even ordinary folk untutored in physics realize that’s not going to wash.</p>

<p><em>Reason</em> dictates we opt for the most <em>reasonable</em> alternative, and the something-from-no-thing option is not it. Indeed, it’s worse than magic. In magic, a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat. In this case, though, there’s no hat - and no magician. There’s just a rabbit (the universe, in our case) appearing out of nowhere.</p>

<p>You might recognize this line of thinking as the Kalam cosmological argument, an ancient defense of theism recently revitalized by philosopher William Lane Craig.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> If you haven’t read his books, let me give you the short course.</p>

<p>You can construct a logically tight syllogism to make the case, but that’s not really necessary for the average person appealing to a common-sense notion like this. Here’s the simplified version: <em>A Big Bang needs a big Banger</em>. I think that pretty much covers it. Every effect requires a cause adequate to explain it. Pretty obvious.</p>

<p>Ironically, the night I was working out the details of this point in the lobby of a large hotel in Poland, there was a huge bang in the reception area. The gabby crowd in the lounge was immediately struck silent, everyone wondering the same thing: <em>What was that?</em></p>

<p>Of course, they knew what is <em>was</em>. It was a big bang. The real question in their minds was, “What <em>caused</em> that?”&nbsp;Did something fall over? Did a firecracker go off? Did someone get shot?<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> I promise you one thing, though. No one in that hotel - regardless of religious or philosophic conviction - thought the explosion was <em>uncaused</em>. It never occurred to anyone that the bang banged itself.</p>

<p>Skeptics know this, too. Once at a dinner party a young man sitting across from me announced - somewhat belligerently - that he no longer believed in God. “It’s irrational,”&nbsp;he said. “There’s no evidence.”</p>

<p>In response, I raised my point about the Big Bang. “If you heard a knock on the front door over there across the room,”&nbsp;I said, “would you think the knock knocked itself, or would you conclude some <em>one</em> was doing the knocking and then get up and answer the door?”</p>

<p>He sniffed dismissively at my question, however, so I let the issue go. Half an hour later over desert, though, there was a loud knock on the front door (I’m not making this up). Startled, the atheist lifted his head in surprise. “Who’s that?”&nbsp;he blurted out.</p>

<p>I said, “No one.”&nbsp;The point was lost on him, of course. His next move, though, was telling: <em>He got up and answered the door</em>.</p>

<p>That night, this young, naive atheist had encountered reality. He knew a <em>simple knock</em> could not have knocked itself yet seemed completely willing to accept as reasonable that <em>an entire universe</em> simply popped into existence without rhyme, reason, or purpose.</p>

<p>Once Annabeth slammed the flat of her hand down on the table with a bang and said, “If I bang my hand down, then I am the one who banged it. So who banged the Big Bang?”&nbsp;She had nicely internalized the obvious point. Atheism has no resources to explain where the world came from. Christianity does because <em>God is the best explanation for the way things are</em>.</p>

<h2>Evil, Our Ally</h2>

<p>I’ll introduce the next reason for God with a question. What is the most frequently raised objection - and the most durable challenge - to the existence of the kind of good and powerful God Christians believe in? The answer: the problem of evil.</p>

<p>Here’s the twist, though. The existence of evil is <em>psychologically</em> daunting for theism, but it is not the <em>rational</em> problem most people think it is. Indeed, it’s an ally if you know how to leverage the problem of evil in your favor. The strategy depends for its force on two self-evident facts about the way the world is.</p>

<p>First, any thoughtful person, at any place on the planet, at any point in history, has known that something is terribly wrong - <em>morally</em> wrong - with the world. The thought “that ain’t right”&nbsp;- which is the basis for the complaint about evil and God - crosses our minds on a multitude of issues on a regular basis. Things aren’t just <em>broken</em>; they’re <em>bad</em>. They’re not the way they’re supposed to be.</p>

<p>Second, when we point the finger at the bad stuff, we aren’t simply saying we don’t <em>like</em> what’s happening or that we’d <em>personally prefer</em> things to be different. No. We mean we don’t like some things because we’re convinced they’re actually <em>wrong</em>, whether other people like them or not.</p>

<p>This second fact is the difference between moral relativism (“That’s not <em>my</em> thing”) and moral objectivism (“That ain’t right, regardless”). In other words, for all their protestations, most people are common-sense moral objectivists at heart. Everyone knows that some things are deeply bad <em>in themselves</em>. Count on that.</p>

<p>Now, here’s how to show that really bad stuff is really good evidence for God.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>First, ask your skeptical friend for his assessment of something clearly morally grotesque. Mention Auschwitz, or a recent massacre reported in the news, or any striking instance of cruelty, wickedness, or inhumanity to man. If the standard examples don’t move him, suggest homophobia, bigotry, intolerance, global warming - whatever pushes <em>his</em> personal moral hot button. Chances are, he’s already provided examples for you himself.</p>

<p>Next, ask, When you say these things are evil (or bad, wrong, wicked, ain’t right, whatever), are you talking about the <em>actions</em>, or are you talking about <em>yourself</em> - your own private likes and dislikes? Again, you’re zeroing in here on the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism.</p>

<p>Virtually every time - if they don’t have their philosophical guard up, artificially defending their relativistic turf - they’re going to tell you the truth. They’re convinced the <em>actions</em> are evil, regardless of personal opinion or cultural consensus. They think the evil is <em>objective</em> (even if they don’t use that word) - thus the problem of evil facing theists. If morality were reduced to mere subjective preferences, there’d be no complaint. The problem of evil is only a problem if there is real evil out there in the world.</p>

<p>Now here is the final question. Where does the standard come from that your friend is using to label some things wicked or wrong or morally vile <em>in themselves</em>, regardless of personal opinion, regardless of cultural conventions? What transcendent standard allows him make a legitimate judgment that some things are really, truly, transcendently bad?</p>

<p>At very best, the naturalist might be able to account for mind-<em>dependent</em> personal-preference morality - relativism, in other words. But make-me-up morality simply will not do here. If evil is merely a matter of <em>subjective</em> opinion, there’s no <em>objective</em> problem. What, then, has the skeptic been complaining about all this time when he cites evil against God?</p>

<p>I think you see the point. Put in a playful way, it makes no sense to say things are <em>not</em> the way they’re s’posed to be, unless there <em>is</em> a way they’re s’posed to be, and there can’t <em>be</em> a way they’re s’posed to be, without a “S’poser.”&nbsp;Translation: It’s going to be very difficult to make sense of transcendent moral law without a transcendent moral law giver - God, in other words.</p>

<p>The atheist is not going to get objective values (things that have <em>intrinsic</em> worth - worth in <em>themselves</em>) and objective duties or obligations (“Thou shalts”&nbsp;and “Thou shalt nots”) in a world consisting only of matter in motion. It can’t be done. Therefore, atheism can’t even make sense of the problem of evil.</p>

<p>This, of course, is the moral argument for God, put formally: If there is no God, there is no objective morality. But there is objective morality (as evidenced by the problem of evil). Therefore, God exists.</p>

<p>Your friend has one of two choices at this point. One, he can cling to his relativism and drop his objection about evil in the world. Surrendering that complaint, though, is going to be hard for him to do because he knows too much. Two, he can make the smart choice by salvaging his common-sense complaint about evil at the expense of his atheism, since no materialistic scheme can account for immaterial moral obligations. What he can’t do is have it both ways if he’s intellectually honest.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Don’t let your friend miss the main point. The reality of evil in the world does not help the atheist. It hurts him.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> Rather than being good evidence <em>against</em> God, evil in the world is one of the best arguments <em>for</em> God.</p>

<p>Here is the argument in a nutshell. The problem of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil, though, is to make a moral judgment. Moral judgments require a moral standard - a moral law - and a moral law requires an author. If the standard is transcendent, then the law-giver must be, too.</p>

<p>There you go. If there’s a problem of evil (and there is), then God exists. <em>He’s the best explanation for the way things are.</em></p>

<h2>The Final Concern</h2>

<p>You may not have noticed, but we’ve also answered another question without even trying.</p>

<p>The problem of evil doesn’t simply require perfect goodness <em>in the abstract</em>. It requires some <em>One</em> to be perfectly good. If there is Good (and there can’t be Evil without it), then there must be Someone perfectly good who embodies it.</p>

<p>Obligations are held between persons, and only a supreme Person can issue supreme commands. Without commands there can be neither compliance nor disobedience - no right or wrong for people, that is; no good or evil in human behavior. No sin, in other words. Yet human sin is precisely the problem at the bottom of the complaint about evil.</p>

<p>I realize we are now getting into uncomfortable territory, but there is no way around it. It is common these days to challenge the goodness of God since many don’t like the burden genuine goodness entails. Yet, if you’re following the thinking so far, if God is not perfectly Good, then nothing is good in any ultimate sense. It really is that simple.</p>

<p>The Good is grounded in God’s character, and obligations are grounded in commands that flow from His morally pure nature. It is the one alternative that makes sense of everything we’ve discovered so far about morality. All goodness finds its source in Him. There is no other answer.</p>

<p>A good God made the world a certain way, the way it’s supposed to be. Our fallen desires drive us towards a different end, but that’s been the difficulty from the start. God wants the good for us and we do not. The problem is with us, not God.</p>

<p>We cannot see into the future to know the consequences of our actions. God can. We do not know how things were meant to work, at least not completely. God does. With every command, He directs us towards wholeness, helping us be the way <em>we’re</em> supposed to be. We are the clay and He is the Potter. Only under His hand and under the protection of His laws can we be formed into something beautiful. As one has put it...</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul.</p>

<p>The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.</p>

<p>The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart.</p>

<p>The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.</p>

<p>The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.</p>

<p>The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.</p>

<p>They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold.</p>

<p>Sweeter also than honey, and the drippings of the honeycomb.</p>

<p>Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why God? First, because there’s no way to make sense of the entire world coming into being without a Being outside this world causing it to happen. The alternative is everything from no thing, which is just plain silly.</p>

<p>Second, if there is no God, then there is no good and no evil either, and we’re back to Dostoevsky and Dawkins again - all permitted, nothing required; no evil, no good; all blind, all pitiless, all indifferent. Without the Potter, everything is clay, and nothing but clay. Deep inside, though, each of us knows better.</p>

<p>There are other reasons we can be confident in God. Paul says He has made Himself evident both within - something we experience - and without - something we see (Rom. 1:19-20). Those two things will be the subject of the next <em>Solid Ground</em>.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Richard Dawkins, <em>River Out of Eden</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 133.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Truth as correspondence to reality, or the correspondence view of truth. This, by the way, is the garden variety definition of truth. It’s what people almost always <em>mean</em> when they use the word, e.g., “Are you telling the <em>truth</em>?,”&nbsp;that is, “Is it so?”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">I realize the Big Bang is controversial for many Christians, but I think that’s partly because they don’t realize how nicely it fits our Story. Even if a particular Christian is not convinced of it, he can still leverage the <em>skeptic’s</em> belief in the Big Bang to his own favor, as we shall see.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">I say “no thing”&nbsp;instead of “nothing”&nbsp;because of the habit of some to treat “nothing”&nbsp;like a kind of something. Odd, but it happens. Substituting “no thing”&nbsp;avoids that liability.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">E.g., William Lane Craig, <em>Reasonable Faith</em>, third edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">As it turned out, an over-pumped tire inner tube had exploded.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">I discuss this move in detail in “<a href="/w/god-evolution-and-morality-part-2">God, Evolution, and Morality, Part 2</a>”&nbsp;at str.org.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">It’s possible for naturalists to avoid this dilemma by taking no personal stand on morality while pointing to an apparent internal contradiction in theism, but I’ve almost never heard it put this way in actual conversations. Atheists usually launch their complaint by first affirming objective evil.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">See “<a href="/w/evil-as-evidence-for-god">Evil as Evidence for God</a>”&nbsp;at str.org for a more thorough discussion of why citing evil in favor of atheism is self-defeating.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ps. 19:7-11.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-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%2Fwhy-god-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%2Fwhy-god-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does Defending Christianity Discredit Christianity?
topic: Philosophy
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-defending-christianity-discredit-christianity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A friend recently asked me to comment on something he read in <em>The Sickness Unto Death</em> written by philosopher Søren Kierkegaard under the pseudonym Anti-Climacus. In the quotation, Kierkegaard seems to attack the discipline of apologetics - that is, defense of the Christian faith. Here’s what <a href="http://pmoser.sites.luc.edu/idolanon/SKsickness.html">he says</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One sees now...how extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of men this betrays, and how truly, even though it be unconsciously, it is working in collusion with the enemy, by making of Christianity a miserable something or another which in the end has to be rescued by a defense. Therefore, it is certain and true that he who first invented the notion of defending Christianity in Christendom is de facto Judas No. 2; he also betrays with a kiss, only his treachery is that of stupidity. To defend anything is always to discredit it. Let a man have a storehouse full of gold, let him be willing to dispense every dollar to the poor, but let him besides that be stupid enough to begin this benevolent undertaking with a defense in which he advances three reasons to prove that it is justifiable - and people will be almost inclined to doubt whether he is doing any good. But now for Christianity! Yea, he who defends it has never believed in it. If he believes, then the enthusiasm of faith is...not defense, no, it is attack and victory.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Before I offer a short critique of the view being expressed, let me say from the outset that I’m <em>not</em> very familiar with Kierkegaard’s work. It would be unfair for me to speculate on what he believed about apologetics from this short quote penned under a pseudonym. However, for the purpose of this blog post, I’ll do my best to respond to the view <em>as stated above</em>.</p>

<p>It’s not uncommon to hear people attack the legitimacy of apologetics. Many different challenges have been offered against defending the Christian faith, but they all suffer the same fatal response. Kierkegaard’s challenge is no exception.</p>

<p>Kierkegaard’s challenge is based on a principle. Simply put, <em>the act of defending anything will always discredit it</em>. Therefore, Christians shouldn’t defend Christianity.</p>

<p>It was very astutely pointed out to me that Kierkegaard is probably using the word <em>defense</em> in a different sense than modern-day Christian apologists.* Kierkegaard writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One sees now how extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of men this betrays, and how truly, even though it be unconsciously, it is working in collusion with the enemy, <em>by making of Christianity a miserable something or another which in the end has to be rescued by a defense</em>. [Emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <em>this</em> sense, a defense is given because the thing is vulnerable and needs defending. There is a built-in assumption that is being smuggled in. That is, a defense is <em>only</em> made for what is defenseless. So, the act of defending something demonstrates - even unwittingly - that it is also weak and defenseless.</p>

<p>This is a false assumption. True, some things are defended because they cannot defend themselves. Unborn children, orphans, and widows are all examples. But apologetics doesn’t make this assumption. We defend Christianity, not because it needs a defense, but because we were commanded to give one. This leads to the fatal flaws in Kierkegaard’s challenge.</p>

<h2>The Fatal Flaws</h2>

<p>First, the biblical writers <em>commanded</em> defending Christianity. The apostle Paul says, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 10:4-5). Likewise, the apostle Peter writes, “Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect”&nbsp;(1 Pet. 3:15). Jude tells his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”&nbsp;(Jude 3). What is commanded by God cannot also be “working in collusion with the enemy,”&nbsp;as Kierkegaard puts it.</p>

<p>Second, the biblical writers <em>engaged in</em> defending Christianity. They practiced what they preached. For example, Paul defends the Christian faith on numerous occasions. It was part of his routine. In his letter to the Church at Philippi, Paul says, “It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel”&nbsp;(Phil. 1:7). He goes on to write, “The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel”&nbsp;(Phil. 1:16).</p>

<p>In the book of Acts, Paul <em>regularly</em> reasoned with the people about Christianity: “And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead...And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas” (Acts 17:2-4). Yet, this use of reason and proof is precisely what Kierkegaard seems to be railing against. In fact, if Kierkegaard is right, then Paul and the other apostles were guilty of both discrediting Christianity and “never really believing in it.”</p>

<p>I think the biblical case is enough to meet this challenge. But there is something in Kierkegaard’s own words that undermines his entire argument. He forcefully states, “To defend anything is always to discredit it.”&nbsp;I disagree. But what’s interesting is that Kierkegaard follows this assertion with evidence to try to defend his assertion. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Let a man have a storehouse full of gold, let him be willing to dispense every dollar to the poor, but let him besides that be stupid enough to begin this benevolent undertaking with a defense in which he advances three reasons to prove that it is justifiable - and people will be almost inclined to doubt whether he is doing any good.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While attempting to support his claim, Kierkegaard ends up <em>refuting</em> his claim. In fact, any defense of the proposition “to defend anything is always to discredit it”&nbsp;will be <em>self-refuting</em>. He cannot possibly defend this proposition without also discrediting it.</p>

<p>More could be said, but this is enough to show that Kierkegaard’s criticism of defending Christianity doesn’t work. Any defense to the contrary proves my point.</p>

<p>*My friend Abe Mathew should get the credit for this observation.</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-defending-christianity-discredit-christianity-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-defending-christianity-discredit-christianity-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-defending-christianity-discredit-christianity-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Making a Case for Religious Freedom
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 11/29/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/making-a-case-for-religious-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a post-Christian culture, religious freedom is being challenged by some in an attempt to reject any external standards for morality. When individualism is pervasive, the idea that religious people live under an external authority to which their consciences are accountable is a foreign idea. Studies show that most Americans are interested in fair accommodation, so it’s important for Christian ambassadors to be adept at explaining the issues to their friends and family.</p>

<p>One legal case is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court in December. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. He had served the couple who made the request and had no problem continuing to do business with them, but he didn’t want to use his services and creative skills to express a message that conflicted with his conscience. The state has tried to compel him to do so, and that’s what the case is about.</p>

<p>By the way, Phillips has declined to make cakes for other messages he believes are wrong. He previously declined to make a Halloween cake. He’s turned down other business, too, that violated his conscience.</p>

<p>His case isn’t about same-sex marriage. It’s about the constitutional right to live in accordance with religious convictions and not be compelled by the state to engage in speech we don’t consent to. You can find out more about this case at the <a href="https://www.adflegal.org/jack-phillips">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>.</p>

<p>There are other cases, and not just with same-sex weddings. California legislators passed a law compelling Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the state to counsel their clients that abortion is an option and to give references where one can be obtained. The government is compelling pro-life groups to engage in speech they believe is abhorrent and at complete odds with their purpose.</p>

<p>These cases are about much more than same-sex weddings, and they aren’t just about Christianity. There is more at stake than some Christian-owned businesses and crisis pregnancy centers. Religious freedom and free speech are values for all Americans, and no less religious people.</p>

<p>The government compelling speech is a complete reversal of our constitutional right to freedom of speech - to engage in speech and refrain from speech - and will have far-reaching consequences. Such a precedent will apply to any religious person and non-religious person, as well. It will apply to any and every citizen that holds a view contrary to what the government deems acceptable.</p>

<p>Alliance Defending Freedom recently streamed on Facebook Live a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AllianceDefendingFreedom/videos/10155938584303417/">debate</a> between Supreme Court litigators David Cortman of ADF and Ria Tabacco Mar of the ACLU on the merits of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.</p>

<p>ADF tweeted some highlights of the points Cortman made that I think are helpful soundbites to help frame the issues at stake (see <a href="https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends">@AllianceDefends</a> tweets on November 13).</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“It is precisely unpopular decisions about #speech that need the most protection.”</p>

<p>”Jack gladly serves everyone, but he doesn’t create art that conflicts with his religious beliefs.”</p>

<p>“God is his master. He closes #Masterpiece on Sundays to engage in worship. He treats all of his customers with respect and dignity. He does not create [things] in violation of his beliefs. For Jack and many others, marriage is sacred.”</p>

<p>“This case is not solely about same-sex marriage. It’s about whether or not speech can be coerced by the government.”</p>

<p>“Jack’s disagreement is not to the person, it’s to the event he is requested to create for. There is a clear distinction.”</p>

<p>“Jack has testified that he would serve the couple anything in his shop. But he cannot create for that event.”</p>

<p>“Just because the government believes something is legal, doesn’t mean a citizen can be forced to create a message supporting it.”</p>

<p>“This is not about sexual orientation. This is about the event itself.”</p>

<p>“The law aims to stop discrimination, and that is a great thing. It’s when the law is misapplied in terms of speech that it fails.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Learn about <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/meet-people-whose-religious-liberty-being-threatened-government#.Wh42wrSpkXo">these cases</a>. Learn about the facts and issues. The courtroom isn’t the only place to make a case for religious freedom and free speech. Christian ambassadors need to make a case to their friends and families to persuade them. The court of public opinion counts, too.</p>
</div>

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


title: Compassion Means to Suffer With
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/compassion-means-to-suffer-with
content:
            <div> 
		<p>My children have been learning Latin, and it’s been intriguing to learn the origin of many English words. For example, the word “compassion”&nbsp;comes from the Latin word <em>compassion</em> or <em>compassionis</em> which means “to suffer with.”&nbsp;That struck me as an odd contrast to the name of the organization <a href="https://www.compassionandchoices.org/" target="_blank">Compassion and Choices</a>, which advocates for physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I’m assuming they believe they provide compassion by offering people the option to kill themselves with the assistance of a doctor.</p>

<p>I’m reminded, though, of an Oregon doctor I know who works with terminally ill patients, many of whom request PAS (PAS is legal in Oregon). Many of these patients also struggle with depression, feel alone, and fear the pain from the terminal disease they are facing. What he’s found is that when people are connected to their family, friends, and other community resources (churches, support groups, etc.) in significant ways, their depression subsides. When they have loved ones walking with them through their illness, their desire for PAS diminishes. If their doctor can also identify the source of the pain and help them understand it, then that helps them too. In other words, when people close to a patient are loving, caring, supporting, and sharing the person’s burden, that patient’s desire for PAS is diminished.</p>

<p>That’s precisely what the origin of compassion means, “to suffer with.”&nbsp;Obviously, people might define it differently today, but before our society swallowed the poison pill of believing that <a href="http://www.str.org/article/upholding-value-disabled-people" target="_blank">people aren’t inherently valuable</a>, those facing a terminal condition were probably met more often with compassion by people who were willing <em>to suffer with</em> their loved one.</p>

<p>It would be refreshing to have society once again define compassion not as offering to help people kill themselves, but as offering to walk with them through a difficult time.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcompassion-means-to-suffer-with" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcompassion-means-to-suffer-with" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcompassion-means-to-suffer-with" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 You Can Reveal the Glory of Christ to Others (and Why You Need To)
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/30/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-you-can-reveal-the-glory-of-christ-to-others-and-why-you-need-to-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In John Piper’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Glory-Christian-Scriptures-Truthfulness/dp/1433552639/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1511991640&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+peculiar+glory">A Peculiar Glory</a></em>, he makes the case that our spiritual perception of God’s glory in the Bible is the ultimate, unshakable ground of our trust in the Bible’s truthfulness (see a summary of his argument <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/how-the-bible-authenticates-itself#.Wh8qTbSpkXo">here</a>). He points out that 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 says the Gospel “is veiled to those who are perishing”; they’re spiritually blind, unable to see “the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”&nbsp;And (v. 6) it’s when God gives us “the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ”&nbsp;- that is, when we’re enabled to see the glory of Christ revealed in the Bible - that we love Him, come to Him, and are saved.</p>

<p>Though the book focuses on how this idea relates to the Bible’s revelation of Christ's glory, in the passage below Piper applies it to how we ought to go about telling others about Jesus, explaining how we, also, can reveal Christ’s glory.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If the true ground of faith is “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,”&nbsp;then proclamation that aims at faith should be a vivid and true portrayal of the glorious Christ. People must come face-to-face with Christ in what they hear or read...</p>

<p>He set aside his rights as God to take on the form of a slave and humbly die in obedience to his Father (Phil. 2:6-8). Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor (2 Cor. 8:9). He did not please himself but took the reproaches of men that he might accept us into his fellowship to the glory of God (Rom. 15:2, 7)...</p>

<p>[T]he person who proclaims the Lord of glory is a slave for Jesus’s sake of those he is seeking to persuade: “For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’&nbsp;sake.”&nbsp;In other words, the proclaimer embodies the beauty of the proclaimed. He freely lays down his God-given freedom and takes up the role of slave and puts himself at the disposal of others for their good (Phil. 2:5)...</p>

<p>The promise that the apostle John gives in his first letter, that “when Christ appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is”&nbsp;(1 John 3:2), is already being fulfilled, as we behold the glory of Christ in the gospel. That is what Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 3:18. We tend to become like those we admire. This means that we, like him, set aside our rights and do not seek to please merely ourselves, but rather we become servants for the benefit of others. Beholding the beauty of Christ’s character, we begin to share it.</p>

<p>The purpose of this transformation into a self-giving servant role is to provide another display of the glory of God as the ground of faith - an embodied display. So we present the glory of Christ not only in our gospel but also in our lives. While proclaiming the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, we also become the light of the world, so that men may see our good deeds and glorify our Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). If we see and love the glory of God in Christ and are being transformed by it, we become a mirror of that glory and a means to the well-grounded faith of others.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ve <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions#.Wh8hjbSpkXo">written before</a> about how the biggest divide between Christians and non-Christians is not whether or not they think Christianity is true but whether or not they think Christianity is beautiful - and specifically, whether or not they think <em>Jesus</em> is beautiful. This is why your use of apologetics always needs to not only <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/do-you-convey-sense-your-love-jesus-your-apologetics#.Wh8p37SpkXo">focus on honoring Christ</a> but also to incorporate your entire life as an apologetic for the character of Christ. Everything we say and do is an opportunity to reveal His glory to others.</p>
</div>

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


title: Urgent Prayer Request for Melinda
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/03/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/urgent-prayer-request-for-melinda
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As many of you already know from social media, Melinda (the “Enforcer,”&nbsp;as many of you know her from the podcast) had a serious accident yesterday morning. She fell from a ladder, hit her head, and was unconscious, bleeding from nose and ears. Tests at UCLA showed that her skull was fractured, there was internal bleeding in three places, and pressure was building up inside her skull approaching lethal levels.</p>

<p>To save her life, doctors performed a three-hour surgery to remove a portion of her skull to release pressure. They warned, though, that Melinda may never be full-functioning again, and may not be able to live independently in the future. They don’t know anything for sure at this point, of course, but that’s within the range of possibilities.</p>

<p>Here’s what we know that they don’t: the doctors aren’t working alone. We have a great God, and we know that faithful prayer is being offered up all over the country for our dear friend, Melinda. Many people have recovered completely from trauma like this.</p>

<p>Here is the most recent news. Melinda’s surgery last night went well. A post-surgery MRI showed that the brain stem is okay. Damage is all on the right side, which is good news for language. She’s off coma-inducing meds, so hopefully we’ll see signs of her waking up over the next couple of days. All her other organs and functions are doing well. Of course, this is very good news at this point, and it’s clear the Lord is responding to our prayers, so keep it up.</p>

<p>Please pass the word on through your own social media channels, and check back here or the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93">STR Facebook page</a> for updates. Thank you so much for your concern and prayers for Melinda.</p>

<p>UPDATE 12/04:</p>

<p>Melinda continues to be in a critical state with brain pressure in good range initially after the surgery, but now increasing. The doctors are giving her more meds to calm her and keep her brain activity quiet. No waking up soon. There may also be some broken bones due to the fall. The good news is she is initiating her own breathing more, though not breathing completely on her own yet.</p>

<p>A friend shared this verse with me yesterday, so appropriate for the circumstances. Let these words sink into your soul: “But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning. Great is Your faithfulness”&nbsp;(Lam. 3:21-23).</p>

<p>We have one hope, one confidence, one refuge: “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases.”&nbsp;We stand on that.</p>

<p>UPDATE 12/06:</p>

<p>We are now in a holding pattern as her brain rests. These next five days are crucial for the healing process. Please continue to pray, and we will post updates as they occur. Thank you so much for your prayers!</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%2Furgent-prayer-request-for-melinda" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Furgent-prayer-request-for-melinda" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Furgent-prayer-request-for-melinda" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Joy to This Painful World
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/joy-to-this-painful-world
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Perhaps 2017 has been a difficult year for you - heartache, loss, death. Perhaps your pain today is so great that you can’t help but weep. And yet, even in the midst of our pain, today we sing with all our hearts, “Joy to the World!”&nbsp;What joy! What hope! What strength in God! Christmas is a reminder that God is for us; we have nothing to fear and the greatest of joys to gain through our pain. We know the ending of our story, and it is beautiful. John Piper <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-jesus-came">reminds us</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The reason he became man was to die...Good Friday is the purpose of Christmas...</p>

<p>Satan’s ultimate weapon against us is our own sin. If the death of Jesus takes it away, the chief weapon of the devil - the one mortal weapon that he has - is taken out of his hand. He cannot make a case for our death penalty, because the Judge has acquitted us by the death of his Son!...</p>

<p>So, we are free from the fear of death. God has justified us. Satan cannot overturn that decree. And God means for our <em>ultimate</em> safety to have an <em>immediate</em> effect on our lives. He means for the happy ending to take away the slavery and fear of the Now.</p>

<p>If we do not need to fear our last and greatest enemy, death, then we do not need to fear anything. We can be free. Free for joy. Free for others.</p>

<p>What a great Christmas present from God to us! And from us to the world!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s because of the reality behind our Christmas celebration that we truly sing through our tears,</p>

<p>Joy to the world, the Lord is come!</p>

<p>Let earth receive her King!</p>

<p>Let ev’ry heart prepare Him room,</p>

<p>And heav’n and nature sing,</p>

<p>And heav’n and nature sing,</p>

<p>And heav’n, and heav’n, and nature sing,</p>

<p>Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!</p>

<p>Let men their songs employ,</p>

<p>While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains</p>

<p>Repeat the sounding joy,</p>

<p>Repeat the sounding joy,</p>

<p>Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.</p>

<p>No more let sins and sorrows grow,</p>

<p>Nor thorns infest the ground;</p>

<p>He comes to make His blessings flow</p>

<p>Far as the curse is found,</p>

<p>Far as the curse is found,</p>

<p>Far as, far as the curse is found,</p>

<p>He rules the earth with truth and grace,</p>

<p>And makes the nations prove</p>

<p>The glories of His righteousness</p>

<p>And wonders of His love,</p>

<p>And wonders of His love,</p>

<p>And wonders, wonders of His love.</p>

<p>Your Christmas this year may not be merry, but I pray it will have joy.</p>
</div>

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


title: Making Our Vision a Reality
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/making-our-vision-a-reality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians fancy themselves as loving people who model their behavior after the compassionate God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. Society, on the other hand, believes differently. Christians are allegedly bigoted, anti-science, judgmental, and backward-thinking. While society “progresses,” we’re allegedly stuck in the past, trying to hold back morality, science, and sexual ethics. That apparently makes us hateful.</p>

<p>I know because I’ve been out there, talking to people, and getting a lot of solicited <em>and unsolicited</em> feedback. In fact, I gave 158 presentations to more than 26,000 people in 2017 (that’s the most I’ve reached in a single year). As in the past, I was often invited to teach on controversial topics that Christians are eager to better understand: abortion, homosexuality, and Islam. Many times, non-Christians (especially Muslims, the LGBT community, or abortion-choice advocates) attended these events, leading to lively and spirited discussions. Even when I responded in a kind, calm, and gracious tone, people still interpreted the content of what I was saying as hateful. What all this engagement taught me is that it has become harder to convince the world that the hallmark characteristic of Christians is love. You’ve probably noticed this, too.</p>

<p>Although that can be discouraging, it reminds me why Stand to Reason’s mission and vision is so critical for our time. STR’s mission is to train Christians to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for Christianity. By doing that, we hope our vision will become a reality for you:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Confidence for every Christian</p>

<p>Clear thinking for every challenge</p>

<p>Courage and grace for every encounter</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’m sure you, like I, have made it a goal to be gracious and loving when sharing your faith or communicating your worldview. I’ll admit, though, I have room for improvement. But sometimes it doesn’t matter how kind or gracious you are. Sometimes God’s message—whether it’s the Gospel, or Jesus’ view on sexuality, or something else—gets people upset. In those times, it’s critical to remember Stand to Reason’s mission and vision. The goal is to have confidence, to think clearly, and to be courageous and gracious in every encounter with non-believers.</p>

<p>Notice the focus of our mission and vision is on you, the believer. We’re trying to train a certain kind of person: an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). It’s your job to be faithful to that identity. You’re supposed to proclaim the truth in a clear and persuasive yet winsome and gracious way. Then, leave the results up to God. Don’t be committed to the end result—that’s in God’s hands—but be responsible for your part.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I predict it will be more difficult for ambassadors for Christ to share their convictions in 2018. That’s why at STR we’re more committed than ever to train you to make a difference for Christ wherever your sphere of influence is.</p>
</div>

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


title: Debating Christian Physicalism
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/debating-christian-physicalism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The highlight of the <a href="http://www.etsjets.org/" target="_blank">Evangelical Theological Society</a> (ETS) annual meeting was, for me, a panel discussion on “<a href="http://blog.epsociety.org/2017/11/eps-2017-debating-christian-physicalism.html" target="_blank">Debating Christian Physicalism</a>.”&nbsp;Technically, the event was part of the <a href="http://www.epsociety.org/" target="_blank">Evangelical Philosophical Society</a> (EPS) meeting, but it was held during the ETS event in Providence, Rhode Island last month. J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, and Brandon Rickabaugh gave three papers in favor of substance dualism, the idea that human beings have both a physical body and an immaterial soul. They were each followed by Nancy Murphy, Eric Olson, and Kevin Corcoran who presented papers in favor of Christian physicalism, the idea that human beings are merely physical beings without an immaterial substance like a soul. The event was, in part, to highlight a forthcoming book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498549240/Christian-Physicalism-Philosophical-Theological-Criticisms" target="_blank"><em>Christian Physicalism?: Philosophical Theological Criticisms</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>First of all, I love discussions about the mind-body problem in philosophy. I’m not a philosopher, but since studying neuroanatomy and neurophysiology for my physical therapy degree, I’ve been intrigued by the central nervous system and the attempt to have it explain consciousness. Even before my work with Stand to Reason, I could never understand how, if humans are merely physical beings, you could explain dreams or free will. When I worked at a hospital, I remember asking neurosurgeons if they could see people’s thoughts when they performed surgery on their brains (it’s no wonder they thought I was odd).</p>

<p>Second of all - and more importantly - I can’t tell you how much of a joy and privilege it is to watch J.P. Moreland engage people who disagree with him on the subject of substance dualism. He not only understands the <em>content</em> in the debate - he clearly does since it’s his specialty - he also communicates it in a winsome <em>manner</em>. After the papers were read, the panelists were given the option to ask questions of each other. This is when their personalities were on display, and J.P. didn’t disappoint. According to my assessment (and several others who I spoke with afterwards agreed), J.P. was the life of the panel. He was smart, witty, funny, and gracious to everyone. He made persuasive points and yet graciously challenged those who disagreed with him. He pressed the panelists who opposed his view when he needed and backed off when it seemed appropriate.</p>

<p>It’s exactly what we’d expect from an effective ambassador for Jesus Christ. It’s an honor to have studied under him at <a href="https://www.biola.edu/academics/grad-education/talbot" target="_blank">Biola</a>.</p>

<p>If you’re interested in hearing the papers read or listening to the exchange, you can purchase the MP3s from <a href="http://www.wordmp3.com/product-group.aspx?id=548" target="_blank">Wordmp3.com</a>. I can’t tell you what the quality is like or how much of the panel discussion is audible (I haven’t ever used this service), but it looks like you can order and download the discussion <a href="http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=25143" target="_blank">here</a>.*</p>

<p>[*<em>Update: We’ve received word that the panel discussion was not recorded due to technical problems.</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%2Fdebating-christian-physicalism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdebating-christian-physicalism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdebating-christian-physicalism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop Should Win His Supreme Court Case
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-jack-phillips-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Sherif Girgis has an <em>excellent</em> article on “<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/">The Christian Baker’s Unanswered Legal Argument: Why the Strongest Objections Fail</a>.”&nbsp;He writes clearly and simply, backing up his arguments with precedents set by previous cases before the Supreme Court. It’s a long read, but worth every minute. Here’s a brief summary:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court’s “compelled speech”&nbsp;doctrine says that it’s unconstitutional for the government to force you to say, do, or create something expressive (whether verbal or not) that carries a message you reject—unless coercing you in this way serves a compelling public interest.</p>

<p>Forcing Phillips to custom-design and create same-sex wedding cakes is compelled speech: it forces him to create an expressive (artistic) product carrying a message he rejects. It forces certain content onto his artistic work, in a kind of political censorship of art. And it does so without serving the type of interest that our constitutional law would consider a legitimate (much less a compelling) justification for interfering with anyone’s free speech. So Colorado’s decision violates Phillips’s First Amendment rights.</p>

<p>This argument applies three premises drawn from earlier cases....</p>

<p>I’ll defend these three steps below, each under its own heading. Along the way, I’ll answer the best ten counterarguments leveled by Colorado, by the ACLU, and by scholars who filed amicus briefs against Phillips. Let me highlight the three most popular ones, which I address one-by-one in the <em>other</em> three sections below. One contends that the “speech”&nbsp;here is that of the same-sex couple, not Jack Phillips, so he has no valid complaint. Another holds that we shouldn’t honor compelled-speech claims arising in commerce, period. And according to a third—which has emerged as the most powerful objection—the Commission hasn’t compelled Phillips’s speech because it hasn’t tried to control the design or content of his cakes, but only insisted that he sell cakes of the same design and content to anyone who asks. I’ll show that this argument rests on a subtle but fatal flaw.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I urge you to <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/">read</a> Girgis’s three-step argument and responses to the above objections. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could find his carefully-crafted argument unreasonable, even if they strongly object to Phillips’s actions. As a country, we have to be able to separate our moral judgment of Phillips’s actions from the value of upholding free speech and religious freedom rights, all of us supporting the latter even when it violates the former.</p>

<p>Our First Amendment freedoms are invaluable, even when, at times, they lead to some people feeling offended. In fact, protections for those freedoms are needed precisely because we often consider the speech of others to be harmful in some way; the temptation will always be to shut down speech we don’t like. But as Girgis points out:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]o keep our society open and dynamic, we must allow the expression of dissenting ideas <em>precisely</em> when they deeply offend us. A policy of silencing today’s offensive dissent will mute the voice for tomorrow’s reform, since reforms always debut as ideas offensive to a majority.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As Americans, we need to remind ourselves of what we have foundationally valued and why. Free speech, even with all its messiness, is a great good worth protecting. We’re about to find out if we’re still committed to it. Let us hope and pray that the outcome of this case will be as reasonable as Girgis’s article, and that First Amendment freedoms—for everyone—will be valued and upheld.</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-jack-phillips-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-jack-phillips-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-jack-phillips-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-should-win-his-supreme-court-case" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Creation Reveals about God
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-creation-reveals-about-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are many truths about God that can be known. These truths are <em>revealed</em> truths. That is, they are revealed to us by God. After all, only God can tell us what He is like. And He tells us what He is like in two ways: special revelation and general revelation. He communicates through His word (the Bible) and through His world (the creation).</p>

<p>There are significant insights that can be gleaned about a maker by looking at what he has made. The same is true about God - the Maker of the heavens and the earth.</p>

<p>Writing to the church in Rome, Paul says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:19-20).</p>

<p>Here are four truths creation reveals about the nature of God.</p>

<p>First, creation reveals God’s <em>glory</em>. The psalmist David proclaims, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork”&nbsp;(Psa. 19:1). Over one hundred billion galaxies - each with hundreds of billions of stars - are proclaiming, in some small measure, the infinite glory of God.</p>

<p>Second, creation reveals God’s <em>power</em>. Think about it. The entire universe was spoken into existence by God. David says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host...For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm”&nbsp;(Psa. 33:6, 9). <em>That’s power</em>.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the creation is sustained in its existence by the same power that created it. The author of Hebrews writes, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power”&nbsp;(Heb. 1:3).</p>

<p>Third, creation reveals God’s <em>majesty</em>. Majesty isn’t a word we use very often. It means supreme greatness or authority. David says, “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them. Full of splendor and majesty is His work, and His righteousness endures forever”&nbsp;(Psa. 111:2-3). He adds, “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!”&nbsp;Because God created and sustains the universe, He has supreme authority over it.</p>

<p>Finally, creation reveals God’s <em>wisdom</em>. The prophet Jeremiah says, “It is He who made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding stretched out the heavens”&nbsp;(Jer. 10:12). The more we study the details of the architecture of the universe, the more we see the wisdom of its Creator. In fact, the <a href="https://www.str.org/article/we-live-very-fortunate-universe">evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe</a> gives us a glimpse, like never before, of the divine Architect, who thoughtfully designed this universe.</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-creation-reveals-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-creation-reveals-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-creation-reveals-about-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Connection between Daniel and the Christmas Story
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-connection-between-daniel-and-the-christmas-story
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I love <a href="https://tifwe.org/the-star-of-bethlehem-work/">this</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>King Nebuchadnezzar assigned the prophet Daniel to the high office of “chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5%3A11&amp;version=NIV">Dan. 5:11</a>). In other words, Daniel was appointed Chief of the Magi.</p>

<p>Why is this important?</p>

<p>As Christmas approaches, we will see images and hear stories of the “Wise Men,”&nbsp;(or, as they are often called, <em>Magi</em>), traveling from the East, following a star in order to pay homage to Jesus Christ, the newborn king. <a href="https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Star-of-Bethlehem-December-1996.pdf">Many scholars believe</a> that these Magi were Persians from Babylon...</p>

<p>How did Babylonians know about Jewish prophecy at all, and what led them to believe that this particular star was the one that would lead them to a great, newborn king?...</p>

<p>This is where the prophet Daniel comes in. Not only was Daniel chief of the Magi, but his prophecies became known throughout the ancient Near East. <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D13">Even the Romans</a> were aware of his prophecies of a coming king of Israel.</p>

<p>The Magi of the first century would have most certainly studied the writing of Daniel and possibly other Jewish writings Daniel likely referenced, such as the book of Isaiah. This connection between Daniel and the Magi may help to explain why almost six hundred years later, the Magi in question expected a Jewish king to arrive in Judea near the end of the first century B.C. It is likely that the Magi followed the star based on their study of the prophet Daniel’s writings.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of this post by Hugh Whelchel <a href="https://tifwe.org/the-star-of-bethlehem-work/">here</a> for more links to background information and an application of this history to the work you’re doing today.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why We’re Not Under the Mosaic Law
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/19/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a <a href="/w/god-is-an-artist-or-why-god-didn-t-just-download-information-into-our-minds-">post</a> where I touched on the change from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship, I was challenged in the comments to explain “who mandated this change” and give Bible references to back it up. Matthew 5:17 was offered as evidence against a Sabbath day change. Here’s what the verse says in context:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.</p>

<p>For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+5%3A17-20&amp;version=NASB">Matt. 5:17–20</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I decided to adapt and post my answer here because it applies not just to the Sabbath but to any of the Old Testament laws, and I’ve noticed that concern about whether or not we ought to be following the Mosaic Law has been increasing among Christians (I give my theory as to why this is happening <a href="/w/living-biblically">here</a>).</p>

<h3>A Change in the Law</h3>

<p>A specific mandate to change the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday doesn’t explicitly appear in the New Testament. What <em>is</em> mandated is a change in the Law (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+7-10&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 7–10</a>, especially <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+7%3A11-12&amp;version=NASB">7:11–12</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+8%3A13&amp;version=NASB">8:13</a>), and the Sabbath was part of that Law. We’re now free to worship and rest whenever we like, and Christians have historically chosen to honor the day Jesus rose from the dead and freed us from the Law, which was “only a shadow of the good things to come” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+10%3A1&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 10:1</a>).</p>

<p>When we’re united to Jesus, we become heirs of <em>the promises given to Abraham</em> not the Law given to Moses—promises that were guaranteed by God’s grace, through faith, not through law, according to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+4%3A13-16&amp;version=NASB">Romans 4:13–16</a>. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3%3A15-29&amp;version=NASB">Galatians 3</a> explains,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed…that is, Christ…. [T]he Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant [with Abraham] previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If God never intended to grant Abraham’s inheritance through law, then why did God give the Law? Paul responds to this question in the rest of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3&amp;version=NASB">chapter three</a>. As part of his answer, he says we were “kept in custody under the law,” and “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ.... But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”</p>

<p>The Law was a <em>shadow</em> pointing to the reality of Christ (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+10%3A1&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 10:1</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+2%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">Col. 2:16–17</a>). Now that we have Christ, we’re no longer under the shadow because we have the substance:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+2%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">Col. 2:16–17</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus was the real sacrifice—<em>not a sacrifice under the Mosaic Law</em> but the true sacrifice that the Mosaic Law, the shadow, was <em>pointing</em> to (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+8&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 8</a>). His sacrifice and work as our high priest were not part of the Mosaic covenantal system. In fact, if we were still under the Mosaic Law with its Levitical priesthood, Jesus (who is not a Levite) could not act as our priest at all. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+7%3A11-22&amp;version=NASB">Hebrews 7:11–22</a> explains:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek [i.e., <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+7&amp;version=NASB">Jesus</a>], and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, <em>of necessity there takes place a change of law also</em>….</p>

<p>For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God…. Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. [Emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hebrews goes on to say that the New Covenant “made the [Old Covenant] obsolete,” and “whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+8&amp;version=NASB">Heb. 8:13</a>).*</p>

<h3>One New Body</h3>

<p><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+2%3A11-22&amp;version=NASB">Ephesians 2:11–22</a> is helpful for understanding all of this. It explains that God brought both Jews and Gentiles together “into one new man”—not into the Mosaic Covenant but as one <em>new</em> man. In fact, it says the reason why Christ is able to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles “in one body” is this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by <em>abolishing</em> in His flesh the enmity, <em>which is the Law of commandments</em> contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man.” [Emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Christ broke down the barrier of the Law, “abolishing it” through His sacrifice on the cross, so that He could bring us together without the Mosaic Law and create one <em>new</em> man. He didn’t graft us into the Mosaic Covenant.</p>

<h3>The Requirements of the Law Are Unyielding</h3>

<p>Now how does this relate to Matthew 5:17? Matthew is very focused on the subject of true righteousness in his Gospel. The Pharisees were trying to follow rules, but they were constantly breaking the deeper spirit of the Law (as everyone does). They didn’t realize how far short they fell of fulfilling the Law, which is why Jesus kept pointing out that their actions (such as divorce, lust, and anger) were breaking the spirit of the Law.</p>

<p>There was no hope for them in following the Law because it was too high of a standard and there would be no leniency. As Jesus said in 5:17, He didn’t come to lessen the requirements of the Law (which was how the Pharisees were attempting to fulfill the Law and attain righteousness—that is, by lessening the requirements, ignoring the spirit of the Law and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A1-9&amp;version=NASB">annulling commandments</a>). Rather, He came to fulfill the requirements perfectly—in spirit as well as letter. He’s the only person who could! The Pharisees who were attempting to obtain righteousness through the Law had no hope because <em>no</em> aspect of the Law would be lessened for anyone attempting to obtain righteousness in that way. “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A10-11&amp;version=NASB">James 2:10</a>).</p>

<p>The only way to have a righteousness that “surpasses that of the Pharisees” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&amp;version=NASB">Matt. 5:17–20</a>)—the kind required to “enter the kingdom of heaven,” according to Jesus—is to be joined to Christ, who fulfilled “the smallest letter of the Law,” so that He stands with His righteousness in our place.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+16%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">Luke 16:16–17</a> also touches on this idea. Jesus says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Trying to reach salvation by way of the Law is impossible, for “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” We simply can’t make it that way. But now, since the time of John the Baptist, the Gospel is being preached, and everyone is coming through Christ and the Gospel.</p>

<h3>Not Our Covenant</h3>

<p>The Mosaic Law is simply not our covenant. We’re united to Christ, and we’re in. None of this is to say we can’t take a day to rest and worship. It’s a good idea! (We’re even free to follow the Old Testament rule for Saturday if we wish.) It just means we’re not bound to a law about this, and we’re free to worship on the day that <a href="/w/god-is-an-artist-or-why-god-didn-t-just-download-information-into-our-minds-">represents the Gospel</a> rather than the Mosaic Law.</p>

<p>For more on how Christians should view the Mosaic Law, see “<a href="/w/how-can-i-know-which-bible-promises-apply-to-me-">How Can I Know Which Bible Promises Apply to Me?</a>” and Greg’s “<a href="/w/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today-" title="http://www.str.org/articles/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today#.V9x38ZMrJE4">How Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians Today?</a>”</p>

<p>________________________</p>

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

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


title: The Gospel Is the Only Stable Source of Identity and Value
topic: Philosophy
author: Melinda Penner
date: 11/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-is-the-only-stable-source-of-identity-and-value
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a post-Christian culture, it’s really important Christian ambassadors are good translators. People steeped in our modern culture have a very different worldview than Christianity. It’s easy for those we’re talking with about the Gospel to misunderstand what we’re saying.</p>

<p>I attended a conference on “Gospel Identity”&nbsp;last weekend (live-streamed it - the best way for an introvert to attend a conference). Tim Keller offered some significant insights about how people get validation for their identity, and it has application in how we translate the Gospel.</p>

<p>Here’s the quick explanation on the different models of where we look for value, significance, and identity. Traditional models find external standards outside the individual. Living up to these standards provides individuals with value and significance. Lack of self-worth comes from not meeting these external standards. Modern identity, on the other hand, is derived from subjective standards set by each individual. The modern worldview says to look inward to find your own value, validate your significance, and reject external standards. It rejects external standards as negating our personal sense of value. This is moral relativism taken to a deep level of personal identity. Society is expected to adjust to these subjective standards; otherwise, personal validation is negated by disagreement. External standards are rejected altogether. This is why tolerance has been turned on its head. On this view, it’s not possible to tolerate someone while rejecting his views. The person’s sense of worth and his views are one and the same thing.</p>

<p>You can see why modern people see Christianity as the enemy. The Gospel itself - telling us we’re all sinners and need to be reconciled to God - is an external standard that shatters every attempt at personal validation.</p>

<p>There are lots of problems with both traditional and modern views of identity, but I’ll mention just a couple. In terms of the traditional view, we never can fully live up to any external standard, so our value is always dependent on approval of our behavior. We also have conflicting external sources, and it’s often not possible to please all.</p>

<p>Modern identity ends up crushing people because they’re responsible for validating their own value, but we just aren’t up to that task - it’s not how we’re designed. All of us look for validation outside of ourselves. We’re full of conflicting and changeable feelings and beliefs, so it’s never stable. It’s fragile.</p>

<p>The Gospel pulls away the pretense of both models to show us it’s impossible to measure up to external standards and subjective standards aren’t enough. Neither gives us the value and significance we’re all looking for.</p>

<p>Gospel identity, in contrast to both, has an external standard of validation - God - but the means of living up to that standard has already been achieved in Jesus. There’s nothing more for us to do other than receive Jesus’&nbsp;righteousness as a gift. He took our sin and gave us His righteousness. It’s final and complete. God looks at us and sees the beauty and perfection of Jesus’&nbsp;righteousness.</p>

<p>The beauty and freedom of Gospel identity is that it’s offered in unconditional love and is unchanging because Jesus achieved it for us. We don’t have to strive to find validation from any other source, outside or inside.</p>

<p>As we share the Gospel with people, it’s important to understand how this dynamic is at work in them and how it influences how they hear us. Someone who lives in a more traditional model can misunderstand the Gospel by thinking it’s a new standard to live up to. They can reject it because they think it’s one more impossible standard. The good news for them is that we don’t have to earn it.</p>

<p>Someone with a modern worldview may react strongly to what can seem to them like a challenge to their value. We’re telling them (and ourselves) that we’re not good enough, but that has been their source for personal significance. Their source of value based on their own sense of self-worth is fragile, and they perceive us as being judgmental, negating their significance. You may begin to realize why there’s so much hostility toward the Christian message in our culture. They are at distinct odds. But modern people are in bondage to the impossible and crushing task of validating their own value. It may take some time to help translate the message, but Jesus offers them freedom and a stable, unchanging source of love and value - something every one of us is looking for.</p>

<p>The fact that someone is a Christian doesn’t mean they aren’t still more influenced by one of these sources of identity than the Gospel. Christians, to the extent they are still moralists or legalists, are living by the traditional model. And many Christians today live by the modern model where they’re the final standard of whether they’re a good person or not. They believe some Christian things but decide for themselves how to live a good life. In either case, these are Christians who are not living under God’s loving and gracious authority. For Christians, it’s a lifelong process of identifying where we’re still finding our value in one of these other models rather than in the grace and mercy of the Gospel.</p>

<p>The Gospel gives us the humility and courage to face how deeply bad we are because Jesus took our sin and gave us His righteousness. The Gospel gives us affirmation to know that we are so valuable that Jesus loved us while we hated Him, and His love will never, ever change. There’s true peace and freedom in that unshakable fact because it’s grounded in God’s grace, not in ourselves. We can be humble because we’re forgiven sinners, and at the same time boldly live for God because we know we’re accepted and loved.</p>

<p>The Gospel Identity Conference, hosted by the Redeemer NYC family of churches, will probably be available at some time on the <a href="http://www.gospelinlife.com/">Gospel in Life website</a>. There’s an <a href="http://www.gospelinlife.com/the-gospel-and-the-heart-conference">older conference</a> that has some of the same ideas that I recommend in the meantime.</p>
</div>

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


title: Three Life Lessons from Billy Graham
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/28/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-life-lessons-from-billy-graham
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It is hard to fully comprehend the impact evangelist Billy Graham has had for the Kingdom. It is <a href="https://billygraham.org/about/biographies/billy-graham/">claimed</a> that he has preached the Gospel to more people in live audiences than anyone else in history. He has led countless evangelistic crusades, has written numerous books, and has even been the personal pastor to a few U.S. presidents.</p>

<p>This month, Billy Graham celebrated his 99th birthday. He is reaching the end of his life - a life well lived. In this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz4pFVVMzLw">video</a>, Graham describes three foundational life lessons that shaped his life and ministry.</p>

<h2>First, follow in the steps of Jesus</h2>

<p>This is a call to live how Jesus lived. The Gospel is a communicated through our lips, but it is <em>demonstrated</em> through our lives. We are to imitate Christ (1 Pet. 2:21). But this cannot be done by sheer willpower. It cannot be done on our own strength (John 15:4). We live each day in the power of the Spirit. And when we do, the fruit of the Spirit will overflow from our lives.</p>

<h2>Second, read the Bible every day</h2>

<p>Study it. <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/tips-memorizing-book-bible#.WhzAsLSplR0">Memorize it</a>. Mediate upon it. Quote it. And study it <em>again</em>.</p>

<p>Let God’s word be your ultimate authority. Rivet it to your heart. Let it be your delight. Speaking of the man who is blessed by God, David says, “His delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night”&nbsp;(Psa. 1:2).</p>

<h2>Third, go to your knees and pray until you and God have become intimate friends</h2>

<p>Prayer is hard. I think even the disciples knew it. In the Gospel of Luke, one of Jesus’&nbsp;disciples comes to Him and says, “Lord, <em>teach us</em> to pray”&nbsp;(Luke 11:1). This is the only time recorded where Jesus’&nbsp;disciples ask Him to teach them <em>how</em> to do something. As far as we know, His disciples never asked Jesus to teach them how to preach, or how to walk on water, or how to turn water into wine. But they did ask Him to teach them how to pray.</p>

<p>Of course, they saw Jesus pray over and over again. They saw Him praying when they weren’t. It’s as if they knew that this was the <em>key</em> to everything else about Him. They saw something in Jesus they knew they couldn’t copy.</p>

<p>You can’t imitate a prayer life. I’ve tried. It doesn’t work.</p>

<p>It took me way too long to come to terms with the truth that soul-satisfying, joy-producing prayer cannot be learned in the same way we learn to add numbers. No, you cannot learn by watching others. You learn by doing.</p>

<p>It’s like learning how to skate. You can spend hours watching someone else skate. You can go online and read about it. But until you lace up a pair of skates and start actively skating, you will never become any good at it.</p>

<p>And so it is with praying. This is important: <em>if you are waiting to become good at it before you start, then you will never start.</em></p>

<p>True, prayer is hard, but the rewards are great. Graham says, “I cannot describe to you the joy and the peace that He gives to you as a result of that daily routine that you have in prayer.”</p>

<p>Heed the wisdom of Billy Graham: Follow Jesus faithfully, read Scripture ferociously, and pray to God passionately.</p>
</div>

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


title: Awards for The Story of Reality
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 12/15/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/awards-for-the-story-of-reality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We have good news about <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK421">Greg’s book</a> <em>The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between</em>! Both <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/2017-the-gospel-coalition-book-awards/">The Gospel Coalition</a> and <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-february/christianity-todays-2018-book-awards.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&amp;utm_medium=Newsletter&amp;utm_term=9478853&amp;utm_content=553850126&amp;utm_campaign=email">Christianity Today</a> have named it the winner of the apologetics/evangelism category in their annual book awards. (Even more good news for you: Right now, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Story-Reality-Everything-Important-Happens-ebook/dp/B01CXDN74C/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1513303385&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=story+of+reality">Kindle version</a> is only $3.99.)</p>

<p>The Gospel Coalition says, “More than an intro to worldview studies, this book offers a surprisingly useful model for personal evangelism in our post-Christian, postmodern culture.”&nbsp;And Christianity Today says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>“The Story of Reality</em> is a fresh combination of apologetics and evangelism in a very readable format. It meets one of the greatest needs of a predominantly secular culture in which the majority of people have no real understanding of the Christian worldview. Koukl has done an outstanding job in presenting a clear and persuasive case for the credibility of biblical Christianity to those who have little or no knowledge of the true gospel of Christ.”&nbsp;<em>- Mark Hanna, professor of philosophy and world religions, Veritas Evangelical Seminary</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thank you to both The Gospel Coalition and Christianity Today!</p>
</div>

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


title: How Muslims Miss Christmas
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-muslims-miss-christmas
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Muslims are going to miss Christmas this year. I don’t mean they won’t celebrate on December 25. Rather, they’ll miss what Christmas is all about - when the Word (the second person of the Trinity) took on humanity.</p>

<p>Remember, Muslims <em>do</em> believe in Jesus. They believe He’s a man, a mere mortal like Moses or Mohammed. Although they call him a prophet, they don’t believe He has a divine nature, is the Son of God, or is the second person of the Trinity. In fact, they reject the Trinity altogether. This is a massive theological difference from Christianity.</p>

<p>The Muslim version of Jesus turns out to be the worst case of mistaken identity in all human history. That’s because Islam has a meritorious-based system of salvation. A Muslim’s ability to get into heaven is evaluated on the weight of their good and bad deeds. That’s not good news. By denying the God-man Jesus, Muslims miss out on the meaning of Christmas. God becomes man, lives the perfect life that we couldn’t live, and dies as a substitute for us. He does for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves. That’s what makes Christmas so merry.</p>

<p>This month is a perfect opportunity to tell our Muslim friends the story of Christmas. Since Jesus already holds an esteemed position in Islam, we already have a head start. Muslims believe He exists and plays a major role in their faith. We just need to show them how the Christmas story is something worth rejoicing about.</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-muslims-miss-christmas" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-muslims-miss-christmas" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-muslims-miss-christmas" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Religious Liberty Case Is Not about Refusing to Serve People “Because of Who They Are”
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/05/2017
source:
https://www.str.org/w/religious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the <a href="https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/client-stories-details/jack-phillips">Masterpiece Cakeshop case</a>. I recommend you read <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454228/masterpiece-cakeshop-case-stop-misrepresenting">this article</a> by David French to clear up a major misconception about the case that’s being promoted out there. The article responds to a <em>New York Times</em> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opinion/gay-religious-freedom-cake.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=0">opinion piece</a> that completely misunderstands the case, claiming it’s about denying people services “because of who they are.”&nbsp;(See <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events#.WiBiH7SpkXo">here</a> and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas#.WiBjj7SpkXo">here</a> for more responses to this common mistake.)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The actual facts of the case are crystal clear. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to custom-design a cake to help celebrate a gay wedding. As a Christian, he finds same-sex unions to be unbiblical and immoral, and he wasn’t willing to use his artistic talents to advance a <em>message</em> he holds to be wrong. In fact, he’d frequently declined to design cakes that advanced messages he found to be offensive. But he never, ever - not once - discriminated against any customers on the basis of their identity. He baked cakes for people of all races, creeds, colors, and sexual orientations...</p>

<p>Phillips isn’t discriminating against a protected class. I’ll repeat this until I’m blue in the face. <em>He serves gay customers</em>.</p>

<p>If a black baker refuses a white customer’s request to design a Confederate-flag cake, he’s not discriminating on the basis of race. He’s refusing to advance a message...</p>

<p>If progressive designers refuse to design dresses for the Trump women, they’re not discriminating on the basis of sex. They’re refusing to elevate and help honor a political family they dislike...</p>

<p>Boylan [the <em>NYT</em> author] claims that Phillips is seeking special religious exemptions. To the contrary, sexual revolutionaries are seeking exemptions from the Constitution. They believe that same-sex marriage is so precious that even artists can be conscripted into the ceremony - despite their deeply held beliefs. They believe that the cost of entering the marketplace is not just the loss of your distinct artistic voice but the commandeering of that voice by your ideological foes to advance <em>their</em> ideological interests.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The author of the <em>New York Times</em> piece is transgender, and I understand that makes this personal and emotional - just as this case will be personal and emotional for many; but if we don’t support religious freedom for all, even when we dislike the religion, then there will be religious freedom for none. The whole concept will be meaningless, because, after all, religious freedom protections are <em>only</em> needed when those in power <em>disagree</em> with a religion. If those protections are thrown out when people disagree, then they exist for no purpose whatsoever.</p>

<p>Some out there <em>have</em> <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/pediatrician-refuses-lesbian-mothers_n_6710128.html">refused to serve</a> people because of who they are; that’s morally wrong, and the government doesn’t allow it. The <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/a_ruling_in_favor_of_masterpiece_cakeshop_would_destroy_discrimination_law.html">claim</a> out there now is that if we grant Phillips his liberty in this situation, the result will be chaos, with people denying service to anyone they’re bigoted against. That’s absurd. Certainly, as a nation, we’re capable of making a distinction between <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events#.WiBiH7SpkXo">the two situations</a> (just as <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas#.WiCJkrSpkXp">this LGBT activist</a> did).</p>

<p>For more on this topic, see the posts linked below. And to understand how the government has balanced its interests with religious liberty claims in the past, see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/how-rfra-works#.WiCMjrSpkXo">here</a> and <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts/">here</a>. We have established ways of dealing with this that honor and protect our liberty. There’s no need to deny anyone’s liberty out of fear that it will lead to imagined craziness.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/meet-people-whose-religious-liberty-being-threatened-government#.WiBhsrSpkXo">Meet the People Whose Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened by the Government</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events#.WiBiH7SpkXo">Refusing to Serve Individuals vs. Refusing to Participate in Events</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas#.WiBjj7SpkXo">LGBT Activist Says We Should Be Allowed to Discriminate against Ideas</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/what-you-can-do-support-religious-liberty#.WiBhlrSpkXo">What You Can Do to Support Religious Liberty</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/blog/our-society-should-not-stifle-religious-dissent#.WiBhubSpkXo">Our Society Should Not Stifle Religious Dissent</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/interview-scott-ward-religious-liberty-and-living-faithfully-secular-culture#.WiBhpLSpkXo">Interview: Scott Ward - Religious Liberty and Living Faithfully in a Secular Culture</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%2Freligious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freligious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freligious-liberty-case-is-not-about-refusing-to-serve-people-because-of-who-they-are-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: All the Scriptures Speak of Jesus
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/12/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/all-the-scriptures-speak-of-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One thing I’m constantly in awe of is the Bible’s unity. God is a master <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/god-artist-or-why-god-didnt-just-download-information-our-minds#.WisiS7SplR0">artist</a>. He wove recurring images and themes into history that appear throughout the Bible - images and themes that culminate in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The more I get to know the Bible, the more the beauty of this astounds me.</p>

<p>I encourage you to watch the video below, where Peter J. Williams introduces this topic (or get a two-minute taste of the talk <a href="http://foclonline.org/answer/how-do-gospels-connect-life-jesus-and-history-israel">here</a>). From the video description:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the most powerful arguments for Christianity and for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the argument from prophecy. This sees Jesus not merely as “predicted”&nbsp;by specific sayings in the Old Testament, but more importantly as foreshadowed by the entire structure of the Old Testament narrative. The Old Testament makes the most sense when viewed in the light of Christ and thus points to its own divine origin.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As Williams explains in the video,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The way that Jesus correlates with the Old Testament is not peripheral - it’s not odd phrases taken from here and there; it’s actually the very central themes that we have of Jesus’&nbsp;life fit with the very central themes we have in the Old Testament.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="qS6YvhrVzFM" 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/qS6YvhrVzFM?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%2Fall-the-scriptures-speak-of-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fall-the-scriptures-speak-of-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fall-the-scriptures-speak-of-jesus" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: An Update on Melinda’s Condition
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/15/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-update-on-melinda-s-condition
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>[For previous updates, see <a href="/w/urgent-prayer-request-for-melinda">here</a>.]</em></p>

<p>Melinda is still in critical condition but is stable with occasional complications that the medical team deals with as they come up - completely routine for this kind of injury.</p>

<p>Stable is good as her brain heals, so no news is truly good news at this point.</p>

<p>Melinda is in the best medical facility imaginable for her condition, so from the human side, everything that can be done for her is being done.</p>

<p>I suspect there will be no significant change in Melinda’s situation for a couple of weeks at least. Right now, it’s a bit of a waiting game. Lots of people have come out of something like this. It just takes time. Your prayers for Melinda and for STR are the most important right now.</p>

<p>If you like, you can send a Christmas card to the office for Melinda (you can find the mailing address <a href="/contact-us">here</a>). We’ll give it to her when she wakes up. She loves Christmas, and I’m sure it will cheer her heart.</p>

<p>The STR team has banded together in her absence, and we’re all moving ahead confidently with our important mission; but our hearts ache for our dear friend, and she is greatly missed by all of us and by her family. God is holding us up, keeping us on our feet - His grace and your prayers.</p>

<p>We will update you when we have new information, though I expect little change in the near term. Prayer is still the priority. We’ll wait with you to see what God does. Until then, thank you so much for your fervent prayers for Melinda and for us on the STR team. And also, thank you for your faithful financial support, which is so critical during a challenging time like this.</p>
</div>

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


title: Two Tactics to Rule Them All
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-tactics-to-rule-them-all
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve noticed something. There are a lot of bad ideas out there. You’ve probably noticed it too. I’ve also noticed something else. Most of these bad ideas can be exposed with one of two tactics: Taking the Roof Off or the Suicide Tactic.</p>

<p>Taking the Roof Off is a tactic based on the idea of <em>reductio ad absurdum.</em> That literally means “reducing to the absurd.”&nbsp;The principle behind this tactic is that some ideas lead to absurd consequences. Your job is to ask yourself if the idea leads to an absurd consequence, and, if it does, then ask a question that graciously exposes the absurdity of the idea. That’s just a quick summary, but you can learn more about it <a href="/w/greg-koukl-tactics-and-taking-the-roof-off" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>The Suicide Tactic demonstrates that some ideas or statements contradict themselves. “There is no truth,”&nbsp;for example, suggests there is no truth, but the statement itself claims to be true. That’s a contradiction. Your job is to ask yourself if the idea contradicts itself, and, if it does, then ask a question that graciously exposes that contradiction. You can learn more about it <a href="/w/arguments-that-commit-suicide" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>As those of you who follow Stand to Reason know, Greg has written and spoken on Tactics for many years now (as have I). His <a href="https://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316" target="_blank">book</a> includes over eight different tactics you can employ in conversation. You don’t have to learn them all, however, even though that’s a worthwhile goal.</p>

<p>What I’ve noticed is that many of the bad ideas that come my way can be exploited by knowing just those two tactics. Often one or the other (or sometimes both) will help you see what’s wrong with the idea.</p>

<p>Take, for example, relativism. This is a prevalent philosophy that expresses itself in a host of different ways (“You shouldn’t judge,”&nbsp;“Morals are relative,”&nbsp;etc.). Relativism is self-refuting and thereby vulnerable to the Suicide Tactic. It also logically leads to absurdities, which Taking the Roof Off will help you recognize.</p>

<p>The same is true with <a href="/w/pluralism-" target="_blank">pluralism</a>, many abortion-choice claims (<a href="/w/a-view-more-troubling-than-pro-choice" target="_blank">modified pro-choice position</a>, <a href="/w/unstringing-the-violinist" target="_blank">violinist argument</a>, etc.), <a href="/w/sagan-and-scientism" target="_blank">scientism</a>, and arguments surrounding homosexuality (born-that way claims, <a href="/w/does-homosexual-behavior-in-animals-mean-it-s-natural-for-humans-" target="_blank">same-sex behavior in the animal kingdom</a>, etc.). These ideas - and many more - can be exposed with one or both tactics.</p>

<p>So, if you want to begin by mastering just two tactics, learn Taking the Roof Off and the Suicide Tactic. If you look at the cost/benefit analysis, there’s a relatively low cost to mastering just two tactics, but the benefits are significant as they can address numerous kinds of challenges on various topics.</p>

<p>Of course, don’t forget to practice them the way a gracious and winsome <a href="/ambassadors-creed" target="_blank">ambassador for Christ</a> would. Remember, you represent Jesus. Although it might be easy to show someone’s idea is mistaken, it’s also easy to do it in a way that’s not kind. That’s not what we want to do. Often, I’ll use these tactics in my mind to determine what’s wrong with an idea, and then figure out how to graciously communicate that in my conversation.</p>

<p>We are showing people why their idea might be a bad one. This can be painful for some people to see this happen to a deeply-held belief. The gentleness and upright character we show them through the process can loosen their grip on the falsehood and perhaps lead them to let go of it and embrace the truth.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-tactics-to-rule-them-all" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-tactics-to-rule-them-all" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-tactics-to-rule-them-all" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 “Destruction” Mean Annihilation?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/14/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-destruction-mean-annihilation-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The <a href="https://www.str.org/solidgroundnovember2017hellinterruptedpart2#.WgOGNxOPJR0">second part</a> of Greg and Tim’s series on Hell is posted on the website. You can read the first part <a href="https://www.str.org/SolidGroundSept2017HellInterrupted#.WgOFPBOPJR0">here</a>, and the third part will be up next month. Here’s an excerpt from this installment:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Edward Fudge - who some consider the father of the modern conditionalist movement - writes, “The Old Testament utilizes some 50 Hebrew words and 75 figures of speech to describe the ultimate end of the wicked - and every one sounds...like total extinction.”&nbsp;The venerable John Stott weighed in with, “It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed.”</p>

<p>The point sounds compelling at first glance, but note D. A. Carson’s important observation:</p>

<p>Stott’s conclusion...is memorable, but useless as an argument, because it is merely tautologous: <em>of course</em> those who suffer <em>destruction</em> are <em>destroyed</em>. But it does not follow that those who suffer destruction cease to exist. Stott has assumed his definition of “destruction”&nbsp;in his epigraph. [Carson’s emphasis.]</p>

<p>Do not miss Carson’s meaning. Treating “destruction”&nbsp;words (et al.) as if they had only one meaning (the conditionalists’&nbsp;meaning) is not an argument, but question-begging (Carson’s “tautology”). His point applies equally to Fudge’s references and to Pinnock’s “strong impression of the <em>destruction</em> of the wicked.”&nbsp;So here’s our question. Do those words mean total destruction, that is, complete non-existence - annihilation - as conditionalists conclude? They do not - at least, not <em>necessarily</em>, and that is the key.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.str.org/solidgroundnovember2017hellinterruptedpart2#.WgOMaxOPJR0">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%2Fdoes-destruction-mean-annihilation-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-destruction-mean-annihilation-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-destruction-mean-annihilation-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Existence of Two Sexes Serves God’s Ultimate Purpose for Creation
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/02/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-the-existence-of-two-sexes-serves-god-s-ultimate-purpose-for-creation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Human beings do not exist as men and women by accident. God created us this way for a purpose. John Piper <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-ultimate-meaning-of-true-womanhood">explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God’s ultimate purpose for the universe and for all of history and for your life is to display the glory of Christ in its highest expression, namely, in his dying to make a rebellious people his everlasting and supremely happy bride. To say it another way, God’s ultimate purpose in creating the world and choosing to let it become the sin-wracked world that it is, is so that the greatness of the glory of Christ could be put on display at Calvary where he bought his rebellious bride at the cost of his life...</p>

<p>From the very beginning, God’s design in creating the universe and governing it the way he does has been to put the glory of his grace on display in the death of his Son for the sake of his bride. “Husbands, love your wives, <em>as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her</em>...that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish”&nbsp;(Ephesians 5:25-27). The ultimate purpose of creation and redemption is to put the glory of Christ on display in purchasing and purifying his bride, the church...</p>

<p>[This] leads to the mind-boggling truth that womanhood and manhood - masculinity and femininity - belong at the center of God’s ultimate purpose. Womanhood and manhood were not an afterthought or a peripheral thought in God’s plan. God designed them precisely so that they would serve to display the glory of his Son dying to have his happy, admiring bride...</p>

<p>[Womanhood] is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood. If there were only generic persons and not male and female, the glory of Christ would be diminished in the world. When God described the glorious work of his Son as the sacrifice of a husband for his bride, he was telling us why he made us male and female. He made us this way so that our maleness and femaleness would display more fully the glory of his Son in relation to his blood-bought bride.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-ultimate-meaning-of-true-womanhood">here</a> to fill in more details. The two sexes of the human race are not interchangeable or expendable. They are glorious illustrations of God’s grace towards His church, and they are beautiful.</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-existence-of-two-sexes-serves-god-s-ultimate-purpose-for-creation" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-existence-of-two-sexes-serves-god-s-ultimate-purpose-for-creation" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-existence-of-two-sexes-serves-god-s-ultimate-purpose-for-creation" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Sin of Homosexuality Singled Out?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-sin-of-homosexuality-singled-out-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m often asked why the sin of homosexuality is singled out. The answer is simple: it’s not. Scripture identifies it as merely one type of sexual activity that’s prohibited. There are several others. But it’s important to back up a bit to understand the context.</p>

<p>The Bible is not merely a book of prohibitions or rules with a list of do’s and dont’s. It also paints a positive picture (a beautiful one at that!) of what life is supposed to be like, how humans were created to flourish, and what sexual activity should be like. It makes sense that Scripture includes those parameters because God is our creator, designer, and engineer. He knows best how we’re supposed to function. Just like the engineers of a car know best how <em>it’s</em> supposed to operate, so God knows best how <em>we’re</em> supposed to operate. The Bible is that “owner’s manual”&nbsp;for human life, explaining our Engineer’s intended purpose for sexual activity.</p>

<p>The Genesis account of creation lays the foundation for our design and explains God’s plan for our sexual activity (e.g. Gen.1:27-8, 2:24). In a nutshell, God created human beings as male and female, designing them to function sexually in a heterosexual/complementary way, and only within the covenant of marriage. This isn’t merely an Old Testament (or outdated, as some suggest) teaching. Jesus identifies this teaching as valid in the New Testament, as well. When asked about marriage and divorce, Jesus says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Have you not read that He who created <em>them</em> from the beginning made them male and female, and [God] said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice Jesus not only quotes Genesis but also adds His own commentary (“they are no longer two, but one flesh...”). He believes that what the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write about sexuality is true. When it comes to sex and marriage, Jesus believes it’s about one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. That’s Jesus’&nbsp;view. That should be our view as well.</p>

<p>This is the positive picture the Bible paints of sex and marriage (of course it says a lot more than this).</p>

<p>If sex should only occur between a husband and wife, then <em>all other forms of sexual activity</em> are prohibited. Fornication (sex before marriage), homosexual sex, adultery (sex outside marriage), incest, rape, and bestiality are all of sexual activity outside Jesus’&nbsp;parameters.</p>

<p>Notice, homosexual behavior is not singled out. There’s no special condemnation reserved for people who engage in homosexual sex. People who satisfy same-sex desires through sexual fantasy or homosexual contact are <em>not</em> special. They’re just like anyone else in sexual sin. In fact, there are probably far more heterosexuals engaged in sexual sin (fornication, adultery, etc.) than there are homosexuals engaged in sexual sin.</p>

<p>That means if someone says homosexual sex is sin, they are not saying anything substantially different than if they were to say sex before marriage is sin or sex outside marriage is sin. One statement is not more hateful than another. In fact, neither statement is hateful at all. It was Jesus who taught this ethic, and therefore, it’s His view. If someone believes this sexual standard is hateful, then their view entails the idea that Jesus is hateful.</p>

<p>Someone might reply by asking why Christians talk more about homosexuality than, for example, heterosexual fornication, divorce, and other sins that seem to be more common. I think that’s a fair question, but I don’t think that it’s always true of every church. There are consistency problems within some churches, and fornication and adultery are sometimes treated differently than homosexual sin. That’s a problem, and why that occurs needs to be answered and addressed, but it’s not the point of what I’m saying here.</p>

<p>I’m simply describing what seems to be the message of God’s word. Sexual activity is reserved for a married man and woman. All other forms of sexual activity are prohibited. Homosexual sin is not singled out, though. It’s just one of many types of sexual sin.</p>

<p>That’s God’s message and what Jesus taught.</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-sin-of-homosexuality-singled-out-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-sin-of-homosexuality-singled-out-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-sin-of-homosexuality-singled-out-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Use Christian Apologetics Christianly
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/use-christian-apologetics-christianly
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As you’re using Christian apologetics, never forget we need to do so <em>Christianly</em>.</p>

<p>At the beginning of Nancy Pearcey’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Study-Guide-Christianity/dp/1433502208/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1510166982&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=total+truth&amp;dpID=51tw5ycuNJL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch">Total Truth</a></em>, she argues that Christians in every profession ought to think carefully about how the Christian worldview shapes and directs how they do their work. (<a href="https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2017/11/changing-world-gospel-driven-productivity/">Matt Perman’s</a> application of Christianity to business is one example of someone who does this well.)</p>

<p>Apologetics is no different. What makes our apologetics <em>Christian</em> isn’t merely the arguments we use or the conclusions we’re arguing for, and it doesn’t just mean arguing morally—with honesty, respect, etc. Our apologetics work is <em>Christian</em> when it conforms to the shape of the Gospel, reflecting the person and work of Jesus to the world.</p>

<p>That might sound a little abstract, so listen to an example from <em>Total Truth</em> of this kind of application of the Christian worldview to apologetics-type work:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>By God’s grace, we <em>can</em> make a significant difference within our sphere of influence—but only as we “crucify” our craving for success, power, and public acclaim, “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). If we long to be given the mind of Christ, we must first be willing to submit to the pattern of suffering He modeled for us. We should expect the process of developing a Christian worldview to be a difficult and painful struggle—first inwardly, as we uproot the idols in our own thought life, and then outwardly, as we face the hostility of a fallen and unbelieving world. Our strength for the task must come from spiritual union with Christ, recognizing that suffering is the route to being conformed to Him and remade into His image.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Questions like, “Whom should I talk to about Christ? And why? And how? At what cost? And for what purpose?” are all questions affected by the Christian worldview. Our society is constantly pressing in on us, attempting to conform us to its values and goals. Because of this, the <em>Christian</em> answers to the above questions might not be as obvious as you’re assuming. We need to think through this.</p>

<p><strong>Think about who Jesus is.</strong> Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant”; He “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death” (Phil 2:7–8). He defined love as service (1 John 3:16), saying He “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45). Though He knew He came from God, He condescended to the menial work of washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:1–5). He loved us to the point of death, even while we were His enemies (Rom. 5:8–10). He “endured hostility” and willingly bore the shame of the cross “for the joy set before Him” (Heb. 12:1–3).</p>

<p><strong>Think about who we are.</strong> We “were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph. 2:3). This is “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:9). We owe all to Him. God’s <em>kindness</em> led us to repentance (Rom. 2:4), so we are therefore called “to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men,” even when hated, as a reflection of what He has done for us (Titus 3:1–7). God saved us “so that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light,” which we do, in part, by “keeping our behavior excellent” (1 Pet. 2:9–12). We can live in any circumstance “through Him who strengthens [us]” (Phil. 4:10–13), and “whoever wishes to be first among [us] shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:44).</p>

<p><strong>Think about who the lost are.</strong> They are no different from our former selves: “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh” (Eph. 2:3). The root difference between us is spiritual, requiring the work of God in their lives, just as He worked in ours. They need God to “grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth” so that they “may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25–26), so we can’t expect our arguments to be all-powerful, nor should we look down on non-Christians as if we were superior. <em>God</em> is the one who granted us repentance and enabled us to see Him as He is. To them, “the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Christ” is still “an aroma from death to death” (2 Cor. 2:14–16). Because they have not yet been freed from their guilt, they hate and fear the idea of judgment. Judgment by a perfectly holy being can’t be faced without an understanding of grace, so we need to demonstrate God’s kindness and grace with more than just theological words.</p>

<p><strong>Think about our goal.</strong> Our goal is not to promote our own name; our goal is to glorify the name of Jesus. This frees us from having to endlessly defend ourselves. It frees us to admit when we’re wrong. It frees us to promote others who are doing good work. It frees us to speak to the lowly and outcast. It frees us to concentrate on a few individuals who need us rather than feeling pressured to speak to thousands. It frees us to speak to thousands in a way that points to Him and doesn���t steal His glory for ourselves. It frees us to accept with joy whatever size and type of ministry He gives us.</p>

<p>There is certainly much more to consider as we’re working out what it means to use Christian apologetics Christianly, as we attempt to conform all of our apologetics work to Jesus and the cross. Who knows what God will do through this kind of intentional thinking? Who knows how He’ll be glorified in new and beautiful ways? Who knows the lives He’ll change through 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%2Fuse-christian-apologetics-christianly" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fuse-christian-apologetics-christianly" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fuse-christian-apologetics-christianly" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Average Person You Know Probably Isn’t Hostile towards Christianity
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/24/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-average-person-you-know-probably-isn-t-hostile-towards-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Christianity Today</em> recently <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/october/anti-christian-bias-richer-evangelicals-persecution-complex.html">reported</a> on the trend in anti-Christian hostility, and I found it very encouraging.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Sociologist George Yancey analyzed 30-plus years of data to track approval ratings for evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. His big takeaway: What has changed is not the <em>number</em> of Americans who dislike conservative Christians, but <em>which</em> Americans.</p>

<p>According to American National Election Studies (ANES) questionnaires, the people who rated evangelical and fundamentalist Christians most negatively over the decades have consistently - and unsurprisingly - been politically liberal, highly educated, and less religious. But in recent years, particularly 2012 and 2016, they’ve shifted to become richer.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The average people we know and talk with about Christianity usually aren’t the hostile people we encounter in the media and social media. Because of the access we have to those forums, we can get a skewed sense of what people think about religion and Christianity. Media amplifies certain voices, and, according to the survey, anti-Christian voices have more money to amplify their viewpoints. They also have more money to bankroll social and legal campaigns. So it’s not as though this is a benign trend.</p>

<p>The encouraging thing I found in this survey is that most people we meet are not hostile to Christianity. They’re not the aggressive, angry voices we often engage online. So in this regard, at least, the evangelistic landscape isn’t worse than it was 30 years ago. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been some significant changes.</p>

<p>Our culture is a post-Christian one now. Most people haven’t been raised in church. They haven’t been taught the basic ideas of Christianity and the Bible. Many have probably barely even cracked a Bible. So there’s less familiarity to start with and more ground to till for the Christian ambassador planting seeds. And to do evangelism, you have to start with the basics, like <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/tools-share-christianity-your-friends#.WeppuhOPJR0">reasons to believe God exists</a>.</p>

<p>And we’re dealing with an extremely individualistic culture. Bending the knee and living under God’s authority is a foreign idea. Even Christians, shaped by our culture, struggle with this.</p>

<p>So the task of evangelism has changed, and every Christian needs to be ready with answers. But the average people we meet aren’t as hostile as it seems from the media. That’s encouraging since most evangelism still takes place among family and friends, person-to-person.</p>

<p>Certainly many Christians encounter hostility and direct challenges in their workplaces. Christian public school teachers are under increasing pressure to comply with ideas and values that violate their convictions. Bakers and florists are susceptible to legal pressure. There are new and growing challenges to religious liberty. Still, the average person isn’t hostile to Christianity and we can make an appeal to our rights and fairness as we make our case in the public square.</p>

<p>It’s easy to develop a defensive posture as we survey the news and social media, feeling that Christianity is under attack. That can negatively affect how we engage individuals - or avoid engaging conversations about Jesus. The study is a good encouragement to not expect a hostile response and to engage people in an attractive manner.</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-average-person-you-know-probably-isn-t-hostile-towards-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-average-person-you-know-probably-isn-t-hostile-towards-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-average-person-you-know-probably-isn-t-hostile-towards-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Pragmatic Benefits of God-Given Sexual Boundaries
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 11/17/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-pragmatic-benefits-of-god-given-sexual-boundaries
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If God exists and He created us, He designed our sexuality. And if God is good, then He designed our sexuality for our benefit. Not only is this true, it has pragmatic benefits when we align our lives and behavior with our design. And recent sex scandals illustrate the destructive nature of doing things mainly because they give us pleasure rather than making wise choices that lead to our wellbeing.</p>

<p>The Bible tells us that God designed us male and female and that there are sexual benefits because of that. There’s companionship, identification, procreation, and also happiness and safety when we follow God’s plan. God designed sex for marriage, not to be a killjoy, but for our flourishing.</p>

<p>While sex outside of marriage has lots of short-term pleasure, there are long-term harms. <em>The Federalist</em> <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/03/research-proves-no-1-social-justice-imperative-marriage/">posted</a> the results of a <a href="http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Marriage-Divide.pdf">recent study</a> that confirms what other studies have shown: cohabiting and having children outside of marriage is a strong indicator of poverty. Seventy years ago, the most important factor in economic wellbeing was employment. Fifty years go, it was education. But for the last twenty years, the most important factors have been marriage and having children within marriage. Cohabiting and having children out of wedlock, even if the parents eventually marry, are strongly associated with poverty.</p>

<p>What happened between 20 and 50 years ago? The sexual revolution. No-fault divorce. Out-of-wedlock births. The study shows the pragmatic results of pursuing a sexual ethic we’re not designed for. Doing things as God designed for us actually has pragmatic benefits.</p>

<p>When the Harvey Weinstein story broke a few weeks ago, columnist David French made a simple but really profound observation. Before the sexual revolution, there were boundaries around sex. Even if not practiced perfectly, generally our social norms followed God’s norms and it produced good benefits for individuals and society. Sex was reserved for marriage. Extra-marital sex was wrong. Casual sex was rare. Spouses were expected to be faithful. Children were to be born into a married home. Divorce was hard to obtain to encourage couples to stay together and work through problems. Sex was not on display virtually everywhere we look. Teens were not assumed to be sexually active. Children were not sexualized and exposed to images and ideas beyond their developmental level. Things weren’t perfect; I’m not idealizing the times. There were plenty of failures and hypocrisy. But generally, these boundaries were reinforced, followed, and were good for individuals and society.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452683/sex-consent-morality-culture-ruined-sexual-revolution">French says</a>, “The practical result of consent-focused morality is the sexualization of everything.”&nbsp;Sex isn’t for just marriage anymore, so any relationship has the potential to become sexual. That’s his key idea. There are no boundaries other than consent, which is turning out to be (not surprisingly) too weak an ethic to contain sexuality. Consent isn’t enough because every relationship is potentially sexualized and sex is a powerful driver. God made sex powerful to bind married couples together. Instead, outisde of God’s plan, it destroys people. All kinds of abuse flow from the lack of boundaries. There are calls for punishing those who cross the consent limit, but it won’t stop the abuse of sexuality because there are no boundaries.</p>

<p>The tragedy is that the church is too much like our culture. We’re influenced by our culture, and the lack of sexual boundaries creeps into the church where we not only see high-profile leadership failures but many Christians living no different sexually than non-Christians. French points out that, at a time when the culture may begin to recognize the failures of the sexual revolution, the church may be in no position to show them a better way. But we must.</p>

<p>God designed sex, and the beauty of the plan is displayed more profoundly when the failures of not following it are staggeringly obvious. Christians must live as God designed so that we can demonstrate the goodness and beauty of sexuality. We can witness what God has told us about sexuality as He’s designed it. And the pragmatic benefits can be demonstrated.</p>

<p>Worldviews have consequences and play out in our behavior. Look at the end results of a consistently lived worldview and trace it back to the key values to find the truth or the lie. The culture has sold the idea for 50 years that consenting adults can do what they wish sexually without hurting anyone. It’s a lie. God has a wonderful plan for our lives, including our sex lives as He’s designed them to be lived. We have the truth. Let’s live what God teaches it in a way that commends the beauty of His design and share the truth with others for the sake of lives being shattered by a lie.</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-pragmatic-benefits-of-god-given-sexual-boundaries" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-pragmatic-benefits-of-god-given-sexual-boundaries" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-pragmatic-benefits-of-god-given-sexual-boundaries" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 LGBT’s False Dichotomy of Love and Hate
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-lgbt-s-false-dichotomy-of-love-and-hate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians, it turns out, are given a choice. One option is to approve of people satisfying same-sex desires through sexual contact. If Christians do that, they are believed to love LGBT people. The other option is to affirm Jesus’&nbsp;teaching that sexual activity is reserved for a married man and woman (Matt. 19:1-4). If they do that, then Christians are allegedly hateful towards LGBT people. It’s a tiresome, false dichotomy.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-have-come-to-indoctrinate-your-children-lgtbq_b_6795152.html" target="_blank">Here’s</a> an example of this thinking. In the concluding paragraph, the author suggests that kids will either grow up believing that LGBT people are “absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone”&nbsp;or believing their parent’s religious tenets that LGBT people are “awful.”</p>

<p>Really? Are those the only two options? I know that article is just one example, but I see this thinking <em>a lot</em> (both in person and in print). We either approve of what someone does (somehow signaling we love them) or we hate them and they’re awful.</p>

<p>But here’s what the Christian faith has taught for two millennia. All human beings - including those who identify as LGBT - are made in the image of God, are intrinsically valuable, and are the pinnacle of God’s creation (Gen. 1:27). Like every person on the planet, they deserve dignity and respect. Period.</p>

<p>Let me briefly unpack that. If LGBT people are made in God’s image, then they bear the hallmark trait that justifies their equality with every other human being. That’s incredibly amazing and good. If LGBT people are intrinsically valuable, then they are valuable in and of themselves. There’s nothing they can say or do to diminish their value. That’s also amazing and good. If they are the pinnacle of God’s creation, then they are the highest form of creation. Again, good stuff!</p>

<p>That’s what my “religious tenets”&nbsp;(to use the author’s words) teach me to believe about LGBT people.</p>

<p>Notice, there’s no “LGBT people are awful”&nbsp;doctrine, teaching, or implication. If they are awful, they are awful <em>in the same way that any person is awful</em>. That is, they are people who have committed crimes against God and deserve to be punished. But the Bible teaches <em>every person on the planet</em> deserves to be punished (Rom. 3:9-10). There is no special condemnation that applies just to LGBT people. They are guilty just like every other person.</p>

<p>Though that certainly sounds like bad news (for everyone), the good news is that God loves His creation and believes all people (including LGBT) are worthwhile. Because of His grace, He is willing to offer everyone a pardon. That applies <em>equally</em> and <em>in the same way</em> to LGBT people and to every other person on the planet. There’s no distinction between people. It’s the same grace and the same amount of grace offered to all people.</p>

<p>Do you see a pattern? LGBT people are equally valuable, equally guilty, and equally candidates for God’s grace as every other person on the planet.</p>

<p>When the author of the article says he wishes that children of religious parents would grow up believing that LGBT people are “absolutely as worthwhile, worthy of love and respect,”&nbsp;that’s no problem. That’s what our religious convictions affirm (at least for Christians).</p>

<p>Where the author (and many others) seem to get confused is when they learn of an additional teaching conveyed by Christ: Sexual contact can only occur between a married man and woman. That, somehow, translates to “Christians believe LGBT people are awful.”</p>

<p>Yes, it’s true that people who have sex with others of the same sex are violating Jesus’&nbsp;teaching. That does <em>not</em> mean we think people who do so are awful. It means their <em>behavior</em> is sin and they are guilty of sin, but it is not a statement about LGBT people’s <em>value</em> or how they deserved to be treated by Christians. They are still “absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone.”&nbsp;We’re still commanded to love them.</p>

<p>The same is true of boyfriends and girlfriends who have sex (fornication). They are also violating Jesus’&nbsp;sexual ethic. They are also guilty of sin. They are also “absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone.”&nbsp;We’re commanded to love them too. The same is true of any person who violates Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on sex or any other moral principle found in Scripture.</p>

<p>Now, are there some people who believe LGBT people are awful, not worthwhile, and not worthy of love and respect? Yes. In fact, I’ve met a few. After speaking at a church on this subject, one man confided in me and told me about his genuine homophobia. That is wrong, and I told him. Most Christians I speak to, though, aren’t like him. They express their frustration to me that though they love their LGBT friend or family member and treat them with respect, they’re told they’re being hateful because of their adherence to Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on sexuality.</p>

<p>That’s why the dichotomy presented so often in this discussion is a false dichotomy. There’s another option. We can recognize that people who violate Jesus’&nbsp;sexual ethic in Matthew 19 are committing a sin <em>and</em> are not awful. We can acknowledge that people sin <em>and</em> are still “absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone.”&nbsp;What a concept! Most Christians I know personally do this every day.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-lgbt-s-false-dichotomy-of-love-and-hate" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-lgbt-s-false-dichotomy-of-love-and-hate" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-lgbt-s-false-dichotomy-of-love-and-hate" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Universe Should Not Exist
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/03/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-universe-should-not-exist
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The scientists working at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, recently made headlines by announcing that <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500">the universe should not exist</a>.</p>

<p>Christian Smorra, a researcher at CERN, said, “All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist.”</p>

<h2>Particle Theory 101</h2>

<p>Most students learn in elementary school that atoms are made of electrons, neutrons, and protons. Later on, they find out that neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles called quarks. These fundamental particles make up everything in everyday life, including people, plants, and planets. Scientists call this <em>matter</em>.</p>

<p>But the universe contains more than just matter. It also contains <em>antimatter</em>. Antimatter is composed of antiparticles, which correspond to particles of ordinary matter. These antiparticles contain many of the same properties of particles, but with opposite charge and different quantum numbers. For example, electrons have antielectrons (called positrons), which have the same mass as electrons but opposite charge. Similarly, neutrons have antineutrons, and protons have antiprotons. From these antiparticles, we could create anti-atoms.</p>

<p>In fact, using antiparticles, we could, in theory, construct an entire anti-periodic table with elements of anti-hydrogen and anti-oxygen. From this table of elements, we could, in theory, create organisms like anti-bacteria, anti-dogs, and even anti-humans.</p>

<h2>An Observation</h2>

<p>Scientists have discovered that the universe is almost entirely composed of ordinary matter. Antimatter is extremely rare in the universe.</p>

<p>This observation has left scientists scratching their heads. According to the Standard Model of physics, the early universe should have produced <em>equal</em> amounts of matter and antimatter when it formed. But therein lies the problem. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other.</p>

<p>High-energy photon collisions in the early universe produced particle and antiparticle pairs. But as soon as these pairs collide, they produce photons <em>again</em>. Eventually, the photons in the universe do not have enough energy for particle/antiparticle pair production and only a sea of cooling photons remain. This phenomenon is being experimentally tested at the particle accelerators at CERN.</p>

<p>So, why is there a universe? The short answer is, <em>we don’t exactly know</em>. If the Standard Model is correct, this universe should be nothing but radiation. But it’s not. It’s full of matter, which is a necessary ingredient for life.</p>

<p>Here’s what we do know. There must have been an <em>asymmetry</em> in matter/antimatter pair production. In fact, scientists are able to measure that our universe contains one particle for every billion photons. That is, for every billion anti-particles in the early universe, there were a billion <em>and one</em> particles. This exact ratio would leave the amount of matter and radiation in our observed universe.</p>

<p>Scientists still don’t know what <em>caused</em> this precise asymmetrical ratio. All experimental results point towards symmetry, not asymmetry. Again, Smorra says, “All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist.”&nbsp;He goes on to say, “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?”</p>

<h2>Asymmetry and Fine-Tuning?</h2>

<p>While the source of the asymmetry is not known, this <em>might</em> suggest <a href="/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe">another</a> case for fine-tuning for life. Obviously, if there is no matter, there can be no life. Life needs matter. Therefore, the asymmetry is a necessary condition for a life-permitting universe.</p>

<p>After asking the question why asymmetry, it’s natural to ask, why <em>this</em> asymmetry? Why one part in a billion? Why <em>not</em> one part in a million, or one part in a trillion, or one part in two?</p>

<p>Our current understanding suggests this is an important ratio for life. A lower matter/antimatter asymmetry results in a universe that contains too little mass, and nothing of interest forms. No planets. No stars. No galaxies. On the other hand, a higher asymmetry results in a universe that would produce too much mass and is too dense for life.</p>

<p>As I said, this <em>suggests</em> fine-tuning, but the physics behind what actually caused the asymmetry is not yet understood. Until then, we’ll have to withhold judgment.</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-universe-should-not-exist" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-universe-should-not-exist" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-universe-should-not-exist" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Discriminating against People with Down Syndrome
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/25/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/discriminating-against-people-with-down-syndrome
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Richard Dawkins once <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/502106262088466432" target="_blank">responded</a> to a woman who wrote the following tweet: “I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.”&nbsp;Dawkins took no more than 60 seconds to read, deliberate, and post the following advice: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”&nbsp;Did you catch that? Not only should you have the <em>option</em> to kill a “kid with Down syndrome,”&nbsp;but it would be <em>immoral</em> not to abort.</p>

<p>Dawkins did <a href="https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/" target="_blank">clarify</a> his tweet the next day, but his view and advice remained the same.</p>

<p>As disturbing as his position sounds, his thinking is not uncommon. Despite this month (October) being <a href="https://www.ndss.org/" target="_blank">Down syndrome awareness month</a>, I found it unsettling to read the recent article, “<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-moral-duty-to-abort_us_59c3a01ae4b0ffc2dedb5b3c" target="_blank">A Moral Duty to Abort</a>.”&nbsp;It highlighted a few voices out there with similar reasoning as Dawkins’s. One professor argued that parents who don’t test for Down syndrome have “pushed the disability upon their children by not acting...morally they can be asked to be held amendable for their choice.”&nbsp;In other words, let’s punish parents who want to love and raise their children who have Down syndrome. This is horrible.</p>

<p>A recent <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/" target="_blank">CBS news story</a> said the abortion rate for Down syndrome in the United States is 67%. To my knowledge, only North Dakota has a law (still in effect) that bans abortions for children with Down syndrome.</p>

<p>This is unjust discrimination. I say it’s unjust because some discrimination is just. We don’t sell handguns to children or allow them to join the army. We don’t allow blind people to obtain a pilot’s license. These acts of discrimination (based on age or disability) are just.</p>

<p>Abortion of a child with Down syndrome is <em>unjust</em> discrimination. Unborn children with Down syndrome are bona fide human beings but are being discriminated against because they have a characteristic that some people arbitrarily believe disqualifies them from being valuable and protected.</p>

<p>Scientifically, we know <a href="https://youtu.be/-yeaRok0nPE?t=2m23s" target="_blank">the unborn is a human being</a>. That the child has trisomy 21 (the genetic condition causing Down syndrome) does not undermine this fact. Philosophically, we know there is <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/the-s.l.e.d.-test" target="_blank">no morally significant difference</a> between a <em>born</em> child with Down syndrome and an <em>unborn</em> child with it. Therefore, killing an unborn child because he has Down syndrome is unjust discrimination - a human being is disqualified from his protected status based on a characteristic that wouldn’t justify killing a born human with the same characteristic.</p>

<p>I realize that, technically speaking, since abortion is legal in the United States, a woman could abort her child whether he had trisomy 21 or not. That, of course, raises the broader point that I believe abortion itself is unjust discrimination, as I argue at the end of <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/the-s.l.e.d.-test" target="_blank">this article</a>.</p>

<p>But in an age where society decries discrimination and values diversity and inclusiveness, it’s hard to believe there are those who argue it’s morally preferable to abort a child with Down syndrome. The pro-life view, by contrast, is the view that is inclusive, upholds diversity, and doesn’t discriminate.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are Pro-Lifers Being Inconsistent if They Save the Mother’s Life Rather than the Baby’s?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/27/2017
source:
https://www.str.org/w/are-pro-lifers-being-inconsistent-if-they-save-the-mother-s-life-rather-than-the-baby-s-

content:
            <div> 
		<p>What response should one give to pro-choice advocates who claim pro-lifers don’t really believe the unborn has equal value to the born because we’re willing to sacrifice the unborn if the mother’s life is in danger?</p>

<p>It’s actually quite simple to deal with. If our view is that the unborn child is a fully valuable human being, exactly as valuable as the mother, we would approach the ethical problem like we would any other ethical dilemma where human lives are in the balance. We have to look at factors other than their value to decide what to do because their intrinsic value is exactly the same. We look at who it’s possible to save, as we would in any other dilemma where we can’t save everyone.</p>

<p>In the case of many ectopic pregnancies, for example, it’s a lethal circumstance for the mother. Let’s just take the objection at face value. If the mother’s life is genuinely being threatened, the child’s life is also being threatened by the very same thing. Essentially, you’re in an ethical dilemma where you have two lives being threatened, but you can’t save both. You can save one life or lose both lives, so you save as many lives as you can. Since, in such a circumstance, usually the baby is too young to be saved, you save the mom’s life. Usually it’s impossible to save the baby, and rather than let both mother and baby die, you save the mom.</p>

<p>This is a case where an ethical principle called the law of double effect comes into play. That is, there’s an action you are required to take ethically, the consequences of which, when viewed alone, would be immoral, but when taken in conjunction with the other circumstance, it’s the lesser of two evils. And even though you acknowledge that this is an evil because the death of the child would result, you do not <em>intend</em> the death of the child. It’s not the direct intention of the action. The purpose of the action is to save the life of the mother, not to take the life of the baby, even though that’s the consequence in this dilemma.</p>

<p>Now, what’s unfortunate in a lot of circumstances is that the notion of the <em>health</em> of the mother, as opposed to the <em>life</em> of the mother, is worked in legally. Because “health”&nbsp;is such an expansive term, if she’s even emotionally uncomfortable with the idea of having a baby, that’s used as an adequate reason to take the life of the child.</p>

<p>Here’s how you can clarify this question when asked: Treat the unborn exactly like you would any valuable human being. Would we justify killing a three-year-old so the mom would feel more comfortable in any sense? No, because the child’s life trumps any other reason that could be given, other than the dilemma offered in the question. The unborn and the born child should be treated the same way because the intrinsic value of each is the same.</p>

<p>In the case of the dilemma offered, we’re treating the unborn the same as the born. We treat them both as valuable, but we have to make a choice because it’s not possible to save both lives. This is where the law of double effect comes in.</p>

<p>There are lots of illustrations of moral dilemmas like this. For example, there’s the illustration of the child playing on the train tracks, where the father has to pull the lever to switch the tracks so the train can come through rather than derail, and he understands that the child will lose his life in the process. There’s the law of double effect. The intention is to save the lives of the people in the train, not to kill the child, but the child’s death is a foreseen consequence of that action.</p>

<p>The unborn has the same human value as the mother or any other born human being. Therefore, we don’t treat the unborn differently simply because it’s unborn. We treat it the same as we would any other human being in a true moral dilemma.</p>

<p>[<em>The above is adapted from a transcript of the <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/strask-october-23-2017#.WfJnJhOPJR0">10/23/17 episode of #STRask</a>.</em>]</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-being-inconsistent-if-they-save-the-mother-s-life-rather-than-the-baby-s-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-being-inconsistent-if-they-save-the-mother-s-life-rather-than-the-baby-s-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-being-inconsistent-if-they-save-the-mother-s-life-rather-than-the-baby-s-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Jesus the Archangel Michael?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-the-archangel-michael-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Jesus is the archangel Michael,”&nbsp;Jack said to me as we talked on my front porch. Jack was trying to make a point about end times, so I let the claim go for the moment. I knew it would send our discussion off in another direction. However, when our conversation ended, I asked if he would come back to discuss the reasons why he - and millions of other Jehovah’s Witnesses - believe Jesus is Michael.*</p>

<p>More specifically, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the archangel Michael was the very first being created by Jehovah-God. Michael was used by God to create all <em>other</em> things in the universe. They often refer to Him as the “master worker”&nbsp;(Prov. 8:30). I’ve responded to these challenges <a href="/w/was-jesus-the-first-created-being-">here</a> and <a href="/w/does-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-">here</a>, respectively.</p>

<p>Later, at the appointed time, Michael was born to the virgin Mary <em>as a human being</em>, thus ceasing to be an angel. Then after His <a href="/w/did-jesus-rise-physically-from-the-dead-"><em>spiritual</em> resurrection</a>, Jesus resumed His identity as Michael. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after His life on earth.</p>

<h2>Mistaken Identity</h2>

<p>Arguments are like houses. They have a roof that is supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. My Jehovah’s Witness friend, Jack, had asserted his conclusion without giving me any reasons to believe it. His claim was a roof lying on the ground without any walls. To be fair, I wanted to give him a chance to show me his biblical support.</p>

<p>That opportunity came this week. After we finished with pleasantries, I gave Jack fifteen minutes of uninterrupted time to explain his reasons for believing Jesus is the angel Michael. We started by turning to Daniel 10 and 12.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, <em>one of the chief princes</em>, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia...But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, <em>your prince</em>. (Dan. 10:13, 21)</p>

<p>At that time shall arise <em>Michael, the great prince</em> who has charge of your people. (Dan. 12:1)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jack said to me, “See, Michael is the foremost, or chief, prince!”&nbsp;I didn’t say a word.</p>

<p>Next, he asked me to turn to Isaiah 9.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For to us a child is born,</p>

<p>to us a son is given;</p>

<p>and the government shall be upon his shoulder,</p>

<p>and his name shall be called</p>

<p>Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,</p>

<p>Everlasting Father, <em>Prince of Peace</em>. (Isa. 9:6)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice the prophet Isaiah calls the child the “prince of peace.”&nbsp;Therefore, Jack argued, since Michael is the great prince of God’s people, and Jesus is called the prince of peace, Michael must be Jesus.</p>

<p>He jumped to a couple of other verses, but let’s stop right there. If you’re an astute reader, you can probably identify a number of errors already.</p>

<p>First, Daniel 10 and 12 make no <em>explicit</em> reference to Jesus. He’s just not there in the text. This has to be read <em>into</em> the text.</p>

<p>Second, Michael is <em>not</em> called the chief prince. He is called <em>one of</em> the chief princes. There is a group of chief princes, and Michael is one among that group. Conversely, Jesus is absolutely unique. He is not one among many; rather, He is one-of-a-kind. Jesus is the “King of kings and the Lord of lords”&nbsp;(Rev. 19:16), who created all the angelic host (Col. 1:16). He is God’s <em>only</em> Son (John 3:16).</p>

<p>Jack’s response was telling. He kept asserting that Michael <em>is</em> the chief prince. But that’s not what the text says. I pushed him to read the actual words of the text again. And it was as if he was so used to his interpretation of Dan. 10:13 that he didn’t realize what the text <em>actually</em> said.</p>

<p>In fact, he could barely read the words without immediately adding his own. “But Michael, <em>one of the chief princes</em>,��&nbsp;Jack began, but quickly added, “who is the foremost prince. Michael is the chief prince, who is one of the chief princes.”</p>

<p>It was difficult to witness such a blatant refusal to read and understand the clear words in the text.</p>

<p>Third, there is no connection between Isa. 9:6, and Dan. 10 and 12 to justify the conclusion that Jesus is Michael. True, Michael and Jesus are both referred to as princes. But, so what? A lot of people in the Bible are called “princes.”&nbsp;In fact, using the Jehovah’s Witness logic you can easily show that Jesus is Jehovah.</p>

<p>In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called “mighty God.”&nbsp;And a few verses later, speaking about Jehovah, Isaiah says, “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to <em>the mighty God”</em> (Isa. 10:21). Since both Jesus and Jehovah are called mighty God, Jesus is Jehovah.</p>

<h2>Jesus Is Not an Angel</h2>

<p>In Hebrews 1-3, the author sets out to demonstrate that Jesus is superior to the prophets, angels, and Moses. We’re told Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God (1:1-2), the Creator of the world (1:2), and the exact imprint of God’s nature (1:3). After explicitly stating He is “much superior to angels,”&nbsp;the author of Hebrews writes, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ’You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”</p>

<p>The obvious answer to this hypothetical question is that God <em>never</em> said that to <em>any</em> angel. Rather, in Mark 1:11, God says to <em>Jesus</em>, “You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.”</p>

<p>In verse 6, we are told the angels <em>worship Jesus</em>. How could a created being receive worship? A created being <em>cannot</em> receive worship. In fact, when the apostle John fell down at an angel’s feet to worship him, the angel said, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God”&nbsp;(Rev. 19:10).</p>

<p>Finally, verses 8-12 make it abundantly clear why the angels worship Jesus. It’s because <a href="/w/ready-for-the-knock-on-your-door">He is Jehovah-God.</a> In light of Hebrews 1, Jesus <em>cannot</em> be a mere created angel - even the archangel Michael.</p>

<p>Upon close scrutiny, the arguments for Jesus being identified as Michael do not hold up. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews goes out of his way to show that Jesus is vastly superior to any angel, including Michael.</p>

<p>At the end of my discussion with Jack, I was a little speechless. On the one hand, Jack claimed the Bible has <em>no evidence</em> for the deity of Christ. And, on the other hand, he boldly asserted that the Bible teaches that Jesus is Michael. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. As we spoke, the apostle Paul’s words echoed in my head, ���They exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”</p>

<p>Please join me in praying that God would guide Jack to the Truth.</p>

<p>*<em>The Watchtower,</em> 15 December 1984, p.29, “Michael, the great prince, is none other than Jesus Christ 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%2Fis-jesus-the-archangel-michael-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-jesus-the-archangel-michael-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-jesus-the-archangel-michael-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Upholding the Value of Disabled People
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/upholding-the-value-of-disabled-people
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s sad, but unsurprising, that many people advocate the killing of <em>unborn</em> human beings through abortion. What’s more shocking is that people now advocate the killing of <em>born</em> human beings in their infancy. This is due to a growing trend to disqualify disabled infants from being valuable and deem their life unworthy.</p>

<p>I first heard this argument from Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer. He argued that it’s morally permissible to kill a disabled infant for up to four weeks after she is born. His rationale? Happiness. He explains, “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second.”</p>

<p>Chilling.</p>

<p>Noted evolutionist Jerry Coyne agrees with Singer. He writes, “If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral.”&nbsp;Both Coyne and Singer believe that birth is an arbitrary dividing line and that nothing substantially changes when the unborn passes through the birth canal. Tragically, they are both consistent. On their view, if you can kill a disabled person <em>before</em> she is born, then you can kill the same disabled child <em>after</em> she is born.</p>

<p>Such barbaric views are justified because of a shift in the way our society values human beings. Historically, human beings were believed to have <em>intrinsic</em> value. Something has intrinsic value if it has value in itself. Its value is inherent in its own existence. Friendship, health, and love are examples of things that are intrinsically valuable. Human beings have intrinsic value because of one reason: They are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).</p>

<p>Notice that being made in God’s image is not a degreed property. You can’t have more or less of the image of God. You’re either made in God’s image or you’re not.</p>

<p>If our value comes from being made in God’s image, then we cannot lose that value if we lose our limbs, our physical abilities, or our mental abilities. Nothing can change our value because it’s not dependent on our abilities or any external factor.</p>

<p>Society is abandoning this view of intrinsic value. What remains is the view that human beings have <em>instrumental</em> value. Something has instrumental value if it’s a means to an end. It doesn’t have value in itself but is valuable only because it can get you something else that has value. For example, a one-dollar sparkler is not <em>inherently</em> worth one dollar; it’s valuable because it can get you something else that has value - entertainment. How much is the same sparkler worth once it’s burned and used? Nothing. That’s because it’s lost its ability to get you that other thing that has value. When an instrumentally valuable thing loses its ability to get you something else that has value, then it ceases to be valuable and you can throw it away.</p>

<p>Most things we own have instrumental value: cars, phones, and computers are valuable only because they are a means to some other valuable end.</p>

<p>The problem is that it is increasingly more common to believe human beings are instrumentally valuable. They are only valuable because they can achieve some other valuable end: create art, raise children, work at a job, and contribute to society. But the moment they lose those abilities is the precise moment they lose their value. They, too, can be thrown away.</p>

<p>In a society that treats human beings as if they have only instrumental value, the strong prevail and the weak are discarded. People with disabilities are at risk because they have lost some of their abilities. If instrumental value is the only value they have, then their diminished function diminishes their value. That’s why Singer and Coyne advocate infanticide of disabled newborns. They reject the idea that we are made in God’s image and don’t have a way to justify a disabled person’s value apart from what that person can do.</p>

<p>It’s critical, then, that believers bring back the concept of intrinsic value into our society. We need to show that every human is valuable <em>because they are human</em> and not because of what they can or can’t do. This, by the way, is consistent with our country’s formation. Our founding documents declare, “All men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...”</p>

<p>An intrinsic value system provides a foundation for human rights, equal rights, and an imperative to protect the weak, vulnerable, and disabled. It’s also a bulwark against racism, discrimination, and bigotry.</p>

<p>That’s why Martin Luther King, Jr. was justified in his case for the civil rights of African-Americans. He was a Christian who believed in the image of God - the only thing that grants every human being <em>intrinsic</em> value and <em>equal</em> value. May believers have the confidence and courage, like King, to stand for this truth and protect the disabled.</p>
</div>

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


title: Three Reasons Why People Interpret the Bible Differently
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/31/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-reasons-why-people-interpret-the-bible-differently
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was asked, “If there is a way to correctly interpret Scripture, then why do so many ’learned’&nbsp;people come away with different interpretations?”&nbsp;Variations of this question come up from time to time: If a god had really inspired the Bible, wouldn’t he have written it clearly enough for everyone to understand? Don’t disagreements on the meaning of the text disprove its divine origins? People can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say; doesn’t that prove there’s no one correct interpretation?</p>

<p>If God intended to communicate a particular meaning through the biblical authors, and if God inspired their writing, why do people interpret the Bible differently? The fault lies not with God or with the text but with us. Here are three reasons why this happens.</p>

<p>1) We’re sinful. Our sin keeps us from seeing things clearly. We <em>want</em> certain things to be true, and we close our eyes to other things we don’t want to be true. I see this happen all the time. I see people’s ability to reason go down in proportion to how strongly they’re resisting God and His authority over their lives, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+1%3A18-32&amp;version=NASB">Romans 1</a> confirms this pattern.</p>

<p>The scary thing is, I’m certain I’ve done the same with parts of what I believe because I know I’m also a sinner. But I can’t see which of my ideas have been compromised. Because I know this happens, when I face temptations, I remind myself that I’m putting my ability to see truth in jeopardy. And I pray all the time that God will keep me from sin and humble me so that I can see and accept what He’s saying to me through the Bible.</p>

<p>2) People often have a second authority, in addition to the Bible, to which they’ve granted the final word on their interpretation. Whether that authority is parents and family, church tradition, ideas in the culture, or the head of a denomination, if the Bible is interpreted <em>through</em> and <em>under</em> something else, the result will be distorted (particularly when coupled with reason #1).</p>

<p>3) Not everyone is using good hermeneutical skills to interpret the Bible. Being “learned”&nbsp;doesn’t guarantee you’re using what you’ve learned, or even that you learned it in the first place. When you see that people have different interpretations, dig a little deeper. <em>Why</em> do they interpret the passage the way they do? Ask questions and follow the trail of their reasoning. Do they stay within the text to make their case, or do they appeal to something else? Can they show you how the biblical writer’s train of thought leads step by step to their conclusion? Are they considering the passage in the context of the chapter, the book, the Bible? Are they interpreting it in light of the genre (type) of the writing (history, wisdom literature, Gospel, etc.)? Are they taking the author’s time and culture into account?</p>

<p>This is how you can compare the different interpretations. Usually, if you start digging into the reasoning behind the conclusion, it doesn’t take long to discover who seems to be making the better case. But give yourself the best start possible by learning some skills. I recommend Fee and Stuart’s <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK141"><em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em></a> or Walt Russell’s <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK171"><em>Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul</em></a>.</p>

<p>Here’s my prescription for coming as close as possible to the meaning intended by God: Pray for sanctification and submission to God, come to the Bible with a <em>willingness</em> to sacrifice the theological ideas you’ve gleaned previously from other influences in submission to what you find in the text, pray for the Holy Spirit to illuminate what He has written, and then use every hermeneutical tool to the utmost of your reasoning ability (including considering the arguments of people who have thought through this before you).</p>

<p>[<em>Adapted from a post originally published <a href="https://strplace.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/why-do-people-interpret-the-bible-differently/">here</a></em>.]</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-people-interpret-the-bible-differently" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-people-interpret-the-bible-differently" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-people-interpret-the-bible-differently" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Consequences of Putting Second Things First
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/15/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-consequences-of-putting-second-things-first
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA) is catching <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/creationist-alberta-homeschool-convention-1.4392300">some flak</a> for inviting Ken Ham to keynote their annual convention. Ken Ham is the president and CEO of <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/">Answers in Genesis</a>, which is a leading young-earth creationist ministry. Answers in Genesis also runs the <a href="https://creationmuseum.org/">Creation Museum</a> and <a href="https://arkencounter.com/">Ark Encounter</a> in Kentucky.</p>

<p>My point in writing is <em>not</em> to weigh in on the validity of young-earth creationism. As far as I’m concerned, the Alberta homeschooling group should have the right to invite whomever they want. If homeschooling parents don’t like the speaker, they won’t attend.</p>

<p>What concerns me is something I read in the article reporting on the event. Specifically, the article says, “Calgarian Paul Ens says he walked away from his Christian faith after reading Ham’s creationist literature.”&nbsp;Moreover, he’s since started a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIS4cWaXgWpznjwovFYQBJQ">YouTube channel</a> dedicated to responding to young-earth creationists. On his channel, Paul says, “Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis made me an atheist.”</p>

<p>When I read this, I had to pause. I almost couldn’t believe it. This person actually walked away from his faith <em>because</em> of a rejection of young-earth creationism. This should sound odd to every Christian - young and old creationist alike.</p>

<h2>First Things First</h2>

<p>We need to keep first things first. There are essentials and there are non-essentials. For example, the physical resurrection of Jesus is essential to Christianity. There is no Christianity without the resurrection of Christ. The apostle Paul explicitly states, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 15:14). Therefore, at the <em>foundation</em> of Christianity lies the physical resurrection of Jesus.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the age of the earth is non-essential to Christianity. This means that even if someone could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is billions of years old, it wouldn’t undermine Christianity. In fact, there are millions of Christians with a high view of Scripture who <em>do not</em> interpret Genesis 1 as creation occurring in six consecutive 24-hour days about 6000 years ago.</p>

<p>Again, I’m <em>not</em> wading into this debate either way. My point is this: <em>denying a young earth does not entail denying the Christian faith.</em></p>

<p>Sadly, this gentleman got things in the wrong order. And it had serious consequences. He put <em>second things first</em> by placing young-earth creationism at the foundation of Christianity. As a result, when <em>his interpretation</em> of Genesis was allegedly refuted, he took this as a refutation of Christianity as a whole.</p>

<p>Genesis 1 can be faithfully interpreted in different ways. True, young-earth creationism is one way. But so is old-earth creationism. And if it turns out that we have good reasons to believe in an old earth, then that would do nothing to undermine the truth of Christianity. Christianity doesn’t stand or fall on a particular view of the age of the earth.</p>

<p>Contrary to this gentleman’s belief, evidence of dinosaurs existing 65-million-years ago doesn’t refute Christianity. In fact, such a belief is evidence that he doesn’t understand Christianity.</p>

<p>As Christians, we must remember that all beliefs are not equal. They do not carry equal weight. My belief in the existence of God is much weightier than my belief about end times. Whereas refuting the former disproves Christianity, refuting the latter <em>only</em> disproves my interpretation of end-times prophecy.</p>

<p>So what should this gentleman have done? If he doesn’t think young-earth creationism is true, then the rational response would be to look for a <em>better</em> interpretation that makes sense of God’s Word and God’s world. The irrational response would be to conclude that God does not exist. Yet, that’s exactly what he did.</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-consequences-of-putting-second-things-first" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-consequences-of-putting-second-things-first" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-consequences-of-putting-second-things-first" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: False Beliefs Lead to Sexual Sin
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 11/22/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/false-beliefs-lead-to-sexual-sin
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Rosaria Butterfield has a characteristically insightful <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/don-t-leave-your-husband-for-her">article</a> about sexual sin and the false beliefs that precede it. Her example is about homosexuality, but her points apply to any sexual sin a Christian may be tempted to engage in: adultery, premarital sex, etc.</p>

<p>Why is sexual sin often justified by Christians today? Because Christians are more influenced by our culture than by the Bible - they have false beliefs shaped by society’s values rather than the Bible’s.</p>

<p>The first false belief is that our feelings are God and we must follow our feelings to truly be ourselves. Butterfield succinctly rebuts this: “Your feelings aren’t your God. Your God is your God.”</p>

<p>And she points out that this is good news. We are not slaves to our feelings and our sinful natures. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we can resist temptation and sometimes change our feelings and desires, redirecting them to what is intrinsically good and beautiful.</p>

<p>She goes on to point out, “Modernity’s identity is piecemealed from the unconverted woman that you once were.”&nbsp;Identity in the modern world is significantly focused on our sexuality - gay or straight. While God did create our sexuality, our sexuality is also broken by the Fall. It’s also one part of who we are and doesn’t make up our identity. Our identities aren’t cobbled together pieces of our feelings and commitments - gay-Christian, straight-Christian. <a href="/w/sexuality-identity-sin-and-denying-ourselves-to-follow-christ">Our identities are in Christ</a>. We are Christian - Christ-followers. We get our identity from Him. We are broken, sinful people; but we are also saved, renewed, and filled with the Holy Spirit. We shouldn’t borrow ideas from our culture that compromise that.</p>

<p>Butterfield counsels: Repent of your sinful beliefs. It’s not only our actions and behavior that are sinful; our thoughts and false beliefs are sinful. And it’s the sin in our beliefs that leads to sin in our actions. We have to allow God to examine our hearts and minds and show us where we hold false beliefs that lead us to behave sinfully.</p>

<p>While we are Christian, we are also residents of a culture that influences all of us. We need to be vigilant in examining our beliefs and take false ones captive. We cannot do the job of the church in our culture - calling people to be reconciled to God through Jesus - if we are captive to it. Especially when we don’t realize 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%2Ffalse-beliefs-lead-to-sexual-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%2Ffalse-beliefs-lead-to-sexual-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%2Ffalse-beliefs-lead-to-sexual-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: Three Bad Arguments against Life Beginning at Conception
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/16/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-bad-arguments-against-life-beginning-at-conception
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An <a href="https://www.romper.com/p/3-ways-science-proves-life-doesnt-begin-at-conception-despite-what-the-hhs-strategic-plan-is-telling-you-3199987/amp">article on Romper</a> argues “3 Ways Science Proves Life Doesn’t Begin at Conception,”&nbsp;and the arguments are not good ones. To begin with, the author is not actually arguing that embryonic humans are not alive (this is clear, since she also argues we should be allowed to kill them). Rather, she’s arguing that these reasons prove embryonic human beings are not <em>valuable</em> human life.</p>

<p>To test whether her reasons prove embryonic human beings are not valuable - i.e., 1) many embryos die, 2) many embryos have genetic abnormalities, and 3) embryos can’t survive without receiving sustenance from another human being - I’ve slightly adjusted the words of the three points in her article in order to apply her value-determining principles to newborns. Since we’re not used to hearing these arguments made about newborns, you’ll hear them with fresh ears, which should provide some clarity. See if you find them convincing.</p>

<blockquote>
<h2>1. A Newborn Can Turn into a Toddler - But That Doesn’t Mean It Will</h2>

<p>Regardless of your viewpoint regarding newborns, it <em>does</em> make some sense that anti-infanticide advocates consider birth as the beginning of life. Once a baby is born, it has the chance to eventually grow into a toddler, who theoretically could become capable and self-aware and, thus, would be considered a person with all the associated rights. But as <a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/04/12/medethics-2011-100411">ethicists promoting after-birth abortion</a> have pointed out, birth shouldn’t be considered the beginning of life, because, well, biology is much more complicated and flawed than our ideological opinions might like it to be.</p>

<p>Protecting the rights of newborns might seem like a good way to ensure they grow into toddlers, but the idea doesn’t even sort of align with the medical reality because there are newborns that never become toddlers, but instead die in various, natural ways.</p>

<h2>2. Many Complications Can (And Often Do) Occur between Birth and Childhood</h2>

<p>Then there’s the fact that, while we may prefer to think of birth as a beautiful time in which a human being grows and flourishes without issue, it’s often the case that something goes wrong. Early deaths occur, sometimes due to nothing more than a chromosomal mixup. And as upsetting as that can be, it’s ultimately just a reality of the human body.</p>

<p>Complicating matters further, though, is that significant genetic abnormalities or other complications don’t always result in the death of the baby. In these cases, killing the baby can be the medically-advised option. But a definition of life beginning at birth can change what would otherwise be considered the best medical option, as the baby would have to be allowed to live, regardless of the outcome.</p>

<h2>3. Without the Mother, the Newborn Wouldn’t Survive</h2>

<p>Perhaps the most obvious argument against the idea of life beginning at birth, though, is that it takes a long time after birth before that newborn will have become a child capable of obtaining food and water on its own. In many cases, this happens around two or three years. Babies who are just born still need quite extensive intervention to live.</p>

<p>It’s not exactly news that a baby can’t survive on its own, but it’s actually a very important distinction from a technical standpoint. If a baby needs another person’s bodily actions in order to live, then it means that person is essentially lending her body to the baby to allow it to survive. Again, that baby might eventually be able to be a human being existing in the world independently, but for a long while, it is <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument#.WgYfSBOPJR0">entirely dependent on another person’s body to sustain it</a>. While making birth the beginning of life might be helpful for anti-infanticide advocacy, it unnecessarily infringes on the rights of adult humans, who could then be expected to continue to use their bodies to care for a growing baby.</p>

<p>Infanticide has always been an incredibly controversial topic, and it’s unlikely that that will change anytime soon. But ideological notions of protecting babies from “murder”&nbsp;just don’t align with what science and medicine knows to be true: that there isn’t much about making birth the beginning of life that is actually helpful or valuable.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hopefully, that sounds horrifying to you. In the <a href="https://www.romper.com/p/3-ways-science-proves-life-doesnt-begin-at-conception-despite-what-the-hhs-strategic-plan-is-telling-you-3199987/amp">original article</a>, the author arbitrarily applied these arguments to embryonic human beings, but as you can see, they could just as easily be applied to newborns since newborns share the relevant qualities of dependence and vulnerability. Therefore, if her arguments did not convince you newborn humans are not valuable human beings, then neither should they convince you embryonic humans are not valuable human beings. The reasons she offers are simply not relevant to a human being’s value.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-bad-arguments-against-life-beginning-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%2Fthree-bad-arguments-against-life-beginning-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%2Fthree-bad-arguments-against-life-beginning-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: Hell Interrupted—Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/31/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/hell-interrupted-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>By Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl</strong></p>

<p>Hell is not a pleasant topic. It’s an ugly, unsettling, dangerous reality—expedient to dismiss, easy to avoid serious discussion about, convenient to disregard by joking about in a way that trivializes it.</p>

<p>This will not do, though, because the sobering certainty about Hell is this: One day every person who has ever lived will stand in judgment for their conduct in this life. For multitudes, that will not go well because for them, when the final gavel falls, Hell will be their sentence.</p>

<p>The nature of that sentence is our concern here. However, regardless of how one construes what happens in Hell, one point is clear: Hell is the end of the line. It is the final state. It is the ultimate destination for the damned. Hell’s door is shut forever, and its sentence can never be undone, revoked, or reversed. Ever.</p>

<p>When dealing with something as real and as dreadful as Hell, then, it is important we get our facts straight. Our interests are best served by sticking with a reliable authority. In “<a href="/w/hell-interrupted-part-1">Hell Interrupted Part 1</a>”&nbsp;<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> we reasoned that if you want to know what Hell is actually like, let God tell you. More precisely, listen to what Jesus says not just about the <em>reality</em> of Hell, but also about the <em>subjective nature</em> of that dread sentence. The Son created Hell. He sustains it. He is the one who decides who ends up there.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> And He is the one who sounds the clearest, unambiguous warnings of its dangers.</p>

<p>Here is what we found.</p>

<p>In our <a href="/w/hell-interrupted-part-1">first installment</a> we pointed out that what happens at the final judgment is a critical piece of the Christian theological puzzle. Eternal judgment (however it’s ultimately defined) is an “elementary teaching”&nbsp;at the very foundation of Christian doctrine.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> We also noted that for two millennia the church universal was not divided on the doctrine of unceasing suffering for those condemned to Hell. Indeed (we noted), there was more debate about the Trinity than there was about Hell’s misery.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>There was a reason for the large consensus in the church about Hell’s anguish. Christians were convinced this was what Jesus Himself taught. Christ said that when He comes in glory, He will banish the “accursed”&nbsp;goats from His presence, sending them into the furnace of “the eternal fire...prepared for the devil and his angels.”&nbsp;There they will experience ongoing, conscious “wailing”&nbsp;and “weeping”&nbsp;and “gnashing...teeth”&nbsp;in the of agony of “eternal punishment.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> This, we argued, is the plain, ordinary sense of Jesus’&nbsp;teaching on Hell.</p>

<p>Further, we learned that Jesus’&nbsp;own teaching dovetails perfectly with John’s description of the same event. At the end of the age the devil is “thrown into the lake of fire”&nbsp;where he “will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”&nbsp;All those who worship the beast and his image, along with all those whose names are not found in the book of life, suffer the same fate—“tormented with fire”&nbsp;with “no rest day and night”—in the same place, “the lake of fire.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Again, this is the ordinary and natural reading of John’s description of Hell’s punishing flames.</p>

<p>There is more to the story, though, some say. Conditionalists—those who hold to the annihilation of the wicked at the judgment—insist that Jesus’&nbsp;and John’s descriptions be interpreted in light of other passages, texts they think give an entirely different picture. Fair enough. We’ll take a look. First, though, some basic rules of order.</p>

<h2>A Point on Procedure</h2>

<p>Both conditionalists and traditionalists read the same biblical texts but come to different conclusions about what those passages mean. Is there a way to judge fairly between diverse interpretations offered by equally sincere people who all share a high view of Scripture? We think there is.</p>

<p>According to <em>Introduction to Biblical Interpretation</em>, a standard text on the craft of interpreting the Bible,<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup>&nbsp;“God intended the Bible to function...as a window into the worlds and <em>meanings of the authors</em>...,”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> and, “The writers...of the Bible intended to communicate to their readers <em>in the same way people normally communicate</em> [emphases added].”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> These are common-sense notions everyone in this discussion is committed to.</p>

<p>Our goal when interpreting any communication, then, is to determine <em>an author’s intended meaning</em> using <em>the ordinary conventions of language</em>. Here’s where the basic “rules of order”—a handful of equally common-sense interpretive principles—come into play. We suggest three.</p>

<p>First, “Each statement must be understood according to its natural meaning in the literary context in which it occurs.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Simply put, context is king. The meaning of any text is derived from the flow of thought in the immediate context of a passage without reference to any other books—or, especially, another Testament—<em>if the contextualized meaning itself is straightforward</em>. As some have put it, “If the plain sense makes common sense, don’t add any other sense to it.”</p>

<p>Second, “The correct interpretation of Scripture is the meaning required by the <em>normal meaning of the words</em> in the context in which they occur [emphasis added].”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Most words are equivocal (having multiple possible meanings) rather than univocal (having only one meaning). This rule says that we let the text tell us the <em>specific</em> meaning from the <em>range of meanings</em> of any word or phrase.</p>

<p>Our first two rules are consistent with our common-sense approach to ordinary communication. The third is unique to the Bible: “Biblical teaching in earlier parts of the Bible...are developed and enlarged in later revelation...In some instances, <em>God reveals His truth progressively</em> [emphasis added].”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>Often, the first word is not the complete story. Later revelation gives us the fullest picture, the most complete characterization. Consequently, “where earlier revelation has progressively prepared the way for later formulation of God’s truth, <em>we must give priority to the later</em> [emphasis added].”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> Put simply, the final word is the last word.</p>

<p>These three well-established, standard principles of hermeneutics are not controversial and comprise basic canons of biblical interpretation. They are the rules everyone follows to get the meanings right. We are looking for 1) the common-sense meaning of a passage, in light of 2) the meanings of the words as the authors use them in context, while 3) being sensitive to the flow of progressive revelation where later writers provide more clarity to our doctrine.</p>

<p>With those ground rules in place, it’s time to look at a central argument of the conditionalists: the language of death and destruction.</p>

<h2>Dead and Gone?</h2>

<p>Let’s go directly to the heart of the conditionalists’&nbsp;complaint, what might be called the “vocabulary of destruction.”&nbsp;Note Clark Pinnock:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Bible repeatedly uses the language of death, destruction, ruin, and perishing when speaking of the fate of the wicked. It uses the imagery of fire consuming (not torturing) what is thrown into it. The images of fire and destruction together strongly suggest annihilation rather than unending torture...Does the burden of proof not rest with the traditionalists to explain why the strong impression of the destruction of the wicked that the Bible gives its readers should not just be believed? <sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Edward Fudge—who some consider the father of the modern conditionalist movement—writes, “The Old Testament utilizes some 50 Hebrew words and 75 figures of speech to describe the ultimate end of the wicked—and every one sounds...like total extinction.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> The venerable John Stott weighed in with, “It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>The point sounds compelling at first glance, but note D. A. Carson’s important observation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Stott’s conclusion...is memorable, but useless as an argument, because it is merely tautologous: <em>of course</em> those who suffer <em>destruction</em> are <em>destroyed</em>. But it does not follow that those who suffer destruction cease to exist. Stott has assumed his definition of “destruction”&nbsp;in his epigraph. [Carson’s emphasis.]<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do not miss Carson’s meaning. Treating “destruction”&nbsp;words (et al.) as if they had only one meaning (the conditionalists’&nbsp;meaning) is not an argument, but question-begging (Carson’s “tautology”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup>). His point applies equally to Fudge’s references and to Pinnock’s “strong impression of the <em>destruction</em> of the wicked.”&nbsp;So here’s our question. Do those words mean total destruction, that is, complete non-existence—annihilation—as conditionalists conclude? They do not—at least, not <em>necessarily</em>, and that is the key.</p>

<p>“Destroy,”&nbsp;for example, does not always mean loss of <em>being</em>, but often means loss of <em>well-being</em>, as New Testament scholar Douglas Moo demonstrates:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The key words for “destroy”&nbsp;and “destruction”&nbsp;can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (<em>olethros</em> in Ezek. 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (<em>apoleia</em> in Matt. 26:8; Mk. 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (<em>apollymi</em> in Matt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37); to a coin that is useless because it is “lost”&nbsp;(<em>apollymi</em> in Lk. 15:9); or to the entire world that “perishes,”&nbsp;as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state.<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This way of understanding “death”&nbsp;and “destruction”&nbsp;comports completely with our common-sense use of those notions. In fact, most of the time we do not use them to mean “cease to exist.”&nbsp;If a tornado destroys a house, the debris remains but is useless <em>for its intended purpose</em> as a suitable shelter. If bad news “destroys”&nbsp;our vacation, the enjoyment is gone, but the holiday labors on. If cancer kills a patient, the body remains even though some part of that person has “passed <em>away</em>.”&nbsp;Some part has gone <em>elsewhere</em>, which is precisely what the biblical record teaches (e.g., Lk. 23:43).</p>

<p>To be destroyed or to suffer death or to be “wiped out”&nbsp;or to “be no more”&nbsp;or any of its other equivalents does not mean to vanish. In the Bible, destruction language is not synonymous with nonexistence.</p>

<p>Here is the problem. Conditionalists jump to passages in the Old Testament describing the destruction of the wicked, yet consistently fail to make the distinction between <em>earthly</em> destruction and <em>eternal</em> nonexistence. Pinnock writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Consider Psalm 37 where we read that the wicked fade like grass and wither like the herb (v. 2), that they will be cut off and be no more (v. 9-10), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (v. 20), and be altogether destroyed (v. 38).<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, in this very Psalm (like many others), David contrasts the <em>earthly</em> fate of the wicked with the <em>earthly</em> fate of the righteous. Verse 9 simply says, “For evildoers will be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord, they will inherit the land.”</p>

<p>Being “cut off”&nbsp;does not mean finally and irreversibly annihilated. It means to be killed. In Exodus God refers to Jews being “cut off from the earth”&nbsp;through pestilence (9:15). Sabbath breakers were to be “cut off from among God’s people”&nbsp;(Ex. 31:14)—executed, that is (cf. Num. 15:32-36). Indeed, Daniel tells us “the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing”&nbsp;(9:26).</p>

<p>David continues, “In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully <em>at his place</em>, he will not be there”&nbsp;(Ps. 37:10). The wicked are gone from their <em>place</em>. That’s all. Pinnock’s passage does not teach that they cease to exist. It doesn’t address that issue. That is not David’s intention.</p>

<p>Examples like this are legion. “Let sinners be consumed <em>from the earth</em>, and let the wicked be no more”&nbsp;(Ps. 104:35), or, “He has utterly <em>destroyed</em> them. He has given them over to <em>slaughter</em>. So their <em>slain</em> will be thrown out, and their <em>corpses</em> will give off their stench...”&nbsp;(Is. 34:2-3), or, “I will <em>blot out</em> man whom I have created <em>from the face of the land</em>...”&nbsp;Gen. 6:7.</p>

<p>The wicked are <em>physically</em> destroyed. Their <em>bodies</em> are blotted out and their <em>cities</em> vanish in the smoke of judgment. That is the plain sense of these passages. That is the intended meaning, in the context. That and no more.</p>

<p>Here we return to one of our core hermeneutical rules of order. Everything hinges on how “destruction”&nbsp;words were treated <em>by the original authors</em>. Check any Old Testament text cited to support annihilation and ask if the author is principally describing the physical, earthly perspective, or is he <em>unequivocally</em> describing the eternal fate of the wicked. <sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup></p>

<p>Contrary to the conditionalists’&nbsp;view, death and destruction and nonexistence simply <em>are not interchangeable terms</em> in these texts. It does not matter how many Old Testament examples there are—thousands, even—if the entire lot of them is compromised in exactly the same way. Nothing can be inferred about the eternal state of the wicked from statements that focus on temporal punishment. That must be determined on other grounds.</p>

<p>Do any Scriptures address the <em>eternal</em> fate of the wicked? Yes, they do, with clarity.</p>

<h2>Dead and Away</h2>

<p>Scripture uses destruction language to describe eternal judgments, too. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell”&nbsp;(Matt. 10:28). Does Jesus mean annihilation? He doesn’t say, but Paul does.</p>

<p>Paul offers a clear picture of the <em>nature</em> of eternal destruction in 2 Thess. 1:9. He says that at the coming of Christ the wicked “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...”</p>

<p>Once again we have destruction language, but notice the qualifier. The apostle uses <em>spatial</em> language. A nonexistent being can have no spatial relationship to God. Those who do not exist are not “away”&nbsp;in any sense.</p>

<p>Earlier in this passage (v. 6) Paul also says it is “just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you.”&nbsp;The punishment is in kind—affliction for affliction. Affliction is <em>felt</em> and banishment is <em>experienced</em>. Both require conscious existence. None of this can happen with annihilationism.</p>

<p>Additionally, Paul’s destruction/banishment language fits like a glove with Jesus’&nbsp;and John’s own characterization of the damned who are told to “depart”&nbsp;who are “cast out”&nbsp;and “thrown out”&nbsp;and “go away into eternal punishment”&nbsp;and are “thrown into”&nbsp;the lake of fire.<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup></p>

<p>Because they are banished, the wicked are “destroyed,”&nbsp;that is, <em>ruined</em> for their original purpose of eternal friendship with God. Destruction isn’t eternal annihilation; it’s <em>eternal alienation</em>—total and everlasting separation from God.</p>

<p>There is complete harmony with each of these texts. Not surprisingly, these details come from the New Testament, completely in keeping with our rule regarding progressive revelation. The Old Testament gives us part of the picture; the New Testament provides the rest.</p>

<p>How do conditionalists respond? Since it’s difficult to take exception with the plain sense of 2 Thess. 1:9 read in context, conditionalists contest the translation. They contend the Greek should not be rendered “away from”&nbsp;but rather “comes from,”&nbsp;that God’s presence is the <em>source</em> of the destruction with nothing said about location. Note conditionalist Pere Grice: “The conditionalist reading is that the glorious presence and power of the Lord causes the punishment of destruction, which is everlasting because it is God’s permanent judgment.”<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup></p>

<p>This simply will not work. Virtually all modern translations render the Greek as “away from,”&nbsp;“separated from,”&nbsp;or “shut out from”&nbsp;for good reason. Paul quotes Is. 2:10 here. In the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul is probably quoting from here—the Greek is almost ­identical. Isaiah describes the wicked hiding “<em>from</em> the terror of the Lord and <em>from</em> the splendor of His majesty.”&nbsp;That’s spatial language. The translators have not erred.</p>

<p>There is no safe harbor for conditionalists with this move. Paul speaks clearly. The plain sense of the passage makes common sense. No need to add any other sense to it.</p>

<h2>Life and Death</h2>

<p>Conditionalists frequently make what they think is an obvious point: Christians live forever (i.e., have eternal life) and the dead die forever (i.e., cease to exist). They say that on the traditionalists’&nbsp;view, though, the “dead”&nbsp;don���t die, and the wicked get eternal life.</p>

<p>Note how conditionalists have expressed their concerns: “Eternal life is made possible and received only through Christ”<sup id="fnref:24"><a href="#fn:24">24</a></sup> and, “Everlasting life is existence that continues without end, and everlasting death is destruction without end,”<sup id="fnref:25"><a href="#fn:25">25</a></sup> and, “The word ’death’&nbsp;has in Scripture its natural meaning of the extinction of life”<sup id="fnref:26"><a href="#fn:26">26</a></sup> or the “end of existence,”<sup id="fnref:27"><a href="#fn:27">27</a></sup> and, “It would be hard to imagine a concept more confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying.”<sup id="fnref:28"><a href="#fn:28">28</a></sup></p>

<p>These statements are an interesting mixture of both truth and confusion. First, the truth. We would never deny that eternal life is made possible only through Christ. We also can’t deny, for example, that “death is the cessation of life”&nbsp;or that “everlasting life is existence that continues without end.”&nbsp;Of course death means dying, just like “those who suffer destruction are destroyed.”&nbsp;We cannot take exception here either since both phrases are, once again, mere tautologies. Those observations take us nowhere. That’s part of the confusion.</p>

<p>The key issue for us is the <em>biblical meanings</em> of “death”&nbsp;and “<em>eternal</em> life”&nbsp;(as opposed to <em>everlasting</em> life). The idea that everyone exists forever does not mean, as one put it, “Everyone has eternal life!”<sup id="fnref:29"><a href="#fn:29">29</a></sup> That is not the way the biblical writers use that term.</p>

<p>So, what is the meaning the biblical authors employ for these words?</p>

<p>First, the phrase “eternal life”&nbsp;is a <em>term of art</em>—it has a <em>specialized</em> meaning in biblical use that is different from our ordinary understanding of the words. Jesus tells us, famously, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent”&nbsp;(Jn. 17:3).</p>

<p>For Jesus, the point of eternal life was not the duration of existence, but the quality of relationship. Eternal life, then, is the Christian’s present, precious possession of an intimate friendship with God that never ends. This is Jesus’&nbsp;definition, in context. It does not follow, though, that other human beings—the damned—do not have everlasting existence. Again, that must be determined on other grounds.</p>

<p>It is clear that John intends us to understand Jesus’&nbsp;words this way, since he uses the same grammatical structure in other passages: “<em>This is</em> my commandment, <em>that</em> you love one another”&nbsp;(Jn. 15:12), and, “<em>This is</em> love, <em>that</em> we walk according to His commandments”&nbsp;(2 Jn. 6), and, “The testimony is <em>this</em>, <em>that</em> God has given us eternal life”&nbsp;(1 Jn. 5:11).<sup id="fnref:30"><a href="#fn:30">30</a> </sup></p>

<p>In Scripture, eternal life simply is not a synonym for “everlasting existence,”&nbsp;so it is a mistake to force that meaning on it. Neither, as it turns out, does “death”&nbsp;mean non-existence. It refers, instead, to a kind of separation. In physical death the soul is separated from the body, so the body expires, but the soul lives on. In spiritual death the person is estranged from God, but the person lives on.</p>

<p>In the garden, God told Adam and Eve, “In the day that you eat from [the tree] you will surely die”&nbsp;(Gen. 2:17). Clearly, though, they did not die physically on the day they disobeyed. They “died”&nbsp;in a different way. Their relationship with God was severed. Separation of man from relationship with God is what God Himself calls a death.</p>

<p>This concept of separation fits the biblical teaching of both life and death in our relationship to God. In the New Testament, those who do not know God are spiritually “dead in...transgressions and sins,”&nbsp;even though they may be physically alive (Eph. 2:1). Conversely, Christians are “alive together with Christ”&nbsp;(Eph. 2:5), even though they may be physically dead (like the martyrs in Rev. 6:10-11). This biblical understanding of death and life also meshes perfectly with Rom. 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”&nbsp;And if “death”&nbsp;does not mean destruction in the sense of annihilation, then “everlasting death”&nbsp;does not mean everlasting annihilation. That meaning must also be determined on other grounds.</p>

<p>There are many other examples such as this, but these are adequate to answer the only question that matters regarding the conditionalists’&nbsp;concern: Are the terms “death”&nbsp;and “eternal life”&nbsp;<em>as used in the Bible</em> synonymous with annihilation and everlasting existence, respectively? Clearly the answer is no. So, again, it is a mistake to force those meanings on them to justify conditionalism.</p>

<p>Put simply, the classical view fits the plain sense and the common sense, so far, of all of the passages in question. Therefore, there is no need to strain at finding any other sense (e.g., conditionalism/annihilationism). That move is an artificial one, considering the author’s meaning in those texts.</p>

<p>In “Hell Interrupted Part 3,”&nbsp;we will look closely at the book of Revelation, which presents—by the conditionalists’&nbsp;own admission—the most powerful evidence for the traditional view. Consistent with the pattern of progressive revelation, the final word will be the last word. (The third and final installment on this issue will be posted online in the near future.)</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Available in enhanced digital form at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Col. 1:16-17, Acts 17:31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Heb. 6:1-2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Please note that, though we think our case is <em>strengthened</em> by the general consensus of the church over the ages, it is not the <em>basis</em> for our view. Rather, we’re convinced <em>Scripture</em> teaches eternal torment, and so we argue here. Thus, dissenting voices from the past <em>in themselves</em> have no bearing on our argument. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, 25:41, 46; Lk. 13:27-28. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Rev. 14:9-11, 20:10, 15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">It’s the text I (Koukl) was assigned as a grad student at Talbot seminary. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, <em>Introduction to Biblical Interpretation</em>, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 264. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid, 264. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid, 298. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Ibid, 325. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Ibid, 586. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Ibid, 586. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Clark Pinnock in <em>Rethinking Hell: Reading in Evangelical Conditionalism,</em> ed. Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books), 64. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Ibid, 79. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">D.A. Carson, <em>The Gagging of God</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 522. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Simply saying the same thing twice in a different way. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Douglas Moo in <em>Hell Under Fire</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 105. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20"><em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 64. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Strictly speaking, all we have to show is that earthly judgment is a reasonable understanding of these texts and that annihilation is not required, though we think our case is much stronger than that. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">Matt. 8:12, 25:30, 41, 46 and Rev. 20:15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23"><a href="http://rethinkinghell.com/2016/11/annihilation-in-2-thessalonians-19-part-1-destroyed-by-the-glory-of-his-manifest-presence/">http://rethinkinghell.com/2016/11/annihilation-in-2-thessalonians-19-part-1-destroyed-by-the-glory-of-his-manifest-presence/</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:24">Glenn Peoples in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 12. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:24">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:25">Philip Hughes in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 162. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:25">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:26">Basil Atkinson in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 114. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:26">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:27">Harold Guillebaud, in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 162. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:27">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:28">Philip Hughes, <em>The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1989), 403. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:28">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:29">Glenn Peoples in <em>Rethinking Hell</em>, 12. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:29">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:30">Note the present tense here. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:30">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhell-interrupted-part-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%2Fhell-interrupted-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%2Fhell-interrupted-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: Your Life as an Apologetic for God’s Goodness
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/10/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-life-as-an-apologetic-for-god-s-goodness
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a follow-up to my post earlier this week on <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/use-christian-apologetics-christianly#.WgThWxOPJR0">using Christian apologetics Christianly</a>, here’s an excerpt from a post by David Horner on “<a href="https://cct.biola.edu/humble-apologetics-persuasion-humility-respect/">Humble Apologetics</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Apologetics’&nbsp;aim is to remove obstacles that hinder people from seeing God for who he truly is, in his worth or glory - his goodness, truth, and beauty. Traditional historical and scientific apologetics are aimed at removing obstacles to people’s seeing the truth of God and the Christian worldview. Moral apologetics, by contrast, is concerned to help them see that God is good. Both tasks are important, but they involve crucial differences. For someone to grasp something as good involves more than mere cognition; it engages their affections. Seeing X as good requires an experience of goodness associated with X. Arguments and reasons are insufficient.</p>

<p>So for someone to come to see God as good, they need an experience of goodness associated with God. Often the primary (in some cases the only) tangible experience people have with Christianity is contact with Christians. If their experience with Christians is bad, it becomes very difficult for them to see the Christian story - and God himself - as good. This is why moral objections to Christianity, warranted or not, can be so devastating. On the other hand, when Christians exhibit goodness, it points to God’s worth - as Jesus affirmed in the Sermon on the Mount: “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”&nbsp;(Matthew 5:16) Indeed, the evidence shows that it was primarily the radical goodness of Jesus’s followers in the early centuries that so powerfully attested to the gospel.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The idea that the biblical God is morally bad has been gaining ground in the culture. Yes, the intellectual questions about the morality of the Bible need to be addressed, but we also need to be more intentional about sharing our lives with our neighbors so they can see who God is through us - not only through our good behavior, but also through our moral failures; for it’s through our humble <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned#.WgThiROPJR0">openness about our own sin</a> that they will see our dependence on and love of God’s grace, the most beautiful thing of all about our 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%2Fyour-life-as-an-apologetic-for-god-s-goodness" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-life-as-an-apologetic-for-god-s-goodness" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-life-as-an-apologetic-for-god-s-goodness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We’re Closing Comments on the Stand to Reason Blog
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/09/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-re-closing-comments-on-the-stand-to-reason-blog
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over the years, we at Stand to Reason have truly benefitted from the blog comments, and I hope you have, too. The comments have given us a chance to evaluate feedback on our arguments, anticipate future objections, and refine our thinking. They’ve given us an opportunity to interact with some of you and model interactions for others, which both makes us better mentors and provides a unique way for us to mentor you.</p>

<p>But the Internet has changed a lot since we started this blog back in February of 2005. The number of comments (and particularly, commenters) has dropped off as people have moved their conversations about our posts onto their own personal social media outlets. For them, this move has the added advantage of accountability and civility, as they’re engaging friends, family, and co-workers whom they know and interact with in person. This is something we want to encourage, as interacting with anonymous strangers online these days has the negative potential of training Christians to not only expect incivility from non-Christians (resulting in a constantly defensive posture on the part of Christians), but also to respond in kind.</p>

<p>As a result of this and other considerations about how we can best use our time and resources to help you become better ambassadors for Christ, STR has decided to close down the comments here on the blog. In the coming months, we’ll be considering new ways of mentoring you and encouraging your interaction with others, particularly on your own social media platforms.</p>

<p>Going forward, the comments on future posts will be closed, but we’ll allow the comments for past posts to close three weeks after publication, as usual, giving you a chance to finish up your current conversations.</p>

<p>I want to especially thank those tried-and-true commenters who have been with us for several years. Your challenges, your encouragement, and your responses to others have been invaluable to me. Thank 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%2Fwe-re-closing-comments-on-the-stand-to-reason-blog" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-re-closing-comments-on-the-stand-to-reason-blog" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-re-closing-comments-on-the-stand-to-reason-blog" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Never Judge God by Isolated Events
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/07/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/never-judge-god-by-isolated-events
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Whenever a question begins with the words, “Why didn’t God...”&nbsp;my usual response begins with the words, “I don’t know.”</p>

<p>This past month I was speaking in northern Ontario on the problem of evil for an outreach event. During the Q&amp;A time, a Christian woman sitting in the second row asked, “Why didn’t God prevent my daughter from getting into a recent car accident?”</p>

<p>My answer was candid and to the point. “I don’t know,”&nbsp;I told her.</p>

<p>I don’t know why God permits particular incidents of pain and suffering in our lives. God has not given that specific information to me. <em>Only God knows.</em></p>

<p>That may not be a very <em>satisfying</em> response. I get it. But it’s an <em>honest</em> response.</p>

<p>Now, I believe there are reasons why God allows pain and suffering in our lives. Philosophers often call these <em>morally sufficient reasons</em>. We are given some of these reasons in Scripture. For example, God could permit suffering to test and build our faith (James 1:2-4), to build perseverance, character and hope (Rom. 5:3-5), to judge (Gen. 6:5-7), to discipline (Heb. 12:11), and to warn the world of the impending final judgment (Luke 13:4-5).</p>

<p>These are <em>general</em> reasons why God might permit suffering. However, we cannot presume to know the <em>specific</em> purpose of the suffering in our own lives and the lives of others. We aren’t in a position to make that call. But just because we don’t know the purpose of the suffering, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.</p>

<p>If you are a parent, you have probably had the unfortunate experience of holding your child as a doctor sticks him with a needle. This can be a traumatic experience for both parent and child. It is heartbreaking having your toddler look at you with an expression that screams, <em>Why are you allowing them to do this to me?</em></p>

<p>The child doesn’t understand that this temporary suffering is intended for a greater good.</p>

<p>I think it’s likely that something similar is going on when God permits pain and suffering in our lives. And this explanation is perfectly consistent with what the Bible teaches.</p>

<p>Let me give you two examples from Scripture and then conclude with a general principle.</p>

<h2>Example #1: Joseph Suffering</h2>

<p>Joseph endured suffering. He grew up in a household hated by his brothers (Gen. 37:4). In fact, they plotted to kill him but decided to sell him into slavery instead (Gen. 37:18, 28). After being brought down to Egypt, he was sold to an Egyptian named Potiphar. Joseph worked his way up to being the overseer over Potiphar’s house, only to be falsely accused of trying to seduce Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39). As a result, Joseph was thrown in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. He would spend two years in the King’s prison before being freed by Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1).</p>

<p>Joseph experienced tremendous suffering at the hands of others. If any of us were in Joseph’s situation, we would probably ask a whole series of questions beginning with the words, “Why didn’t God...?”</p>

<p>Why didn’t God stop Joseph’s brothers from selling him into slavery? Why didn’t God prevent Potiphar’s wife from bringing these false allegations? Why didn’t God keep Joseph out of prison? You get the idea.</p>

<p>However, in this instance, we don’t have to speculate <em>why</em> Joseph experienced this suffering. Joseph explicitly tells us the reason. Speaking to his brothers, Joseph says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, <em>to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today”</em>&nbsp;(Gen. 50:20).</p>

<p>Joseph was able to peek behind the curtain, so to speak, and see what God was doing through it all. God used Joseph’s situation for good - to warn Pharaoh about a very severe famine that was coming to the land of Egypt. Consequently, they were able to store up enough food to save the lives of many, including Joseph’s own brothers.</p>

<h2>Example #2: The Early Church Suffering</h2>

<p>Recently, I was reading through the Book of Acts and noticed something I hadn’t before. Immediately after the stoning of Stephen by the Jewish religious leaders, we learn about some significant events that took place.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:1-3)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Stephen had just been executed because of his proclamation of the Gospel. The early church in Jerusalem was now experiencing its greatest persecution. In fact, Christian men and women were being dragged off to prison. This forced Christians to flee Jerusalem and to be scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.</p>

<p>The early church must have asked questions like, “Why didn’t God prevent Stephen’s stoning?”&nbsp;or, “Why didn’t God stop Saul from ravaging the church?”&nbsp;or, “Why did they endure such persecution?”</p>

<p>In this instance, God’s purpose isn’t hidden. He is beginning to accomplish His purpose in sending out the Gospel.</p>

<p>Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He told the disciples, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”&nbsp;(Acts 1:8).</p>

<p>Jesus described <em>that</em> the Gospel would spread from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and finally, to the ends of the earth. But He didn’t tell them <em>how</em> it would spread. Acts 8 gives some of those details. The Gospel is being pushed out into all of Judea and Samaria.</p>

<p>There is a direct link between the persecution of the early church and the Gospel moving out. From the perspective of the early church, the suffering was great. People were being killed, imprisoned, and displaced. On the surface, it didn’t look good. But, indeed, something wonderful was happening in the midst of it all. The Gospel - the Good News of Jesus Christ - was going out to the world as Jesus promised.</p>

<h2>The Principle</h2>

<p>In both examples, we see how God permitted suffering for His ultimate purpose. In each case, it would have been premature to judge God in the midst of those isolated events. Neither Joseph nor the early church was in a position to see God’s ultimate plan while specific, isolated events were taking place. Yet, there was a plan.</p>

<p>Likewise, <em>we</em> are not in a position to see God’s plan when it comes to specific instances of suffering in our own lives. Isolated events have a way of keeping us near-sighted. Yet, God might be accomplishing something through these events, even if we don’t know what that is.</p>

<p>So here’s the principle: <em>Never judge God’s ultimate plan by your present circumstances.</em></p>

<p>There are some questions for which we will never get answers. And that’s just the way it is. But there are some things we do know.</p>

<p>We do know that God is essentially good. This means that goodness - moral perfection - is a necessary attribute of God. As the greatest conceivable Being, it is better to be morally perfect than morally flawed. Goodness belongs to the concept of God in the same way unmarried belongs to the concept of being a bachelor.</p>

<p>We also know that God has demonstrated that He can work even the darkest and most miserable circumstances for His ultimate end. Therefore, rather than turning <em>on</em> God for our present circumstances, we should turn <em>to</em> God and trust Him to work it for His ultimate purpose.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnever-judge-god-by-isolated-events" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnever-judge-god-by-isolated-events" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnever-judge-god-by-isolated-events" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Solution for Shame
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/12/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-solution-for-shame
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’re not a fan of <em>Masterpiece Mystery’s</em> period dramas, bear with me. I have a point, I promise.</p>

<p>The central character of the murder mystery <em>Grantchester</em>, Sidney Chambers, is a vicar in an English village. He has an assistant vicar named Leonard Finch, who experiences same-sex attraction. Both men struggle with their sexual temptations.</p>

<p>Leonard knows his attraction to men is wrong, and he resists it for a long time. He attempts to be faithful to what the church teaches. He feels the conviction of his fallen nature. What he doesn’t apprehend is forgiveness. When the struggle becomes too much for Leonard, he cries out that his sin makes him vile and undeserving of love. He feels tremendous shame. But the solution others encourage him toward is to accept his same-sex attraction and pursue a relationship with a man he’s met. Sidney also submits to his sexual temptation with the love of his life, and he also feels guilty. Sidney’s homily that Sunday is about the virtue of love and how love justifies what is pursued in its name. Clearly the solution to both men’s shame and guilt for sin is to justify it.</p>

<p>The law did its work in both men - it convicted them of sin. What was missing was grace. Leonard’s cry was tragic because he felt the weight of the law but didn’t see mercy and grace as the solution. Instead both men dealt with their guilt by justifying their sin.</p>

<p>The solution to sin in <em>Grantchester</em> and in today’s culture is to celebrate it. People cope with the weight of sin by claiming it’s good. They bury their guilt by approving it in themselves and others. By denying sin, they attempt to take away its sting.</p>

<p>The solution for shame is forgiveness not celebration. The message of the Bible isn’t that we’re vile. It’s that we’re loved more than we could ever imagine. And that love moved Jesus to deal with our sin in the only way that can ease our shame and guilt - forgiveness. We can’t solve our sin, only Jesus can.</p>

<p>Deep down underneath the celebration of sin, people struggle with shame and guilt. We know that because they’re fallen human beings. We know that because there is no complete and final solution for sin apart from God’s grace. Deep down - very deep down - every human being knows the truth: They’re guilty. They know that because they’re created in God’s image and have the law written on their hearts.</p>

<p>Many people think Christianity is about the law, following rules, and feeling guilty. What sinners unfortunately often don’t apprehend is grace. They miss the wonder and beauty of God’s unmerited forgiveness that reconciles us to Him.</p>

<p>What guilty people need to know is the Gospel of grace, mercy, and reconciliation. They are loved more than they can imagine. They are loved so much that Jesus, God Himself, suffered the punishment of our sin to offer us His righteousness.</p>

<p>Modern people have buried the conviction of their consciences so deep that they celebrate sin. As ambassadors for Christ, we need to help them understand the only solution for sin is the mercy and grace God offers because He loves us.</p>
</div>

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


title: Tools to Share Christianity with Your Friends
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/tools-to-share-christianity-with-your-friends
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I often get questions from Christians asking for tools they can use to easily explain arguments for Christianity—tools to help them start conversations with their friends and family. Below is a collection of short, engaging videos (and one booklet) you can use for that purpose.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxU0UNlnnOA">The Story of Reality</a> - This first video is from Stand to Reason and gives an overview of the Christian story. For many people, Christianity just doesn’t make sense. They’ve picked up bits of theology here and there, but they have no idea how it all fits together. This video summarizes Christian theology and makes it clear that we’re not just saying it’s “true for us”; we’re saying it’s the truth about <em>reality</em>.</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&amp;feature=youtu.be">The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a> - The rest of the videos below were created by Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig’s organization). The cosmological argument goes like this: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.”</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU">The Moral Argument</a> - If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. But objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists.</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA">The Fine-Tuning of the Universe</a> - There are three possible explanations for the extraordinary fine-tuning of our universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. This video explains why design is the best explanation for what we observe.</li>
	<li>And finally, if you have friends who would be open to going through a readable, 64-page booklet with you that summarizes arguments for God’s existence, try William Lane Craig’s <em><a href="https://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store/products/books/item/god-are-you-there_Book">God, Are You There?</a></em></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%2Ftools-to-share-christianity-with-your-friends" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftools-to-share-christianity-with-your-friends" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftools-to-share-christianity-with-your-friends" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: In the Beginning God...
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/08/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/in-the-beginning-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Genesis chapter 1, verse 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”&nbsp;This is the beginning of the story of how the world began. It’s a story about what happened in the history of existence. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Moses wrote Genesis about 3,400 years ago. This story of creation sets the stage for our entire Christian worldview.</p>

<p>There is, however, a competing story: the atheist story. Our story says <em>God</em> made all things. The atheist story says <em>nothing</em> made all things. How do we know, then, which is true?</p>

<p>Let me offer you two simple questions that will show our story of creation is the most reasonable.</p>

<p><strong>Question #1: Have things always existed?</strong> Notice there are only two possible answers: yes or no. Either everything has always existed or it has not. There’s no third option. Consider the idea that things have always existed (answering “yes”). This would mean that atoms, planets, stars, and basically the universe have always been around. Most scientists, though, recognize that’s impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.</p>

<p>This principle is fairly easy to understand. Imagine you walk into a room and see a hot cup of coffee sitting on a table. It’s steaming, and you can smell the aroma. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the cup of coffee has not been there for an eternity, because if it had, it would have cooled down. The coffee would have reached the same temperature as the air in the room.</p>

<p>The same is true of the universe. We detect hot stars (our sun is one example) in the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe could not have existed for an eternity, because if it had, the stars would have cooled down by now. Their energy would have been spent, and they would have reached the same temperature as the space around them.</p>

<p>This leads scientists to conclude the universe is <em>not</em> eternal. That would mean the answer to the question must be <em>no</em>, things have <em>not</em> always existed. Specifically, the universe began to exist at some time in the past. This is completely consistent with our story in Genesis 1:1.</p>

<p>Since the universe hasn’t always existed, we can ask the next logical question.</p>

<p><strong>Question #2: What caused the universe to begin to exist?</strong> Again, there are only two options: something or nothing. Let’s consider the option that <em>nothing</em> caused the universe to begin to exist. This sounds...unbelievable. How would that even be possible? Nothing is not something. Therefore, how could it be responsible for beginning anything? When there’s nothing, nothing can be done.</p>

<p>Do cars begin to exist by nothing? No, they are caused by machines and people. Do trees begin to exist by nothing? No, they are caused by pollination and seeds. Do planets begin to exist by nothing? No, they are caused by a star’s gravity and space dust/material. There’s never a case when nothing causes something to begin to exist. There’s <em>always</em> something.</p>

<p>If nothing pops into existence without a cause, then how could the entire universe—something even more immense—simply begin to exist from nothing? If it could, then why don’t other things pop into existence as well? Why doesn’t a leopard, a carburetor, or (my favorite) a peanut butter cup spontaneously appear without a cause? Why does nothingness prefer to cause only a universe to pop into existence and not my favorite candy?</p>

<p>As you see, <em>nothing</em> can’t be an explanation for the beginning of the universe. The only other option is that <em>something</em> caused the universe to begin. Every time something begins to exist, it has a cause. That is what we experience 100% of the time. The universe is no exception.</p>

<p>Can we understand some characteristics about this “something”&nbsp;that caused the universe to begin? We know it must be very powerful because it had to create all of space, time, and matter out of nothing. It must be timeless since it existed before time began. It must be immaterial because it created the material world and it couldn’t create itself. It would have to be personal because only a personal being can act freely and choose to create. It must also be very smart since it had to create all the physical laws (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear force, etc.) and coordinate them together to form a life-permitting universe. Therefore, whatever caused the universe to begin was extremely powerful, timeless, immaterial, personal, and super smart. Those characteristics are consistent with Yahweh, the God of the Bible. That’s because our story of God and creation fits what we know to be true from reality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fin-the-beginning-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%2Fin-the-beginning-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%2Fin-the-beginning-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: Sharing the Gospel in Our Secular Age
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/11/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/sharing-the-gospel-in-our-secular-age
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Russell Moore and Tim Keller make some really helpful observations about sharing the Gospel in a secular society in the video below (or stream the audio <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-sharing-the-gospel-in-our-secular-age-is-different" target="_blank">here</a>). Essentially, it’s harder than it used to be. We’re in a post-Christian culture—most people are unfamiliar with Christianity and think the church and religion have failed. But it’s important we understand the nature of the task because we have to adjust how we engage people.</p>

<p>The state of our culture:</p>

<ol>
	<li>There’s no anxiety about sin. There is no concept of sin.</li>
	<li>Our current society is built to escape Christianity and sees Christianity as a problem.</li>
	<li>Our culture is filled with faith in things but doesn’t think it has faith. Our culture believes it’s based on rationality and fact and has no set of beliefs.</li>
</ol>

<p>Moore points out that while there is no concept of personal sin, people are aware of evil in the world and experience the effects. But secularism cannot make sense of good and evil. People are going to experience things in their lives that they can’t make sense of without God.</p>

<p>Neither makes this point, but we have to be prepared to answer the misunderstandings about Christianity and start from the very basics to help them understand God, Jesus, and the Bible. There’s a lot of foundation to be laid before getting a hearing for the Gospel or before it may be understood clearly.</p>

<p>Postmodernism ultimately doesn’t provide comfort or confidence. It doesn’t answer the fundamental needs of humankind. Sooner or later, individuals will not be able to make sense of their lives based on what they believe. Christianity does make sense of reality and answers the most fundamental questions and needs we have.</p>

<p>The current evangelistic task is much harder than it’s ever been in our lifetime. It will usually take much longer to till the ground before seed can take root. Evangelism and apologetics need to take place in the context of relationships and friendships because it takes time to gain credibility as a Christian witness and to help someone understand our message.</p>

<p>Greg has a tactic in his book called “clearing the brush.”&nbsp;There’s a whole lot more brush to clear these days.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="221078769" 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/221078769?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Let the Ridicule and Rejection Come
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/06/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/let-the-ridicule-and-rejection-come
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Stand to Reason’s <a href="https://www.str.org/about/mission-values">vision statement</a>—the goal we’re reaching for—is this: “Confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter.”&nbsp;Greg addresses the third part of that vision in this month’s mentoring letter, giving <a href="https://www.str.org/article/how-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-mentoring-letter-october-2017#.WdfEWROPIXo">three tips for cultivating courage</a>. The first tip is the simplest, but it’s not easy:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My first tip is the most important one: <strong>Face up</strong>.</p>

<p>In Matthew 10, Jesus didn’t mince words when He gave his disciples a “pep talk”&nbsp;before sending them on their first short-term mission. He told them they would be persecuted, hated, maligned, beaten, betrayed, and murdered. Hard facts? Yes. Frightening? Of course. Why was Jesus so blunt?</p>

<p>In WW2, some of the most courageous soldiers were the ones already convinced they would not survive the war. Since they were dead already in their own eyes, they simply accepted the threat and moved forward with resolve. In the same way, there is a courage that comes when we make peace with the fact that faithfulness to Christ is going to cost us. We will never be welcomed by the world, so why worry about it?...</p>

<p>So decide today—mark your calendar—that you are already dead in this fight. You will not survive this war. You are fully in. You are fully His. You accept the consequences. Let the ridicule and rejection come. You are ready for it. You expect the worst from men, and you expect the best from God. Do not fear.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the other two tips <a href="https://www.str.org/article/how-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-mentoring-letter-october-2017#.WdefQBOPIXo">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%2Flet-the-ridicule-and-rejection-come" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flet-the-ridicule-and-rejection-come" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flet-the-ridicule-and-rejection-come" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Get the Dictionary of Christianity and Science
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/04/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/get-the-dictionary-of-christianity-and-science
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This past weekend, after one of my talks, a young man approached me with some follow-up questions. I had just finished speaking on science and faith, which often generates good conversations afterwards. This was no exception.</p>

<p>Our conversation jumped around but finally centered on the origin of <em>specified complexity.</em> He agreed that the DNA molecule contains specified complexity. However, he also thought that the cement cinder blocks composing the walls of the hallway we were standing in contained the <em>exact same</em> complexity. At this point in the conversation, we had a problem. We weren’t working from the same definition.</p>

<h2>Just the Facts</h2>

<p>This was a great opportunity to apply the <em>Just the Facts, Ma’am</em> tactic. This young man was mistaken. He had bad intel. And to his credit, he admitted he was unfamiliar with the terminology.</p>

<p>To respond in these situations, we just need to <em>appeal to the facts</em>. Of course, this assumes that we know the facts.</p>

<p>In this particular situation, I was ready with the facts. That is, I was familiar with the distinction between mere complexity and specified complexity. But that isn’t always the case. Sometimes I need to go find the facts. When I do, there are invaluable resources I turn to. One of those is the <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Christianity-Science-Intersection-Contemporary/dp/0310496055/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1507126938&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=dictionary+of+science+and+christianity" target="_blank">Dictionary of Christianity and Science</a></em>, edited by Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher Reese, and Michael Strauss.</p>

<p>This volume draws upon the knowledge of over 140 leading scholars and contains hundreds of introductory essays on various topics related to the intersection of science and faith. Topics like Adam and Eve, evolution, miracles, Big Bang theory, multiverse, and string theory are all clarified and discussed. And if you want to go deeper, each article includes a list of resources for further study.</p>

<p>So, what is the difference between mere complexity and specified complexity? Here’s a snippet taken from the section titled “Specified Complexity”&nbsp;written by William Dembski.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Consider a typical mountain. Through the effects of weathering and erosion, the mountain is highly complex. Indeed, it would take many terabytes of computer memory to record where every nook and cranny of that mountain is. But consider next Mount Rushmore. Its rock face is also complex. But unlike the typical mountain, it also matches an independently given pattern; that is, it matches the appearance of four US presidents. Mount Rushmore, unlike a typical mountain, is therefore also specified and thus exhibits specified complexity.</p>

<p>The term <em>specified complexity</em> is now over 40 years old, and the concept itself is even older. Biologist Leslie Orgel first used the term in his 1973 book <em>The Origins of Life</em>: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity”&nbsp;(Orgel 1973, 189).</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Back to the Conversation</h2>

<p>Before we could begin to talk about the <em>cause</em> of the origin of specified complexity, we had to get the <em>terms</em> straight. Fortunately, there are works like the <em>Dictionary of Christianity and Science</em> that will help.</p>

<p>One of the essential skills of every good ambassador for Christ is <em>knowledge</em>. We need to get the facts right. This doesn’t mean you need to know everything. But you should be able to access crucial information when the time comes. For me, that means having a reliable resource like this on my shelf.</p>
</div>

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


title: Will the Punishment in Hell Be Experienced Forever?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/20/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/will-the-punishment-in-hell-be-experienced-forever-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This month’s issue of <em><a href="https://www.str.org/SolidGroundSept2017HellInterrupted#.WbxeL9N95R0">Solid Ground</a></em> was written by Greg and Tim on the subject of Hell. Currently, there’s a movement among some members of the church towards annihilationism (or “conditionalism”)—that is, the idea that the punishment given at the end of time to those who have not been pardoned of their moral crimes will not be experienced through all eternity. Rather, their final punishment will be annihilation—they will cease to exist—and it’s their <em>nonexistence</em> that will last throughout eternity. Since people have been asking questions about this topic, Greg and Tim decided to address it in <em><a href="https://www.str.org/SolidGroundSept2017HellInterrupted#.WbxjN9N95R0" target="_blank">Solid Ground</a></em>. (You can also hear them discuss this topic on a recent <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/interview-tim-barnett-what-bible-teaches-about-hell#.WbxjD9N95R0" target="_blank">podcast</a>.)</p>

<p>This issue is the first of two parts, and it focuses on making a positive case from the Bible for an eternal, conscious experience of Hell. November’s issue will respond to the positive case made by annihilationists.</p>

<p>An excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In one sense we find it a bit awkward to be the champions of perpetual punishment, everlasting suffering, and endless torment. We want you to know, then—just for the record—that we find no joy in this...However, what we like or don’t like is hardly the point. “Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal suffering] intolerable,”&nbsp;John Stott confided, “and do not understand how people can live with it without cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it.”</p>

<p>Quite right. Taking counsel from our feelings on a revolting topic like everlasting torment is perilous, since we inevitably stumble into the error of sacrificing God’s justice on the altar of His love. But that will never do since both God’s love and His justice are grounded, so to speak, in the same thing: His goodness. Goodness informs both God’s mercy (through love) and God’s punishment (through justice) and neither can be sacrificed without sacrificing God’s noble character.</p>

<p>Thankfully, these are not in conflict in the Christian Story since both find their perfect harmony in the cross where God is both <em>just</em> and <em>justifier</em> of those who have faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). On Calvary God simultaneously expresses both His holiness and His compassion...</p>

<p>Stott adds, “As a committed evangelical, my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s Word say?”</p>

<p>We agree. Our only legitimate course of action regarding the nature of Hell is to answer the question, “What does God’s Word say?”&nbsp;So to Scripture we shall turn.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://www.str.org/SolidGroundSept2017HellInterrupted#.WbxjN9N95R0" 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%2Fwill-the-punishment-in-hell-be-experienced-forever-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwill-the-punishment-in-hell-be-experienced-forever-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwill-the-punishment-in-hell-be-experienced-forever-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Free Will Makes Sense in the Christian Story
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/26/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/free-will-makes-sense-in-the-christian-story
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If God made all things, then we can make sense of other important beliefs we hold to be true. One of them is our belief (and experience) that we have free will. This belief fits well with the Christian story of creation.</p>

<p>That is what I told nearly 2,000 students, parents, and youth leaders at our annual <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/ca/" target="_blank">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference</a> this past weekend in Orange County, California. By the way, it was awesome, and I encourage you to check out <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">rethinkapologetics.com</a> to find out how you can attend the next one. We are adding additional conferences around the country, so there might be one coming to a city near you. But I digress.</p>

<p>Most of us believe we make free choices that are not determined by a force outside ourselves. We believe we can decide with our mind about what our body is going to say or do. What story of creation can account for such free-willed decisions?</p>

<p>The atheist story of creation is an <em>evolutionary</em> story, which is a <em>physical</em> story. Physical forces (e.g. physics and chemistry) working on physical things can only yield a physical product. Since humans are the result of evolution, according to atheism, they, too, are mere matter.</p>

<p>Physical objects, though, don’t—and can’t—have free will. It doesn’t matter how complex they are. A ping pong ball can’t change direction on its own volition because it’s entirely physical. A stapler, although more complex, can’t begin stapling on its own. It doesn’t have free will because it is also merely a physical object. An automobile doesn’t have free will either. It’s much more complex than a ping pong ball, but its movements are still determined by physical forces because it is entirely a physical object.</p>

<p>Humans, then, can’t have free will either because they, too, are physical objects. It doesn’t matter how complex they are; it doesn’t affect the outcome. At the end of the day, if a human is merely a physical thing, it will ultimately be subject to physical forces. It wouldn’t have an immaterial mind that can think and decide independently of physical forces.</p>

<p>The only way you and I can act freely is if we have an immaterial mind that is not affected by the physical laws of nature. That doesn’t exist in the atheist creation story, but it does exist in the Christian creation story. Our story teaches that God made human beings with a physical body and an immaterial soul. If you think we have free will, then that reality makes much more sense in the Christian 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%2Ffree-will-makes-sense-in-the-christian-story" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffree-will-makes-sense-in-the-christian-story" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffree-will-makes-sense-in-the-christian-story" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Meet the People Whose Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened by the Government
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/27/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/meet-the-people-whose-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-by-the-government
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Heritage Foundation hosted a panel discussion moderated by <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Debating-Religious-Liberty-Discrimination-Corvino/dp/0190603070" target="_blank">Ryan Anderson</a>, including people like <a href="/w/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" target="_blank">Barronelle Stutzman</a> and <a href="https://www.adflegal.org/case/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission" target="_blank">Jack Phillips</a> (the Supreme Court will be hearing <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/wedding-cakes-v-religious-beliefs-plain-english/?platform=hootsuite" target="_blank">his case</a> later this year)—people who have been willing to give up everything rather than agree to violate their conscience.</p>

<p>If you care about liberty, you should watch this video. If you generally care about liberty, but you’re against the liberty of these particular people, you owe it to yourself to watch this. Get the whole story. See the people involved in these cases for yourself. See who they are. Hear what has happened to them. You might be surprised to learn that their stories and motivations aren’t what you expected.</p>

<p>For example, prior to being sued, t-shirt designer and printer <a href="http://adflegal.org/detailspages/client-stories-details/blaine-adamson" target="_blank">Blaine Adamson</a> wouldn’t create a shirt with an image of a bucket of chicken with Jesus on it for a youth group, and he declined to print the stark message “homosexuality is sin”&nbsp;on a t-shirt for a pastor, but referring a “Lexington Pride Festival”&nbsp;shirt to another printer got him sued. (Listen at 18:50 to hear his story—ultimately, he won this case.) As Ryan Anderson notes, clearly Adamson wasn’t turning down customers because of <em>who they were</em>; he was turning down messages his conscience didn’t permit him to print. (See more on this crucial distinction <a href="/w/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Listen at 31:05 to hear what <a href="/w/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" target="_blank">Barronelle Stutzman</a> said she would do if the longtime customer who is currently suing her (for declining to be the florist for his same-sex wedding) were to walk into her shop.</p>

<p>At 31:40, Jack Phillips describes what happened to him after declining to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.</p>

<p>Please watch this video and pass it on. I promise you it’s worth your time. Kellie Fiedorek of <a href="https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/biography-details/kellie-fiedorek" target="_blank">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> explains at the beginning why <em>everyone</em> should care about protecting other people’s First Amendment liberties:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Civil liberties travel together. You may not care about free speech or free exercise right now, but if you look at other countries that have seen religious freedom minimized, check out how their economies are doing. How are minorities treated? How are women treated? Because these liberties travel together. And religious freedom promotes diversity. It promotes dialogue for all of us to come together and have that freedom to disagree. Civil liberties do travel together, so what happens to First Amendment freedoms matters for all of us, regardless of what our viewpoints might be.</p>

<p>Our Supreme Court has explained that the freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ on the things that touch on the heart of the existing order.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="sTcfDW2BkgA" 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/sTcfDW2BkgA?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%2Fmeet-the-people-whose-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-by-the-government" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmeet-the-people-whose-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-by-the-government" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmeet-the-people-whose-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-by-the-government" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 the Fertility Clinic Illustration Disprove the Value of Human Embryos?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/19/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-fertility-clinic-illustration-disprove-the-value-of-human-embryos-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A <a href="https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672" target="_blank">tweet thread</a> from pro-choicer Patrick S. Tomlinson this week said (paraphrasing): I’ve posed this dilemma to pro-lifers. The answer always proves they don’t really believe an embryo is as valuable as a human child. So here’s the challenge. You’re in a fertility clinic. There’s a fire. You’re running down the hallway to the exit. You run by a room. There’s a screaming two-year-old and there’s a canister of 1,000 frozen embryos. You can only grab one. Which do you grab? Most likely, you would grab the two-year-old. Therefore, he says, the fact that you wouldn’t save the embryos proves you don’t really think embryos are equivalent to children.</p>

<h2>Our Emotions Aren’t Necessarily Rational</h2>

<p>Let me offer a parallel example to make a vital point regarding answering this challenge. I was listening to a radio broadcaster who was promoting the idea of capital punishment. Somebody called in and said, “If your son committed a vicious capital crime, I bet you would try to get him off. This shows you don’t really believe in capital punishment.”&nbsp;The talk show host responded, “This doesn’t show I’m inconsistent. All it shows is that I’m a father.”</p>

<p>The point is that we may have very good reasons demonstrating the humanity of frozen embryos; yet at the same time, an emotion-inciting moral dilemma could cause us to make a decision that’s inconsistent with the ethical argument we’ve made. All this shows is that we’re human beings who make emotional decisions, sometimes based on appearances, in a no-win hypothetical.</p>

<p>If someone were to grab the canister rather than the toddler, I don’t think any pro-lifer would fault him because we believe those are human beings and a choice had to be made. It would be a terribly wrenching result, but that’s the point of moral dilemmas - there’s a terrible, wrenching result either way. And saving the embryos is a morally valid choice.</p>

<h2>Our Emotional Response Is a Red Herring</h2>

<p>There’s an inherent problem in offering moral dilemma hypotheticals to rebut the pro-life argument. Moral dilemmas, by design, make us choose. But the choice doesn’t rebut the argument for the intrinsic value of embryonic human beings. The dilemma simply forces us to make a choice in a no-win situation. It doesn’t draw out buried intuitions that show our real values; it draws out our emotions in a forced choice.</p>

<p>If somebody wants to argue against the pro-life case, he can’t look at the emotional reactions of people in a tense situation. He’s got to look at the argument itself. The dilemma is a red herring. In other words, it brings out an emotional set of circumstances that draws one away from the argument and focuses on people’s emotional responses. Then it postures as if it has really dealt with the argument when it hasn’t.</p>

<h2>Our Emotional Connections to Some Don’t Disprove the Humanity of Others</h2>

<p>As one person replied in a tweet, the fact that Sophie, in the film <em>Sophie’s Choice</em>, made the choice to save her son didn’t mean she thought her daughter wasn’t a valuable human being. She was simply forced to make a choice.</p>

<p>What if Sophie’s choice were between her two children and five of someone else’s children? She has a chance to save two or five. She can save her own two children or save the other five and send her own to the crematorium. If she chose to save her own children in that situation, I don’t think anyone would fault her for that decision. And no one would say she didn’t really believe in the full humanity of those other five children. In the same way, the fertility clinic illustration can show us where our emotional attachments lie, but it takes us nowhere with regard to the question of the humanity and value of the embryonic human being.</p>

<h2>Proving Insincerity Doesn’t Disprove Arguments</h2>

<p>Let’s just take it another step. Let’s say the person offering this challenge is right when he says you don’t really believe the embryos are human beings. Just because a pro-lifer doesn’t really believe what he espouses, that doesn’t make the embryos nonhuman. Even if we’re inconsistent or don’t believe what we espouse, that doesn’t change the actual facts. The arguments still haven’t been refuted; the illustration has only possibly revealed that a pro-lifer isn’t sincere.</p>

<p>That’s why arguments against the humanity of embryonic human beings have to go back to the pro-life argument itself and the reasons it offers, not an emotional hypothetical.</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-the-fertility-clinic-illustration-disprove-the-value-of-human-embryos-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-the-fertility-clinic-illustration-disprove-the-value-of-human-embryos-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-the-fertility-clinic-illustration-disprove-the-value-of-human-embryos-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 to Be Human?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/13/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Alan spoke earlier this week at Grand Canyon University on the question of what it means to be human, and you can watch the full 26 minutes below (Alan’s portion begins at 28:40). He explains the difference between instrumental human value (the view our culture is embracing) and intrinsic human value, describing some disturbing real-world results of accepting the instrumental view.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="CPheEapZb60" 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/CPheEapZb60?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Using Call Outs to Teach Spiritual Truths to Your Kids
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/21/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/using-call-outs-to-teach-spiritual-truths-to-your-kids
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’re like me and you have young kids, you’re always on the lookout for effective ways to help them learn. My wife and I send our girls to <a href="http://innovaacademy.ca/" target="_blank">Innova Academy</a>, which is a Classical Christian School that follows the trivium approach to learning.</p>

<p>Trivium means “three ways”&nbsp;and refers to the three components of classical study: <em>grammar</em> (mastery of knowledge), <em>logic</em> (ability to reason), and <em>rhetoric</em> (eloquent communication).</p>

<p>My oldest child has just entered the grammar stage. This is the stage where we lay a solid foundation that she will spend the rest of her life building upon. Kids this age have a natural ability to absorb information. Now is the time to take advantage of that. Here’s how.</p>

<p>If your kids are like mine, they love memorizing. One fun and effective means of helping your child memorize information is through <em>call outs</em>. Call outs are straightforward. The parent calls out a word or phrase, and the child responds.</p>

<p>We find that dessert time at the dinner table works best for running through these call outs. Keep it laid-back. Have fun. And be amazed at how your kids grow in their knowledge of God and the Christian faith.</p>

<p>Here are some call outs to try at home.</p>

<h2>Call Outs on the Attributes of God</h2>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is holy.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God is altogether set apart from this world. He is perfect and there is no trace of evil in His character.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is immutable.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God does not and cannot change.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is impeccable.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God is incapable of being tempted or sinning.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is omnipotent.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God alone is all-powerful.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is omnipresent.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God alone is present everywhere.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is omniscient.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God alone is all-knowing.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> God is sovereign.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God orders and rules over everything.</p>

<h2>Call Outs on the Gospel</h2>

<p><em>Parent:</em> The Gospel.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> The good news of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> We are sinners.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> We deserve the eternal wrath of God.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> Jesus Christ.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> God came to rescue us.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> Crucified.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> Jesus took God’s wrath.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> Jesus was resurrected.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> He defeated the death that we deserve.</p>

<p><em>Parent:</em> I can be saved.</p>

<p><em>Student:</em> Not by works, but by faith in Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fusing-call-outs-to-teach-spiritual-truths-to-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%2Fusing-call-outs-to-teach-spiritual-truths-to-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%2Fusing-call-outs-to-teach-spiritual-truths-to-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: Racial Equality Makes Sense in the Christian Story
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/10/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/racial-equality-makes-sense-in-the-christian-story
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Two weeks ago I <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/free-will-makes-sense-christian-story" target="_blank">wrote</a> about how the Christian worldview makes sense of our intuitive belief that we have free will. It turns out that the Christian story also provides a foundation for solving racial tensions in our country today. That’s what I told 1,800 junior high, high school, and college students at our <a href="http://www.rethinkapologetics.com/" target="_blank">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference</a>.</p>

<p>Most Christians (and probably most Americans) believe that people of all races and ethnicities are equally valuable. Whether you are African American, Chinese, Egyptian, Albanian, or Assyrian (like me!), we are all equally valuable. What worldview makes sense of this belief?</p>

<p>Atheism is unable to ground human equality. That’s because the atheist creation story is an evolutionary story. There’s no God, and humans evolved from mere matter. Evolution describes how physical forces (chemistry, physics, natural selection, etc.) act on physical things (molecules, proteins, cells, tissue, etc.). This process can only yield a physical product. Humans have no immaterial part of who they are. They have no soul. They are biological machines made up entirely of matter. That’s the atheist story.</p>

<p>How can every human be equal to every other human when we’re entirely physical? There’s no <em>physical</em> trait we all share equally. Some people are taller, while others are shorter. Some are faster, but some are slower. Some are darker, and some are lighter. Every human is different, so how can we all be equal? There’s no physical trait we all share equally that can ground human equality.</p>

<p>That’s why the atheist worldview can’t offer a solution to our current racial tensions. According to an evolutionary account of humanity, blacks can’t be equal to whites. Egyptians can’t be equal to Assyrians. No person—whatever their race—is equally valuable to another person because every person is different from every other person in some way.</p>

<p>The Christian worldview, on the other hand, <em>can</em> explain why blacks and whites and people of every race are of <em>equal</em> value. Our creation story teaches in Genesis 1:27 that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”&nbsp;Every human being is made in the image of God. Notice that being made in God’s image is not a degreed property. You can’t have more of or less of God’s image. You either have it or you don’t. That’s one thing every person on earth shares equally, and that’s what makes every person equally valuable.</p>

<p>The Christian story has a foundation for genuine racial equality. That’s how Martin Luther King, Jr. made his case for civil rights. He was a Baptist pastor and believed in the image of God.</p>

<p>That’s why our story of creation makes sense of the belief that all humans are equally valuable.</p>
</div>

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


title: How to Stand Tall When Your Instincts Say “Lay Low”
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/01/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Our college kids are scared,”&nbsp;one mother admitted to me as she grabbed ten copies of <em>The Story of Reality</em> to purchase for her young people and their friends. A Christian teacher once confessed it was easy in church to stand for God, but with her non-Christian friends she could not muster the courage to speak the truth.</p>

<p>It’s natural to be scared when we’re facing threat. I’ve felt it many times myself. It’s one reason that the third part of STR’s vision for you is <em>Courage and grace for every encounter</em>. We all need to develop our courage - to nurture our ability to step up to danger. But how do we do that? How do we stand tall when all our instincts tell us to lay low? I have some ideas that have helped me, and I think you may find them helpful, too.</p>

<p>My first tip is the most important one: <strong>Face up</strong>.</p>

<p>In Matthew 10, Jesus didn’t mince words when He gave his disciples a “pep talk”&nbsp;before sending them on their first short-term mission. He told them they would be persecuted, hated, maligned, beaten, betrayed, and murdered. Hard facts? Yes. Frightening? Of course. Why was Jesus so blunt?</p>

<p>In WW2, some of the most courageous soldiers were the ones already convinced they would not survive the war. Since they were dead already in their own eyes, they simply accepted the threat and moved forward with resolve. In the same way, there is a courage that comes when we make peace with the fact that faithfulness to Christ is going to cost us. We will never be welcomed by the world, so why worry about it? But Jesus had more to say. He added - three times - “Do not fear.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Do not fear</em> them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known...<em>Do not fear</em> those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell...<em>Do not fear</em>; you are more valuable than many sparrows. (Matt. 10:26, 28, 31)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“Do not fear”&nbsp;- in the final reckoning all will be known and you will be vindicated. “Do not fear”&nbsp;- the worst anyone can do is kill your body, but God will save your soul. “Do not fear”&nbsp;- you are not alone. You are cherished. God has your back.</p>

<p>It also helps to know we are not the first to feel the jitters. The disciples felt it. Paul felt it (Acts 18:9). We feel it. When trepidations, forebodings, and apprehensions arise, Jesus says to you what He said to them - firmly, lovingly - “Do not fear.”</p>

<p>So decide today - mark your calendar - that you are already dead in this fight. You will not survive this war. You are fully in. You are fully His. You accept the consequences. Let the ridicule and rejection come. You are ready for it. You expect the worst from men, and you expect the best from God. Do not fear.</p>

<p>Here’s my second tip: <strong>Prep up</strong>.</p>

<p>For cold-case homicide detective, J. Warner Wallace, weapons training wasn’t just shooting at targets; he fired rounds into his bulletproof vest, too. Why? Because he needed to know, firsthand, that his vest stopped bullets. It gave him the confidence to stand in the line of fire when circumstances got intense.</p>

<p>Do you like tests? Most people don’t...unless they know the answers. Then there’s little fear. That’s because knowledge breeds courage. As you spend more time with the kind of training STR provides, you’ll realize that Christianity can stand up to the challenges. Put simply, <em>our vest stops bullets</em>.</p>

<p>Another part of STR’s vision for you is <em>Confidence for every Christian</em>. So prep up. If you take a hit in a conversation, you’re alerted to where you need to bone up on for the next round. The more you know, the braver you’ll be. As the Marines say, the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle.</p>

<p>Here’s my final tip: <strong>Step up</strong>.</p>

<p>You may be surprised to know that, ironically, pluck and nerve often come immediately <em>after</em> you get going, not before. Your courage surges once you’re moving.</p>

<p>The best way to do that is to plan your first few moves in advance so when a particular challenge comes up you can step out immediately. I know of no better way to do this than to start with questions. Take small steps forward, if you need to. Probe. Inquire. Investigate. Get the lay of the land. As you do you’ll discover the other side is not as frightening as you thought.</p>

<p>So first, face up. Make peace with the fact that you may be a victim of the war in the short term, but you’ll be a victor in the long run. Second, prep up. You’ll be amazed at the pluck you’ll feel when you’ve done your homework. Finally, step up. Motion matters, so put on your game face and get moving.</p>

<p>And always remember, <em>do not fear</em>. The Lord is there for you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-stand-tall-when-your-instincts-say-lay-low-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Choices on Social Media Change the Real-Life You
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/29/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-choices-on-social-media-change-the-real-life-you
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s not hard to see how our culture has been changing when it comes to our ability to disagree and debate civilly, and I can’t help but wonder how much of this is a result of habits developed in the anonymity of social media over the last decade—habits that could not be contained, habits that have grown to the point where they’re now spilling out into real life.</p>

<p>This quote by <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Our-Deepest-Desires-Christian-Aspirations/dp/0830851828/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1506644406&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=gregory+ganssle" target="_blank">Gregory Ganssle</a> expresses the problem:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is striking how rarely we reflect on how our choices, habits, and patterns influence the kind of person we become. Our culture suffers from what I call <em>moral atomism</em>. Moral atomism is the assumption that each choice we make is largely independent of all our other choices. We think that our ability to decide is fresh and unhindered at each fork in the road we face. Like the ancient atomists who thought that the basic particles that make up reality were independent and interacted only by bumping into each other, we tend to think that each choice we make is isolated from every other choice. The truth of the matter is that each of our choices makes us either more or less able to make the right choices in the future. We train ourselves in our abilities to recognize and do what we think we ought to do.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a good warning to all of us in apologetics. Every decision you make as you’re interacting with others—whether online or face-to-face—is changing you. Every word you speak to another person is shaping you. We need to consider this truth with the gravity it deserves, and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/how-work-your-character#.Wc2UyxOPJR0" target="_blank">as Christians</a>, we need to resist this trend with everything we have. No, we need to resist it with <em>more</em> than what we have, because we need God’s help with this.</p>
</div>

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


title: Concerns about Medical Treatments for Children with Gender Dysphoria
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 10/17/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/concerns-about-medical-treatments-for-children-with-gender-dysphoria
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Below is an important panel discussion about the medicine and science involved in treating children with gender dysphoria by transitioning them. A pediatrician, an endocrinologist, and a psychiatrist talk about this from their expertise.</p>

<p>Expressing concern, even alarm, over the untested science involved in the current approach to treating gender dysphoria in children is entirely consistent with care and concern for those children (listen at 1:00:45 to the panelists’&nbsp;response when they’re challenged about this). Our culture has rushed headlong into a treatment approach that has not been tested or studied in any rigorous way. Care for children with gender identity dysphoria should cause us to be cautious with their treatment.</p>

<p>Some of the concerns raised:</p>

<p>There has been no long-term research conducted to find out what the effects are of using drugs to transition. This is an off-label use of the drugs.</p>

<p>Even though children can stop taking medication, there is no true reversal of the effects of taking the drugs during puberty.</p>

<p>There’s no standardized way of diagnosing gender dysphoria. Diagnosis relies only on the report of the child.</p>

<p>There’s an inconsistency in how the medical profession handles gender dysphoria and other conditions where the identity and body don’t match. A child who reports believing she is handicapped is treated to correct this false internal belief to match her physical state. Anorexics aren’t treated as though that’s their predetermined destiny; they’re treated to correct the internal condition. There are medical guidelines that forbid doctors from conducting unnecessary amputations, yet transgender adolescents are given amputations.</p>

<p>Little children are extremely prone to the suggestion of their parents on all kinds of issues. Developmentally, they are working out their understanding of their own identities, which develops over time. Yet little children are being taught that their gender identity and bodies may not match, and then their report of their internal gender identity is taken as settled.</p>

<p>There has been little study and no long-term study done on the effects of coaching children into a fixed transgender identity.</p>

<p>80-95% of children who identify as transgender will eventually resolve their identity with their physical gender.</p>

<p>One solution is being promoted with little scientific evidence that it has long-term benefits and no harm.</p>

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


title: Become a Christlike Apologist by Looking at Jesus
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/05/2017
source: https://www.str.org/w/become-a-christlike-apologist-by-looking-at-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was moved by this passage from a Jonathan Edwards <a href="https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/admirable.html" target="_blank">sermon</a> marveling at how Christ condescended to love and serve us despite His infinite power:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christ is the Creator and great Possessor of heaven and earth. He is sovereign Lord of all. He rules over the whole universe, and doth whatsoever pleaseth him. His knowledge is without bound. His wisdom is perfect, and what none can circumvent. His power is infinite, and none can resist Him. His riches are immense and inexhaustible. His majesty is infinitely awful.</p>

<p>And yet he is one of infinite condescension. None are so low or inferior, but Christ’s condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of them. He condescends not only to the angels, humbling himself to behold the things that are done in heaven, but he also condescends to such poor creatures as men; and that not only so as to take notice of princes and great men, but of those that are of meanest rank and degree, ��<em>the poor of the world,”</em>&nbsp;James 2:5. Such as are commonly despised by their fellow creatures, Christ does not despise...Yea, which is more, his condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of the most unworthy, sinful creatures, those that have no good deservings, and those that have infinite ill deservings...</p>

<p>His condescension is great enough to become their friend, to become their companion, to unite their souls to him in spiritual marriage. It is enough to take their nature upon him, to become one of them, that he may be one with them. Yea, it is great enough to abase himself yet lower for them, even to expose himself to shame and spitting; yea, to yield up himself to an ignominious death for them. And what act of condescension can be conceived of greater? Yet such an act as this, has his condescension yielded to, for those that are so low and mean, despicable and unworthy!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As we learn apologetics and theology, it’s easy to start looking down on others—criticizing sermons, feeling contemptuous <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace#.WdVzNBOPJR1">toward non-believers</a>, becoming impatient with fellow Christians who <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/use-your-knowledge-to-serve-others-not-judge-them#.WdVzIROPJR0">aren’t as knowledgeable</a>, avoiding those we think to be “beneath”&nbsp;us, etc. But we see in Jesus, the very sovereign Lord of the universe, an unexpected and entirely different image of who we’re supposed to be as His followers and representatives, and it’s so beautiful, I can’t look away.</p>

<p>Second Corinthians 3:18 says we’re changed when we look at Christ as Edwards does above: “We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.”&nbsp;May we all learn to humbly love and serve others with our apologetics knowledge by looking at Him!</p>
</div>

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


