# articles

title: Acts and the Voice of God
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/acts-and-the-voice-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>How does God speak to us?</em></p>

<p>I am a bit distressed even talking about this issue because my comments are meant to try to rein Christians in a little bit, to keep them off of the fringe. I’ll be talking about the fringe more next week when I talk about how to keep from becoming spiritually weird, and some of it relates to this kind of material.</p>

<p>But whenever I have to rein Christians in a bit and talk about this kind of thing I feel badly because I realize that some people are straining at the bit for the best of reasons and with the best of intentions. They want more of God. They want to see more power in their life. They want to experience more of the working of the Holy Spirit in their life. And here is Koukl coming in, apparently throwing cold water on the whole operation.</p>

<p>I feel bad about that because I have no intention of quenching the work of the Holy Spirit. My entire goal is to be very, very careful and look closely at the specifics of what’s being held to be true to see if they do, in fact, line up with the directives given in the Scriptures. Or, are we drawing some wrong conclusions that cause us to go over the edge and maybe do some spiritual damage to ourselves and others? So, in some way, I am a conservative influence here.</p>

<p>I think I’m somewhat of an evangelical iconoclast because I’m always breaking up people’s parties, so to speak. An iconoclast is an image breaker, someone who kind of attacks, to some degree, cherished notions. Sometimes that bothers people and I’m sorry about that. I don’t mean to cause trouble for the sake of trouble, but I do mean to force people to think clearly and biblically, even about those ideas they cherish the most. And, to many of us, the thing that we cherish the most is this idea that we have a personal hotline to God and we ought to expect Him to speak to us about our decisions.</p>

<p>I had a very stimulating conversation last week about this. I talked about it on Sunday in some detail, and then a friend of mine wrote me a note and offered me eighteen references from the book of Acts that seem to contradict my point of view. So what I want to do for just a few moments is to talk about these particular references and see if they do contradict what I was saying last weekend.</p>

<p>I have to make clear what my point of view is so that it’s not misunderstood. Let me capsulize it for you very quickly. My point of view is basically four quick points:</p>

<p>First of all, learning to hear the voice of God is not taught as a Christian discipline that we must learn in order to live the optimal Christian life. This is the “hotline to God”&nbsp;view in which we get specialized and tailor-made instructions for our personal lives. That is not taught in Scripture.</p>

<p>Secondly, God sometimes does give specialized instructions, so I’m not saying that God can’t do that and I’m not putting God in a box. He does sometimes give specialized instructions. He did in Biblical times and He does in the present. But when we read in the Bible especially in the New Testament, which is what our discussion is about today when He has done it, such specialized instructions are clear first of all. They are not mumbled. They are not whispered. They are not nudged. And they are, almost without exception in the New Testament, a sovereign intrusion by God into the circumstances rather than something that is first sought by a Christian.</p>

<p>Thirdly, God’s intrusion in these cases is sometimes through special gifts in the body that I believe are in full operation today, but are by very nature individual. In other words, every person has his own gift and each person does not have every gift. So this working through gifts can’t be a means of every Christian hearing from God. In other words, sometimes God intervenes with a prophetic word, but since prophetic words only come through those people who have the gift of prophecy, it’s not the kind of thing we all have to cultivate, to learn to do.</p>

<p>Finally, there are clearly workings of the Spirit in the area of teaching, conviction of sin and comforting of individual Christians. I admit that those workings are private, individual and tailored to individual people. Those kinds of things are not in question here.</p>

<p>We’re going to do a little Bible study. We’re going to look at eighteen references suggested in the letter to me that was an attempt to offer contrary evidence from the Scriptures to the point of view that I just described for you. All of these references come from the book of Acts. We will see if these references actually undermine the basic point I have been making or not. In a sense, I hope the Bible study will go beyond just the meaning of the passages because what this will do, as we walk through it, is help us to learn how to be more precise and particular about our Bible study and not draw conclusions hastily or inappropriately from the Scriptures. But take a close, methodical look to get a clear idea of what is actually being averred here about Christian disciplines and God speaking.</p>

<p>The first verse is Acts 8:26-29. The Holy Spirit instructs Philip to go to the Gaza Road and join the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip did that and won him to Christ.</p>

<p>The next verse is Acts 9:10. Ananias has a vision and a conversation with God in which he receives explicit instructions from God about the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Remember, Ananias did not want to go to see Saul but God said to do that and He’d take care of things.</p>

<p>The next reference is actually two references which are the same circumstance. It’s Acts 10:11 and following in which Peter falls into a trance and has a vision. Then the Spirit gives him explicit instructions relating to the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentile Cornelius. By the way, this happened while Peter was thinking about food. He was beginning to make dinner, in fact.</p>

<p>The fifth reference is Acts 10:22. Here you have the Gentile Cornelius, a nonbeliever by the way, who is directed by an angel to give an audience to Peter. So we have Cornelius contacted by God about this meeting and Peter is contacted also.</p>

<p>Number six is Acts 12:7. An angel speaks to Peter in order to rescue him by leading him out of jail. Now Peter was asleep at the time and even thought it might have been a dream. Then he realizes that he is out of jail and he’s been released.</p>

<p>Number seven is Acts 13:2-4. Here the Holy Spirit speaks in some fashion—we’re not given the details, probably through the prophets the text says were present—giving specific instructions for Paul and Barnabas’&nbsp;first missionary journey. Just an interesting note here: there were no special directives given for their subsequent journeys, only for the first one.</p>

<p>The eighth reference is Acts 13:9. Here the person who sent me the letter claims that the Spirit spoke through Paul. But this verse really doesn’t apply to our question. Here Paul is filled with the Spirit, the text says, then he rebukes and blinds Elymas the magician. But it doesn’t say the Spirit did any speaking, no special revelation. The cross reference to Galatians 1:16 and 17 is equally misapplied because the text merely says that Jesus was revealed to Paul, something that is true of everyone who is becoming a Christian. It’s not an example of specialized, direct revelation like we’re discussing here.</p>

<p>The ninth is Acts 15:28. This is the Council of Jerusalem. The leaders resolve certain theological problems through debate, discussion, and reference to the Scriptures and the miraculous work of God in their midst, and then attribute their corporate decision to the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Spirit isn’t speaking, giving them information. It’s the people speaking. They come to a conclusion and then attribute that conclusion to God. They write, “<em>For it seems good to us having become of one mind,”</em>&nbsp;and then a couple of sentences later they add, “<em>It seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.”</em>&nbsp;It seems to me that this verse actually makes my point that the Spirit usually speaks to the church through the agency of the corporate leadership of the church.</p>

<p>Number ten is Acts 16:6. Paul here is forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the Word in Asia. This doesn’t say how it was communicated, but I will concede the point for the purpose of our discussion.</p>

<p>Number eleven is Acts 16:10. Paul has a night vision, presumably while he is asleep, of the Philippian jailer beckoning him. So the next day he goes to Macedonia and wins the jailer to Christ.</p>

<p>Number twelve is Acts 18:9. The Lord speaks to Paul in another night vision at Corinth, encouraging him not to be afraid but go ahead and preach the Gospel with boldness.</p>

<p>Number 13 is Acts 21:4. The disciples at Tyre, where Paul has briefly stopped for a visit, keep telling Paul “in the Spirit”&nbsp;not to set foot in Jerusalem. I am presuming this is a prophetic utterance. What is it when someone tells another person “in the Spirit”&nbsp;some particular information? Generally that’s prophecy.</p>

<p>In Acts 21:11, Agabus directly prophesies Paul’s future imprisonment by the Jews.</p>

<p>Number fifteen also says Acts 21:4, which is the same verse as thirteen, so here is a duplicate reference.</p>

<p>Numbers sixteen and seventeen are again the same reference, Acts 22:16, in which Jesus appears to Paul in a trance while Paul is praying and has a detailed conversation with Paul, instructing him to leave Jerusalem to avoid capture, which Paul doesn’t do and then gets captured. Two times Paul disobeyed, it seems.</p>

<p>Finally, Acts 23:11. Jesus appears at Paul’s side to encourage him and tells him he will witness in Rome just as he has in Jerusalem.</p>

<p>My friend actually left out Saul’s conversion, which would be another example to add to it. This is in Acts 9:4 where Jesus speaks to him from the cloud. Remember, he knocks Paul (then Saul of Tarsus) off the horse, blinds him and says, “<em>Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”</em></p>

<p>The letter concludes, “<em>I look to these experiences in Scripture to affirm that the Holy Spirit speaks and instructs and encourages us to seek after that.”</em>&nbsp;Then she adds, “<em>This is only one book in the New Testament.”</em>&nbsp;This last remark seems to suggest that, since one of twenty-seven books of the new Testament has eighteen references, therefore, the whole New Testament is actually full of this kind of thing.</p>

<p>Let’s see how this tallies up: Of the eighteen references she suggested, three were unintentional duplications of the same event, two references didn’t make the point, and she actually missed one reference that we’ll add. That leaves fourteen occasions of special revelations in the book of Acts. Of those fourteen, three were visions, two were angels, three were prophetic words, and four were Jesus either speaking or appearing. Finally, on two occasions the Holy Spirit spoke in some manner that we’re not sure of, but in those cases He did speak very clearly in at least one of the cases. The other one we’re not sure of because it just said He prohibited Paul from entering Asia.</p>

<p>Now who received these special revelations? Nine times out of fourteen it was the Apostle Paul, two times Peter, and one time each Philip, Ananias and Cornelius. In two of the references, by the way, the one spoken to was an unregenerate non-believer. That would be Cornelius, who was seeking God, and Paul—then Saul of Tarsus—who was not seeking God but completely in rebellion against God, persecuting the saints.</p>

<p>In virtually every case the communications from God were clear. The recipient did not have to develop an ability to hear. (Of course, that couldn’t have been the case with Cornelius and Saul of Tarsus because they weren’t even regenerated.) Not only were they clear, but they were intrusive. They did not have to be sought. In fact, you see people receiving this revelation who are sleeping, preparing for dinner, walking along in a few cases, and praying. Basically, they are just minding their own business, or God’s business. But in no case does it appear that they have developed an ability to receive this kind of direction. Instead, it just comes to them when they least expect it.</p>

<p>I apologize for what may seem like tedium in plowing through these verses, but sometimes it takes a tedious approach, step by step, to rightly divide the Word of Truth.</p>

<p>The suggestion was made that this was only one book in the entire New Testament, one of twenty-seven. If this was meant to suggest that there are many more references in the New Testament, then the suggestion was mistaken. Yes, it’s only one book, the book of Acts, but that is significant for two reasons. The book of Acts is an historical account which tells us what happened, usually without giving editorial comments about its applicability for us. I would counsel you to be careful what you infer from these passages. Philip was not only spoken to by the Spirit, he was also snatched away from the Gaza Road by the Spirit. He just disappeared from in front of the Ethiopian eunuch and found himself at Azotes, the text says. Talk about flying the friendly skies! But are we to infer that such a Spirit super-shuttle should be a regular replacement for Fords and Chevies or the RTD? Even if it happened ten different times in the Bible, do you think we are justified in concluding that this is a normal and expected form of missionary transportation? I doubt it.</p>

<p>So you must ask yourself the question, is it reasonable to suggest that much of what happened in the book of Acts was unique and was the special working of God for a particular purpose? I think that’s fair, especially given my second point: Though the book of Acts is only one book of twenty-seven in the New Testament, it is virtually the <em>only&nbsp;</em>one that gives evidence of this kind of thing. And the writings that doctrinally explain the kinds of things we see in Acts give no instruction on these kinds of supernatural revelations. Why not? It seems to me because, in this kind of thing, God finds us—we don’t need to find Him.</p>

<p>Are these Christian skills and disciplines being modeled for us, as my friend suggests? I think not. Instead, virtually every example cited fits into the model that I described in which special revelation happens. But when it does, it is unique. It is clear. It is unsought. And it is often the outworking of a spiritual gift of prophecy, nothing like the so-called voice of God that we’re encouraged by some to seek.</p>

<p>The New Testament records nothing like a still, small voice that whispers gently in our spiritual ear. Nor does the Old Testament, as far as I can tell. Instead, we focus on the only Word of God that we are commanded to seek, that we are commanded to understand, and that we are commanded to obey. That is stated in II Timothy 2:15: “<em>Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.”</em></p>

<p>So, on this issue, though I thank my friend for the verses, I don’t think they make the point. I hold my ground.</p>
</div>

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


title: Earth Day and Worldviews
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/earth-day-and-worldviews
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If Earth Day is justified by the moral concept of stewardship of the planet, its celebrants might be surprised about what else comes in that worldview package.</em></p>

<p>I think there needs to be some clarification about the issue of worldviews before I even make my comments about Earth Day.</p>

<p>I think Earth Day proves the Christian worldview, or at least is evidence for it. But I think that most people who practice Earth Day are living in a contradiction. Here is why I say that. A world view is just what one understands the structure of the world to be, the way someone believes the world really is. Worldviews come in packages. They are like puzzles with particular parts of them fitting together. For example, if you believe that there is a God who is the moral standard of the universe, then moral rules seem to make sense because God establishes moral rules and we seek to obey those rules, there is a sense of “oughtness”&nbsp;and accountability such that, if we disobey the moral rules, there is punishment from the One who gave the moral rules.</p>

<p>You may disagree whether there is a God and there are such moral rules. The point I’m making to you is there is a package effect to these beliefs. Moral rules seem to fit in with the idea of a Rule Maker. So the Christian worldview fits in a certain package. Certain things follow from that worldview. If God is God, then we are creatures who are created by Him. We are contingent beings. He is non-contingent. He makes the rules. We follow them. The world is a place that God created which we can discover—we can make sense of it. These are all things that follow from a Christian worldview. You see how that fits together?</p>

<p>There are other worldviews, of course, like atheism. If God does not exist, it seems to me there are other pieces to the package, too. If God does not exist, there is no justification for morality and morality is simply what people choose to decide at any given point. Next week they can change it. That��s part of the package. If God doesn’t exist, then obviously there is no accountability to a higher being and we’re not accountable to anyone. It’s just the natural order—cause and effect. You see how that fits together in a package?</p>

<p>When one examines particular views, you don’t just examine the view itself, you examine how it fits in the larger package. If somebody argues that there is no God, he isn’t simply making the point that there is no God; he is also making the point that there are other things that go with the package. If there is no God, it seems hard to argue for any ultimate meaning in the universe or any ultimate order. Certainly you can’t argue for design. If there is no God, then there is no design. Everything is a matter of accident, so if someone believes that there is no God, but then talks about the world and the universe in design language, he is saying something contradictory. He doesn’t believe in design, so why use design language? Phrases like “This was meant to be used in this way,”&nbsp;“Hands were meant to grasp,”&nbsp;“Male bodies were meant to fit into female bodies”—that “meant to”&nbsp;means that somebody designed them to do that when He made them. But if nobody made them, then nobody “meant”&nbsp;them to fit at all. Do you see that, ladies and gentlemen? The language is kind of incoherent.</p>

<p>Beliefs have to have justification or grounding. They have to fit in a worldview in a coherent way to be defensible. You can’t just pluck things out of the air and believe in them. Well, you can, but justifying them is an entirely different thing.</p>

<p>“I have a right to do anything I want.”&nbsp;People say things like that, but what does that mean? How do you justify that statement? A right is a particular kind of thing. A person isn’t saying that they are capable of doing anything they want or they can exercise personal freedom to do what they want, they are saying that they are owed the liberty to do whatever they want. That is what it means to have a right. Now, how are they owed? The language of rights implies a higher law. It’s a just claim to something based on some higher law. Where is that higher law? You see, that question is asking for justification or grounding in terms of a broader world view. Virtually everything in our lives, if we were careful in our thinking, would have to tie into a foundational worldview that gives sensibility to our beliefs.</p>

<p>Do you think that animals are different than human beings such that we can gas termites but not people? What grounds or justifies that distinction? As a Christian I think we’re aware that there is a difference and I have a way of grounding that belief or justifying it. I believe that there is a God who made human beings differently from animals. Human beings are made in God’s image so they have a different kind of value, a transcendent value. Animals have value that is not transcendent. Therefore, human beings, as an order of creature, are more valuable than any other creature. Why do I say that? Because of the grounding that I have in my worldview that God has made man in that way.</p>

<p>But how could I argue that man is special or unique if there is no God who makes him so? I’m talking qualitatively unique not quantitatively. I mean that he is made of more valuable stuff. Not that he is bigger or stronger or brighter, but he is made of more valuable stuff. This is all the notion of grounding.</p>

<p>I want to tell you how Earth Day is a testimony to the existence of God, and how in the minds of most people who practice Earth Day it is completely contradictory to what they profess to believe.</p>

<p>Think for just a moment—and I don’t want to over-generalize here, but I think it is fair to say—what is the prevailing worldview of people who are involved in Earth Day? Would it be fair to say that they are naturalists? These aren’t biblical Christians. There may be some who believe in a god who is distant and removed, but most of them tend to be naturalists. They are into nature. Nature is really what is going on. Many of them will say that the belief in God and the Bible is what has caused the problem, so they have a contrary view. Some are New Agers, but characteristically they tend to be naturalists. What is a naturalist? It is a person who believes that the way the world is constructed includes only the natural order of things, the world and the physical universe and the laws of nature and that’s it. It is a closed system. There is no God on the outside who is interacting with the natural order, creating miracles or answering prayers. That’s just kind of the old pre-scientific way of looking at the world. We know better now that the earth is governed by evolution and the laws of nature so there is no need for God. That is naturalism.</p>

<p>Let me ask you a question. How does naturalism as a worldview ground or justify something like Earth Day? What does naturalism teach? Evolution. What is evolution? Survival of the fittest. What is that? That entails—at least in its broadest sense—that each species or population struggles to survive using all that it can in its natural resources (raping the environment, one might say) for its own benefit. May the best bug win. That’s kind of the way it works, isn’t it? In other words, the notion of individual stewardship seems to be completely missing from evolution. You don’t hear the locusts saying, “Let’s leave some for the boll weevils.”&nbsp;No, they want to eat the boll weevils out of house and home. That’s the way that works. In other words, the balance of nature is this: if nature is what demands and commands the flow of things, everybody fights like hell to survive and beat everybody else up and that’s the way they stay in balance. Everybody destroys everything else and in the process there is this balance. So in one sense, no organism can ever upset the balance of nature. In that sense, there is nothing that is unnatural. Everything is working together.</p>

<p>Given this foundation, where do you get the idea that man has a moral responsibility to care for and be steward over the natural realm? There is theological baggage even in the word steward because a steward is someone who takes responsibility from someone else and answers to someone else. If we are stewards and responsible, then we are responsible to someone.</p>

<p>The question is, who are we responsible to? Earth Day is justified by the notion of stewardship. Now who are we responsible to? We are responsible to each other. That doesn’t count. We’re not big enough. I don’t owe anything to you. We are just creatures in the great scheme of things banging heads to survive.</p>

<p>Do you see when you say that someone is responsible you are introducing a moral concept? Where did this moral concept come from? There is no place for the moral concept in the natural order of things if it is just nature. There is no place for stewardship if it’s just nature because we are stewards for no one other. We are not responsible to someone. Certainly not Mother Nature. Mother Nature is nobody. There is no Mother.</p>

<p>So how do you make sense of this? You can’t make sense of it. But someone says, “It just seems right that we are responsible and we ought to be careful.”&nbsp;You are right. It does seem that way because that is the fact. That is true. We are responsible. But what is the grounding for that? There is no grounding for that in a naturalistic worldview. If we are responsible and ought to be good stewards, and there is no place for such a thing in a naturalist worldview, naturalism is false because it doesn��t give an accurate and complete picture of the world as it really is.</p>

<p>In what kind of world does Earth Day make sense? Well, in a world that has a God Who has given stewardship to man over His creation such that man is then responsible to Someone, the Owner of the garden, for taking care of the garden. Now, that makes sense. No problems there. It is fully grounded. We will have an Earth Day because we owe God responsible behavior with regard to the planet that He has given us. Now Earth Day makes sense, but guess what? There is something else that comes along with the package because that is the way world views work. God comes with the package with a whole bunch of other things that most people don’t want to mess with. Like morality that relates to personal behavior. They don’t want that, you see.</p>

<p>I think Earth Day proves God. Why? Because people adopt Earth Day because it just seems to make sense. It seems intuitively to be the case that we should be responsible. We ought to be stewards over what we’ve been given. The minute we say that we ought to be stewards, it necessarily implies a Person that we are responsible to. It necessarily implies God. I go with the intuitions here. I think we ought to be stewards and Christians ought to be much more active in ecology as stewards.</p>

<p>By the way, there is another little tweak in this. It is not nature for nature’s sake, it is nature for man’s sake. That is part of the puzzle as well. Human beings aren’t on equal par with all the rest of nature. They are different because God made them different.</p>

<p>Now, you have a choice. You can accept one or the other worldview. But I want to say, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you should live consistently with whatever world view you believe is correct. If you think naturalism is correct, then don’t complain about raping the environment. Not only does that not make sense, it is fully consistent with naturalism. It doesn’t make any sense to place moral values at all on man’s conduct.</p>

<p>If you think we ought not rape the environment, then the reason is that we have a stewardship. But then you’ve got God in your lap, as well, and a whole bunch of other things come with it, too. That’s the way worldviews work.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-day-and-worldviews" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-day-and-worldviews" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fearth-day-and-worldviews" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Force Your Morality
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-force-your-morality
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Some thoughts on the question “Who are you to force your morality on someone else?”</em></p>

<p>I got two calls yesterday that dealt with the same issue. The first call was a challenge. You know, “Who are you to force your beliefs on others?”&nbsp;The second call was really a question from a concerned Christian: “How do we know when we should force our beliefs on others?”&nbsp;Let me give you a couple of comments about this whole concern about forcing our beliefs.</p>

<p>Such a thing generally comes up when a Christian is giving his opinion in one fashion or another about morality. He is saying what he thinks is right or wrong and how that ought to play out in society. If the Christian viewpoint goes against the grain (which much of Christian morality does—sexual morality, the morality that relates to the rights of the unborn children, those kinds of things), frequently we are going to get a challenge and the challenge is, “Who are you to force your morality on someone else?”</p>

<p>It is good for you to know up front that this challenge is usually offered in a self-refuting way. It defeats itself because it is a challenge to you that you ought not force others or ask others to live according to your moral point of view. Yet that challenge itself is a moral point of view that someone else believes in and is asking you to live by. To put it simply, they’re forcing their morality on you when they say that you shouldn’t force your morality on someone else.</p>

<p>I usually just point that out because, tactically, when I get approached with that issue, when someone says, “Who are you to say?”, I back off just a little bit and offer a series of questions that are meant to get at the self-refuting nature of that objection. I want to show the person that, as the objection stands, it defeats itself.</p>

<p>I think there is a legitimate way to raise the question, but this isn’t it. I think the legitimate way to raise the question is to acknowledge that all of us have a moral point of view that we are seeking to have believed and acted upon in society, and we are seeking to do that by some measures. It may be through very forceful measures—by the force of law—and it may be through less forceful measures. But one way or another, we have our moral point of view. Why don’t we all agree that we each have a point of moral view that we are seeking to have enforced in some fashion in society, and we are seeking to compel other people to believe. Then the question becomes, Is our moral point of view legitimate? Is it appropriate to have this forced? This, I think, is at the heart of the question from our caller right at the end of the day yesterday.</p>

<p>I want to give you a couple of tools to answer that question. Given the fact that all of us have a moral point of view that we are seeking to impact our society with in some way or another, the question then becomes, How legitimate is that moral point of view? And beyond that, even if it is legitimate, we have to ask, How weighty is the moral concept?, before we can know how much force we need to apply in enforcing this moral concept.</p>

<p>I am going to give you four concepts here—two categories with two things in each category to make it simple.</p>

<p>The first has to do with the nature of forcing morality. What do we mean by forcing our beliefs? In other words, what do we mean when we talk about compelling others to act in a way that we think is right? There are two things that we can do or two ways that we can force our beliefs. One would be the strong way and the other you might say is the weak way of enforcing it. A strong way of forcing morality would be law enforcement. Laws that are enforced by a threat of punishment.</p>

<p>The second way would be compelling people to act in the way that you think is right in a less forceful way. We do that by encouraging or discouraging patterns of behavior by using social approval or disapproval.</p>

<p>How do we force our view? Well, we could use the strong arm of the law to force our view, and the second way is we can just kind of frown and scowl at people and use social means of approval and disapproval to get people to do what we want. There may be things that we don’t think are morally weighty enough that we would throw somebody in jail for doing, but we do think are valuable enough that we would frown at them and be disgruntled or exert peer pressure on people in order to get them to comply with our wishes. Call it peer pressure or social approval or disapproval. Do you see the difference? Both of these things are in use in our society.</p>

<p>What’s curious about the nature of the moral climate today is the kinds of things that are enforced nowadays and the kinds of things in which people are allowed to have liberty. Since we have two different strengths of enforcement, we have to make a decision in our culture which strength we use to enforce a moral point of view and it all depends on the moral weight.</p>

<p>The first concept has these two qualities: the strong enforcement (punishment) and the weak enforcement (disapproval).</p>

<p>The second category has to do with moral weight. In other words, we have some things that I would call, for the sake of cultural order, high morality, and then we have other things, in the context of cultural order, that we would call low morality. What is high morality? High morality is those kinds of things that are so critical to the common good, to the notion of fundamental rights—rights like life, liberty and property—that society must demand their adherence under penalty of severe punishment. For example, it is absolutely critical that property is protected, therefore if someone steal somebody’s property, we use the law to punish them. If someone take somebody’s life, we use the law to punish them. There are issues related to the common good that are so morally weighty that we have to use the force of law in order to get compliance. That’s what I call high morality.</p>

<p>You have a whole lot of other things that relate to the common good on a lower order of morality of sorts, things that are not so critical to the common good that the society must demand their adherence under penalty of severe punishment, but are still things that are morally good and good for society at the same time. In those circumstances we don’t use the force of law, we generally use a different force—the force of social approval and disapproval. We use peer pressure.</p>

<p>By the way, peer pressure is very effective. We could make better use of peer pressure in a lot of issues we are facing right now than we have. Some people might consider some things so morally critical that we should have the force of law governing them and others wouldn’t. I personally consider that most of sexual behavior is of the low morality type. In other words, righteous sexual behavior ought to be encouraged and immoral sexual behavior ought to be discouraged by using the softer enforcement of peer pressure, social disapproval, and shame, rather than by passing laws about certain behavior.</p>

<p>This issue comes up sometimes regarding homosexuality. People ask me if I believe that homosexuality ought to be made illegal. My personal opinion is no. I don’t think that homosexuality ought to be made illegal, though I think it is immoral—in the same vein that I don’t think that heterosexual premarital sex ought to be made illegal, though I think that is immoral, or adultery ought to be made illegal, though I think that is immoral. I don’t think that all immoral things ought to be made illegal because you would have a society that becomes impossible to manage.</p>

<p>I think the things that ought to be made illegal are the things of the highest social concern for the stability of the common good of society and to insure the basic inalienable rights, like liberty, life, and property. The reason I say property there instead of the pursuit of happiness is that the phrase “pursuit of happiness”&nbsp;is just too vague and misunderstood in our modern perspective. Incidentally, in the first drafts the Declaration of Independence the phrase “life, liberty, and property”&nbsp;was there instead of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”</p>

<p>In any event, there is a judgment call in low morality, and in my particular opinion, I think that sexual morality is of the second order and we should use social mores and peer pressure and notions like shame, for example, to keep people in line, rather than using the force of law to get people to conform to sexual morality. When I say keep them in line, I mean encouraging people to pursue behavior that is helpful for the common good.</p>

<p>What’s curious about the point of view nowadays is the kinds of things that are, in a sense, enforced by this soft type of enforcement—disapproval. Society has gone topsy-turvey. When was the last time you ever heard someone talk about something they ought to be ashamed of? It is almost like we have this phobia against people feeling ashamed. I understand that if you want to hire somebody, you can’t ask them about their criminal record. You can’t ask them about their sexual habits. These things fall under the issue of privacy, but there is also a suggestion that there is nothing to be ashamed of.</p>

<p>If people are on welfare, they can’t be made to feel bad for being on welfare. In the past that used to be one of the things that really helped us because welfare was considered a shameful thing. People got on it when they had to be on it and got off it as fast as possible so they weren’t a burden on society. Instead, they were encouraged by the mores of society to make a contribution rather than just draw from society and do nothing. You don’t see too many situations nowadays where people cast shameful aspersions on particular behavior, at least not on the kinds of behavior that they used to in the past.</p>

<p>However, we do see a kind of shame being cast, but now the shame is upon those who still hold to a traditional morality and believe in things like hard work, making a contribution, and sexual purity and express those views in the public square. When they do they are faulted for “forcing their morality on other people.” In other words, what’s being shamed nowadays are people who would like to use the notion of shame to apply to common moral principles. It is shameful to find something wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle. It is shameful to make someone feel badly for their sexual behavior. It is shameful to make someone feel badly because they are on welfare.</p>

<p>Both of these things are still happening nowadays, but the things are all twisted up. We still use the law to enforce the common good when we have a high moral issue in question. How do we decide that? Frankly, it is a matter of cultural consensus.</p>

<p>But the cultural consensus has changed in the area of using social approval and disapproval, though it is very effective. Those things that were considered virtuous in the past are now considered vices and visa-versa. Those things that were considered vices in the past have now become virtues. The vices are now being encouraged by social approval, and the virtues are being discouraged by disapproval.</p>

<p>If you are a moralistic person, shame on 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-force-your-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-force-your-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-force-your-morality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Do We Need Rescue From God?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-we-need-rescue-from-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Should the Christian message include that we need Jesus in order to be rescued from God? How could that God ever be good? This is the question Rob Bell asks, read on for Greg Koukl’s response.</em></p>

<p>Rob Bell is a pastor at Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His book, <em>Love Wins</em>, has climbed the charts on Amazon. In the book, Rob Bell advances, essentially, his version of a universalistic view of Christianity.</p>

<p>Rob Bell posted a video to support his book. He gained fame for making these three to four minute videos that are very compelling. The series of films is called NOOMA, and a lot of youth groups use them because they’re edgy, high-def, and well written. Typically in his videos Rob is in a compelling environment that appeals to youth. He’s a young guy himself, and he looks dead at the camera and asks questions that get people stirred up.</p>

<p>I think that’s good, as far as it goes. My sense is that the questions he asks are actually used to get people to question aspects of the Christian message that are sound and orthodox, and I don’t think that is good. If you’re using NOOMA videos for your youth group, I hope that you are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you are not very good at that, don’t show them, because I guarantee your kids aren’t capable to discern on their own, and they are susceptible to the emotional, rhetorical appeal that these videos offer.</p>

<p>I saw the video he used to promote his book, and have a transcript of the text for you that I want to respond to because I think that this video is especially insidious.</p>

<p>Remember, this is a high definition video. You’re looking directly at Rob Bell. He’s addressing the camera very confidently. There are cutaways to people doing visually appealing artwork.</p>

<p>Here’s what Rob Bell says,</p>

<p>“Several years ago, we had an art show at our church, and people brought in all kinds of sculptures and paintings, and we put them on display. And there was this one piece that had a quote from Gandhi in it, and lots of people found this piece compelling. They’d stop and sort of stare at it and take it in and reflect on it. But not everybody found it that compelling. Somewhere in the course of the art show, somebody attached a handwritten note to the piece, and on the note, they had written: ’Reality check: He’s in hell.’&nbsp;Gandhi’s in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure, and felt the need to let the rest of us know? Will only a few select people make it to heaven, and will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you know? How do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe, or what you say, or what you do, or who you know, or something that happens in your heart, or do you need to be initiated, or baptized, or take a class, or converted, or be born again? How does someone become one of these few? And then there’s a question behind the question—the real question: What is God like? Because millions and millions of people who were taught that the primary message, this center of the Gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what got subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news? This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies, and they say, ’Why would I ever want to be part of that?’&nbsp;See, what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. And what you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, and beautiful, that whatever we’ve been told or taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine. The good news is that love wins.”&nbsp;At this point the camera pans to the book, with its title, <em>Love Wins</em>.</p>

<p>Rob Bell has made a rhetorically clever, appealing, smooth, compelling statement that, in the questions he asks and the statements he makes, is making a broader statement. Even if they were just questions, you know as well as I do that questions can be used to make to make a point, and that is what he’s doing. He is saying that it is a false statement to say that you must believe in Jesus, or you go to Hell. Not only is he saying it is false, he calls it in the book “a toxic message.”&nbsp;And he tells you that he finds something far better than this other story, and that story is that love wins.</p>

<p>He’s basically telling us that most of us have gotten it wrong. That certainly happens sometimes, doesn’t it? And, you know, he’s not the first person who’s said that. Sometimes, there is something that we have been socialized to believe that actually isn’t true. In these cases we need to go back to the book and see what it really says. So, that does not trouble me. And I’m not even troubled that he’s asking this question if it were truly a question. But he’s not just asking this question, is he? He thinks he has the answer, and he’s telling us what that answer is, and that answer is that 2,000 years of Christianity has gotten it wrong.</p>

<p>It sounds to me like a challenge from someone who has never had any exposure to the historical teaching about the Scripture, Jesus, or the teaching of those who Jesus personally trained to take His message after Him, because for 2,000 years, there has been a unanimous voice from the Church on this issue. In other words, those questions he just asked—“Is Gandhi in Hell? Are only a few getting into Heaven? Well, then how do you do that?”—that’s what the Church has been preaching for a long time. And he’s acting like the Bible is unclear about the answers. And Rob Bell is virtually shocked that someone would suggest, for example, that Gandhi is in Hell. Worse, he chastises them and makes their opinion look ludicrous.</p>

<p>Why would Rob Bell think that Gandhi is in Heaven? Because Gandhi was such a good man? How does anybody know that Gandhi is such a good man? What we know is the man of history, and I am not going to take away from that man any of the good things he did in history. But how many people know much about his private life?</p>

<p>Don’t Bell’s questions imply that Bell thinks that Gandhi would go to Heaven because he was good? Recall the account of the Pharisee and the publican from Luke 19. The Pharisee in the front, proclaiming his good works to God, and the publican in back beating his breast saying, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”&nbsp;Jesus said it wasn’t the guy in front who’d done all the wonderful things that went away justified, but the man in the back. So if Rob Bell is putting Gandhi up there, and saying, Look at all the wonderful things he’s done, of course he’s in Heaven, look at how good he is, then he is at odds with Jesus on this particular point.</p>

<p>He says, “Will only a few select people make it into Heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in Hell?”&nbsp;Let me answer with Jesus’&nbsp;words in Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”&nbsp;Has Rob Bell ever read those words?</p>

<p>He continues, “And then there is the question behind the question—the real question: What is God like?”&nbsp;In other words, What kind of God is this that millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the Gospel, is that God is going to send you to Hell unless you believe in Jesus? That isn’t the message, although a lot of Christians are confused on this. The message is not that people go to Hell because they didn’t believe in Jesus. People go to Hell because people break God’s law. They go to Hell because they’re criminals, not because they didn’t accept the pardon.</p>

<p>The basis on which God judges as stated in Revelations 20 is their deeds. They are found wanting. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. “But what kind of God is that”&nbsp;he says, “that we need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? How could that ever be good news?”</p>

<p>I draw the opposite conclusion that he draws. Not that this is what is subtly taught by our view, but that this is what ought to be taught explicitly. That is, that the Gospel rescues us from God. Why would I ever say that? Because that’s exactly what the Bible itself says.</p>

<p>John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him.”&nbsp;Who said that? That would be Jesus.</p>

<p>Romans 1:18: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”</p>

<p>Romans 2:5: “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”</p>

<p>Romans 3:5: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what should we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?”&nbsp;Isn’t that, by the way, what Rob Bell is suggesting—that we are rescued from God? “What kind of God is that?! That’s a bad God.”&nbsp;Well, Paul says, “No, that’s not a bad God.”</p>

<p>Romans 5:9: ���Much more than having now been justified by His blood, we will be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”</p>

<p>Romans 12:19: “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God.”</p>

<p>Colossians 3:6: “For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience.”</p>

<p>1 Thessalonians 1:10: “Wait for the Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead; that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.”</p>

<p>Did Rob Bell read any of these verses? Does he not understand that propitiation is satisfaction of the wrath of God? He’s a pastor, for goodness’&nbsp;sake! He’s a graduate of Fuller Seminary. Doesn’t he know that this is what the Bible teaches? He could say he doesn’t believe it. Fine. But he is purporting to give us the true biblical message.</p>

<p>In the book of Revelation, the wrath of God is mentioned ten times, more than any other book. By the way, the book of Revelation is the endgame, right? It’s eschatology. It’s the final things. It’s the kind of thing that Rob Bell is talking about in his own book.</p>

<p>Why do we talk about Hell? Because the Bible talks about it. Jesus talks about it.</p>

<p>What kind of God is this? It’s the God who’s holy. It’s the God who redeems us. That’s what kind of God it is, Rob Bell.</p>

<p>He says, “This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an analyst’s list of absurdities and inconsistencies, and they say, ’Why would I ever want to be part of that?’”</p>

<p>My response is, why would he be surprised that most people don’t want to be Christians because of that message? Isn’t this precisely what we were told was going to happen? The message is a message of man’s sin covered by God’s love, but the problem comes before the solution. And you have to admit your problem before you can take advantage of the solution. That’s hard to do. Why is that surprising to Rob Bell<em>?</em></p>

<p>In 2 Timothy 1:8: Paul says, “Do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, but join with me in suffering for the Gospel.”&nbsp;The Gospel indicts all people as guilty before a sovereign God. Christians might wilt back from this because it is not going to be approved by many people. Paul says, Don’t be ashamed. Step up, take your lickin’&nbsp;when the lickin’&nbsp;comes from being faithful to the Gospel. Expect to be persecuted for this view. Expect to be rejected for this message.</p>

<p>Bell closes the video about his book by saying, “See, what we believe about Heaven and Hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like.”&nbsp;My response is, that is exactly right. “And what you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, and beautiful, that whatever you’ve been told or taught, the Good News is actually better than that, better than we can ever imagine. The good news is that love wins.”&nbsp;And that is also exactly right, but for the opposite reason that Rob Bell thinks it is.</p>

<p>Friends, love <em>does</em> win, but Rob Bell’s view does not.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-we-need-rescue-from-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%2Fdo-we-need-rescue-from-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%2Fdo-we-need-rescue-from-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: Ethical Pain
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/ethical-pain
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>God has made us moral creatures and we are ethically guilty. To put it simply, people feel guilt because they are guilty.</em></p>

<p>I think the issue of guilt is very important and I think it’s a very important argument for the fallen condition of man. A couple of weeks ago I lectured at Whittier College in a philosophy class on the Christian view of human nature and guilt is one of the things that is very important in the Christian view of man. Not only is man finite, he’s creaturely; he’s also personal, transcendent in his worth. He has a soul. But there’s something else about man that we notice. That is that man is somehow screwed up, broken, he’s distorted, twisted. We know something is wrong and it is not just the fact that he’s chipped or broken or marred in some way, but there is an ethical element to that distortion. In other words, man is not just twisted, he is guilty. He is ethically and morally responsible for his twistedness. This brings us to the issue of guilt.</p>

<p>There are two types of guilt. One is what I call moral guilt or ethical guilt and the other is what I call emotional guilt. Emotional guilt is the feeling of being guilty. It’s possible to feel guilty when we’re not guilty, and it’s possible to not feel guilty when we are. The other guilt that I’m talking about, other than the feeling, is the true moral guilt. In other words, there is a condition of true moral guilt in which a person is culpable, worthy of blame, morally responsible for something he did. Some people feel bad in their heart about something they did that was truly wrong. In that case you have true moral guilt and also emotional guilt. Other people do something that is truly wrong and feel no emotional guilt whatsoever. We generally call those people sociopaths.</p>

<p>So there are two categories of guilt. Both are very important in our discussion and I think the emotional guilt is an existential experience that God gives us when we break His law. We have an internal awareness that we’re doing something wrong. I think that this is something that every person can acknowledge as a first principle, so to speak, as true about human beings and human nature. Humans are moral people who make moral distinctions and there is guilt that they feel.</p>

<p>What is the genesis of this? Why do we feel that way? My answer to that takes us back to the Christian view of human beings and human nature. Man is made as a moral creature. It is an ontological distinction. Part of what makes humans human is that they have a physical body and they have a soul. The soul is a substance that is capable of making moral distinctions and making moral choices. The “I”&nbsp;inside my body, so to speak, can choose to do something right or wrong and, at least in some significant measure, it knows the difference between the two. We also have built inside of us a kind of pain response. You know that when you stick yourself with a pin, if you keep sticking yourself with a pin all over your body the blood is going to flow out and you’re going to die. So it’s not good for your body and the body says, “Quit doing that.”&nbsp;The way it says that is that it gives you a pain. Now the pain is felt in the soul because your soul is the one that is willing you to prick your finger, but it’s a physical kind of thing that you begin feeling in yourself.</p>

<p>There’s a similar kind of thing in the soul that God has set up. We are moral creatures and if we do things that are immoral then we hurt our soul, just like mutilating your body hurts your body. So to protect us from hurting our souls God gives us emotional pain and that emotional pain is in the form of guilt related to an ethical choice. There are other kinds of emotional pain but the emotional pain associated with wrong ethical choices is called guilt. That’s a warning to us that we shouldn’t keep doing it for one, and second that we are responsible because we’ve transgressed a moral law. Now I think the fact that every human being experiences guilt is a very important argument in favor of the Christian view of man because some people have suggested that guilt is something that you manufacture. You just invent it. People invent guilt to manipulate other people. That’s a reasonable kind of suggestion but I don’t think it stands up when you think about it for a few minutes Here’s why.</p>

<p>I ask two things if guilt is simply something invented by humans to control other human beings. First of all, why does it work so well? And secondly, how would one invent a feeling in another person? How can I invent a feeling that I place inside of you to make you feel bad? I can’t do that. I can only appeal to something that’s already there. It’s called manipulation. When you manipulate something you are working with something that already exists. I can manipulate that guilt pain just the same way that I can manipulate your physical pain to get you to do something, it’s called torture. But I can’t invent physical pain and I can’t invent ethical pain. I can only appeal to and manipulate ethical pain.</p>

<p>The question isn’t can man manipulate ethical pain? The question is how can I account for the existence of ethical pain to begin with? I can account for that. God has made us moral creatures and we are ethically guilty. To put it simply, people feel guilt because they are guilty.</p>

<p>...That is descriptive relativism. It is an anthropological statement; it’s not an ethical statement. It’s just an observation. It does raise the question how can this be? Why can’t somebody experience ethical guilt for something they’re doing wrong in different cultures? Maybe morals are really relative. This is descriptive relativism. It entails that you can look at different cultures and find different ethical practices. How does one account for that if there is some absolute morality? It seems that morality is culturally determined.</p>

<p>Here is an observation that may help. It’s a refinement, a distinction that will help make sense of some of that. For example, in India they used to practice “settee,” which means that when a man died they would also kill the widow. They would bury the wife with the husband. They considered that moral, but we don’t consider it moral in our country, so it seems to be a different value on human life.</p>

<p>The refinement that I’d like to offer you is the idea of the difference between facts and values. In India there was still the same value as in the United States that one should not murder. It is not open season on human beings in India. They believe that you should not murder and in our culture we believe you should not murder. That was the same value, but they had different notions of what murder entailed. For example, if you are attacked by somebody with a knife and you kill them, that would be a traumatic experience for you, but you would not have a sense of ethical guilt because you did not murder that person. You killed in self-defense. Therefore, in our culture we are taught that killing in self-defense is not inappropriate or ethically wrong. Having said that, we are not making it open season on everyone because there are certain conditions in which killing is not murder. Those are the facts of killing in our culture. In the same way, in India killing by settee was not considered murder. It was considered a gracious thing to do given certain circumstances.</p>

<p>The reason that I make this distinction is because a lot of times the apparent differences of moralities in different cultures is really not a difference in values but a difference in facts, a difference in how they view certain circumstances. I don’t think any culture thinks that child abuse is good, but some cultures are rougher on their children than others. They don’t consider that particular roughness an example of abuse. That may help in terms of the distinction of the cultures.</p>

<p>Even so there still is that moral machine and what I’m replying to is not making an argument based on a standard morality that everyone has. I’m responding not so much to the content of morality as to the machinery of morality. We have that moral machine in there. What compels us to think in moral categories? That’s an example of the image of God in man. We may put different things in those categories, but the fact is that we have the machinery to begin with. It appears that no other creature has that machinery and that’s what I appeal to, so I don’t have to argue for a blanket morality that everyone has. I go one step deeper than that and say even with the difference, and there may be explanations like facts and values for those differences (it’s also possible to singe our conscience, if you will), beyond that, let’s take the fact of moral machinery. How does one explain that from an evolutionary, physicalist, naturalist perspective?</p>

<p>This is a fact about humankind that we are all well aware of that is very well explained by a Christian view of the world.</p>
</div>

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


title: It Was the Best of Actions, It Was the Worst of Actions
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/13/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m fascinated by the comparison between <a href="/w/he-suffered-because-god-loved-him" target="_blank">this account</a> of the story of Lazarus and <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/03/jesus-behaving-badly.html" target="_blank">this one</a>. Here’s a taste of each. First, from John Piper:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Look again at the connection between verse 5 and 6: “Now Jesus <em>loved</em> Martha and her sister and Lazarus. <em>Therefore</em> [because of this love], when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.”&nbsp;He did not hurry to his side...</p>

<p>[Jesus] said in verse 4: “This illness does not lead to death [in other words, the point is not death]. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”&nbsp;This illness will turn out for the glory of God, and the glory of the Son of God...Therefore (verse 6) love lets him die. Love lets him die because his death will help them see, in more ways than they know, the glory of God.</p>

<p>So what is love? What does it mean to be loved by Jesus? Love means giving us what we need most. And what we need most is not healing, but a full and endless experience of the glory of God. Love means giving us what will bring us the fullest and longest joy. And what is that? What will give you full and eternal joy? The answer of this text is clear: a revelation to your soul of the glory of God—seeing and admiring and marveling at and savoring the glory [of] God in Jesus Christ.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, from J.M. Green:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Perhaps Jesus had some remorse over his heartless actions, but personally, I’m not buying the whole thing about him being deeply moved and troubled. Looks suspiciously like alligator tears. Remember, this is the guy who in a very calculated manner used Lazarus as a pawn in his exercise in self-promotion. This Jesus character in the gospel stories could easily have arrived in time to prevent the death of his friend. There would have been no need for Lazarus to have experienced the agony of dying. No reason for his sisters to suffer the grief of losing their brother.</p>

<p>But he didn’t.</p>

<p>Why? Quite simply because he wanted to impress people. He wanted to glorify himself and Yahweh. The suffering and death of Lazarus was useful to furthering their agenda. While this sort of behavior might be expected of a North Korean dictator, it is quite nauseating to see it venerated in a religion.</p>

<p>When you read about God’s ’glory,’ understand that we are talking about his ego. The god of the Bible likes to look good. He wants people to be impressed with him. Apparently his self-esteem needs frequent propping up. Of course, Christians have tried to put some noble, spiritual sheen on God’s need for glory. They’ve framed it in their minds as something admirable, when in actuality it’s despicable and pathetic.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Both agree that Jesus deliberately did not heal Lazarus before his death. Both agree that the purpose of this was to reveal God’s glory. So what makes the difference between the two accounts? Their ability to see God. <a href="/w/christianity-is-vile-to-atheists" target="_blank">The biggest gulf</a> between Christians and atheists like Green is not the question of God’s existence, but the apprehension of His beauty and goodness. Our understanding of this passage depends on whether or not we see God as truly being worthy of all glory. No fallen human being is worthy—not even the best one, so any attempt to evaluate God by imagining what we would think of a flawed human (such as a dictator) who acted <em>as if he were in God’s place</em> will of course elicit revulsion when one talks of glory and praise. But if God is truly and uniquely flawless in goodness, love, power, and in every other possible way, then to participate in the <a href="/w/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-" target="_blank">joy of praising Him</a> is a morally right, beautiful, and fulfilling thing to do.</p>

<p>So why do we see Him so differently?</p>

<p>There’s a reason why Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”&nbsp;(Jn 6:44). Our morally broken hearts are dead set against Him from the beginning. We’re “by nature children of wrath”&nbsp;(Eph 2:3). We’re His enemies (Rom 5:10). The “sweet aroma of the knowledge of [Christ]”&nbsp;is “an aroma from death to death”&nbsp;among “those who are perishing”&nbsp;(2 Cor 2:14-16). On our own, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them”&nbsp;(1 Cor 2:14). We shouldn’t be surprised Green sees God the way he does, we should expect it. The true surprise is that we <em>don’t</em> see Him that way.</p>

<p>Here’s the point: The fact that anyone is able to say “Amen!”&nbsp;to Piper’s quote is due entirely to a miracle. It’s <em>only</em> because “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”&nbsp;(Eph 2:4-5). There is no other reason. We’re not better. We’re not smarter. We don’t deserve it. It’s God’s love and grace that snatched us out of our rebellion, so treat your atheist neighbors with the humility <a href="/w/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace" target="_blank">this truth demands</a>. Remember what it was like to be blind so that you don’t despise the blind. Don’t forget that apologetics—explaining the reality of God to others—is, at root, a supernatural endeavor, and pray accordingly.</p>
</div>

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


title: Bloom Where You’re Planted
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/bloom-where-you-re-planted
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Have you ever had the desire to be an apologist? Here is Greg’s sage advice to get you started on your way.</em></p>

<p>I get asked a particular question fairly frequently. It’s not a question about apologetics. It’s a question about this kind of work. I thought maybe I’d take a few moments to give you the answer I give when I’m asked, How does one get into the line of work that you’re in?</p>

<p>I take that as a kind of a compliment, in a way, that someone who is participating with Stand to Reason would be drawn to this kind work and want to be useful in terms of the Kingdom in this way.</p>

<p>The simple answer is, It’s not easy to get into this business. If what you mean is, make a living at defending the faith, or speaking on these issues, or writing on these issues, it’s not easy. I’m going to give you a general response in just a few seconds that would be applicable to most people who want to make a difference for the Kingdom in this way, but don’t see an entrée at the moment. The fact is, there is no career path for being a professional apologist because this isn’t a line of work, in the same sense as other careers.</p>

<p>As I look around me at people who are doing what I’m doing, and most of them doing this professionally are men. There are a few exceptions, Gretchen Passantino and Nancy Pearcey. I don’t know that it’s harder for a woman. Maybe it is.</p>

<p>The people that I know that are in the business are able to generate an income that supports them in one of three ways or some combination. That is, you can start your own organization. That’s what we did at Stand to Reason. But I don’t recommend most people do that, and here’s the reason why: It’s hard, and it’s expensive, and it takes a lot of work, and the attrition rate is high. When Scott Klusendorf came to us 12 years ago, he already was part of an organization. He asked us, “How do you start your own organization? You started yours.”&nbsp;And he wanted to start his. I said, “Why do you want to start your own organization, Scott?”&nbsp;He said, “Well, because right now I’m just not doing enough speaking. I want to do more speaking and less fundraising,”&nbsp;which is what he was doing with the organization he was with. I said, “Well, if you want to do more speaking and less fundraising you don’t want to start your own organization because you’ll be doing all the fundraising. It could be harder to get out speaking.”&nbsp;I said, “Find an organization that values your skills and is willing to free you up to do what you do best.”&nbsp;And then I said, “Why don’t you come work for us?”&nbsp;Which he did for several years. Now he has started his own organization about five years ago: Life Training Institute. He decided it was worth the risk to go ahead and do what he needed to do to start anew, do the legal work, and get capitalized so he could buy the computers, rent the room, hire the staff. All of that costs money, and that’s something to consider if you’re considering starting your own enterprise.</p>

<p>Thank God, quite literally, as I look back, there were a whole bunch of things that were in place that were important for the success of this organization that we didn’t realize were in place by the sovereign hand of God that made a big difference for our success and longevity. For example, I was already in radio. I’d been doing radio for four years when we started Stand to Reason and had some local name recognition because of that and a library of articles from radio transcriptions that we could offer as resources.</p>

<p>Number two: You can work for somebody else who has their own enterprise, and there are organizations all over the country. Stand to Reason isn’t hiring right now, so don’t give us a call, but groups like us, and campus groups, and churches that have youth group pastors or associate pastors that might focus in these things could be looking for someone like you. A lot of people who are doing this kind of thing are attached to other organizations that guarantee an income for them, and to some degree provide an audience for them built in, so they don’t have to drum up the business, which is hard when you’re first starting out.</p>

<p>The third option is you could be a professor. That’s kind of a variation of option number two. You can teach to provide an income and the opportunity with the students, and then from that foundation foray out and make yourself available as a speaker or a writer. I think of J.P. Moreland, and just off the top of my head, Ben Witherington, who I just interviewed. They have a situation in the academic world, and this becomes their knowledge base from which they write and speak. That usually requires a Ph.D. It at least requires an M.A., because you can’t teach in the university setting without an advanced degree. That means more schooling for some of you, but that is an option.</p>

<p>Those are the only three options that I know of if you want to make some kind of living at apologetics. But I don’t think you need to do that. I don’t think most people who are interested and gifted in apologetics should do that. You don’t have to get paid in order to do apologetics.</p>

<p>It always has to start that way, doesn’t it? Jesus said, “If you are faithful in”—what?—“small things first, then you’re given larger things to be faithful in.”&nbsp;That’s the right sequence. I started out with a desire to make a difference for Christ and the responsibility to earn a living. And if I couldn’t do them both at the same time—that is, one wasn’t a means to the other—then I would find some other way to make a living while I fulfilled my desire and my responsibility as a member of the Body of Christ to use the gifts that I had to make a difference for the Kingdom. I had a very simple motto: Bloom where I was planted. I tried to take whatever circumstance was available to me. And sometimes that wasn’t much.</p>

<p>When I first became a Christian, within a few months I was living with a bunch of other Christians in a training school in Westwood Village by the UCLA campus called the Jesus Christ Light and Power House. It wasn’t long before I was teaching a Bible study—not because I knew a lot, but because I’d led a couple of people to the Lord so I met with them in the living room on the floor. I taught them what I knew, which wasn’t much, but it was more than what they knew.</p>

<p>Then early on, the following year, at Hope Chapel in Hermosa Beach (a very small church at that time, less than 100 people) I was teaching a group of maybe ten people apologetics, or what I knew of apologetics at that time. I didn’t know much, but I knew more than them.</p>

<p>You can make a difference as long as you’re making a difference with someone else with whom you have a difference (here I mean difference in ability). So maybe you know a little bit of theology. Let’s say you know like three theological truths. Well, you can teach those to somebody who know less than three theological truths, or don’t know those three. You can teach them what you know. That means just about anybody can participate as long as you find someone who knows less than you do, and there’s a lot of them around.</p>

<p>Take what you know, take the circumstance you’re in, and bloom where you’re planted. And that is when you learn best. When you’re teaching someone else, you learn it better. It’s very simple. You have a small group. Sometimes your group is two or three people. You have an audience of one, over coffee at Starbucks. You could be sharing, talking, teaching, instructing. You take those opportunities, and you are faithful in those smaller opportunities, and more opportunities will probably come your way.</p>

<p>You may not have an audience of 100 or 1,000 or 3,000. I rarely have that size audience, anyway. But Jesus said, “If you’re faithful in smaller things, you’ll be given greater things.”&nbsp;Jesus wants you to make a difference in small ways. The fields are white with harvest. There are all kinds of need out there, and you’ve been gifted to meet that need. So it stands to reason, to coin a phrase, that you will be used as you become better at what you do by the One who distributes these gifts, God, through the person of the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>My answer to the question is then, keep your eyes open, and take the opportunities that come your way, look for opportunities. Bloom where you’re planted. Do whatever you can, wherever you’re at. And then watch the Lord work and see what He decides to do with what you’ve done.</p>

<p>As you are given opportunities, be a student of your craft. There are books you can read that help you develop your communication skills. I just read two recently. One is called The Exceptional Presenter. It’s a secular book. Great book. I got some really good things out of it. The other one is called Made to Stick. It’s the idea of how you give presentations that people remember. I’ve been doing it for 35 years, but I’m a student of my craft.</p>

<p>Do you want to write better? Here’s a book for you: On Writing Well. It’s a pretty straightforward title. On Writing Well. The author is Zinsser. He says very helpful things like, “Give to the reader the most information, take from him the least time.”&nbsp;Oh, that’s great. And Zinsser practices what he preaches in that statement because it’s a powerful idea in a couple of words. You want to write like that.</p>

<p>Do you want to be more effective and make a difference, and then you’ve got to be a student. You’ve got to be a student of the information, of course, but you also need to be a student of your craft, your capability to communicate verbally or in writing, and the two are linked. Good writing sounds good to the ear. There’s a certain euphony to good writing. So try to find ways to be better in both.</p>

<p>So if you would like to be a professional apologist, the answer is, if you have a desire to make a difference, forget about making a living at it. That might come later, by God’s grace, but first you have to be someone who’s being a good steward with what you have, and that means blooming where you’re planted, taking whatever you have and whatever circumstances you’re in, and using that, and then growing. You’ll grow better if you are consciously a student of your craft. You’ll expand your knowledge, and become better at how you communicate that knowledge to others, both in speaking and writing. That’s my advice: Bloom where planted.</p>
</div>

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


title: Active and Passive Euthanasia
topic: Bioethics
author: Guest Author
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/active-and-passive-euthanasia
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Here are some basic ethical distinctions by way of background. I won’t cover all the bases in the active/passive debate (active—taking lives, passive—letting die).</em></p>

<p>by J.P. Moreland</p>

<p>We talked about withholding and withdrawing treatment. I said that there wasn’t any significant ethical distinction between those two, arguably. We talked about ordinary treatments and extraordinary. The gist of those is ordinary are those treatments that don’t seem to offer a reasonable benefit and place an undue burden on someone. It’s hard to pin that down, but the gist of it is we all recognize that certain treatments are not morally obligatory because they seem to be pointless. They’re not accomplishing much and the burdens outweigh what the benefits are.</p>

<p>The most important thing is the Law of Double Effect. The Law of Double Effect is not arbitrary, it’s testable. The Law of Double Effect, if you’ll recall, is an attempt to state in principles what would then be true from basic ethical actions. Most of the time we know that a person’s intention makes all the difference in the world, at least basically. What a person intends really defines what their action is. We also know that generally speaking we ought not use a bad means to accomplish a good end. So the Law of Double Effect tries to say that when an action has good and bad consequences, it can be permissible if the [certain] things obtain.</p>

<p>We took a look at Rachels’&nbsp;view, not necessarily so you’d know who he was, but primarily he is the clearest most articulate expositor of active euthanasia. [His] idea behind active euthanasia is, one, there’s no difference between active and passive euthanasia. They’re the same thing. The reason they’re the same thing is because an intention isn’t part of an action. As in Smith and Jones’&nbsp;case where Smith drowns the boy and Jones waits while he drowns. One was active and the other passive, but they’re equivalent. That means, by the way, that if passive euthanasia is justifiable then active would be too because there’s no difference between them. In cases where passive would be justifiable, so would active such as in assisted suicide or directly intentionally taking a person’s life would be morally permissible.</p>

<p>When does that happen? That requires an analysis of the biographical/biological distinction. He says that being a human being is just having biological life and that’s not what matters morally speaking. Instead it’s having biographical life. I have a biographical life. That means that I have goals and ambitions and activities that are worthwhile to me from my point of view that I can pursue in a meaningful way. If I lose biographical life like Donald C., the Texas burn case victim who was in an accident. He was in rodeo and chased women, basically. He could lead a normal life, but he had no biographical life because he couldn’t pursue the goals important to him. So Rachels would say that he was within his rights to want to commit suicide. There was nothing immoral at all about it. A physician who assisted him would be justified. A person who wanted to save their family financial trauma, that’s okay as long as they’ve chosen. That’s basically the gist of it.</p>

<p>The other argument was that it is merciful in some cases to take a person’s life rather than to let them suffer longer. My point on that was that even in those cases, which are very small relatively speaking, but still intend to merely ease the pain of that patient even though you foresaw that it might shorten life somewhat without directly intending to take the person’s life. So the intent would still be different and you wouldn’t accomplish a good by means of killing a patient. The treatment would directly have that product although that was not its intent and although it did treat pain.</p>

<p>I tried to say that placing all your money on biographical life and saying that’s really what matters does not allow anybody to make a distinction between an appropriate and inappropriate biographical life. As long as you’ve got a biographical life that’s appropriate to you. But it does seem, Rachels not withstanding, that some biographical lives are better than others, more intrinsically valuable. In fact, some biographical lives are flat wrong if you want to be the best male prostitute you can be. So if that’s true you could argue that the difference between appropriate and inappropriate biographical lives is based upon what it is that humans are supposed to be like and how they’re supposed to live versus how they’re not supposed to live. That depends on being a human, not a sea gull or anything else.</p>

<p>The next thing I tried to say was that the intention of the act makes all the difference in the world. Rachels tries to make the intention of the active separate from the actions. So the difference between active and passive is not whether I move my hands or don’t move my hands. The difference between active and passive is intentionally taking a patient’s life versus permitting a patient to die although not intending that patient to die. So the Smith and Jones case was not an example of active and passive. It was, instead, two people committing active [killing], one by means of moving, the other by refraining from moving. That was where we left it.</p>

<p>In active euthanasia you directly and intentionally cause a person’s death. In passive euthanasia you do not directly take their life but you permit them to die. You don’t intend this, although you may foresee it.</p>

<p>The third thing is that you’re withholding extraordinary treatment, not ordinary. According to the traditional view it is never appropriate to withhold ordinary treatment. Extraordinary treatment can be withheld.</p>

<p>Finally, the death of the patient cannot be directly intended or caused, but only permitted.</p>

<p>About the Author</p>

<p>J. P. Moreland, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy at Biola Unviersity. He has authored or co-authored many books including Christianity and the Nature of Science, Scaling the Secular City, Does God Exist?, Immortality: The Other Side of Death and The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Times. He is also co-editor of Christian Perspectives on Being Human. His work has appeared in a wide variety of journals, including Christianity Today, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research and The American Philosophical Quarterly. Dr. Moreland served with Campus Crusade for 10 years, planted two churches, and has spoken on over 100 college campuses.</p>
</div>

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


title: Christmas Card Captions
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/christmas-card-captions
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Make sure your Christmas cards express the reason for the season. Copy and paste these captions to turn your Christmas card into an evangelistic tool.</em></p>

<p>O God our loving Father, help us rightly to remember the birth of Jesus, that we may share in the song of the angels, the gladness of the shepherds, and the worship of the wise men. May Christmas morning make us happy to be Thy children and Christmas evening bring us to our beds with grateful thoughts, forgiving and forgiven, for Jesus’&nbsp;sake, amen.</p>

<p>- Robert Louis Stevenson</p>

<p>Jesus is God’s promise fulfilled.</p>

<p>May you take great joy in Him and the celebration of His birth.</p>

<p>From the cradle to the cross:</p>

<p>What the Child has done for those who receive His pardon...</p>

<p>Nailed to the top of Jesus’&nbsp;cross is a “certificate of debt”&nbsp;to Caesar, a public display of Jesus’&nbsp;crime: “King of the Jews.”&nbsp;When punishment is complete, Caesar’s court will cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: “tetelestai.”&nbsp;Finished. Paid in full.</p>

<p>Being king of the Jews is not the crime Jesus pays for, however. Hidden to all but the Father is another certificate nailed to that cross: ours. In the darkness that shrouds Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, God the Father unleashes His fury upon His sinless Son who has taken upon Himself the crimes of the world as if guilty of all.</p>

<p>At the last, it is not the cross that takes Jesus’&nbsp;life. When the full payment is made, when the last of the sin debt melts away and the justice of God is fully satisfied, Jesus simply dismisses His spirit with a single Greek word that falls from His lips: “Tetelestai.”&nbsp;It is finished.</p>

<p>Colossians 2:13-14</p>

<p>John 19:30</p>

<p>Christmas Blessings...</p>

<p>...with a prayer that you come to a quiet place of reflection on the simplicity of Jesus’&nbsp;birth and the magnitude of His purpose.</p>

<p>Christmas is not about giving, it’s about a gift. May the gift of forgiveness through Jesus, our Lord, fill your heart this year.</p>

<p>Merry Christmas</p>

<p>Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name “Immanuel,”&nbsp;which translated means, “God with us.”</p>

<p>Matthew 1:23</p>

<p>The God of all creation humbled Himself to become a human being—our Savior, Christ the Lord. Because Jesus was born He could die, bringing the abundance of life we enjoy through Him. May each of you rest in the security of the Babe whose birth we celebrate this 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%2Fchristmas-card-captions" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristmas-card-captions" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristmas-card-captions" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Baptism and Belief
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/baptism-and-belief
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>While baptism doesn't save you, it does serve an important function, Greg says. Publicly identifying oneself with Christ helps distinguish true, saving faith from mere intellectual assent.</strong></p>

<p>Sometimes when I talk with people about Christ, I run into a very frustrating situation. The person I'm sharing with nods in agreement to everything I'm saying yet, even though I'm getting all this positive assent, something inside is telling me something's wrong.</p>

<p>I might be talking to someone who's living in a way that's completely inconsistent with obedience to Christ. Or it may be somebody I've known for a long time who is nodding in assent to my statements, but has never shown any spiritual vitality at all. His attitude often is, "Yes, I believe that. So what?"</p>

<p>When you encounter people like this, you probably wonder, "What do I do with this person? They say they believe, but something vital is missing here."</p>

<p>This is the case for many of you who were raised in a Christian home and have sat through many church services. Yet at the same time, you look around at other Christians you know and you see a vibrancy, an energy, a palpable love for Jesus Christ that influences their life, that has completely eluded your own.</p>

<p>I remember a dinner I shared with friends more than twenty years ago at the home of a Christian sister. There were 12 to 15 of us, all college students. Half of the group was Christian; the other half was not, though some of the non-believers had been involved in church for years.</p>

<p>One of the gals-- her name was Julie-- said, "You know, I'm Christian, but I'm not Christian like you guys are Christian."</p>

<p>I said, "Julie, let's go into the other room and talk."</p>

<p>We sat down away from the rest of the crowd and had a conversation. I asked her if she believed that Jesus was the Messiah, that He died for her sins, that He was God, etc.--the basics of Christianity. To each of these things she nodded yes. Yet I knew something was missing, and I knew she knew it, too (as evidenced by her remark).</p>

<p>It seemed to me that Julie had been giving intellectual assent to these truths all her life, but the personal element was missing. There wasn't the personal commitment that makes all the difference in the world.</p>

<p>I then asked her a very important question: "Julie, have you ever told God that?"</p>

<p>"Told Him what?" she asked.</p>

<p>"Have you ever told God directly that you believe the things you've just told me, the things that you might have affirmed dozens of times in Sunday school class or catechism. Have you ever told Him that?"</p>

<p>"No, I guess I haven't."</p>

<p>"Well, why don't we bow our heads right now and you tell Him what you just told me."</p>

<p>She agreed and we bowed our heads, but then she paused. She looked up and said, "Greg, this is a little difficult. I'm having a hard time doing this." I said, "If you're having a hard time, don't tell me, tell the Lord."</p>

<p>She bowed her head again, waited a bit, then said, "Greg, this is really hard. I'm having a hard time starting."</p>

<p>I said, "Julie, if you're having a hard time starting, just tell the Lord you're having a hard time and that will help get you rolling."</p>

<p>She tried again and finally she said, "You know what's difficult about this, Greg? I always&nbsp;said&nbsp;I believed these things, and now I really have to own it. I really have to tell God that this is genuine and real."</p>

<p>I said, "Julie, don't tell me. Tell the Lord."</p>

<p>She bowed her head and then prayed one of the most beautiful prayers of acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Savior that I'd ever heard. In fact, that was the day Julie became born again.</p>

<p>Up until that night Julie had simply made an intellectual assent to the truthfulness of the doctrines of Christianity--"Yes, I believe in my head those things we've said about Jesus are true. He is God. He is the Savior. He's the Lord. He rose from the dead." And that's where it stops for many people. These truths have no effect on their lives. They say, "Sure I believe in all that. So what?" That's because they haven't progressed from&nbsp;<em>noticia&nbsp;</em>-- knowledge--and assent-- to fiducia--active trust, what the Bible calls "belief."</p>

<p>But how do you really know the difference when you're talking with people. This is where baptism plays a valuable role.</p>

<p>First, I'm a bit wary of what is commonly referred to as "the sinner's prayer." I've come to call it "the magic prayer." You know the prayer I'm talking about. You'll often find a short rendition of it at the end of gospel tracts where it says, "Pray this prayer..."</p>

<p>I have nothing against the prayer itself. I've used some version of it many times to lead people to Christ. I prayed something like it with my brother Mark one evening back in 1973 when I became a Christian.</p>

<p>I'm concerned not about the prayer itself, but about the way many Christians view the sinner's prayer. They treat the prayer as if it were something magical, as if the prayer itself makes the difference, and if we can just get the person to pray the prayer-- to say these magic words-- then they're in. What happens after that is somewhat incidental. The important thing is to get them to "pray the prayer."</p>

<p>Sometimes when I ask someone if someone else is a Christian they'll say, "Well, they prayed the prayer." They said the magic words, in other words. They're in because the recited the incantation.</p>

<p>Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I don't care much whether anyone "prays the prayer" or not. In the New Testament, people didn't pray prayers like that to become Christian. There wasn't the same emphasis then on "receiving Jesus" that we have in Evangelical circles today. People were simply enjoined to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation.</p>

<p>In the New Testament there were no "altar calls." Instead, baptism was the public focal point of conversion in the early church (though I don't believe Scripture teaches that baptism actually saves you). It served to protect against substituting mere intellectual assent for genuine faith, and it can serve the same function today.</p>

<p>Many Evangelicals have reacted against inaccurate biblical teaching on baptismal regeneration by ignoring baptism altogether. This is a mistake. In addition to the theological problems with ignoring Jesus' command to be baptized, there is a practical issue.</p>

<p>If people tell you they already believe in Christianity, but you suspect something's amiss, ask, "Are you willing to be baptized? Are you willing to stand up as an adult in public and confess your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and to publicly identify yourself with Christ's Church?" If they're not willing, I suspect their so-called faith is just intellectual assent, not saving faith.</p>

<p>Guess what, friends? If they're not willing to do that, I suspect that their so-called faith is just intellectual assent. It's not saving faith, because there's no willingness to identify oneself publicly with Christ. Then I know what I'm dealing with, and I can proceed properly.</p>

<p>Willingness to be baptized separates the sheep from the goats, spiritually speaking. It separates those who have a genuine faith in Jesus Christ from those who are merely giving intellectual assent to the doctrines of Christianity. If a person is willing to be baptized, I'm much more confident he probably has a genuine faith in Jesus Christ. If he's not willing to be baptized, however, then I suspect he is not a true Christian and instead is merely giving intellectual assent to the doctrines of Christianity.</p>

<p>If you're listening and thinking to yourself, "I believe those things, but something is really missing," then maybe your belief is just intellectual assent, and you haven't really put your active trust in Jesus. Maybe you haven't surrendered to Him.</p>

<p>If you've fallen back into Jesus' arms and put your trust in Him, then you ought to be willing to stand up publicly and say, "I am His, and I'm being baptized to publicly testify to that fact, and also to publicly identify with His people-- the Church."</p>

<p>I think this is one of the very important things about Christian baptism. It allows you to virtually eliminate the question of whether one genuinely believes in Jesus Christ or has merely given intellectual assent to His claims. True biblical faith entails action and identification. If one acts to publicly identify himself with Jesus Christ and with His people in baptism, then he's probably moved beyond mere intellectual assent.</p>
</div>

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


title: Hearing God’s Voice
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/hearing-god-s-voice
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Should you be trying to find out how God may be speaking to you so you can make sure you do the right thing? Maybe not.</em></p>

<p>I get a lot of unusual and interesting things in the mail. I received a fax with eight sheets. The cover sheet says, “This fax is for Greg K.- <em>eight pages</em>—who does not believe that God communicates with people today outside the pages of the Bible. Please read this paper, Greg. Thanks.”&nbsp;It’s signed Clem, and Clem, thank you for this communique.</p>

<p>As I have skimmed through this and read some of the examples there are eight pages typed of illustrations that apparently come from Clem’s life about God communicating with him. He’s got two cases. He’s got a case here: “audible in the outer ear, audible in the inner ear; dreams; strong impressions or thought; testimonies of others; the Bible; answered prayer and other ways.”&nbsp;Some of these are very interesting. It would be kind of fun to read some of them, but I’m not going to because we don’t have time.</p>

<p>I’ve actually heard some really remarkable stories where it’s absolutely obvious to me that God is speaking to somebody, He’s doing something supernatural in directing. I had a friend once that told me about how she really felt God wanted her to go and talk to a friend of hers who was a non-Christian that she worked with and tell him that God loved him. After much consternation and fighting she said, “Okay, God, I give in.”&nbsp;She got up out of bed in middle of the night, drove to his house, knocked on his door. He answered the door and she said, “Well, I just have to tell you that God loves you”—she felt pretty silly. The guy broke down and cried—he had been contemplating suicide. In kind of a last ditch effort at contacting God he said, “God, if you don’t stop me I’m going to kill myself tonight.”&nbsp;Then he gets a knock on the door; this woman says, “God sent me over here to tell you He loves you.”&nbsp;Pretty remarkable! Gee, what do I say about that?</p>

<p>Frankly, that’s the way that this conversation usually goes when I make my point about guidance and God speaking to you, which is different than what Clem says my point is and I’ll get to that in just a moment. Usually someone says, “What about this?”&nbsp;and then someone tells me their story. I was talking to some friends after service last night at Hope Chapel and it was the same thing—“Well, what about this? How do you explain this other thing?”—and someone gives me their personal account.</p>

<p>I have two responses to this. First of all, Clem, what you said that I believe is not what I believe. I do not believe that God only communicates with people today through the pages of the Bible and that any other communication is illegitimate. I do not believe that. I have never, ever said that. I’m not surprised that you think I said that because people consistently misunderstand me on this point. I’m a bit mystified by it, to be honest with you, because I have spoken about this so many times and I have taken such great pains to be clear about it. I have gone through such great efforts to be precise about my language. I suspect that maybe people just aren’t listening to the words, the specifics. I’ll give you some of those specifics in just a moment.</p>

<p>I don’t believe that God won’t or can’t or does not speak to us outside of the scriptures—certainly He does. In fact, the Scriptures make that point very clear. Someone asked me the question, “Do you believe God speaks to us?”&nbsp;I said, “Well, it kind of depends on what you mean by that.”&nbsp;If you mean that God convicts us of sin through the Holy Spirit, which is an experiential thing, then yes, in a way. I mean when we are convicted by sin we feel that kind of “zap”&nbsp;that gets us. We’re walking into the liquor store, guys, and there’s this rack of magazines (you know what I’m talking about) staring you in the face as you’re trying to buy your soda or whatever it is and you feel this little something inside of you—call it a voice, call it whatever you want—saying, “No, don’t do that.”&nbsp;That’s conviction of the Holy Spirit and we might say that “God spoke to us,”&nbsp;although it wasn’t a voice, but that’s the way God communicates to us. I believe in that because that’s in the Bible, it’s very clear.</p>

<p>What about when we read the Bible, or anything for that matter, and we have this kind of quickening in our minds or in our souls of an awareness of a truth. We are zapped. We’re punched. We’re popped. It cuts to the quick of our hearts and we’re aware of it. Clearly it’s not something that we’ve conjured up, it’s something that we are aware that God is doing in our heart. We sometimes say, “That’s God speaking to me about this issue.”&nbsp;I say, “Okay you can use that terminology.”&nbsp;I agree with that kind of thing, whatever you want to call it, because the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit counseling us and the Holy Spirit teaching us. It also talks about the Holy Spirit comforting us, and there’s a sense that’s existential and experiential where we really sense God’s particular comfort in our heart and we sense His nearness. We sometimes say that God showed me or told me how much He loved me and it’s an experiential thing. Sure, I have no problem with any of that. All of that is taught clearly in the Scripture. But that’s not usually the kind of thing that’s in question when I have these kinds of discussions with people about God speaking and directing and leading and all of that.</p>

<p>That leads me to the next point. The first thing is that that isn’t what I believe. Secondly, what’s interesting to me is look at the way people try to prove this idea that God is talking to us. They tell me their experience. Now their experience may be wonderful, but do you see how such a thing is circular reasoning? For me to say the Bible doesn’t teach this and then someone to say, “Well, here’s what happened to me.”&nbsp;All they are telling me is what happened to them. They are not proving to me that God was involved with it just because it happened to them. That’s precisely what’s in question. I’m not questioning the experience, I’m questioning the source and the validity of the experience. Experience is not authoritative to me. Do you see that, ladies and gentlemen? I don’t know why this doesn’t sink in deeper with folks and they think that I’m denying the obvious.</p>

<p>I’m just simply saying if the question is “does God speak to us today,”&nbsp;then for you to say “God spoke to me”&nbsp;is not a compelling argument because you are assuming what you are trying to prove—that God is speaking.</p>

<p>What is compelling to me is to go to the Scriptures and to show in the Scriptures where such a thing is a discipline.</p>

<p>Keep in mind now that I have agreed that there is a way in which we can say that God speaks to us and those ways are clearly outlined in the Scripture. He convicts us of sin. He comforts us. He teaches us through the Holy Spirit. He also answers prayer, which is one of the things that was mentioned in Clem’s fax. He mentions a time when God used a verse to teach him something. I don’t take exception with this. It doesn’t count as evidence against my view because my view doesn’t conflict with that particular point.</p>

<p>Here is my view. Does the Bible teach that we must learn to discern the voice of the Lord individually for ourselves to live optimal Christian lives? Does the Bible teach we must learn to discern the voice of the Lord individually for ourselves in order to live optimally as Christians? The answer is no it does not teach that. So when someone teaches that you hear the voice of the Lord individually for yourself for optimal Christian living as a Christian discipline, this is not a Biblical discipline, ladies and gentlemen. It is not in there. Are there incidents of God speaking? Yes, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about the discipline of learning to discern the voice of the Lord for myself to live optimally as a Christian. It’s not there.</p>

<p>Does the Bible teach that we are to seek this kind of guidance? The answer is no. It does not teach that we are seek this kind of guidance. Does the Bible teach that we are to expect this kind of guidance? Again the answer is no. And since the Bible doesn’t teach that we have to learn this skill, since it doesn’t teach that we are to seek this kind of guidance, since it doesn’t teach that we are to expect this kind of guidance, then I don’t know what all the folderol is about. Well, yes I do.</p>

<p>This teaching that God will whisper in your ear all kind of particulars that pertain to you and His will for your life is very appealing to Christians. Even though when you look at the Scriptures, the specialized directions are rare. They are unusual. They are usually unsought. And they are always crystal clear. None of this “I think the Lord is telling me”&nbsp;business. People are still gravitating to the suggestion that we can develop a sixth sense that can tie us into a hotline to God so that we can have certitude about the things of life and the decisions we ought to make. Why is this appealing? Because it’s easy. It’s easy. You know Americans are given to quick fixes and this is the American Christian quick fix. We are also given to individualism and this is the American individualistic view of Christianity—guidance decision making. It fits the American mentality, not the Biblical mentality, not the Christian mentality, the American mentality. And that’s why this point of view is distinctly American. It’s a quick fix. It’s an easy way out. It’s kind of like Cliff Notes, only worse.</p>

<p>What happens here is that people don’t do the hard work of learning. Part of my conversation last evening with a friend who is a very gracious person dealt with the issue of anointing and filling and I made the comment that I’d never been anointed by the Holy Spirit in my life, nor was any Christian ever anointed by the Holy Spirit. When I said that, jaws dropped. When I said that it was like I had said Jesus is a demon or something. “How could you possibly say this, Koukl? Haven’t you ever felt the Holy Spirit well up inside of you?”&nbsp;I said, “Yes, I have.”&nbsp;And they said, “Well, there you go. That’s an anointing.”&nbsp;I said, “That’s not an anointing. That’s a filling of the Holy Spirit.”&nbsp;There has not been any anointing since Pentecost because the Holy Spirit is not on the outside, He’s on the inside. There is a distinct difference between the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and that of the Old. The New being the fulfillment of the promise of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37 and following in Joel and a number of other places of the giving of the New Covenant.</p>

<p>Now, here is what is interesting to me. I was having a conversation with a friend who was espousing this other point of view, at least in some measure, asking questions about it, and challenging me on it. She believes that this is an appropriate thing for Christians, yet at the same time this person didn’t have a clear understanding of the difference between the old covenant and the new with regards to the working of the Holy Spirit, which is fundamental in understanding how to look at Christian life.</p>

<p>This is my fear, ladies and gentlemen, and I’ll end with this point. This skill is being offered, and what it ultimately involves, what it ultimately ends up being is a short cut to the real McCoy of knowledge and spiritual growth. Instead of investing our time learning the truth and working at making it a part of us so that we have a good understanding of the truth from the front to the back, from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation, we opt out for an easy way out, which is to let God just tell us and therefore we are not equipped.</p>

<p>Not only that, but a lot of times when God tells us, what He tells us is false because it’s not God telling us. So we’ve got a lot of screwy things going on with people who believe this kind of thing, and instead of being devoted to developing spiritual maturity and attaining Scriptural knowledge we want the quick fix, and then we call the quick fix spiritual maturity and knowledge. That’s what is ironic about it. Instead of devoting ourselves to developing real maturity and attaining genuine Scriptural knowledge we go for the quick fix, and instead of developing mastery we want the Master to be sitting next to us during the tests of life whispering His answers in our ears. Do you know what that’s called, ladies and gentlemen? That’s called cheating. And there is no guarantee and no teaching and no instruction in the New Testament or Old that this is the way that we are to live our lives on a day to day basis. The only Word of God that we are ever enjoined to listen to is not the word that comes into our spiritual ears, as it were, from the spiritual ozone, but the Word that comes from the Scriptures. That’s the one that we are told to learn, listen, heed, abide and hide in our heart.</p>
</div>

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


title: 100% God—100% Man
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/100-percent-god-100-percent-man
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>There’s is not a sharp dichotomy between God working and our working. They go hand in hand. God works through our initiative.</em></p>

<p>I attended a lecture by Dr. Scott Rae from Biola University about reproductive technologies. It was more of a discussion format than a lecture. By and large, many of the people there have taken classes from me at the church. I’ve really tried to enrich them with some of the things that I’ve learned. I guess I was a little bit frustrated by some things that were said during that evening that had to do with how we approach ethical problems and how we approach issues that pertain to the Scriptures and our lives.</p>

<p>Part of my concern over the last fifteen years, more and more so of late, is the way Christians take a very one dimensional approach to problems. This one dimensional approach can be summed up with the phrase “Just trust God”&nbsp;or “The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.”&nbsp;Now, obviously there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with trusting God. And there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with believing the Bible because it happens to say it and that would settle it. The problem is that those aren’t usually the only factors involved. The concept of trusting God may be a little bit vague in some circumstances. But what it actually means to trust God and what the relationship is of our trust to God and our own personal responsibility to behave and make decisions in the Christian life has to be worked our more carefully.</p>

<p>I will tell you something, when I first became a Christian this was something that absolutely drove me nuts. As I was seeking to try and walk the Christian life and to do the things that I was supposed to do, I would frequently get comments from other people who said, “Don’t try to live the Christian life, just trust God. Let Jesus do it through you.”&nbsp;It drove me nuts because I’m the kind of person—you can probably guess—who likes to sink my teeth into something. If I’m going to get directions, I want them to be clear and do-able. To me those kinds of comments were simply too broad and general. They were just like cotton candy. You go for a big bite of this huge fluff and you snap your teeth on your teeth because that which was there dissolves into nothing in your mouth. This kind of advice was that way for me.</p>

<p>“Let Jesus do it.”&nbsp;What does that mean? When my alarm goes off, do I get out of bed? Do I stand up, brush my teeth or do I say, “Okay, Jesus, do it for me.”&nbsp;Do I get up and pray or does Jesus pray for me? Sometimes that very one dimensional kind of response, which ultimately tells us nothing and teaches us nothing, and equips us in no way, is something that Christians often fall back on when faced with difficult ethical decisions. Though I understand the motivation in many cases is to honor God, I think that often substitutes not only for clear thinking but also for genuine Christian thinking and a genuine Biblical response.</p>

<p>That evening Dr. Rae was talking about reproductive technologies. He posed a question to the audience. “If you were my pastor and my wife and I could not have a child through the normal processes, how would you counsel me?”&nbsp;I was really surprised by the number of people who responded simply by saying things like, “God is the one who opens the womb.”&nbsp;“Trust in the Lord and spend time praying on your knees.”&nbsp;It was suggested that if you appeal to some kind of reproductive technology then you are taking matters into your own hands. You’re getting ahead of God. One person said, “Barrenness was a disgrace in the Old Testament. Back then they ran to God, but now we run to technology.”&nbsp;See the contrast there? The contrast is whether we run to God or to technology. The suggestion there is that we ought not run to technology because that would be a failure of faith and what we ought to do is get back to God. Another person quoted Philippians 4:5-6 which says, “Be anxious for nothing, but through prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God.”&nbsp;That may have been an admonition that we not be anxious, but I had the feeling like this was the answer to the whole problem. Pray about it and let God do what He wants. But don’t take the matter into your own hands.</p>

<p>I see that approach not only in this issue but on many other situations. I mentioned earlier that I was a member of a Christian dating agency. Some people are offended by the notion of a dating service because they say it’s doing things just like the world. In the Old Testament people trusted God. We see that dichotomy again.</p>

<p>One might well ask me, given their response that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it, that we should just trust God. Why take it further? Am I suggesting that trusting God isn’t good enough? Isn’t the Bible adequate? We have to add to the Bible? We have to do things man’s way? My answer is maybe.</p>

<p>The reason that we ought to take it further than simply trust God and pray about it is this: the Bible doesn’t just say that one verse. The Bible says many other things as well. The assertion that we ought to just trust God doesn’t answer the question: just precisely what does it mean to trust God? Does Biblical trust in God relegate me to inactivity in dealing with other areas of my life? Other ways of trying to conceive, for example. Other ways of finding a mate.</p>

<p>In Matthew Jesus talks about prayer and says, “Ask and it shall be given to you.”&nbsp;But Jesus didn’t stop there. He went on to say, “Ask and it shall be given to you. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be opened.”&nbsp;So it’s not just asking, there’s seeking and knocking as well. In the same passage Jesus gives us this famous promise. He tells us not to worry about food and clothing because food and clothing will be provided by Him. He says, Look at the lilies of the field, they don’t toil or weave. Look at the birds in the field, they don’t plant and harvest. The Father takes care of them. He���ll take care of you as well.</p>

<p>Now, are we going to read that verse and conclude that God doesn’t expect us to weave or till the soil? Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3, “Anyone who does not work ought not eat.”&nbsp;It seems to me we could say to Paul, “Why should we work? Jesus has promised to take care of us.”&nbsp;We all understand that in a verse like there is a corporate effort. God has promised to take care of us, but we have to couple that command with other commands that God has given us to toil and weave, as well. To work, as well. And, I would say, to try and find ways to get pregnant that are morally acceptable. The same thing with dating and getting married. We have the liberty to find a mate, and I don’t see in any way, shape or form that that’s not trusting God.</p>

<p>Now, in any of these things there may be a sense of franticness in getting a job, or getting pregnant, or getting a mate that represents an attitude that’s wrong. It can be taken to extremes, but then our Christian ethic would inform our attitudes. The very act of taking the initiative in itself is not unbiblical.</p>

<p>In fact, the way I would put it is that it’s 100% God and 100% man. What does that mean? It means that God, even though He is in control and we must look to Him, still delegates a portion of active responsibility to us so that He can see to it that we’re fed and clothed, but it’s our responsibility to go out and look. You can do the act of looking with confidence that God will provide. I think that that obtains in all of these other circumstances, as well.</p>

<p>So there’s is not this sharp dichotomy between God working and our working. They go hand in hand. If God expects our initiative in the area of food and clothing, though He has promised to provide, by what standard do we disqualify taking initiative in the ares of reproductive technology and dating? It appears that He’s in control here, too.</p>

<p>I was troubled by the comments because the people acted like there was no relationship between science and faith, like there was no relationship between our trust in God and our seeking and knocking and finding. Until we work out that relationship fairly precisely we are going to be stuck in this one dimensional thinking. I wanted to see more hard work taken to figure out just how God uses our wills and our actions to accomplish His ends and do real Biblical analysis.</p>

<p>100% God and 100% man is one way of putting it. Lee Ezell said, “Pray toward Heaven. Row toward shore.”&nbsp;I like that.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F100-percent-god-100-percent-man" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F100-percent-god-100-percent-man" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F100-percent-god-100-percent-man" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Guilt and God
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/guilt-and-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Those pangs of guilt could be telling you something.</em></p>

<p>I got a call from a man in Sacramento yesterday who asked a challenge to Christianity about the sin issue. He made the comment, “Why don’t you Christians just get away from the old sin thing and then you wouldn’t have to have this bloody Jesus business either. If you get rid of sin, you can get rid of the cross.”&nbsp;I agreed with him entirely. Get rid of sin, no need for the cross. But that’s kind of like saying if you get rid of sickness, you can get rid of medicine. Sure, they kind of go together, but you can’t just get rid of either of those things by denying them.</p>

<p>There’s an interesting article in the <em>L.A. Times</em> from a couple of days ago on the issue of guilt. I want to refer to that and talk about the notion of guilt and God. The reality of guilt needs to be addressed and I think to some degree our internal awareness, the self-awareness that all of us have of the issue of guilt, turns out to be a key to the understanding of humankind's problem, and also suggests to us a possible solution.</p>

<p>This article is entitled “Feeling Guilty? Good.”&nbsp;It is subtitled: “Believe it or not, guilt does serve a purpose. Moms have always known this. It can shift the balance of power in a relationship and it’s one way to make amends for your sins.”&nbsp;Apparently someone has done a study on guilt. They have noted that guilt is a useful tool in getting things done and they suggest that it can also help you be sympathetic towards other people, identify with other people, and it actually help you curb inappropriate behavior.</p>

<p>Well, let’s see what they do say here. The article is written by Sheri Rone, Times Health Writer, and she’s quoting at length here from a psychologist Roy Baumeister of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. Never heard of it. In any event, he says, “The cultural stereotype is that guilt is a wasted or a worthless emotion. But guilt seems to have a purpose.”&nbsp;By the way, I think it’s significant that this is a psychologist who would identify a cultural stereotype in this way, as in the case of guilt, as being a worthless emotion. We’ve gotten to the point in society now we don’t consider guilt as having any connection to any moral reality. Instead the stereotype is that it’s a worthless emotion and we should get past it and deny it because it doesn’t do us any good. Now this psychologist says it’s not entirely worthless. There is some practical usefulness to guilt. For example, he says, “You wouldn’t want to have someone with no sense of guilt as a roommate or a spouse or a business partner. Guilt seems to benefit relationships. I think the bad reputation seems to come from the idea that the person feeling guilty doesn’t benefit.”&nbsp;He goes on to say, “Psychologists have tended to think about guilt in terms of the individual psyche. But the evidence shows that guilt depends on the interpersonal context. It’s just not confined to yourself.”&nbsp;Guilt is tied into some kind of interpersonal context. He suggests, “Guilt tends to be a two person kind of thing.”&nbsp;The writer also points out that guilt helps people in close relationships control each other’s behavior. Baumeister says, “One example is someone who employs the phrase ’If you love me, you wouldn’t do that.’”&nbsp;So you could use guilt to control people. “The person with less power can get his or her way by using guilt,”&nbsp;he says. “Guilt is a good strategy for the weaker person in the relationship. Guilt is a power-equalizing strategy. If you feel guilty over not taking out the garbage, chances are your spouse who wanted the garbage taken out will feel better knowing that. In this way, emotional equity is restored because bad feelings are restored to the person who caused them. Feeling guilty is a way of showing that one cares.”</p>

<p>Then he makes an interesting departure from the more pragmatic approach to guilt. “What are the roots of guilt? Well, the data are converging on two sources. One is empathy.”&nbsp;In other words, he’s suggesting the roots of guilt is empathy. You feel bad when someone else is hurting. “This starts early in life. One study showed it starts the second day of life. The other cause is anxiety over the loss of relationship. This anxiety may even be a reason that women feel more guilty over extra-marital affairs than men.”</p>

<p>What does he say causes guilt? Guilt is really caused by a feeling of empathy for another person or the fear of loss of a relationship. This article treats guilt in a sort of utilitarian way. In other words, what practical use can we make out of it? That is not the most important question when we face the issue of guilt. This article focuses on what guilt does and how guilt can be used, not on what guilt is. Now it does suggest what the roots of guilt are. “The data are converging on two sources.”&nbsp;Sounds official, huh? What are those two sources upon which the data converge? Empathy and anxiety over the loss of a relationship.</p>

<p>Let me ask you a question, ladies and gentlemen. Take just a moment out here for a bit of self-reflection. When you feel guilty, is what you are feeling merely empathy with someone else who is hurting? Is it anxiety over possible loss of a relationship? You may fear the loss of relationship because of what you’ve just done, but is that fear of loss the same as the guilt ? Is guilt our way of showing we care? I don’t think so. Do you see how this author has completely failed to capture what guilt is?</p>

<p>Now I think this author knows what guilt is, because he feels it like the rest of us do, and it is a very, very telling emotion. It communicates something to us that is true about ourselves and about our world. But it’s also true, as Chuck Colson once said, that we have an infinite capacity for self-deception, so I’m not a bit surprised that this psychologist and many other people will have guilt staring them in the face and work very hard to try to redefine it into something that is just inconsequential or even something good. “Guilt is empathy. It’s a way of showing that we care.”&nbsp;Alright.</p>

<p>Is it even remotely possible that the reason people feel guilty about extra-marital affairs might have something to do with the notion that an extra-marital affair is a moral wrong? A sin? Ladies and gentlemen, you don’t need a psychologist to tell you why you feel guilty because, frankly, I think you are a better expert on yourself than he is. I’m going to tell you something that you already know to be true. The notion of guilt is always associated with the notion of morality. It is not some benign thing. It’s tied into our understanding of things that are right and things that are wrong. We feel guilty when we think we’ve violated a moral rule, an “ought.” And that feeling hurts. It doesn’t hurt our body; it hurts our souls. An ethical violation is not a physical thing, folks, like a punch in the nose, producing physical pain. It’s a soulish injury producing a soulish pain. That’s why I call it ethical pain. That’s what guilt is—ethical pain.</p>

<p>Not only is guilt inescapable, I think it tells us something that is inescapably true about ourselves and about our universe. It is tied to morality. We don’t feel guilt when we are involved in some activity that does not seem to have any moral ramifications and that is significant. It’s not just that it’s a result of our ideas of guilt. I think that’s self-evident, as I mentioned earlier. Just a moment of self-reflection will confirm that to you.</p>

<p>There is a point in the article that I do agree with and it’s a significant one. The psychologist notes that guilt depends on the inter personal context. Guilt tends to be a two-person kind of thing. Now I think he’s right there. We are not just guilty because of the relationship the action has to ourselves, even though there are times we feel guilty when we are entirely alone and what we’ve done has nothing to do with another human person. Now, that’s significant. When we do something immoral we are intuitively aware that we’ve offended someone. Now, who have we offended? Many times the guilt that we feel has nothing to do with a human relationship. It’s tied to a private sin, an unspoken but dishonorable thought, a compromise done in the shadows. Why feel guilt then? Who is it that sees then? Whom have we offended? To whom are we beholden?</p>

<p>I had a conversation with an American in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, last year when I was on my way to India. Actually he was as well. He to study in a Hindu Ashram. I to lecture on Christianity. We were talking about religion, exploring this idea of guilt as a key to unlocking some truth about ourselves and about God. And my point to him in this conversation was that the Hindu view is that all is maya, illusion, and therefore even something like guilt is ultimately an illusion. We concluded that this view simply was not adequate. It was not adequate to look at our guilt, be aware of guilt, and just simply say that this is a phantom, an illusion.</p>

<p>So I asked him the same question that I just asked you a moment ago. Whom have we offended? As he was thinking I offered him the standard response that I’ve heard from others. “We’ve offended ourselves.”&nbsp;We were sitting at a table drinking Malaysian coffee, and he thought about the question. He genuinely pondered it, he didn’t have a quick response. He really wanted to try to think through this. “Whom have we offended?”&nbsp;I asked. “Have we offended ourselves?”&nbsp;And he immediately shot back, “Not big enough.”&nbsp;He dismissed it. “Not big enough.” In other words, and this is very profound, folks, this man knew intuitively that someone was offended. Someone that was out there and not in here. And that Someone was much bigger in a moral sense than we are. He knew right away that we are not sufficient to define our own goodness. Simply put, our immorality doesn’t offend us. If we are merely the ones who make our own rules, we make rules that are consistent with the behavior that we produce. So when we make the rules, we fudge and we make the rules to include as morally appropriate the behavior we most like to do. We do that all the time. That’s why I think this sense of offense that we feel inside is so significant and why it was profound when he realized that this offense is not an offense that we are taking against ourselves. Our morality is too small to justify the sense of offense that we feel inside. Someone is offended. It’s not us. Who is it? It’s someone outside of us and someone who is bigger than us morally. We feel morally guilty, and we feel more guilty than we ought to feel if it’s only ourselves that we answer to.</p>

<p>Now, why do we feel guilty? The reason we feel guilty is that something tells us that we ought to have done something else. Who says we ought to have done something else? That’s the key question, and there are only two ways, it seems to me, to go about answering this.</p>

<p>You could say, you know it’s up to us individually to make our decisions about morality. There is no God. There is no guilt. We make our own moral decisions because no one is out there to tell us what to do. And if there is no one out there to tell us it is totally up to us, then the notion of guilt having offended someone out there is foolish. If there is no God there is no guilt. That’s the relativist’s argument, by the way. There is no absolute lawgiver so there is no absolute law. Then there is no real guilt. Since everyone plays by their own rules, guilt is just in your imagination. Ignore it. Deny it. Get over it. There is nothing to be guilty about. Don’t worry. Be happy.</p>

<p>The second way of going about it is to say, listen, guilt is real. It’s unavoidable. It’s built-in. No matter how much I try to deny it’s existence, I cannot ultimately make it go away. Now, if guilt is real, there must be a “who”&nbsp;out there making the moral rules. There is real guilt, therefore there must be a real God. If you were listening in yesterday as I talked with Kyle from Sacramento, this was my point. If there is real genuine guilt, if there is moral offense in some sense, it implies that there is a God who has established a moral law. That is, by the way, the absolutist’s argument.</p>

<p>Our awareness of true moral guilt implies we have broken a true moral law made by a true moral Lawgiver, who stands outside the system and passes judgment. Guilt is part of our internal machinery that points both to the law and to the Lawgiver and then points back at us as we stand in the dock, guilty and condemned.</p>

<p>I’m going to put it to you directly, ladies and gentlemen. We feel guilty for one reason and one reason only. It is because we <strong>are</strong> guilty. It’s that simple. Like physical pain which warns us of damage and injury to our physical bodies, ethical pain—guilt—warns us of damage and injury to our souls. Trying to deny guilt is like trying to deny a melanoma. We can’t imagine it away. And if we try, sooner or later it’s going to kill us.</p>

<p>Folks, we don’t get rid of guilt through denial. We get rid of guilt through forgiveness. And that forgiveness can only come from the One whom we have offended. The One who gave the law in the first place.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fguilt-and-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%2Fguilt-and-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%2Fguilt-and-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: Science Held Hostage
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/16/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/science-held-hostage
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>In the current rift between science and religion, two parallel errors have widened the gap. Science and religion can be compatible, but not unless both sides of the debate surrender some cherished ground.</em></p>

<p>Two parallel errors have plagued the efforts of Christians to close the gap between the claims of religion and the claims of science on the issue of origins. These are bad philosophy of science and bad practice of science.</p>

<p>One book serves as a helpful launching point for reflection on these two errors. Though published in 1988, it remains a useful foil for a discussion on both issues.</p>

<p><em>Science Held Hostage</em> [1 Van Till, Young, and Menninga, <em>Science Held Hostage</em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).] is an attempt to quiet the ongoing hostilities between evolutionists and scientific creationists and bring some order to the debate about origins. Authors Van Till, Young, and Menninga argue that the solution is not to be found in bringing more information to the battlefield, whether scientific or theological. To them, such an approach misses the point entirely.</p>

<p>This is not a conflict between theology and science, but a conflict arising from a misunderstanding of the different roles theology and science play. Science and religion are not enemies, but partners complimenting each other. Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.</p>

<p>Understanding the unique goals of the two fields, the different questions they seek to answer, and the different arenas they address, will put the issue in its proper perspective and quiet the conflict, the authors argue.</p>

<h2>Two Complementary Realms</h2>

<p>According to Van Till, [2 For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to the authors collectively simply as “Van Till.”] For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to the authors collectively simply as “Van Till.”] the goal of natural science is simple: to study the physical universe, no more and no less. Non-physical systems are, by definition, excluded. As such, the modern notion of natural science is necessarily wedded to empiricism.</p>

<p>When scientists attempt to draw metaphysical conclusions from physical data, they’ve stepped out of line. Natural science can explain the “what,”&nbsp;but not the “why.”&nbsp;It answers questions about physical properties, physical behavior, and the formative history of the observable universe. That’s all.</p>

<p>The non-physical realm, on the other hand, is the object of a different sort of inquiry. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe. Since science uses empirical data—that known by the five senses—something must exist first for science to examine. Questions regarding an immaterial “something”&nbsp;that might have produced the material realm can’t, even in principle, be answered by science.</p>

<p>Neither can science answer questions about the governance of the universe, though it’s quite capable of drawing conclusions about its behavior. Even the so-called laws of nature are not truly laws. They don’t compel behavior; they merely describe it. That which is behind this behavior is not natural, but supra-natural, outside the proper domain of science.</p>

<p>“Questions of origin and governance—important questions both—must be directed toward whatever serves as the source of answers to one’s religious questions,”&nbsp;Van Till says.</p>

<p>He wags his finger at both evolutionists and creationists. Serious problems arise when either science or theology step out of its respective domain. The result is folk science, in Van Till’s terms, science held hostage by ideology, either the creationists’&nbsp;or the evolutionists’.</p>

<p>The book ends with two stern warnings. The first is to creationists who promote their folk science despite the inadequacy of their research. The second is to evolutionists who promulgate the folk science of reductive materialism and evolutionary naturalism.</p>

<p>When either group draws metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence, they’ve violated the rules. “The choice between an autonomous or a theonomous perspective on the governance of physical behavior cannot be settled on the basis of scientific investigation.”&nbsp;[3 Van Till, 24.] “On such matters,”&nbsp;he adds, “the natural sciences have <em>nothing</em> to contribute.”&nbsp;[4 Ibid., 25.] [emphasis mine]</p>

<h2>What Is Science?</h2>

<p>At first glance, the two-realms view is inviting. There does appear to be a difference between scientific claims and theological ones. Keeping them distinct seems to eliminate the confusion and also deals with the problem of bias. On closer investigation, though, it’s unconvincing.</p>

<p>Van Till’s principal error is his restrictive definition of science. It falls short on two counts. First, it is arbitrary and unhelpful. Second, it destroys Christianity.</p>

<p>The author argues that science should be king in the area of the empirical, that theology should reign in the area of the non-empirical, and never the twain shall meet. But why should we accept Van Till’s modern view of science? Such a definition ignores a long history of fruitful scientific inquiry that was not marked by this distinction.</p>

<p>For millennia science was viewed differently. The older tradition had one aim: to identify ideas worth believing. According to Aristotle something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to. The important thing was whether or not a view was properly justified. It was also distinguished by its “know-why”—its comprehension of first causes—as opposed to its “know-how.”</p>

<p>During the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance this view began to change. The emphasis switched to methodology. Instead of starting with directly intuited first principles, scientists offered ad hoc theories to predict events (e.g. planetary motion) and then tested them by observation.</p>

<p>The shift in science from a general methodology to determine truth to one that was solely empirical was complete by the modern era. Scientific empiricism became scientific imperialism: science as the final measure of all truth. This view is called scientism. Science deals with fact. All else, including morality and theology, is mere opinion, personal preference and private fantasy.</p>

<p>Though Van Till vigorously opposes the modern notion of scientism, his definition of science opens the door to it. Even though he admits reality beyond the physical realm, he is unwilling to admit any discoverable relationship between the two. Anyone who starts with science, then, must end with physicalistic conclusions.</p>

<p>To say that science alone deals with formative history is begging the question because it disallows God’s intervention in the process by very definition. The author solves the conflict between science and theology by merely defining it away and then upbraiding those who don't honor his boundaries.</p>

<p>The most glaring example is Van Till’s representation of creation-science as “creation folk science.”&nbsp;Why the pejorative label? Because creation-science “strives to warrant its belief in a particular concept of divine creation by means of <em>unconventional interpretations</em> of selected empirical data.”&nbsp;[5 Ibid., 153.] [emphasis mine] But why must interpretations be conventional to be valid? Only if one has decided beforehand—by definition—that certain interpretations of the data cannot be considered.</p>

<p>Van Till errs in that he makes an absolute of his definition of science and then cites examples of those that violate his perimeters. The author baldly asserts that his view <em>is</em> science and then criticizes others for deviating from this canon. This is unfair.</p>

<h2>Three Errors</h2>

<p>The view that “religious”&nbsp;theories should not intrude in science is guilty of several logical errors.</p>

<p>First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some empirical support, though. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience research, or conclusions on the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.</p>

<p>Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no legitimate use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their point of view if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of summarily disqualified.</p>

<p>Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical ramifications. If evolutionary naturalism is a true description of biological development on earth, then the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful. [6 See <em>Solid Ground</em>, January/February, 1997, Stand to Reason.]</p>

<h2>The Death of Christianity</h2>

<p>The approach in <em>Science Held Hostage</em> creates another difficulty that’s hard to avoid. Though all of the authors are professing Christians [7 “Each of the authors of this book...is wholly committed to the Christian faith, firmly believing that God and the physical universe are related in a way that is profoundly portrayed by the Creator-Creation metaphor.”&nbsp;Van Till, 174.] , their definition of science eviscerates their own faith.</p>

<p>Christianity is, by definition, wedded to the physical world. The Bible indicates in many places that theological truth is so manifest in nature that man is guilty before God for not recognizing it.</p>

<p>If Van Till is correct that nature has “nothing to contribute”&nbsp;to our knowledge of God, then the claims of Christianity are relegated to the arena of philosophic speculation. Miracles—if possible at all—would be devoid of any theological significance. If the resurrection of Jesus really happened, it would only mean that a man, once dead, now lives. Nothing more.</p>

<p>What happens, then, when a religious “authority”&nbsp;like the Bible makes statements about the empirical realm, including both science and history? If the Scripture errs when it repeatedly enjoins us to draw theological conclusions from the empirical data, it loses its claim to authority. Why trust a theology that’s grounded on unreliable data?</p>

<p>This approach is an example of what the Dr. Francis Schaeffer called an “upper story leap.”&nbsp;[8 Schaeffer, Francis A., <em>Escape from Reason</em>, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1968).] In Schaeffer’s view, modern man has divorced nature—the particulars—from grace—the universals. Nature inhabits the “lower story”&nbsp;and is accessed by science and reason. It’s governed by cause and effect and is therefore mechanistic and determined. The transcendent realities—meaning, value, and free will—are in the “upper story”&nbsp;where grace resides. These are known by faith.</p>

<p>The key here is that there is no relationship between the upper story and lower story. (Recall Van Till’s bold comment, “On such matters [as origin and governance of the universe] the natural sciences have nothing to contribute.”)</p>

<p>Human dignity and purpose are crushed in the gears of nature’s determinism. So, Schaeffer suggests, man must take a leap apart from reason into the upper story of meaning and significance. Man restores his own sense of innate value, but the price he pays is schizophrenia and loss of rationality.</p>

<p>Van Till’s own upper story leap allows him to make this rather daring statement: “The oft-heard claims that natural science either confirms or discredits a theistic concept of divine governance or validates some particular concept of the status of the physical universe in a relationship to deity is careless talk that exposes a failure to honor the boundaries of the scientific domain.”&nbsp;[9 Van Till, 40.]</p>

<p>I can’t help but think of the Apostle Paul’s comment to the Corinthians [10 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.] that Christians of all people are most to be pitied if the resurrection is not an historical (read “scientific”) fact. Van Till would have little respect, it seems, for such “careless talk.”</p>

<h2>A “New”&nbsp;Idea</h2>

<p>I’d like to suggest a “radical”&nbsp;alternative: Restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis on truth, on identifying ideas worth believing. This is where the issue of bias takes on a completely new light.</p>

<p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that when a Christian deals with issues like science and faith, it’s fair to say he’s biased in that he brings certain assumptions to the process, just like everyone else. A Christian’s bias, though, doesn’t inform his conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a scientist restricted by Van Till’s definition.</p>

<p>The current bias of science arbitrarily eliminates certain answers before the game even gets started. Scientists <em>must</em> come up with conclusions that leave God out of the picture because their definition of science demands it.</p>

<p>A Christian is not so encumbered. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of supernatural intervention. Both are consistent with his world view. He can judge the evidence on its own merits, not hindered by a definition of science that automatically eliminates supernatural options before the evidence is viewed.</p>

<p>As a result, the Christian’s bias broadens his categories making him more open-minded. He has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads. That’s the critical distinction.</p>

<h2>Two Interacting Realms</h2>

<p>This approach streamlines the quest for truth without destroying legitimate distinctions between science and theology. There is nothing wrong with the idea that each has its separate domain. The problem comes only when they are arbitrarily isolated from one another, as Van Till advocates.</p>

<p>In practice, science does not merely study the physical universe. It also posits causes to physical effects. Van Till’s view forces us to accept that all physical effects have prior <em>physical</em> causes. This is unnecessarily restrictive. Where does one get the idea that physical phenomenon cannot be caused by an agent?</p>

<p>The object and domain of science should be the physical world, but it’s goal should be truth, not merely physical explanations. Though science is restricted to examining physical <em>effects</em>, when <em>causes</em> are inferred, there should be no such limitation.</p>

<p>A simple example makes this point. We use our faculties to explore the world around us. Mine, for the moment, are exploring the words on this page. As I write I choose specific physical objects as symbols which convey meaning to a reader. The reader has seen empirical symbols like these in his environment for years and, through induction, has learned the “language”&nbsp;of the symbols, the invisible meaning behind them. Through a process that includes empirical factors a transaction takes place between two minds and those minds meet.</p>

<p>Note that part of this process is phenomenal, but not all. There is a relationship between the empirical and that which cannot be measured. An examination of the natural world (“science”) is helping to give information—meaning—about that which is supra-natural. But Van Till seems to think this is an illegitimate relationship.</p>

<p>Ironically, he uses this very example to come to the opposite conclusion. He says that, when examining words on a page, science is “wholly incapable of discovering its meaning.”&nbsp;[11 Van Till, 16.] He should have added the phrase, “on its own.”&nbsp;It certainly can be used in conjunction with other methods, as the example above shows.</p>

<p>To make the point another way, if we saw a vase levitate and move in a non-random fashion around the room, would it be reasonable to infer the possibility of a metaphysical reality from this evidence in the physical universe? I think so. At least it shouldn’t be excluded by very definition.</p>

<p>Creationists claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. Consider forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. Was it a heart attack or was an intelligent agent involved? In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance.</p>

<p>Philosopher and mathematician William Dembski puts it in perspective when he writes, “It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory.”&nbsp;[12 William Dembski, “The Intelligent Design Movement,”&nbsp;<em>Cosmic Pursuit</em>, Spring, 1998, 24.] Consider the SETI project, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Here is an especially noteworthy example of inferring intelligent causes from scientific research methods, as the movie <em>Contact</em> demonstrated.</p>

<p>I conclude, therefore, that there is no good reason why science—the “what,”&nbsp;the empirical—can’t help man understand the meaning—the “why,”&nbsp;including the theological “why”—behind all that is.</p>

<h2>Craft Incompetence: The Missing Moon Dust</h2>

<p>Another major flaw in Van Till’s treatment also contains the book’s most redeeming contribution. He properly upbraids the poor science some creationists have been guilty of when seeking to defend their position. Van Till notes four examples of craft incompetence by creationists: the “missing”&nbsp;moon dust, the “shrinking”&nbsp;sun, the “mysterious”&nbsp;sea salt concentrations, and the “lost”&nbsp;geological strata. A closer look at just one of them—the missing moon dust—illustrates his point.</p>

<p>If the solar system is millions of years old, creationists argue, then there should be hundreds of feet of dust on the moon from lunar erosion and in-fall of intergalactic matter. Yet, when the astronauts landed they found only inches of loose dust, implying that millions of years had not elapsed as evolutionists claimed.</p>

<p>Even today this observation is touted by many creationists as a major victory for their view. The scientific community is portrayed as still befuddled, staggering under this blow to the evolutionist’s sacred belief in an ancient universe. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, as Van Till points out. [13 Van Till, 67-82.]</p>

<p>First, the “missing moon dust”&nbsp;did not catch NASA by surprise; they expected it. Prior to the moon launch there were many divergent estimations of the depth of the dust on the moon’s surface. All were based on certain assumptions about rates of erosion from large meteor impact and rates of micrometeor accretion on the moon. Without the aid of direct measurements, these rates were speculative. Differences in estimation varied sometimes by a factor of 1000.</p>

<p>As early as 1959, famed astronomer Fred Whipple noted that deep dust would not be a problem because climatic conditions would cause the particles to adhere together. Landings of Lunar IX and Surveyor I in 1966 confirmed his theory three years before the manned flight. NASA could have made deep-dust design choices for their landing pads, but were convinced that the surface would be firm.</p>

<p>Second, NASA was right. The first Apollo landing site had only a few inches of <em>loose</em> dust, true enough. However, most of the dust on the surface of the moon is not loose powder. Instead, moon dust coheres and packs down over time—the same as dust on earth—forming the more dense lunar soil.</p>

<p>Soil on the moon comes from two sources: micrometeor infall (intergalactic dust), and erosion of the lunar landscape due to collisions with large meteors. Actual measurements of meteorite bombardment on the lunar surface (the first source) demonstrates that the accumulation rate for micrometeor dust would be 500 tons per year or only one centimeter in four billion years. The balance of the material comes from lunar erosion.</p>

<p>Actual core samples of the moon “dust”&nbsp;layer (called lunar regolith) drilled out by the astronauts ranged from 8 ft. 10 in. to 9 ft. 8 in. deep. Further seismic tests by Apollo-17 crews showed a range of 20 feet to 120 feet in the area sampled.</p>

<p>These details seem to have escaped the notice of many creationists. Ignoring conflicting evidence, or simply being out of touch with the current published material on this subject, is unprofessional and inexcusable. It’s not good science. [14 In fairness, the most recent ICR publication I have in my possession ( <em>The Modern Creation Trilogy</em>, 1996) has abandoned the moon dust argument.]</p>

<h2>Methodology or Theology?</h2>

<p>Van Till’s point is a fair one, but here’s the flaw. This fine observation ironically discredits his own thesis. Creationists have erred in the <em>craft</em> of science, not in its <em>definition</em>. They may have been swayed by religious convictions, but neither religious bias nor a faulty view of science is the culprit. The creationists he cites are simply guilty of bad science.</p>

<p>Van Till invites the reader to evaluate for himself the “<em>scientific adequacy of the evidence</em>, arguments and conclusions offered by creation scientists...Judged as natural science,”&nbsp;he says, “the <em>evidences</em> and models offered by the scientific-creationist community fail the test of <em>scientific adequacy</em>.”&nbsp;[15 Van Till, 173-4.] [emphasis added] Once again the key problem is methodology, not a wrong understanding of science.</p>

<p>Ultimately, authors Van Till, Young, and Menninga don’t solve the problem they set out to remedy in <em>Science Held Hostage</em>. Their definition of science is too restrictive. It takes into consideration neither the history of science nor the Scriptural teaching on natural theology, both of which are friendly to an integration of theology and science.</p>

<p>The authors do offer an excellent critique of the sometimes biased and poorly executed science of some creationists. This only shows, however, that in some cases the creationists’&nbsp;<em>methodology</em> is flawed, not their integrated scientific <em>model</em>.</p>

<p>Science examines the physical world, fair enough. But it need not be limited to material explanations for what it finds. When truth is at issue, our goal should be to find the best explanation, not just one that fits our arbitrary definitions.</p>
</div>

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


title: “You’re Not Objective So Your Opinion Doesn’t Count”
topic: Philosophy
author: Guest Author
date: 03/13/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/-you-re-not-objective-so-your-opinion-doesn-t-count-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>by Steve Wagner</p>

<p><em>To Respond, Distinguish Two Types of Objectivity</em></p>

<p>Let’s paint the scene: you are in a college class discussion on embryonic stem cell research and you make a simple case against the research because it kills an innocent human being. Your professor asks you if you are objective on the matter. Stunned a bit, you hesitate and say, “Well, no...but...”&nbsp;Before you can explain, the professor then turns to the class and announces, “Well it’s obvious that your opinion doesn’t really count here, since it’s not objective.”</p>

<p>There’s something wrong here, but what is it? The professor is using an equivocation (using two different meanings of a word in one argument) on the word objective to simply ignore the good?faith case you’ve made. You can protest that she’s not being reasonable, but the damage has been done. You’re disqualified.</p>

<p>Instead, cut the problem off at the roots by targeting her equivocation before she can use it against you. When she asks, “Are you objective?”&nbsp;ask, “What do you mean by objective? Do you mean psychologically objective—not committed to a particular view? Or do you mean rationally objective—able to discern the difference between good reasons and bad ones regardless of what view I hold?”</p>

<p>See, the professor is disqualifying you for lacking psychological objectivity (having a view or bias on ESCR) as if this obviously makes rational objectivity impossible. It’s as if she’s trying to lead a dispassionate discussion of the merits of the issue and your bias is sure to get in the way.</p>

<p>But if psychologically objective people are the only ones who can weigh in on the topic, only two kinds of people can participate: those who have looked at all of the evidence and really believe it is a 50/50 split (they can’t make up their minds either way) and those who don’t care about the issue enough to have studied it. Most students will be of the latter type. My question: “Would you rather listen to the thoughts and arguments of someone who knows nothing about a topic and couldn’t care less about it, or listen to someone who has studied and has a view to defend?”&nbsp;After all, many who are psychologically objective are not going to have much to contribute!</p>

<p>Here’s another question for the teacher: “Are you saying that if I have a view on this, I can’t change my position based on a good argument? Are you alleging that I can’t listen to other points of view and evaluate them fairly and judge them on their merits even if they show my view is false?”</p>

<p>The professor is using an equivocation on the word objective to disqualify you. She is claiming you are not objective, as if you are not rationally objective and can’t evaluate the arguments fairly. But you only lack psychological objectivity (which she also lacks, at least on the question of whether objectivity matters!). She persuades the class that you should be disqualified (for not being rationally objective) by pointing to the fact that you’re not psychologically objective. By asking for a distinction between two senses of the word “objective,”&nbsp;you help the class see that the professor’s criticism fails. She is equivocating.</p>

<p>As JP Moreland points out in the second section of “<a href="http://www.str.org/w/truth-contemporary-philosophy-and-the-postmodern-turn" target="_blank">Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn</a>,”&nbsp;this difference between psychological objectivity and rational objectivity is key. “Psychological objectivity is detachment, the absence of bias, a lack of commitment either way on a topic.”&nbsp;Notice that whether one has reasons or evidence is irrelevant to psychological objectivity. If you have a view one way or another, you are not psychologically objective, regardless of whether you simply feel one view is correct or whether you have spent years studying all of the arguments for or against. Psychological objectivity is not objectivity about reasons; it’s objectivity about commitment. And you’re not placing your bet (probably because you haven’t studied the topic much or don’t care about it).</p>

<p>On the other hand, rational objectivity is an ability to “discern the difference between genuinely good and bad reasons/evidence for a belief about that topic.”&nbsp;Certainly a psychological bias on a question may make rational objectivity more difficult, but it certainly doesn’t make it impossible. As Moreland points out in his presentation for <a href="http://www.str.org/na?q=..." target="_blank">Stand to Reason’s 2005 Master’s Series</a>, how many times have you held a view firmly on a matter, but have heard a good argument and exclaimed, “That’s a good point!”? All but the most obstinate and arrogant among us have experienced this. And it shows we can be rationally objective, even if we are convinced we are correct on a matter. So those who are psychologically biased can be rationally objective.</p>

<p>In addition, those who are psychologically objective have a liability that doesn’t plague the psychologically biased. Those who don’t care about an issue are going to have less inner motivation to consider the issue carefully. So they may be more liable to make mistakes in thinking or gloss over important nuances. They also may be more liable to make up their minds based on non(?)rational forms of persuasion (also called rhetoric) like images and storytelling. This is not to say those who are psychologically objective can’t be rationally objective (let’s not make the opposite error of the professor!). Of course they can. The point here is simple: both the person who has a horse in the race and one who couldn’t care less have challenges to overcome in order to fairly evaluate the evidence of which horse is the best.</p>

<p>(orig. 06/05, rev. 04/08)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-you-re-not-objective-so-your-opinion-doesn-t-count-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-you-re-not-objective-so-your-opinion-doesn-t-count-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-you-re-not-objective-so-your-opinion-doesn-t-count-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 God Whisper? Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/14/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Does the Bible teach that Christians are to listen for God’s voice to guide their decisions?</em></p>

<p>The keynote speaker’s list of spiritual qualifications was not lengthy. There were no references to his academic letters, theological acumen, skill at biblical living, or personal holiness. Instead, he was simply introduced as “a man who hears from God.”&nbsp;It was the ultimate sign of spiritual competency. The implication for the audience was clear. He listens to God; they should listen to him.</p>

<p>It’s hard to think of anything that has captured the imagination of Christians recently as aggressively as the idea of hearing the voice of God. The notion is, to many, so obviously Christian, so undoubtedly biblical, that its truth is beyond question. To challenge it is akin to spiritual treason.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>For many, such an intimacy is central to personal relationship with God, the core of vibrant Christianity. Without it, genuine closeness to our Lord is not even possible.</p>

<p>Anyway, listening to Christians talk about it, the experience appears to be ubiquitous. Virtually everyone seems to be “hearing from God”&nbsp;in some fashion—pastors, writers, even the regular folks at your weekly Bible study—so the basic idea must be right. After all, Jesus said, “My sheep <em>hear</em> My voice.”&nbsp;Real believers <em>ought</em> to experience this (if this is what Jesus meant), and if any one of us happens to be the odd person left out, there are plenty of books promising to impart this skill.</p>

<h2>A Christian Birthright</h2>

<p>A host of writings over the last decade suggest that two-way communication is central to having an intimate relationship with God. We talk to Him in prayer, then He “talks”&nbsp;to us, often with guidance tailor-made for our situation. It’s what one author calls a “conversational relationship”&nbsp;with God.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>This ability to hear directly from God is not reserved for a select few. Rather, the experience of prophets and godly men of old is also the birthright of every Christian. Jesus took his directions directly from the Father. This was the standard experience of the early church in the book of Acts. It should be ours, too.</p>

<p>If we don’t yet know how to “recognize”&nbsp;God’s voice, be confident that God is “trying”&nbsp;to get through. With the right instruction, the skill can be learned from those who are proficient, just as little Samuel learned from Eli.</p>

<p>On this view, the ability to personally connect with God is especially important when it comes to making decisions. One notable author writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Have you ever needed to make a decision, but had no idea what God wanted you to do? You wanted to do what was best, but you were not sure what that was...God always has a plan in mind. The challenge for most of us is how to discover it...He is willing to speak to each one of us, <em>but we must be in a position where we can hear His voice</em>.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God knows best, and hasn’t He promised to give guidance?<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Our task is to wait until the Master gives instructions.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> These may come by subtle impressions or promptings one writer calls God’s “whispers.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Others talk of “listening prayer,”&nbsp;or hearing the “still small voice”&nbsp;of God,<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> or being “led”&nbsp;by the Spirit, or getting an “assignment”&nbsp;from God.</p>

<h2>Danger in the Silence</h2>

<p>As normal as these concepts seem to some—and as spiritually appealing as they sound—there is a dark side. What if God’s whispers are not forthcoming? One pastor wrote me plagued by indecision. “I’ve felt ’stuck in the mud,’&nbsp;so to speak, waiting for ’the voice of God’&nbsp;to impress me with His leading in so many areas.”&nbsp;For this pastor, God’s silence was agonizing.</p>

<p>And silence from God is a cause for concern. The author of one bestseller on this topic warns that a failure to hear from God is a failure in one’s love relationship with God. “If the Christian does not know when God is speaking, he is in trouble at the heart of his Christian life!”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Consequently, there are legions of Christians who are disheartened and defeated—sometimes even questioning their own salvation—because the heavens have been quiet. After all, Jesus said, “<em>My</em> sheep <em>hear</em> My voice.”&nbsp;And what of those who don’t hear? “You are not My sheep,”&nbsp;was Jesus’&nbsp;answer (Jn. 10:26). This is a chilling prospect for those left alone in the spiritual silence.</p>

<h2>One Big Question, Many Smaller Ones</h2>

<p>This month’s <em>Solid Ground</em> is the first of a three-part series in which I want to ask a simple question: Are these claims sound? Which is to ask, “Are these claims biblical?”&nbsp;What is the scriptural answer to the following smaller questions?</p>

<ul>
	<li>Does the Bible teach God is “trying”&nbsp;to speak to each one of us? Can His efforts be thwarted by inattention, excessive activity, or sin, as some suggest?</li>
	<li>Is having a conversational relationship with God taught in the text?</li>
	<li>According to Scripture, does prayer involve two-way communication? Do we talk to God, then listen as God talks to us?</li>
	<li>When Paul uses the phrase “led by the Spirit,”&nbsp;does he mean “sensing”&nbsp;subtle hints from God that He uses to prompt and push us in the direction of His will?</li>
	<li>Does God’s promised guidance mean He reveals to each of us individually what He wants us to do?</li>
	<li>Does the Bible give us reason to expect the same interaction with God as Moses, Samuel, and Paul had with Him,<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> or were their experiences unique?</li>
	<li>For Jesus, did “hearing���&nbsp;His voice mean that all His true sheep receive regular personal messages from Him?</li>
	<li>Is it true this was modeled by the Savior, the apostles, and the early church?</li>
	<li>And if we don’t currently possess this skill, does the divine record suggest it can be taught as Eli taught young Samuel?</li>
</ul>

<p>These are the issues I’m concerned with, but there are built-in hazards to raising these questions.</p>

<h2>Lest I Be Misunderstood...</h2>

<p>Part of the difficulty of addressing these issues is a massive ambiguity in the phrase “hearing God’s voice.”&nbsp;For some, any intervention by God in their lives—conviction of sin, insight into Scripture, godly wisdom from a Christian brother or sister, an idea that seems to come from nowhere that bears wonderful fruit—can be called “hearing the voice of God”&nbsp;because all entail God’s personal, intimate—and what I take to be completely biblical—involvement with them personally.</p>

<p>Ambiguities like this lead easily to misunderstanding, so let me tell you what I am <em>not</em> challenging.</p>

<p>I am not questioning the normal experience of a deep, profound intimacy with God that is sometimes so emotionally overwhelming it leaves us weeping in awe before Him.</p>

<p>I am not questioning whether God can work sovereignly to give us thoughts, insights, ideas, or plans. In fact, I’m sure He does (though I will offer some qualifications about how I think we should assess such things). I am not denying the work of God in our lives through all kinds of secondary causes—counsel, circumstances, personal gifts or capabilities—to accomplish His sovereign purposes.</p>

<p>I am not denying answered prayer, though I am not convinced all prayers are biblically appropriate (we can ask for things we shouldn’t be asking for).</p>

<p>I am not questioning whether God can “speak”&nbsp;powerfully to us in our unique situations from Scripture when the text is understood according to its objective meaning gleaned from the context.</p>

<p>I am not a “cessationist,”&nbsp;that is, I do not think the so-called “sign”&nbsp;gifts (tongues, prophecy, etc.) ceased in the first century. There may be bona fide prophetic words for the church in the fashion of prophets of old.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Alleged prophets, however, should be tested (1 Thess. 5:20-21), and the test is the same now as it’s always been (Deut. 18:22).</p>

<p>I do not deny that the Spirit comes alongside us as a helper in powerful and palpable ways to teach, convict, comfort, or empower us to deal with sin, difficulties, trials, and discouragements.</p>

<p>Finally, I do not deny that God is <em>capable</em> of giving special revelation to anyone or to any church at any time. God can do whatever He likes, and I am fully convinced there are unique situations where He does this today, just as in biblical times.</p>

<p>None of these things is in question, as far as I’m concerned.</p>

<p>What <em>is</em> at issue for me is whether the Bible teaches <em>everyone</em> can be a prophet of sorts, whether <em>each</em> Christian can expect to hear from God in the ways described above with private, personalized revelations, and whether this is a standard, ordinary part of the Christian life that can be taught and developed.</p>

<p>This I do not think is taught in the Bible, and I would like to tell you why.</p>

<p>There is only one way to answer these questions, and the proper method is not by appealing to personal experiences or citing godly authorities who disagree. You may have noticed I’ve been citing authors by name only in the endnotes. There is a reason for this.</p>

<p>My focus here is not on personalities, but ideas. I am not interested in discrediting those who I have every reason to believe are good and decent Christian leaders. In fact, some of them are friends. Rather, I am asking if the ideas they have advanced are biblically sound. That question cannot be answered by looking at the character—either good or bad—of those on either side of the issue, but only by looking at the ideas themselves in light of God’s Word.</p>

<p>My question is a scriptural one, and to answer it we must turn to the text.</p>

<h2>“My Sheep Hear My Voice”</h2>

<p>John 10 is almost universally cited in support of the view that hearing the voice of God is a standard feature of the normal Christian life. The wording itself seems straight-forward and unambiguous: “My sheep hear My voice,”&nbsp;Jesus says.</p>

<p>Whenever this verse is quoted to me in discussions on this issue, I always ask a simple question: “What is happening in John 10?”&nbsp;It’s a fair question, it seems to me. How can we be confident of Jesus’&nbsp;meaning if we don’t know who He is speaking to or what His line of thinking is?</p>

<p>No one in this context has ever given me an answer to this question. Nor have I seen it addressed in any book invoking this passage. I suspect it’s because they have never looked. I’m fairly confident of this because I can’t imagine that anyone looking carefully at the context of John 10 could ever appeal to this proof-text to support this view. A closer examination shows why, though I invite you to read the chapter carefully for yourself first before you continue here.</p>

<p>John records four mentions by Jesus of His sheep hearing or knowing His voice (10:3, 4, 16, 27). Verse six is key to understanding these references. Here John explicitly states that <em>Jesus’&nbsp;remarks about hearing His voice are a figure of speech</em>.</p>

<p>Jesus begins by talking about shepherds and sheep (10:1-6). Unlike the thief and robber, the legitimate shepherd enters by the door and calls His own by name. They follow Him as He leads them out. Jesus’&nbsp;point is lost on those listening, though, so He explains the details of His illustration.</p>

<p>He is the door of the sheep (7). Those who pass through Him find salvation and abundant life (9-10). He is also the Good Shepherd who, unlike the hireling, lays down His life freely for His sheep (11-13, 15, 17-18). The shepherd and the sheep know each other (14). When His other sheep hear His voice, they also become part of His flock (16).</p>

<p>Once again, the Jews fail to completely understand (19-21). What is the problem? Jesus’&nbsp;answer is crystal clear: “You do not believe because you are not My sheep”&nbsp;(26).<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>At this point, two key questions need to be answered from the text of John 10. First, what does it <em>mean</em> to hear Jesus’&nbsp;voice? Second, what <em>causes</em> His sheep to hear His voice?</p>

<p>One author suggests that “hearing”&nbsp;means gaining insight or finding an application for a command from Scripture.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> The sheep also “hear”&nbsp;when they receive a personal “assignment”&nbsp;from God through a “leading”&nbsp;or a “calling.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>This is not the way Jesus answers, though. It is critical at this point to remember John’s clarification in verse six. Jesus is using a figure of speech. The reference to “voice“&nbsp;cannot mean an actual voice. A thing is never a metaphor of itself. <em>A metaphor is a picture of something else.</em> Jesus must be referring, in a figure, to something else that the phrase “hear My voice”&nbsp;represents. What is it?</p>

<p>Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them”&nbsp;(v. 27-28). Note the sequence: They hear His voice. They respond by following. Then He gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’&nbsp;voice results <em>in</em> salvation; it is not the result <em>of</em> salvation. It is something that happens to <em>nonbelievers</em> that leads to their belief. It is not a skill possessed by <em>believers</em> as a result of having belief and subsequent relationship with God.</p>

<p>What “voice”&nbsp;is it that draws us to Jesus and results in our salvation? It is the ineffable drawing by the Father through His Spirit of those who are His. This is a concept John has already introduced and developed in earlier chapters of his Gospel, using the same metaphor in the very same way (5:25, 5:31-34, 5:37-38, 6:35-40, 6:44-45, 6:65, 8:18, 8:47). It is a figure of speech for the inner working of God “calling”&nbsp;us to salvation.</p>

<p>Remember, the Jews have no trouble actually hearing Jesus. They know what He is <em>saying</em>. They hear His teaching with perfect clarity. The problem is they are not <em>responding</em> with faith. The “voice”&nbsp;Jesus speaks of is not the whispers of God in a conversational relationship with a Christian, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ in the first place.</p>

<p>Why don’t the Jews “hear”&nbsp;in the sense that Jesus means? Why don’t they respond and believe? Jesus tells us plainly. They do not “hear”&nbsp;because God is not “speaking”&nbsp;to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son (26). If they were, they’d “hear.”&nbsp;That is Jesus’&nbsp;unambiguous teaching.</p>

<p>Now the second question: What enables us to hear? One writer claims, “Knowing God’s voice comes from an intimate love relationship with God,”&nbsp;and again, “As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you.”<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>But Jesus never suggests such a thing. Jesus says the <em>Father</em> is the cause, sovereignly enabling those sheep He has given to Jesus to “hear”&nbsp;and respond. This “hearing”&nbsp;is not for believers <em>after</em> salvation, but for non-believers <em>before</em> salvation. It is not dependent on the quality of our love relationship with God, but on the Father’s choice.</p>

<p>There is another damaging consequence of a misreading of this text. According to Jesus’&nbsp;comments, hearing His voice is essential to salvation. Those who do not hear <em>are not His</em>. Rather they are outsiders, bereft of eternal life, lost.</p>

<p>There is an unavoidable consequence of blending the wording of John 10 with this author’s definition of hearing Jesus’&nbsp;voice. He writes, “Those who do not have the relationship (’do not belong to God’) do not hear what God is saying (John 8:47).”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> In the verse quoted, Jesus is castigating the Jews for unbelief, calling them the sons of Satan (8:44). This places a tremendous burden on the believer who questions his spirituality—and even his salvation—if divine messages are not forthcoming.</p>

<p>If this is your worry, fret not. The notion of hearing the voice of God is completely foreign to the text of John 10. To Jesus, hearing His voice is not a skill to be developed. It is not a spiritual discipline opening up lines of personalized communication with God. Rather, it is a figure of speech depicting the Father drawing the non-believer into Jesus’&nbsp;arms. If you have come to Christ, you’ve already heard the voice Jesus is talking about. If not, you would not have come to Him in the first place.</p>

<h2>Led by the Spirit?</h2>

<p>What does Scripture mean when it says Christians are “led by the Spirit”? Once again, the simplest way to answer that question is to look up the verses that use the phrase. Since it appears in only two places in the epistles (Romans 8 and Galatians 5), our task is easy. Paul is the author of both and he uses the phrase in exactly the same way in each case.</p>

<p>Paul begins Romans 8 by explaining how the law of the Spirit of life in Christ sets us free from the law of sin and of death (8:2). What the Law couldn’t do (bring life) God did by sending His Son to die for us and then giving His Spirit so we can walk in life and peace (3-8). Every true Christian has the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him, Paul argues, giving life to his mortal body (9-11). Then in verses 12-14, Paul writes this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die. But if by the Spirit you are <em>putting to death the deeds of the body</em>, you will live. For all who are <em>being led by the Spirit of God</em>, these are sons of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice the obvious parallel between “putting to death the deeds of the body”&nbsp;and “being led by the Spirit.”&nbsp;Notice the obvious parallel between “putting to death the deeds of the body”&nbsp;and “being led by the Spirit.”&nbsp;Paul is saying, in other words, “All of you who being ’led by the Spirit’—that is, you who are putting to death the deeds of the body—you are sons of God.”</p>

<p>Clearly, this passage is not referring to individual “promptings”&nbsp;of God we “sense”&nbsp;to get guidance. That meaning is completely foreign to Paul’s flow of thought.</p>

<p>Rather, the Spirit every true Christian possesses “leads”&nbsp;us away from the bondage of the flesh into the freedom and peace of a life of godliness—what Paul calls “putting to death the deeds of the body.”</p>

<p>Flip over to Galatians 5:16-26 and you’ll quickly see Paul applies the same reasoning to the phrase “led by the Spirit”&nbsp;in this passage. Christ sets us free from the “yoke of slavery”&nbsp;of the Law. The promise of the Spirit (note 3:14) gives real hope of righteousness. We’re to use our new freedom not as an opportunity for the flesh, but to live righteously by serving one another in love (5:1-15).</p>

<p>A battle rages, however, between the flesh and the Spirit (17). How do we win this battle? Paul’s answer: “<em>Walk by the Spirit</em>, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh”&nbsp;(16) and, “If you are <em>led by the Spirit</em>, you are not under the Law”&nbsp;(18).</p>

<p>Once again, the two statements in parallel mean the same thing. <em>Walking</em> by the spirit, being <em>led</em> by the Spirit (and <em>living</em> by the Spirit, later in verse 24) mean overcoming the gruesome deeds of the flesh (19-21) and manifesting the fruits of the Spirit (22-23), leading to Paul’s summary: “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”&nbsp;(24). This is why someone who is led by the Spirit in Paul’s sense is “not under the Law”&nbsp;(18). They are already fulfilling the law by their righteous conduct.</p>

<p>This is the same basic message of Romans 8. Read the whole passage yourself, then ask if Paul is teaching here that being “led”&nbsp;by the Spirit means getting promptings and nudges from God to hint at His will for us. It’s simply not there. Rather, this notion is a contemporary Christian idea that believers unwittingly <em>read into</em> the text. Paul’s point is completely different.</p>

<p>The New Testament record speaks with one voice here. There is no “hearing the voice of God”&nbsp;in passages referring to the leading of the Spirit.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> We’ll have to look elsewhere for evidence of this teaching.</p>

<p>In the next <em>Solid Ground</em>, I’ll explore this issue further, looking at the example of Jesus, the testimony of the book of Acts, the “mentoring”&nbsp;of Samuel by Eli, and a very important biblical principle I call the “lesson of the bugle.”</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I’ve actually been called a heretic for questioning it. A heretic is usually defined as someone who denies a cardinal doctrine of the faith.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Dallas Willard, <em>Hearing God—Developing a Conversational Relationship with God</em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Charles Stanley, <em>How to Let God Solve Your Problems—12 Keys to Finding Clear Guidance in Life’s Trials</em> (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 2008), 103-104.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ps. 32:8 and Prov. 3:5-6 are verses frequently cited, but those passages don’t specify the <em>means</em> of guidance. Many presume this means personal revelation. But God’s Word could easily qualify, especially considering that 28 chapters of wise guidance immediately follow the promise in Proverbs.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Henry Blackaby and Claude King, <em>Experiencing God</em> (Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman, 1994), 141.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Bill Hybels, <em>The Power of a Whisper—Hearing God. Having the Guts to Respond</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">A reference to 1 Kings 19:12.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Blackaby, 132, 137.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Stanley, 108.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">I <em>do</em> make a distinction between the gift of prophecy and the office of prophet or apostle. I do not think these offices function today, but that is a different issue.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">I know Jesus’&nbsp;explanation in the latter part of the chapter is taken from a different encounter with the Jews than in the first half where the issue of hearing Jesus’&nbsp;voice is originally raised. However, I’m convinced Jesus is still responding to the same topic, which is why John grouped the separate encounters together. The language of the text also seems to make this obvious.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Blackaby, 164-168.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Ibid., 168-170.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Ibid., 138, 163.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Ibid., 138.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Jesus was “led”&nbsp;(or “impelled”) by the Spirit into the wilderness (Matt. 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1). But this does not seem to be an internal prompting of the sort Christians describe. Rather, the text indicates the Spirit actually took or drove Jesus into the wilderness. The words used (<em>ago</em>, <em>anago</em>) are the same words describing Satan “taking”&nbsp;Jesus to different locations during the temptation.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-god-whisper-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%2Fdoes-god-whisper-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%2Fdoes-god-whisper-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: Paul, Romans, and Homosexuality
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/17/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/paul-romans-and-homosexuality-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>To most readers, the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations—both male and female. Recent scholarship, though, reads the same text and finds just the opposite—that homosexuality is innate and therefore normal, moral, and biblical.</p>

<h2>Reconstructing Romans</h2>

<p>In Romans, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep seated rebellion against God and God’s proper condemnation of man. New interpretations cast a different light on the passage.</p>

<p>According to the revisionist view, Paul, the religious Jew, is looking across the Mediterranean at life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. Homosexuality in itself is not the focus of condemnation. Rather, Paul’s opprobrium falls upon paganism’s refusal to acknowledge the true God.</p>

<p>It’s also possible, they say, that Paul did not understand the physiological basis of genuine homosexuality. John Boswell, professor of history at Yale, is among those who differ with the classical interpretation. In <em>Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> he writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons...It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that—whether or not he was aware of their existence—Paul did not discuss gay <em>persons</em> but only homosexual <em>acts</em> committed by heterosexual persons. [Emphasis in the original.]<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural sexual orientation, Boswell contends, those who go against their own natural desire: “’Nature’&nbsp;in Romans 1:26, then, should be understood as the <em>personal</em> nature of the pagans in question.”&nbsp;(Emphasis in the original.)<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>In other words, since a homosexual’s natural desire is for the same sex, this verse doesn’t apply to him. He has not chosen to set aside heterosexuality for homosexuality; the orientation he was born with is homosexual. Demanding that he forsake his “sin”&nbsp;and become heterosexual is actually the kind of violation of one’s nature Paul condemns here.</p>

<h2>Romans 1:18-27</h2>

<p>Both views can’t be correct. Only a close look at the text itself will give us the answer. The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.</p>

<p>For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.</p>

<p>Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.</p>

<p>For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let me start by making two observations. First, this is about God being mad: “For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...”</p>

<p>Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this “orgy”&nbsp;of anger. Men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”&nbsp;(v. 18). They exchanged “the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”&nbsp;(v. 25). Next, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...”&nbsp;(v. 24). They “exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural”&nbsp;(v. 26). Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are “without excuse”&nbsp;(v. 20).</p>

<p>This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation. Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that’s part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. He is talking about a universal condition of man.</p>

<p>Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses: a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).</p>

<p>There’s only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one’s Creator. Verse 32 shows it’s rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God—true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality. God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse”&nbsp;(v. 20).</p>

<h2>Born Gay?</h2>

<p>What if one’s “natural”&nbsp;desire is for the same sex, though. What if his homosexuality is part of his physical constitution? There are four different reasons this is a bad argument. The first three are compelling; the fourth is unassailable.</p>

<p>First, this rejoinder assumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality. The scientific data is far from conclusive, though. Contrary to the hasty claims of the press, there is no definitive evidence that homosexuality is determined by physiological factors (see “Just Doing What Comes Naturally,”&nbsp;Clear Thinking, Spring, 1997).</p>

<p>There’s a second problem. If all who have a desire for the same sex do so “naturally,”&nbsp;then to whom does this verse apply? If everybody is only following their natural sexual desires, then which particular individuals fall under this ban, those who are not aroused by their own gender, but have sex anyway? Generally, for men at least, if there is no arousal, there is no sex. And if there is arousal, according to Boswell et al., then the passion must be natural.</p>

<p>Third, this interpretation introduces a whole new concept—constitutional homosexuality—that is entirely foreign to the text. Boswell himself admits that it was “in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul’s] day recognized such a distinction,”&nbsp;and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark.</p>

<p>If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, though, then how can one say he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote that they “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”? This argument self-destructs.</p>

<p>Further, if Paul spoke only to those violating their personal sexual orientation, then wouldn’t he also warn that some men burned unnaturally towards women, and some women towards men? Wouldn’t Paul warn against both types of violation—heterosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the same sex, and homosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the opposite sex?</p>

<p>What in the text allows us to distinguish between constitutional homosexuals and others? Only one word: “natural.”&nbsp;A close look at this word and what it modifies, though, leads to the most devastating critique of all.</p>

<h2>Natural Desire or Natural Function?</h2>

<p>Paul was not unclear about what he meant by “natural.”&nbsp;Homosexuals do not abandon natural <em>desires</em>; they abandon natural <em>functions</em>: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...”&nbsp;(1:26-27).</p>

<p>The Greek word kreesis, translated “function”&nbsp;in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to the standard Greek language reference <em>A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature</em>, the word means “use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions. He is not talking about what one <em>wants</em> sexually, but how one is built to <em>operate</em> sexually. The body is built to function in a specific way. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.</p>

<p>This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul. The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for women and burned toward one another. Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul’s condemnation. Paul says nothing of the kind, though.</p>

<p>Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the “natural function of the woman.”&nbsp;They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man’s sexual complement.</p>

<p>The error has nothing to do with anything in the male’s own constitution that he’s denying. It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him—a woman: “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts...”&nbsp;(v. 27).</p>

<p>Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.</p>

<p>Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ’For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse]’?”&nbsp;(Matthew 19:4-5).</p>

<p>Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual complement God has ordained for him: a woman. That was Paul’s view. If it was Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">John Boswell, Christianity, <em>Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 109.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">John Boswell, Christianity, <em>Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 111.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Citations are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em>, copyright 1977, The Lockman Foundation.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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: Does “God Visit the Iniquities of the Fathers” on the “Third & Fourth Generations”?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-god-visit-the-iniquities-of-the-fathers-on-the-third-fourth-generations-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg interprets a commonly misunderstood and difficult passage by looking at the details of the context.</em></p>

<p>Radio Caller: There’s at least four places in the Old Testament that talk about the Lord visiting the sins of the Father unto the third and fourth generations. Can you work through figuring out what that’s about?</p>

<p>Greg: Let’s talk about that for a few moments. I think this is a good example of a “Never Read a Bible Verse”&nbsp;kind of application. I actually think this is a little bit of a difficult passage to figure out. Two things to look at. It’s made more difficult because it’s usually quoted in part, and not in whole. It is misquoted, and the details of even what is quoted are not attended to. So entire ministries, whole enterprises, have been built on a big misunderstanding about this passage. Even if someone doesn’t know what a passage means, it may possible to figure out what the passage does <em>not</em> mean.</p>

<p>The way this is usually cited—it comes up first in Exodus 20, which is the Ten Commandments—is that people say we know that “the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation.”&nbsp;What this is commonly said to mean is that you may have ancestral curses because of the activities of your fathers, your ancestors. Generally, these activities have to do with extreme sin or occult involvement, but it may also be having an abortion. This then results in something bad happening to an individual because of this other person’s sinful activity.</p>

<p>The application of this is that someone is going through something really hard and has a besetting sin or problem that they can’t get rid of, and it is suggested to them that there is a spiritual dynamic that is tied to the teaching of this verse. There is a generational sin and curse that then must be broken through some spiritual discipline of some sort. Some have gone to great extent, written whole books, on how to unwind this spiritual oppression coming from past generations. They step you through all these little exercises. Does this sound familiar?</p>

<p>Caller: Yes.</p>

<p>Greg: Now, let’s go back to the verse, Exodus 20:5-6: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments”&nbsp;(NASB).</p>

<p>That’s the whole quote. That’s a lot more than most people who know about this verse have ever heard. Let me ask you a question. This visiting of the sins of the father on the children, whatever that means, whatever that “visiting”&nbsp;is, who is the active agent? God is doing the visiting. So, if you have a technique to undo this activity, who are you fighting? God. What could be more obvious?</p>

<p>I don’t know exactly what’s going on here, but God is doing it. And if you try to undo it, you are fighting God. There is no technique, there is no prayer, there is no spiritual enterprise that you’re going to be able to invoke against this because anyone who is doing so will be fighting God.</p>

<p>Now keep in mind, I am saying that whatever is going on here is God’s doing. There may be legitimate spiritual problems people are having that people should be praying about, but whatever spiritual problems they’re having may not at all be related to this. And, if they are, and what they’re experiencing is an example of the outworking of this declaration by God, then they are fighting God by trying to undo it.</p>

<p>So then what is going on? Well, we know that God is a jealous God. They are not to worship idols. He says then He will do something and this is very odd. He will visit the “iniquities of the father on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.”</p>

<p>We have a father. We have a child, first generation. We have a grandson, second generation. We have a great-grandson, third generation. So God is only visiting the iniquity on the son, the great-grandson, and the great-great grandson. Doesn’t it seem odd that he says third and fourth, and not second? Now maybe he means to the third and fourth so that it’s just for four generations before this peters out. Maybe. Verse 6 says, “but showing lovingkindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments.”</p>

<p>Caller: But that’s a big part of my question. That thousands doesn’t seem to be thousands generations, that the third and fourth are. I wasn’t sure that the thousands meant thousands of generations or if it just meant thousands.</p>

<p>Greg: This is where it’s helpful to go back to some of the other four places where this same concept is quoted here.</p>

<p>Caller: It’s always the same word there. The word thousand doesn’t look like it has the “generation”&nbsp;in there.</p>

<p>Greg: It could mean thousands of generations. That could be a vagueness. But what is clear is there is a contrast between third and fourth generations, and thousands. Now what do you think God intends to be the greater number, those in the third and fourth generations or those in thousands?</p>

<p>Caller: The point is that His lovingkindness is so much greater.</p>

<p>Greg: Oh, God bless you! “...On the children, and on the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.”&nbsp;Notice the qualifier. “...And showing lovingkindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments.”</p>

<p>Now what does the history of Israel demonstrate? It demonstrates that when God deals with Israel, He deals with them as a nation. When the fathers, the ones in control, the adults are bad, everybody gets the punishment. It’s not because the children are singled out to be punished for the sins of the father. In fact, there’s an entire chapter, Ezekiel 18, one whole chapter that is meant to repudiate that concept.</p>

<p>The way the chapter starts is, “You have a saying, ’The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.’”&nbsp;Do you see the play on words here? The fathers do it, but the children get the result. God says to quit saying that thing because I’m not going to punish the kids for what the parents do wrong.</p>

<p>That’s different, I think, from dealing with the nation as a whole. When the nation as a whole is rebellious and idolatrous, which is what the Exodus passage is about, God punishes the nation.</p>

<p>Even though Elijah found out there were still 5,000 people who had not bent their knee to Baal, still the nation was a nation of Baal-worshipers so they were punished by God as a nation. The kids got it just like the parents. As long as the group as a whole continued in that, God would punish them. And He did until you got a king and a people that reformed the nation. Then God blesses them. There were reformers like Hezekiah and Manasseh, later in his life. There were these times when this happened. Then God’s lovingkindness was abundant.</p>

<p>In Exodus, God is talking about how He’s going to deal with the nation. After all, this is the Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel, so He’s setting up the blessings and curses for the nation as a whole based on how they keep up their end of the covenant. They should not be idolatrous because He’s a jealous God, and if they’re idolatrous they’re going to be punished. And this is the way He characterizes the consequences, “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”&nbsp;If you keep hating me, I’ll keep punishing you for it.</p>

<p>However, He will show lovingkindness to thousands to those who love Him and keep His commandments. He’s emphasizing His long suffering and His mercy over and against His justice and wrath.</p>

<p>He does that many times in the Old Testament text. He is abundant in lovingkindness; He is slow to anger. And I think that’s what is really going on in this passage. He’s laying out the consequences for worshiping false idols, and He’s contrasting His great lovingkindness with his wrath. That’s my take on it.</p>

<p>Caller: So you think the point the contrast that His lovingkindness is much greater than his anger?</p>

<p>Greg: I think the reason He says third and fourth generations versus thousands is to show that one is greater than the other. He’s speaking in general terms here, not specific numbers.</p>

<p>One father does it; one kid gets it. That’s excluded by the Ezekiel passage that teaches against the idea that a child is punished for his parents’&nbsp;sin. God is talking about the nation of Israel in Exodus, the group as a whole, as He’s making a covenant with them that has obligations on each side. He is expressing His judgement on them for their idolatry, which shows they hate Him, and He will continue to do that generation to generation to generation as long as they hate Him.</p>

<p>This verse is a linguistic device, a poetic devise if you will, “visit the iniquity of the father on the children, and on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.”&nbsp;But for those who don’t hate Him but do love Him and do keep His commandments, He’s going to pour out His grace and lovingkindness to the nation.</p>

<p>I think there’s a kind of literary device that’s going on in the verse. It is not about individual people who receive generational sins or curses; it’s a covenant for how God will deal with the Nation depending on whether they hate or love 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%2Fdoes-god-visit-the-iniquities-of-the-fathers-on-the-third-fourth-generations-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-god-visit-the-iniquities-of-the-fathers-on-the-third-fourth-generations-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-god-visit-the-iniquities-of-the-fathers-on-the-third-fourth-generations-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Justice and Grace
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/justice-and-grace
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The interpretation is not narrow; the verses themselves are narrow, and there seems little we can do to broaden them, soften them, make them more comfortable, and still be faithful to the words.</em></p>

<p>I want to make a few comments about God’s justice by way of laying a predicate for tomorrow’s discussion with Father Vivian. Because I’ve read some of the documents that have been sent to me recently, it’s clear that we’re going to have some serious differences about what constitutes justice in God’s eyes. And that, in turn, will have a serious impact on how we answer the question regarding whether non-Christians are, or can be, justified before God or not.</p>

<p>Part of the confusion is a result of a misunderstanding between two types of justice. I’ll call them retributive justice and distributive justice. The justice of retribution simply demands that if a person commits a crime, it is just to punish him. The only question here is guilt or innocence. The guilty get punished; the innocent go free. That’s the justice of retribution. You could also call it criminal justice.</p>

<p>The other type of justice is distributive justice, or the justice of distribution. This involves the proper distribution of benefits due or owed to a group of people. If humanitarian aid is being given to starving people, it violates distributive justice to give extra aid to one <em>particular</em> group of people, maybe a particular race, tribe, or group of one’s friends. The word that we use often to describe this kind of justice is the word fairness. It’s not <em>fair</em> to give special attention to one over another in this situation.</p>

<p>Let me make another observation before I explain how this is tied into the question about justification. Where the first type of justice, the justice of retribution, hinges on guilt, the second type, the justice of distribution (or fairness) hinges on obligation. In other words, there is only an injustice in this area if there is a true obligation to distribute the goods equally.</p>

<p>Jesus told a parable in Matthew 20 about laborers who were hired at different times in the day, but when the day was over, were all paid the same wage whether they worked all day or only a portion of it. One of the men who had worked all day long complained. Jesus’&nbsp;response was, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”&nbsp;There was no injustice here because there was no obligation to pay all men equally, only an obligation to pay what was agreed on.</p>

<p>A mother has an obligation to her children, for example, that she does <em>not</em> have to the children of her neighbor. If she gave food to her own children but not to the kids next door, no one would call her unjust or unfair. If she chose to do so she, would be considered <em>gracious</em>, but no one would suggest that she was <em>obliged</em> to do so.</p>

<p>And now we’ve introduced another word into the discussion that is very important: <em>graciousness</em>, or simply, grace. Grace involves the giving of something that is <em>not</em> required (<em>required</em> giving would be called obligation) motivated by the heart of the one giving, <em>not</em> by the worthiness of the one receiving. We say, “That was a gracious gesture,”&nbsp;because it was something that was <em>not</em> deserved or required; it was something <em>beyond</em> what was necessary.</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;little parable says volumes about the question at hand. It says that since gracious giving is not obliged but a choice, God is not obliged to extend grace to everyone equally. If He chooses to extend forgiveness to some and not to others (and please note that I’m not arguing that He did, but <em>if</em> He did) He would be neither unfair or unjust because, to paraphrase Jesus, is it not lawful for Him to do what He wishes with what is His own? If you cancel one of your debts, are you obliged to cancel all of them? I suspect not, and neither is God.</p>

<p>So God is not constrained by His grace. Grace is not an obligation, by its very definition and by its very nature. And if there is no obligation then there is no responsibility for God to make it available to everyone. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,”&nbsp;He says.</p>

<p>God has no obligation to pardon, then, and this is not a violation of justice or fairness. But if God is just, then He <em>does&nbsp;</em>have an obligation to punish the guilty and an obligation <em>not</em> to punish the innocent. A violation of either would be injustice. God cannot merely let the guilty go free, and He can by no means punish the innocent.</p>

<p>And this, incidentally, is not good news; it’s bad news, because the other thing God says about this situation—and one that we’re all aware of in our more honest moments—is that <em>we</em> are not innocent, we’re guilty.</p>

<p>Whether God has made forgiveness available to everyone or not is another issue, and I don’t want to address that here. But I want you to be clear on one thing: God owes <em>no one</em> forgiveness, but He does owe them punishment, if they break His law—and that’s all of us. Those who are finally condemned will have received justice; those who are finally saved will have received grace, which they did not deserve.</p>

<p>Now, I’ve said frequently here that I don’t like this message. But I am a person under authority and I don’t have the liberty to construct doctrine to my liking. If I did, I promise you, I would change this one. But the issue of salvation and forgiveness is an issue that is determined in the mind of God—since the offense lies with Him—and not in the mind of man. And as with the mind of man, we can only know God’s mind if He tells us. And when he tells us, that ends the debate, whether we like what He says or not.</p>

<p>Now there is a legitimate issue of what, in fact, <em>has</em> God told us. This is the issue of interpretation. The goal there, however, is always to determine <em>true</em> meaning, not a meaning that is merely <em>comfortable</em> to us. And for those who would claim that my “interpretation”&nbsp;is very narrow I’d have to cordially defer. The <em>interpretation</em> is not narrow; the&nbsp;<em>verses</em> themselves are narrow, and there seems little we can do to broaden them, soften them, make them more comfortable, and still be faithful to the words. And it’s the words, after all, that are inspired.</p>

<p>At least that’s the way I see 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%2Fjustice-and-grace" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjustice-and-grace" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjustice-and-grace" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Did Morals Evolve?
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/10/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-morals-evolve-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If the answer is yes, then we are in trouble.</em></p>

<p>I have consistently put forth what I believe to be a very strong argument for the existence of a personal God and the reality of personal guilt before God based on the existence of self-evident moral rules in the universe.</p>

<p>I think it’s a good argument. But it hasn’t gone unchallenged, especially by those who are committed to the belief that nothing truly exists which is not subject to examination by the senses through scientific inquiry.</p>

<p>This idea has been around in some form for a long time and goes by a variety of different names, depending upon how it’s nuanced: physicalism, scientism, anti-realism, nominalism, strict empiricism, naturalism, etc. I think it’s safe to say that modern man <strong>thinks</strong> he believes this. (Shannon) But this man who said knowledge was only available through empirical testing also said he’d been in love many times, and you can’t put love in a test tube. Further, you can’t weigh this empirical knowledge he was referring to. And the more we talked the more it became evident that we couldn’t even discuss the issue without having to employ the very abstract entities he claimed didn’t exist.</p>

<p>By the way, virtually everything we hold to be dear and important to us...cannot be analyzed empirically. If this is true, and if it’s also true that nothing is real that is not available to scientific scrutiny, then nothing truly important to us actually exists.</p>

<p>A recent challenge to the transcendent nature of morality comes from the book <em>The Moral Animal—Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology</em>, by Robert Wright, published by Pantheon Press. I have not read the book, but I have read the review by Sara Lippincott in the September 4 (1994) Book Review section of the <em>LA Times</em>. Lippencott sketches out the arguments for us.</p>

<p>The thesis: “conscience, the seat of our moral sense, evolved as a survival mechanism. When...we feel guilt because we have harmed a sibling, it is because we have thereby imperiled the proliferation of our genes. When we feel guilt because we have harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially damaged our own (survival enhancing) status.”</p>

<p>This doesn’t account for guilt we may feel for wantonly mistreating some other animal, which is an immediate problem with this view as an explanation for morality, but let’s ignore that for a moment because something else is more pressing.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>If everything about man can be explained in scientific, evolutionary terms, Our belief that we’re exploring truth is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This explanation implicitly contains a remarkable claim. It suggests that there is something in us that is self-consciously aware of the process of evolution, that understands what the goal of evolution is—survival of our own species—and instructs us through our conscience to fulfill the optimal conditions for that survival. How do we know that harming a sibling has “imperiled the proliferation of our genes?”&nbsp;Isn’t this a remarkable statement? Nobody even knew what genes were until Gregor Mendel in the latter part of the 19th century.</p>

<p>Consider two cavemen in neighboring villages. One kills the other in cold blood. We’re being asked to believe that he feels guilt because he realizes such an act ultimately undermines his own survival status (How? He didn’t say.) In the rest of the animal kingdom, killing the opposition seems to secure just the opposite.</p>

<p>We think we have a type of transcendent knowledge we call morality, Wright argues. But there’s an explanation for that in evolutionary terms. Something in us <strong>knows</strong> that conscience is useful for securing the long-term survival of our race. So now to explain away the existence of morality as transcendent knowledge Wright posits the existence of some other kind of transcendent knowledge that <strong>creates</strong> morality for its own purpose. But this only pushes the problem one generation back. One can then ask, “Where did this force, this law, to always seek the survival of the species come from?”&nbsp;You can’t say it evolved, because that would be begging the question: Where did the impulse to seek your own species’&nbsp;survival come from? It evolved based on a species seeking its own survival. The argument becomes circular. Wright solves nothing with his amazing claim.</p>

<p>There are more problems with this, of course, and they center around one inescapable observation. If everything about man can be explained in scientific, evolutionary terms, Our belief that we’re exploring truth is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control.</p>

<p>In other words, this kind of physicalism always seems to lead to some kind of determinism: Everything about us is determined by our prior physical states. It’s very hard to argue, then, that there is any truth at all to be known, moral or otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>If the moral element is prior to the behavior, then it can’t be the behavior itself.</strong></p>

<p>Then why should I believe this article? This article purports to tell us something true about the universe, but in the process tells us that our perception of truth is something that is dictated by our genes to “get our genes into the next generation.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This view changes drastically what it means to be moral. It reduces morality to mere survival, to pragmatics. We feel moral urgings because these moral urgings help us to survive better. They have at their core self-preservation in mind. But does self-preservation truly capture what we mean when we say a thing is moral. Indeed many things that fall into the moral category have to do with denying self.</p>

<p>But what is this “correct”&nbsp;business? It implies that there is some higher standard outside of the morality that he is allegedly explaining, a higher standard of <strong>moral conduct</strong> that can correct the “moral biases built into us by natural selection.”&nbsp;But it’s precisely this higher moral law that needs explaining and defies naturalistic explanation. Robert Wright doesn’t explain it. He merely offers an explanation for some low order moral conduct that has survival value. And then cavalierly refers to this other morality that enables us to become “a truly moral animal.”&nbsp;He writes, “Go above and beyond the call of smoothly functioning conscience; help those who aren’t likely to help those in return, and do so when nobody’s watching. This is one way to be a truly moral animal.”</p>

<p>Arguably, certain ways of acting may have evolved (I don’t believe this, but I’ll grant this for the sake of argument), but morality is not merely a way of acting. How do I know this? Because there’s an <strong>oughtness</strong> about behavior that we can feel that actually precedes the behavior itself. It’s not a behavior pattern, but an internal compulsion that compels us to choose certain behaviors—to do what’s right—even though this moral incumbency can be denied or disobeyed. If the moral element is prior to the behavior, then it can’t be the behavior itself.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-morals-evolve-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-morals-evolve-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-morals-evolve-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Moral Logic of Being Pro-Life
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-moral-logic-of-being-pro-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If your daughter came up to you and said, I’m tired of taking care of Grandma, I’m going to kill her, would you call a family meeting and discuss it and then leave the choice up to her?</em></p>

<p>I’m troubled because some of the presidential candidates can’t explain their pro-life view.</p>

<p>It simply goes like this. If abortion is wrong, or if it is right, it is either right or wrong for a reason. And this reason needs to be given. If someone thinks that abortion is wrong, you have to ask them, Why is abortion wrong? It’s important to us not only individually, but especially for our presidential candidates to know the answer to that question.</p>

<p>I was talking to a man in Florida a few years back at a Ligonier conference. He came up to me at our Stand to Reason table. He announced to me that he personally believed that abortion was wrong, but he didn’t believe that we should prohibit other people who thought differently about the issue from getting abortions. He thought it ought to be legal even though he personally thought it was wrong. This is the favorite choice of politicians who want to get the pro-life vote, but who also want the pro-choice vote at the same time. It is called the modified pro-choice position.</p>

<p>If somebody makes that kind of statement, there is always a tactic you employ. You ask a question. When they say, I’m personally against abortion but I don’t think other people should be prohibited from having abortions, you ask, Why are you personally against abortion? I understand that you don’t think it’s right and don’t want to force your views on others, but why is it that you think abortion is wrong?</p>

<p>It’s a very fair question. You will consistently get basically the same answer, the answer that the gentleman gave me.</p>

<p>He said, I think abortion in wrong because I think it takes the life of an innocent human child, but that is just my personal view.</p>

<p>I said, Okay, I think I understand your view, but let me just repeat it back to you and you tell me if I’ve got it right. You think abortion kills an innocent human child, but you think women should be legally allowed to do that.</p>

<p>He said, Well, when you put it that way...</p>

<p>I said, put it what way? That’s your view. If I’ve misunderstood you, please let me know, but I thought that’s what I actually heard you say. It doesn’t sound so good coming back at you, does it?</p>

<p>I took the logic of his view seriously and took the spin off of it. I took the PR off of it. I said it to him exactly as it actually is in substance. And when I said it that way, he got a good look at what his view actually was. He believed it was okay for other women to kill their children, even though he wouldn’t kill his children.</p>

<p>This is why it is so important for people who oppose abortion, or in fact those people who are in favor of it, to develop a moral rationale. The moral rationale is what governs and speaks to all the variations on this issue. If abortion is wrong, then it is wrong for a reason and this reason needs to govern our view of the so-called exceptions.</p>

<p>Senator John McCain can say, I’m against abortion. I’m a pro-life candidate. But why, when he is confronted with a question about his daughter being pregnant, does he say, I think that we’d all get together and have a family discussion, but the choice would be up to her.</p>

<p>Ambassador Keyes picked up on the problem, and he understands the moral logic of abortion and simply applied it in that circumstance. Here’s how he responded. Senator, if your daughter came up to you and said, I’m tired of taking care of Grandma, I’m going to kill her, would you call a family meeting and discuss it and then leave the choice up to her?</p>

<p>This got Senator McCain angry and he made some reference to his service in Vietnam he’d seen plenty of death, and didn’t need Keyes lecturing him.</p>

<p>I wish I had the exact counter-rejoinder from Alan Keyes, but I have the sense of it. He jumped right back into the game, which is something I appreciate about him. He said, Senator McCain, I can’t speak from your personal experience, and I’m not speaking about that. In fact, this doesn’t have to do with your service in Vietnam. It has to do with whether one is consistent in his views on the pro-life issue.</p>

<p>He’s right. If it is wrong to take the life of an innocent child because they are human beings, and you ought not take the lives of human beings simply because they are in the way and can’t defend themselves, then it is not an appropriate response for any pro-lifer, like John McCain alleges to be, to say when he is personally confronted with the circumstance that he will have a family meeting, discuss it, and leave the decision up to his daughter. No more than he would say the same thing if his daughter announced that she was going to kill Grandma next week because she was tired of taking care of her. That is the logic of abortion.</p>

<p>McCain may have a good pro-life voting record, but I’m troubled when he can’t explain why he’s pro-life and he makes statements contrary to the pro-life logic. If wants to lead the country to a day when abortion will be outlawed, then he needs to explain it.</p>

<p>When presidential candidates get caught on the horns of these kinds of questions, I wish they would take the time not just to try to answer the question in a safe way to make everybody happy, but I wish they would educate the public. In a past presidential election, I did a commentary from this microphone (available on our web site) and the ideas apply as much today as they did then. The title of the commentary was “Leaders Should Lead.”</p>

<p>I heard a political joke the other day. The politician was asked, where do you stand on this issue? He said, I don’t know, I haven’t taken a poll yet.</p>

<p>Leaders who do that are not leaders, they are followers. They first find out what the people want and then they follow their leaders, who are the people. Instead of leading the people to a newer, better, and morally higher point of view, any leader worth his salt needs to understand the moral logic behind his views, articulate that moral logic and call the people to a higher standard.</p>

<p>This is true not just of politicians. It is true of every single individual who has an alleged moral point of view.</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-moral-logic-of-being-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-moral-logic-of-being-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-moral-logic-of-being-pro-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>How would Nicodemus have understood Jesus words?</em></p>

<p>Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is it necessary to be water baptized after one’s profession of faith before one can receive the gift of forgiveness and new life through regeneration? Or is baptism a proper act of obedience <em>after</em> one is saved? In the first case, the order would be faith, then baptism, resulting in salvation. In the second case, the order would be faith, resulting in salvation, followed by baptism.</p>

<p>Let’s take a moment to consider the texts. There are a number of different kinds of baptism in the New Testament. One kind of baptism is water baptism. Some Christians use Jesus’&nbsp;comments in the Gospel of John as a proof text, teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation as a Christian.</p>

<p>Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3:5 , “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Or, it might alternately be translated, “Unless you were born of water, <em>even</em> the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.”&nbsp;(The word “and”&nbsp;is the Greek word <em>kai</em>, and can be translated either “and”&nbsp;or “even.”&nbsp;You can see right there that if it’s translated “even,”&nbsp;it casts a whole different light on the issue.)</p>

<p>Note that the text doesn’t say actually “water baptism”&nbsp;here. It says “born of water.”&nbsp;If Jesus meant that water baptism is an absolute, indispensable element for salvation, then it strikes me as odd He wasn’t more specific here.</p>

<p>There’s another problem. One must always interpret any reference in the Scriptures ( in this case, a reference to baptism) in light of the context in which it was written and the audience being spoken to.</p>

<p>Let’s presume for the sake of discussion that in this passage Jesus actually meant that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Who is Jesus speaking to in John 3? Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus have the foggiest idea what Christian water baptism is about? Not at all. The concept of Christian baptism is not introduced until the book of Acts. The only baptism Nicodemus could have known about was either the ritual washings of the Jews or the baptism of John the Baptist. However, Jesus says in the next few lines (v10), “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?”&nbsp;Jesus chastises Nicodemus because he doesn’t understand something fundamental that he ought to have understood. This couldn’t be Christian water baptism. It must be something else.</p>

<p>So there are two immediate problems with reading a water baptism requirement into these verses. First, it’s a possible interpretation, given the words, but it isn’t explicitly taught here. There’s an unavoidable step of interpretation leaving more room for error. Though this may be a correct interpretation, it ought to cause us to be less dogmatic. Second, this interpretation seems unjustified because, according to Jesus, Nicodemus ought to understand what He’s talking about. Yet Nicodemus couldn’t understand about Christian baptism because it wasn’t instituted for at least another three years.</p>

<p>For these two reasons John 3 is not a good proof text for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Acts 2:38 would be a better example, where Peter says, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”</p>

<p>One thing you might want to do in a case like this is to go to your Bible concordance and look up “baptize”&nbsp;or “baptism”&nbsp;or “baptized,”&nbsp;passages that would speak to this issue. Then write the verses out on 3x5 cards and look at them. You’ll be able to isolate all the verses which talk about this idea. Make one pile that has to do with the baptism of John. Make another pile with verses that have to do with the baptism of trial (e.g. Jesus says in Mark 10:38 “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”)—a different kind of baptism of pain and suffering that Jesus spoke about. Then there would be another pile about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc. (I’ve included a list of all the verses on Christian water baptism at the end of this piece.)</p>

<p>This allows you to construct a balanced teaching on the issue, drawing instruction from the full counsel of God on the subject. You can see the full range of teaching in the New Testament on baptism, and you can watch how the teaching takes form.</p>

<p>This is the way to do systematic study on a doctrine or topic. You take all the teachings and verses pertaining to a particular issue and see what they say. You then begin drawing conclusions from that broad base of research, so you don’t miss anything. When you study this way, it becomes clear that baptism—Christian baptism—is not exalted in the Scripture as a necessary element of salvation. In fact, it’s rarely even mentioned.</p>

<p>The book of Acts gives us a very important lesson on this issue. Before we go there, though, we need to quickly consider two texts to set the stage. First, Paul says in Romans 8:9 “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”&nbsp;According to Paul, if you don’t have the Spirit, you’re not a Christian. Second, Ephesians makes it clear that we receive the Spirit <em>when we believe</em>: “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise”&nbsp;(Eph. 1:13).</p>

<p>We learn from these references that you must possess the Holy Spirit before you can be a Christian, and we possess the Spirit when we believe. That’s very clear. It’s not ambiguous.</p>

<p>With this as a foundation, we go to Acts 10 where Peter is preaching to Gentiles who are non-Christians. In the midst of his preaching, they suddenly begin to speak in tongues and to prophesy.</p>

<p>Why is this significant? It’s a sign to Peter, who understands that the external manifestation of spiritual power shows that these Gentiles have the Spirit inside of them. We just learned from Romans and Ephesians that they can only have the Spirit if they have believed and are now part of God’s family.</p>

<p>What apparently happened is that, because Peter is preaching and the “fruit”&nbsp;is so ripe, these Gentiles begin believing in their hearts and get transformed and regenerated right then and there. The Holy Spirit enters them and they start evidencing the Holy Spirit in their lives by manifestations of spiritual gifts.</p>

<p>This is a critical passage in the question of baptismal regeneration. Here we have saved people who obviously have the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the manifestations that Peter himself sees. Note the details here in Acts 10: 44-48:</p>

<blockquote>While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”&nbsp;And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.</blockquote>

<p>Peter is saying that these people were now Christians just like he and his companions. But guess what? They haven’t gotten wet yet! Baptism comes later. Peter says <em>because they’ve already received the Spirit</em>, they can now be baptized.</p>

<p>The Acts 10 passage seems completely inflexible in its meaning. The sequence of events leaves no question, it seems, that the order is faith/regeneration/baptism (though I’m open to suggestions).</p>

<p>The idea that regeneration follows faith, not baptism, is reaffirmed in Acts 11:17-18 where Paul says:</p>

<blockquote>“If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”&nbsp;And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”</blockquote>

<p>Notice there is no mention of baptism here, only the salient details of regeneration: repentance, faith, and salvation. By all appearances, Acts 10 is univocal. Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.</p>

<p>With this truth in place, let’s go back to Acts 2:38. At the end of his sermon, Peter says to the crowd, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”</p>

<p>Those who teach baptismal regeneration say this verse means you repent and are baptized, and that brings about the forgiveness of your sins—an understandable interpretation given the translation. The problem with this view, though, is that it creates a contradiction later in Acts. In the case of Cornelius (Acts 10), his household didn’t get baptized in order to receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit, but <em>after</em> both had happened.</p>

<p>How do you resolve the apparent contradiction? The Acts 10 passage seems completely inflexible in its meaning. The sequence of events leaves no question (though I’m open to suggestions) that the order is faith/regeneration/baptism.</p>

<p>What about Acts 2? Is it possible this passage means something different than it appears to at first? On closer inspection the answer is yes. The key is in the grammar.</p>

<p>In Acts 2, the command to repent is in the plural, as is the reference to those who receive the forgiveness of sins (i.e., “All of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness”). The command to be baptized is in the singular (i.e., “Each of you should be baptized”). This makes it clear that repentance, not baptism, leads to salvation, since an individual’s baptism cannot cause the salvation of the entire group. Individual (singular) baptisms do not result in corporate (plural) salvation.</p>

<p>As it turns out, the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins”&nbsp;modifies repentance, not baptism. A more precise rendering might be, “Let all of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness, and then each who has should be baptized.”</p>

<p>Any question about which translation is appropriate should be answered by Acts 10 and 11. Clearly, these people were not getting baptized in order to <em>bring about</em> their salvation. They were baptized <em>as a result of</em> the salvation. The clear teaching in Acts 10 and 11 informs the ambiguous nature of Acts 2:38.</p>

<p>One last verse, 1 Peter 3:21: “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.”&nbsp;Some quote this verse and say, “There it is, clear as day! Baptism saves you.”&nbsp;Well, it wasn’t the case that baptism saved Cornelius in Acts 10, and so at best we have an apparent contradiction if this is the way we must read this verse.</p>

<p>The problem is solved if you keep reading. The next words are, “...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>Everybody knows that baptism isn’t for the sake of washing your body. This a metaphor. What Peter is saying is that baptism now saves you in this sense: not the getting wet part, but rather the appeal to God for a clean conscience that is signified by baptism.</p>

<p>The appeal comes first—belief, faith, repentance towards God. And that appeal can be made without getting wet.</p>

<p>Of 71 references in the New Testament to some form of the word baptism, only 19 passages refer to Christian water baptism, and over half of those are simply references to people being baptized. The pattern in those cases seems to be that first someone believed, then he was baptized<strong>.</strong> Only a few verses seem to give us any theological content about the sacrament itself. Do these few verses make it clear that baptism is necessary for salvation? I don’t think so.</p>

<p><strong>References to people being baptized:</strong></p>

<p>Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.</p>

<p>Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. And even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.</p>

<p>Acts 8:36, 38 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”...And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.</p>

<p>Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized.</p>

<p>Acts 10:47-48 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”&nbsp;And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.</p>

<p>Acts 16:15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.”&nbsp;And she prevailed upon us.</p>

<p>Acts 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.</p>

<p>Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.</p>

<p>Acts 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.</p>

<p>1 Cor. 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?</p>

<p>1 Cor. 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.</p>

<p><strong>References to baptism that give us some theological content:</strong></p>

<p>Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”</p>

<p>Acts 22:16 “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”</p>

<p>Rom. 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?</p>

<p>Gal. 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.</p>

<p>Rom. 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.</p>

<p>Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism...</p>

<p>Col. 2:12...having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.</p>

<p>1 Pet. 3:21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus 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%2Fis-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Legal vs. Moral
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/legal-vs-moral
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What do you say when someone throws the “But abortion is legal”&nbsp;mantra at you?</em></p>

<p>Let me begin by telling you a little about a piece from the <em>L.A. Times</em> last Friday, February 17. It’s entitled “War Against a Woman’s Right.”&nbsp;Obviously, it is about abortion because women’s rights now pretty much focus on the issue of abortion. This is an editorial piece that reflects on some recent fires at abortion clinics. It makes a couple of comments.</p>

<p>Of course, it condemns the violence, and I’ve mentioned many times here that I condemn the violence, as well. But there is something else going on in this article that is worth noticing. I want you to notice the way the Times is arguing here, specifically how it treats the issue of rights. In fact, the word “right”&nbsp;is part of the title: “War Against a Woman’s Right.”&nbsp;After talking a bit about the fires in these clinics that cause tremendous damage, though no loss of life, it says this, “Such violence against facilities that perform legal abortions is inexcusable.”</p>

<p>I pause here, folks, because I want to emphasize the use of the word, legal abortions.</p>

<p>Let me continue. “Fear of violence prompted one San Luis Obispo obstetrician to stop performing abortions some years ago.”&nbsp;It goes on and talks about how now “only 12% of obstetric residency programs train doctors for first trimester abortions, which is a reduction from 1976.”&nbsp;I think that is a good sign. They think it is a bad one. “As a result, abortions are increasingly unavailable to American women, and this is why the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is going to require schools to teach abortion.”</p>

<p>This is strange. Why would they require such a thing? Abortion is an elective procedure. It is not health care. I guess one could say it is like fixing a hare-lip or something, in one sense. I am not reducing the moral consequence of abortion to fixing a hare-lip, I’m just simply saying that from a medical standpoint it is elective. It is not directly related to health care, so it would not seem to be the most important thing on the agenda of medical schools, which have their hands full teaching things that do relate to health care. It strikes me that there is a little bit of politicizing going on here. There is an agenda going on. In any event, that’s not my main point.</p>

<p>The article ends on this thought, “American women have the right to choose abortion. Violence and fear must not be allowed to render that right meaningless.”&nbsp;My reflections here are about the nature of rights. The way that the L.A. Times is arguing is really quite simple. They say abortion is legal, therefore a woman has a right to such a thing; and since it is legal and it is a right, then no one else is justified in attempting to restrict this action. Do you follow that? They have a right because it’s legal, is the point. This kind of argumentation is used, oftentimes, to substantiate abortion and to condemn attacks and attempts to restrict abortion. After all, this is a legal procedure. There is a subtle type of argumentation here that basically is saying that if it is legal, it is moral; and if it is legal and moral, then it is immoral to oppose it.</p>

<p>Do you see the subtle equation here of morality with law? Morality is reduced to law. That’s why the appeal to the fact that it is legal is considered adequate to silence the opposition. People toss around rights language all the time. It’s often fun when I confront someone who makes a rights claim to simply ask the person, what is a right, anyway? People are plucking rights out of the sky like they grow on celestial trees, but when you ask the question, what is a right, people are hard-pressed to give you an answer.</p>

<p>I understand sometimes people can’t put into words what they know to be true, but I don’t think that is the case here. I think people have a general idea that they deserve—that is what the right happens to be—but they can’t take it any further than that. I’ll tell you what a right is. A right is a just claim to something. When someone says they deserve something in this regard, that they have a just claim to something, the focus is on the concept “just.”&nbsp;In other words, it is appropriate that they make the particular claim that they do. Such a thing is an appeal to some kind of a standard, a kind of a legal standard of sorts. That’s why the word “just”&nbsp;is in there. There is some standard that one is making an appeal to.</p>

<p>There are two ways that a thing can be a just claim. One could be government law. You have a just claim to get a driver’s license at the age of 16 in this state, so if you pass the requirements but are denied such a thing for some frivolous reason, it is appropriate for you to say that your rights have been violated. Why? You have a just claim to that driver’s license because the law has established the conditions under which you can make the claim. You have satisfied the conditions and therefore you can make the claim.</p>

<p>There is another way you can make such a claim. That is by appealing to a law that is higher than the government’s law. This is called natural law, or one might say, God’s law, if you were inclined to put it in those terms. It really amounts to the same thing. This is the kind of appeal that people make when something the government is doing is clearly wrong. They appeal to a higher law, a transcendent source of rights. They say even the government has got to bow to a higher law. If you argue based on transcendent rights, in other words, a right that is above human law such that human law cannot justify a violation of it because human law is lower than this higher thing, you must always argue on the basis of some kind of transcendent rule to counter government rights.</p>

<p>There has been a serious perversion in this understanding of rights which has removed the notion of higher law altogether. This makes rights claims a bit bizarre and obscure.</p>

<p>Now, it stands to reason that man’s law is subordinate to God’s law, so if we want to argue that man’s law is somehow a violation of fundamental human rights, we have to appeal to a higher standard. We have to say that man’s law is violating God’s law and God’s law is the higher standard.</p>

<p>This is exactly what happened in the Declaration of Independence. They said that there comes a time when a government exceeds its bounds and limits and violates the laws of God, then it is right for men to rebel against it. Then there is this profound statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal. That each man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights.”&nbsp;See the appeal to the higher rights? The rights language there appeals to a higher law, “...that is, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”&nbsp;In other words, all rights based on human law must take a second position to the rights of transcendent moral law referred to in the Declaration as “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”&nbsp;That’s their wording, not mine.</p>

<p>If you think back to the Dred Scott decision in 1857, that decision was immoral because it actually reversed the natural order. Judge Taney ruled that rights of a slave owner over his slave were more primary than the right of a human being to his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That was topsy-turvey.</p>

<p>What about abortion rights? This article in the Times talks about abortion rights. What kind of a right is an abortion right? Is abortion a transcendent right or is it a right given by government? It is the second type. It is the type given by government. Abortion is a right that human law has opted to create, it has decided by convention to give it. If human law gives a right, it can take it away. It can decide by the same convention to take that right away. Abortion is not even a right the Constitution gives; it’s a right that nine men gave in 1973. Either way, it is still man’s law. The point is, the right to an abortion is a right but it is a man-made right, it is not a God-given right.</p>

<p>What’s kind of funny here is that it is curious that those who argue for abortion act like it would be immoral for the law to be changed. They say things like, you can’t change the law, we have a right. That is confused because the point is that the law gives you the right and the law can be changed. The right can be taken away. The only way that that kind of argument would really obtain against a man-made law is if there is a higher law that secured the right, so it would be immoral to change man’s law to violate the higher law. But where is the higher law that says you have a transcendent right to take the life of the unborn child? It is not there.</p>

<p>Abortion is a right that only exists because of law, like the right to drive a car if you are properly licensed. It could be suspended or completely abolished. When the law changes, the right disappears. That’s the nature of rights that find their foundation merely in human law.</p>

<p>Today the distinction between these two categories has been severely blurred. There is a kind of relativism that has taken root that completely clouds the picture. I called it “society says relativism.”&nbsp;It’s got a formal name. It’s called normative ethical relativism or conventionalism. But basically it’s the view that since there is no transcendent code, no absolutes, each person ought to act in keeping with his society’s code. What’s right for one society isn’t necessarily right for another society. In other words, you do whatever your society says to do, and that is why I call it “society says relativism.”</p>

<p>Here is what is important about this. The objection against abortion is based on the notion of transcendent human rights. I will agree that since abortion is legal a woman receives a legal right to have an abortion. But just because it is legal (now, listen carefully) it doesn’t mean it is moral. There is a difference between being legal and being moral.</p>

<p>There were lots of things that were legal in the past. Apartheid was legal in South Africa, but it wasn’t moral. It was a violation of a transcendent human rights and ought to have been abolished. The same thing applies to the institution of slavery in this country. Civil rights in the 1960’s—exactly the same thing. There was a rebellion by moral reformers against the status quo, because they said the status quo, though legal, was immoral.</p>

<p>Can you see how it wouldn���t have done any good during the time of civil rights to say that segregation is legal, so shut up? The issue wasn’t whether it was legal or not. Clearly it was. The question is whether man’s law was in violation of a higher more transcendent law that dealt with the issue of human dignity and human rights. Of course, the transcendent right in that circumstance prevailed.</p>

<p>You may disagree with my particular view on the abortion issue, but please understand what it is. My view is that the unborn child is a human being, therefore the rights of the Constitution accrue to that unborn child. Appealing to the law doesn’t help. It misses the point entirely. What is legal isn’t always moral. There is a legal right but it may be in violation of a transcendent right, and this is why we take exception. This is the argument pro-lifers are offering.</p>

<p>“Society says”&nbsp;relativism says that the law defines what is moral. Such a relativism implies that because man’s law is the highest law and the Supreme Court is the highest level of man’s law, then the highest moral court is the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has spoken, discussion is over. That’s the kind of belief, I think, that fuels the comments in the L.A. Times from Friday, “War Against a Woman’s Right.”&nbsp;This philosophy is at the heart of such comments as one person made who called in to the show, “When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land? You may not like it, but it is the law. And that settles it. Where do you get off challenging it?”&nbsp;Or comments like we just read in the Times: “Facilities that perform legal abortion”&nbsp;and “American women have the right to choose abortion.”</p>

<p>Do you see how this view equates law with morality? If it is legal, it is moral. Such a view reduces morality to mere power, either the power of the government or the power of the majority. If you have the power to set the standards, then you can determine what is a right. Another way of putting that is, might makes right.</p>

<p>This is exactly the kind of argument that pro-lifers are concerned with and are trying to counter. They are offering an argument based not on man’s law, but on a transcendent law just like the founders and the framers of the Constitution used to justify their cause. Just like those who fought slavery used to justify their cause. Just like those who fought for civil rights and against apartheid used to justify their cause. It is the same kind of argument. Now it may be that the argument is misapplied, but please understand what kind of argument it is. It is precisely the issue that pro-abortionists refuse to address or apparently even to recognize: the transcendent argument of human rights.</p>

<p>In this sense, it does no good to appeal to the Constitution as a defense of abortion. I have a Constitutional right to an abortion. Of course you do, at least under the present administration of law. No one contest that abortion is legal. You have a right from man’s law. That’s not my concern.</p>

<p>My concern is whether it’s a moral alternative given a higher law, a law that transcends man’s law, a law pertaining to self-evident and inalienable rights that all men are created equal. If all men are created equal, if what it says in our Declaration of Independence is true, then abortion cannot be held to be sound and moral because it is a man-made law that goes against God’s higher law—the very thing that the Founders of this country argued in favor of—the notion of transcendent law. That’s why articles like this one in the Times and those that appeal to man’s law as justification in the abortion controversy miss the mark completely and they do so repeatedly.</p>
</div>

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


title: Morally Velocitized
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/morally-velocitized
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What happens when a culture’s decline in values begins to pick up speed? It becomes velocitized. What was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow, like partial-birth abortion.</em></p>

<p>I’ve chosen to devote an entire issue of <em>Clear Thinking</em> to one topic: partial-birth abortion. Here’s why.</p>

<p>Two years ago I wrote that our culture was becoming morally “velocitized.”&nbsp;The term describes something I learned in driver’s training in high school. Once a driver accelerates from, say, 30 to 60 miles per hour and settles in, he gets acclimated to his new speed and loses his true sense of velocity. It doesn’t feel as if he’s moving any faster than he was at first.</p>

<p>This is dangerous on the highway, but it’s deadly when it happens to the moral consciousness of a society. Years ago, Dr. Francis Schaeffer noted that what was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow. We saw it happen once in this century. We’re seeing it happen again.</p>

<h2>Two Signs of Our Moral Velocity</h2>

<p>On June 10, 1993, President Clinton signed into law “The Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993.”&nbsp;It authorized, for the first time in U.S. history, government-funded research using tissue from aborted children.</p>

<p>As I write, a different bill, one our President has pledged to veto, is on its way to his desk. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) was first introduced in Congress on June 15, 1995. On November 1, it passed the House 288 to 139. On December 7, the Senate passed an amended form of the legislation 54 to 44, then sent it back to the House for final approval.</p>

<p>This measure has mobilized forces and stimulated vigorous responses from both sides of the abortion question. But this is no ordinary abortion debate, because this is no ordinary abortion.</p>

<p>Partial-birth abortion is actually a variation of “internal podalic version,”&nbsp;a technique used by obstetricians to deliver a living child. Dr. James McMahon, for years the director of abortion instruction at the Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, claims to have adapted the procedure for abortion.</p>

<p>Dr. McMahon refers to the method as “intact dilation and evacuation”&nbsp;and “intrauterine cranial decompression.”&nbsp;The other specialist in the method, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, coined the term “dilation and extraction,”&nbsp;or simply D&amp;X.</p>

<p>These two doctors have personally performed over 3,000 such abortions, and have circulated detailed training papers on the subject. Characteristically, it’s a second trimester abortion technique, but Dr. McMahon often used it much later, even into the ninth month.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>The National Abortion Federation literature blandly describes partial-birth abortion as “a surgical technique performed in some later abortions in which the fetus is removed intact.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> As you will see, there is nothing bland about it. Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), who authored the bill, puts it bluntly: “The difference between the partial-birth abortion procedure and homicide is a mere three inches.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>President Clinton added a new twist when he approved government-funded research using brain tissue from aborted children. Abortion is no longer just a cash industry; it also produces a cash crop: fetal brain tissue. Thus, there’s an economic incentive to opposing any ban on partial-birth abortion.</p>

<p>“A baby who is born dead,”&nbsp;Dr. James Dobson notes, “is of less value to researchers because brain tissue and other organs quickly deteriorate when deprived of oxygen. Thus, the abortionist must employ a means of extracting the body parts and brain matter from a <em>living</em> baby who is not yet expelled from the birth canal. The method is called dilation and extraction, or D and X”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> [emphasis mine].</p>

<h2>Why the Moral Confusion on D&amp;X?</h2>

<p>It has been disheartening, even painful, to listen to the justifications people are using for this procedure. One paper’s editorial called it “a strategy of misinformation, distortion, and outright falsehood.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>There are two reasons people are muddled about D&amp;X abortions.</p>

<p>First, many people who think they’re informed still don’t know what a partial-birth abortion really entails.</p>

<p>A pro-life friend of mine had been gathering newspaper clippings to help me in my research. She made mention of the baby’s head “crowning”&nbsp;during this procedure. Her comment stunned me because in a D&amp;X abortion the baby’s head doesn’t crown; the child is purposely delivered breech.</p>

<p>She was against D&amp;X abortion, yet didn’t realize that the doctor uses a forceps to reverse the baby so its feet come out first. With its head still in the birth canal and its legs, arms and the rest of its body dangling on the outside of the mother, the brain tissue is extracted, usually while the baby is still alive.</p>

<p>In December, David Brinkley discussed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on his show. Even Brinkley did not appear to grasp what a partial-birth abortion entailed until well into the discussion. When he did, he visibly blanched.</p>

<p>The second reason people are confused about partial-birth abortion is because it’s called abortion. But calling a procedure an abortion doesn’t make it one. Partial-birth abortion is not about abortion. It’s about something much more insidious, something that clearly marks the velocity of our moral descent.</p>

<p>In the material that follows, you will learn exactly what partial-birth abortion is. You will read from the writings of abortion proponents themselves the truth of this barbarous procedure. Finally, you’ll learn why it shouldn’t be called an abortion; this debate is about something else entirely.</p>

<p>Three years ago I stated that revolutions do not start with rifle shot and cannon fire. Instead, they start with an idea. We are now in the throes of one of those quiet but desperate revolutions in thought. It’s taking place right in front of us, if only we would open our eyes.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Dr. Martin Haskell, “Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle,”&nbsp;National Abortion Federation manual, p. 33. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">National Abortion Federation, “Later Abortions: Questions and Answers,”&nbsp;<em>The Abortion Rights Activist</em>, p. 2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Douglas Johnson, “Pro-Aborts Fight Bill to Ban Partial-Birth Abortion,”&nbsp;National Right to Life Committee, p. 1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">James Dobson, Focus on the Family Newsletter, July, 1993. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5"><em>The Tidings</em>, Dec. 8, 1995, p. 10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&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%2Fmorally-velocitized" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmorally-velocitized" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmorally-velocitized" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Pro-Lifers on the Horns of a False Dilemma
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/pro-lifers-on-the-horns-of-a-false-dilemma
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is it contradictory to oppose abortion as murder and still oppose the killing of abortionists? If abortion is the destruction of a helpless child’s life, then why blame those who protect these children by killing their would-be executioners?</em></p>

<p>The recent killings at abortion clinics have left pro-lifers hanging from the horns of a dilemma. If abortion is murder and the 1.5 million children aborted every year constitute an American holocaust, as they claim, how can pro-life groups condemn the murder of abortionists, as they do? If abortion is the destruction of a helpless child, then how can pro-lifers find fault with those who kill abortionists. Aren’t people like Paul Hill protecting children from their would-be executioners by killing them?</p>

<p>That’s the dilemma, but it’s a false one.</p>

<p>First, an observation. If this objection is valid, then all one establishes is the pro-lifer’s inconsistency, which proves nothing about the rightness of abortion or the wrongness of shooting doctors who perform abortions.</p>

<p>However, the observation is really asserting much more. Objectors take the inconsistency as <em>prima facie</em> evidence that pro-lifers don’t really believe the unborn child is fully human, deserving the same protection all innocent human beings deserve. Deep down inside (the objection goes) pro-lifers know abortion isn’t murder, but killing abortionists is. If that’s what they really believe, then pro-lifers should abandon their dangerous rhetoric about holocausts, which only encourages more killing.</p>

<p>The key flaw in the dilemma is this: it simply does not follow that if one believes abortion is murder, he would advocate killing individual abortionists. What does follow is that pro-lifers would seek to end the wholesale killing as expediently as possible.</p>

<h2>A Lesson from Commandos</h2>

<p>Anyone familiar with military tactics knows how such a thing can be the case. The objective in war is to accomplish the goals expediently, minimizing the large-scale loss of life. If the military objective is to end the war by taking out the machinery of destruction, and killing any individual soldier puts the larger plan in jeopardy, then the individual killer is by-passed rather than run the risk of sabotaging the whole mission.</p>

<p>Imagine commandos, impersonating Nazi officers, who are dropped behind German lines to infiltrate concentration camps. Their mission: destroy the gas chambers. While mingling <em>incognito</em> with the rest of the camp cadre, they encounter opportunities to kill individual soldiers, maybe even a camp commandant, but they don’t. Why? Because they’re after bigger game—the gas chambers.</p>

<p>It would be a grievous wrong to take a shot at any individual Nazi, even though he was a murderer, because it would hamper the larger mission. More lives would be lost in the long run because the machinery of destruction would still be in place.</p>

<h2>No Contradiction</h2>

<p>This illustration shows there’s no contradiction when one holds the view that abortion is a holocaust, while at the same time condemning the killing of individual abortionists. In fact, it’s precisely because we hold to the innocent humanity of the unborn that we insist on an approach to this problem that is directed at the “machinery”&nbsp;of the killing—the laws, the economics, and the deep human need that makes the alternative appealing.</p>

<p>Let me repeat my main point. To be consistent, a pro-lifer would vigorously seek <em>the most effective way</em> of ending the wholesale slaughter. Randomly shooting abortionists or blowing up clinics doesn’t accomplish that, but seems to prolong the battle.</p>

<p>If acts of abortion clinic violence are counterproductive in the long run, then consistent pro-lifers would condemn them, as virtually all have done. Second, even if pro-lifers were inconsistent here, what does it prove? It only proves they are inconsistent, not that their views on the sacredness of pre-born life are mistaken.</p>

<h2>An American Holocaust?</h2>

<p>This brings us to the issue of the holocaust. Would Jews consider it a holocaust if six million Jewish babies were aborted rather than six million postpartum Jews murdered? Many Jews recoil at such a thought. The comparison insults the memory of those who suffered under the Third Reich.</p>

<p>I want to pass two thoughts on to you. The first is my own, and the second was volunteered by a caller to my radio program.</p>

<p>First, the illustration posed appeals to an intuition, that the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazis is obviously more heinous—especially to the Jews—than the same amount of abortions would be. But the appeal begs the question. The fact that abortion doesn’t seem as bad as concentration camps and gas chambers is misleading because it depends for its force on a tacit denial that the unborn are fully human persons. If they are, then who would say that taking the life of the same amount of youngsters (in this case very young) is not the moral equivalent of taking the lives of the same amount of adolescents and adults? In fact, generally we’re more shocked by the loss of young life than old, though we would hold that both are equally valuable in their humanity.</p>

<p>There does seem to be a sense, though, in which we can hold to the full tragedy of the death of the unborn Jewish humans, yet say that the Nazi Holocaust was a greater evil. This was the contribution of my caller.</p>

<p>Both are holocausts and unspeakably evil, purely on the merit of the number of human lives sacrificed. However, in the case of the Holocaust, the evil is compounded by the circumstances under which it was done.</p>

<p>Aborted human beings die relatively quickly and, by comparison, with little or no mental anguish. (This is certainly not always true, but that’s another issue.) Jews, on the other hand, were treated like animals—terrorized, persecuted, raped, beaten, and then eventually murdered. The second crime is truly worse than the first, not because the un-born were not human, but because of the barbaric conditions under which Nazis exterminated undesirables.</p>

<h2>The Real Issue</h2>

<p>The most important question in the entire debate is this question: What is the unborn child? You must answer that question before you can answer the questions: How should we treat the fetus? What protections ought we give it? How far should we go to protect it?</p>

<p>Until we answer that question, we can’t make any judgment about the morality of abortion or the moral consequences of any protest against it. If it’s possible that an unborn child is as fully human and as fully a person <em>in his or her essential nature</em> as you and I, then he or she deserves the same legal protections—and legal sanctions against its abuse—you and I have.</p>

<p>That’s the hard truth, and that’s why the deep thinking ought to be addressed to this question. Unfortunately, this vital issue is almost never discussed in the public square at large.</p>

<p>I fully realize that pro-lifers caught on the horns of this dilemma may not be able to quickly disgorge themselves. Even so, I think their views are defensible, even if they’re not sure why.</p>

<p>Sometimes we have a gut certainty about things even if we can’t talk them through. The fact that an argument can be made vindicates what many pro-lifers believe, but can’t always defend. It’s wrong to kill children, but it’s also wrong to kill abortionists.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-lifers-on-the-horns-of-a-false-dilemma" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-lifers-on-the-horns-of-a-false-dilemma" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-lifers-on-the-horns-of-a-false-dilemma" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Truth Changes Everything: The Martyrdom of Polycarp
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-truth-changes-everything-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a biographical sketch that might encourage and challenge you.</p>

<p>Polycarp, the 86-year-old bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle, was martyred in 156 A.D.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ironically, Polycarp was charged with atheism because he denied the false gods of Rome.&nbsp;&nbsp; The phrase “away with the atheist” was meant to be directed at the Christians.&nbsp; Instead, as you’ll see, Polycarp turned the denunciation on the multitudes of true atheists.&nbsp; “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (“The Apostolic Fathers,” p. 138-141) is the oldest account of the death of a martyr outside of the New Testament.</p>

<p>When he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp.&nbsp; And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant, saying, “Have respect for your age,” and other such things as they are accustomed to say:&nbsp; “Swear by the [guardian spirit] of Caesar; repent; say, “Away with the atheists!” [indicating the Christians].&nbsp; So Polycarp solemnly looked at the wholåe crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, “Away with the atheists!”&nbsp; But when the magistrate persisted and said, “Swear the oath, and I will release you; revile Christ,” Polycarp replied, “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and He has done me no wrong.&nbsp; How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”</p>

<p>But as he continued to insist, saying, “Swear by the [guardian spirit] of Caesar,” he answered:&nbsp; “If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the [guardian spirit] of Caesar, as you request, and pretend not to know who I am, listen carefully:&nbsp; I am a Christian.&nbsp; Now, if you want to learn the doctrine of Christianity, name the day and give me a hearing....</p>

<p>...“I have wild beasts; I will throw you to them, unless you change your mind.”&nbsp; But he said:&nbsp; “Call for them!”....</p>

<p>“I will have you consumed by fire, since you despise the wild beasts, unless you change your mind.”</p>

<p>...“You threaten with a fire that burns only briefly and after just a little while is extinguished, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly.&nbsp; But, why do you delay?&nbsp; Come, do what you wish.”</p>

<p>As he spoke these and many other words, he was inspired with courage and joy, and his face was filled with grace, so that not only did he not collapse in fright at the things which were said to him, but on the contrary the proconsul was astonished....The entire crowd, Gentiles as well as Jews living in Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable anger and with a loud shout....</p>

<p>These [next] things then happened with such swiftness, quicker than words could tell, the crowd swiftly collecting wood and kindling from the workshops and the baths....When the pyre was prepared, he took off all his clothes and removed his belt....The materials...were placed around him; and as they were also about to nail him, he said: Leave me as I am; for he who enables me to endure the fire will also enable me to remain on the pyre without moving, even without the sense of security which you get from the nails.”;&nbsp; So they did not nail him, but they tied him instead.</p>

<p>[Then he prayed.]&nbsp; When he had...finished his prayer, the men in charge of the fire lit the fire.&nbsp; And as a mighty flame blazed up, we saw a miracle....The fire...completely surrounded the body of the martyr; and it was there in the middle, not like flesh burning, but like bread baking or like gold and silver being refined in a furnace.&nbsp; For we also perceived a very fragrant odor, as if it were the scent of incense or some other precious spice.</p>

<p>When the lawless men eventually realized his body could not be consumed by the fire, they ordered an executioner to...stab him with a dagger.&nbsp; And when he did this, there came out a large quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the fire; and the whole crowd was amazed that there should be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect.</p>

<p>How could a man do this?&nbsp; How could Polycarp go to his redemption with eagerness.&nbsp; Because he understood the truth.&nbsp; And the truth changed everything.</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-truth-changes-everything-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-truth-changes-everything-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-truth-changes-everything-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is God Vain?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-vain-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Have you ever been asked “Isn’t it arrogant of God to demand that we praise Him?”&nbsp;Find out what Greg has to say about God’s worthiness, and our own vanity.</em></p>

<p>I was confronted about a week and a half ago at a conference up at Mount Herman in Northern California with a very interesting question. It’s a question you might be confronted with as well. The question was simply, Isn’t God vain in wanting us to praise Him? And if vanity is bad for us, then it’s bad for God. This young man didn’t know how to respond. So he asked me about it. I’ll give you my response.</p>

<p>How can God ask for our praise? Isn’t that vain of Him? Isn’t that arrogant? Isn’t that self-centered? My response to the gentleman was this. First off, just because something is wrong for us, doesn’t mean it is wrong for God. We explored this concept, if you recall, when we explored mass loss of life in the Old Testament a couple of months ago. If it is wrong for us to kill, then how can God kill so many in the Old Testament? The answer is, because God is God. The Author of life has the right to take life. Or to put it colloquially, man can’t play God, but certainly God can play God. The reason is obvious. Different appropriate freedoms accrue to different persons by virtue of their office or character. Kids have bedtimes; parents don’t. Doctors can explore private parts of your body; strangers can’t. The President of the United States has authorities and powers and liberties we don’t possess. So it simply doesn’t follow that what is inappropriate for us (vanity in this case, desire for praise or adulation or worship) is also wrong for God. So the main presupposition I guess here is faulty.</p>

<p>But even so, it may be that the expectation of praise, here described as vanity, is inappropriate even for God, though not for the reason that we just mentioned. So let’s take a moment and look a little closer. Let’s have an exercise of clear thinking here as we dissect this problem. Vanity, according to Webster, is being excessively proud of oneself or one’s qualities or possessions. Praise on the other hand, is to commend the worth of. So both praise and vanity relate to worth. Praise is ascribing worth. Vanity is a distorted sense of worth. OK? Worship, the highest form of praise, might be called “worth ship”&nbsp;because you are ascribing worth to someone, in this case, God.</p>

<p>I think that a person who raises this kind of issue about vanity isn’t objecting because they think that praise per se is foolish. In other words, that praise in itself is irrational or unreasonable. When we praise someone, we acknowledge a certain kind of worth that person has. We saw he has produced something of worth or he manifests in his person or in his character something of worth. Praise per se is only foolish or irrational if there is nothing of worth in anyone in the whole world. And if no one had any worth, then ascribing worth of any kind would simply be error because nothing praiseworthy existed anyway. But clearly this can’t be true. Only an extreme cynic would suggest such a thing. If he does suggest that nothing in the whole world has any worth, then it strikes me that the burden is on him to prove that everything is worthless and not on me to prove that some things have value. It seems obvious. There are many things in the world of value. Many acts of value people perform. Many qualities of value that people possess.</p>

<p>So praise in itself seems to be rational. Of course, we all know this. That’s why we praise others in some measure. That’s why we are constantly seeking praise ourselves. We think it is deserved. It is reasonable. It makes sense. So praise is a rational concept. That’s the first thing.</p>

<p>Second, it’s not vanity to expect praise for praiseworthy acts. In other words, praise goes naturally with merit. Vanity is excessive pride, not appropriate pride in someone’s accomplishments. If one displays merit of some sort, in a deed, in a design, in a desire, well, then, praise commensurate with the particular merit seems to fit. So praise is appropriate where it fits the merit. We are making progress here, right?</p>

<p>Third, praise is even obligatory. What do I mean by that? Well, think of this: years ago there was a plane crash. It was winter. The airplane lay half submerged in a turbulent, icy river. You might have seen the video tape capturing this dramatic scene of rescuers throwing themselves in that frigid torrent to save the few who survived the impact of the crash, bobbing around amidst the ice flow there. Do you remember that? Let me ask you a question. What is our appropriate response to that? Is it morally sound for us to look at such a scene, such a dramatic display of goodness and selflessness and be completely unmoved? Is it rational for us to treat that act with the same kind of moral disinterest as somebody taking a short dip in a refreshing pond? I don’t think so. If we have no room in our heart for praise of an heroic act like this, people would call us cynical, right? And they’d be right. It is cynical not to acknowledge worth in an eminently worthy thing. In our silence, we are saying that something that appears worthy actually has no worth at all.</p>

<p>Now, there may be a problem with men’s expectation of praise. I think that there is. I’m not so sure that that problem applies to God as well.</p>

<p>There is a measure of praise that is appropriate for every person. After all, we will get rewards in heaven. So, clearly even God thinks that we are deserving of something. Our problem is that we don’t deserve as much as we think. We characteristically seek a lot more credit than we are due. And that is vanity. Vanity is wanting praise we don’t deserve.</p>

<p>Now here is something to think about. When you think about it, virtually everything that we think is worthy of praise of ourselves, in ourselves is actually derivative. In other words, it resides in us. We possess it, but it really came from somewhere else. Good looks, native intelligence, opportunities for education, social advancement. These things are almost entirely accidents of birth or circumstance. Some guy says, Hey, I met Robert Redford. I’m so cool. But how did he meet him? Well, somebody thinks he’s a big shot because he accidentally bumps into Robert Redford in the airport. And that’s why name droppers are so offensive. They usually are trying to take credit for something that happened to them by accident. OK, you’ve got the general idea there.</p>

<p>Now, let’s talk about God for a minute. God has many wonderful qualities. He has performed many marvelous deeds. He is a Person of immeasurable worth who performs acts of immeasurable worth. What’s more, for God nothing is derivative. Nothing about Him is a result of chance or accident. Every single goodness He possesses, ladies and gentlemen, every fine quality He has, every wonderful thing He has ever done is completely His own. To take it a step further, even the glories that you and I possess that are derivative (those are the things which include most of the things we seek praise for ourselves) actually are derived from a different source and that source is, guess where? God. If we are good looking it is because God made us that way. If we are intelligent, it is because God created us that way. And so on.</p>

<p>Think of the challenge here. The challenge is that God is vain because He desires praise. The irony is, that if praise is rational at all, virtually all of it goes properly to God, even the things that we want to take credit for. Because He is the source, to quote James 1, “He is the source of every good and perfect gift.”&nbsp;If praise is properly deserved, then as we mentioned earlier, it is properly obligatory. In other words, it is not only proper for God to receive praise, we owe it to Him. And in fact, we owe praise to God for the things that we think we ought to be praised for. In fact, what we are doing is we are stealing His credit and taking it for our own.</p>

<p>So, we’ve done a little exercise in clear thinking here haven’t we? Upon a little reflection we found that praise is rational, it is appropriate in certain circumstances and it is even obligatory in some circumstances. But we’ve really done more than that. We have learned that we ought to praise God regardless of who we are. And I might add, regardless of how we feel. This reflection has had a tremendous impact on me when I realized that praise is obligatory to one who is praiseworthy; the level of praise obligatory is that praise that meets the merit of the one being praised and that merit has absolutely nothing to do with my circumstances and my feelings. In other words, if God is worthy of praise, He’s worthy of praise whether my life is nice or miserable. He’s worthy of praise whether I’m happy or sad. Because praise is about Him, it’s not about me. If my life is happy and lots of good things are happening to me, well, those are additional things that I might praise God for and that’s appropriate because that kind of praise is a little different kind of praise. It’s called thanksgiving. Like saying, I praise you God for what you did and by the way, what you happened to do in this situation affected me. I’m thankful for that. I appreciate that.</p>

<p>So not only is it not vain for God to want praise, it is right for Him to demand it. And a person who cannot find reason to praise God is someone who is completely thankless, frankly. Is someone who feels he owes nothing to anyone, but that all his accomplishments are his own. Now, what do we call a person who feels like they owe nothing, especially thanks, to any one, they owe praise for nothing to anyone, but all of their accomplishments are utterly and completely their own? I guess arrogant would fit; self-centered would fit; how about vain? That would fit, too. We’d call them vain. So it turns out, that the person who thinks God ought not be praised is the very one who would take all the credit for himself. When he does that he robs it from the One who really deserves it, God Himself. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? The person who says that God is vain, says that God doesn’t deserve praise for anything, then if anything is praiseworthy in that individual, they are the ones who deserve it all. The person who says that God is vain, is in fact the person who is guilty of vanity themselves. And it’s no wonder then when you reflect like this that the Psalmist writes in Psalm 150:2, “Praise Him for His might deeds, praise Him according to His excellent greatness.”&nbsp;We praise God for what He does, we praise Him for who He is. We ascribe worth to Him. Only a vain cynic would argue otherwise.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Bible and Capital Punishment
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/11/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-and-capital-punishment
content:
            <div> 
		<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
	<li>THE BIBLE AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
	<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
		<li><strong>Capital punishment was commanded by God in the Old Testament.</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>It preceded the Mosaic Law.
			<blockquote>
			<p>Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man&nbsp;(Gen 9:6).</p>
			</blockquote>
			</li>
			<li>It was based on the dignity of man, i.e. man’s transcendent value.
			<blockquote>
			<p>Gen 9:6&nbsp;Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.</p>
			</blockquote>
			</li>
			<li>It was commanded in the Mosaic Law.
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Twenty-one different offenses called for the death penalty in the Old Testament.</li>
				<li>Only three include an actual or potential capital offense, by our standards.</li>
				<li>Six are for religious offenses.</li>
				<li>Ten are for various moral issues.</li>
				<li>Two relate to ceremonial issues.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>“But King David wasn’t put to death for his capital crimes.”
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>David understood what justice demanded in this case: “As the Lord lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die” (2 Sam 12:5).</li>
				<li>If God chose to set aside punishment, that doesn’t mean the punishment is unjust when it is executed. God was the one who required capital punishment in many instances.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li><strong>Capital punishment was assumed in the New Testament.</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>God ordains governing authorities:
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Jn 19:11&nbsp;Jesus answered [to Pilate], “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.”</li>
				<li>Rom 13:1-2&nbsp;Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.</li>
				<li>1 Pet 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>Those governments may practice capital punishment.
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.</li>
				<li>Acts 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li><strong>Jesus’&nbsp;ethic of love and forgiveness doesn’t disallow capital punishment.</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>“But Jesus would forgive.”
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>This argument proves too much.
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>It becomes an argument against any punishment what-so-ever.</li>
					<li>What should we do with the criminal we’ve forgiven?
					<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
						<li>Life in prison instead of capital punishment?</li>
						<li>But Jesus would forgive.
						<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
						</ol>
						</li>
					</ol>
					</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>Jesus never challenged the validity of the death penalty.
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>In Jn 8:3-11, for example, there were no witnesses left to testify against the woman caught in adultery (the Law required at least two witnesses).</li>
					<li>Jesus actually upheld the Law here, He didn’t abrogate it, but He did so in a way that wouldn’t allow the evil designs of the Scribes and Pharisees to be accomplished.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>Jesus asked God to forgive, not Caesar; He didn’t suggest civil punishment or capital punishment was inappropriate.</li>
				<li>We must argue for the coherence and consistency of both Testaments.
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>The question is not, “Was Jesus right or was Moses right?”</li>
					<li>We must also factor in Paul and Peter.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>“Jesus was crucified.”
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>I’m not sure what the point is here? Yes, Jesus was the victim of capital punishment, but what follows from that?</li>
				<li>The real issue regarding Jesus was not capital punishment, but His innocence.
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>Peter assails the act of handing over an innocent man to godless executioners.</li>
					<li>Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death&nbsp;(Acts 2:22-23).</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>But what about forgiveness?
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>God’s mercy is always available in His court.</li>
				<li>Man’s court is another matter, governed by different biblical responsibilities.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li><strong>One simply can’t say that capital punishment is patently immoral on biblical grounds.</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>Jesus did not “abolish the Law,”&nbsp;He fulfilled it, but not in the sense that all laws are wiped from the books. Then we would have no punishment for any biblical crimes.</li>
			<li>Matt 5:17-19
			<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 away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.</p>
			</blockquote>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>II. RETRIBUTIONISM VS. REHABILITATIONISM
	<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
		<li><strong>Each position is based on a particular view of man.</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>Rehabilitationism
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Man is man sick, needing healing.</li>
				<li>Man is a machine needing fixing.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>Retributionism
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Man is a free moral agent who makes choices for which he can be held responsible for.</li>
				<li>Man is worthy of praise, resulting in reward, or blame, deserving punishment.</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li><strong>The case for retributionism</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>Man a free moral agent.
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>He is capable of choosing good or bad behavior.</li>
				<li>He may be influenced by his environment, but not ultimately controlled by it.</li>
				<li>We have an immediate awareness of our moral natures, that we freely make moral choices.</li>
				<li>It seems to make sense to praise and reward good behavior. If we’re not responsible for our choices neither blame nor praise make any sense.</li>
				<li>If we are not free agents, then we are determined and therefore not responsible for our behavior, either good or bad. B.F. Skinner was right; we’ve got to bite the bullet and realize that we’re “beyond freedom and dignity.”</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>Crime is not pathological, deserving rehabilitation, but moral, deserving punishment.
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>The goal of justice is penal, not remedial, moral, not therapeutic.</li>
				<li>Two purposes of capital punishment:
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>Justice demands punishment of the guilty.</li>
					<li>Goodness demands protecting the innocent in society.
					<ol style="list-style-type: upper-decimal;">
						<li>“Capital punishment is to the whole society what self-defense is to the individual.”&nbsp;The Ethics of Life and Death J.P. Moreland, p. 115.</li>
						<li>Dennis Prager: “We have a war going on here between murderers and society, but only one side is allowed to kill.”</li>
					</ol>
					</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>The punishment should fit the crime (lex talionis).</li>
			<li>Capital punishment fits capital crimes (crimes that involve the loss of life).</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li><strong>Objections to retributionism</strong>
		<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
			<li>Arguments that prove too much.
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>Many arguments against capital punishment prove too much because they apply with equal force against any punishment at all.</li>
				<li>“Capital punishment is applied unfairly.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>Even if this were true, the injustice here applies to those that got away, not to those that got punished. It’s never unjust to punish a guilty man if the punishment itself fits the crime (lex talionis). The injustice is remedied by applying it more often, not less.</li>
					<li>Better unequal justice than no justice at all.</li>
					<li>If one man is paid for a job (he gets what he deserves) and another isn’t, how do you rectify the inequity? You don’t take away what the first man deserves, withholding his pay because the second man didn’t get paid. That would double the injustice.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“Innocent people get condemned.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>This is a criticism of any system of justice, not a particular type of punishment. Life is flawed, not capital punishment.</li>
					<li>Why must we accept a philosophy that says it’s better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be condemned?</li>
					<li>Guilty people repeat crimes that injure and even kill other innocent people.</li>
					<li>“But death can’t be undone.”&nbsp;No punishment can be undone.</li>
					<li>Our attempts at improving justice here must be at the level of the process of adjudication making any determination of guilt more trustworthy.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
			<li>Other objections:
			<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
				<li>“How can you be for capital punishment but against abortion”&nbsp;(the “seamless garment”&nbsp;argument)?
				<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
					<li>The term “Pro-life”&nbsp;is actually a misnomer. Our case is not for every one’s life or every form of life. Pro-lifer’s are against the unjust taking of innocent human life, particularly the life of the unborn child.</li>
					<li>The right to life is not an absolute; it can be forfeited. This moral right is only prima facie; it stands only until challenged by some greater law, like justice or protecting the lives of the innocent.</li>
					<li>We also have a right to freedom, but it can be properly overridden with incarceration when certain conditions are met.</li>
					<li>An unborn child has committed no crime that forfeits its life.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“Capital punishment is cruel and unusual.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>It’s not cruel and unusual, but rather the exact punishment that fits the crime.</li>
					<li>This is an appeal to the language of the Bill of Rights, but the ones who wrote those words believed in capital punishment. If one wants to redefine the term for modern times, then he cannot argue from the Bill of Rights itself, because that has the old definition.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“Capital punishment doesn’t work; it doesn’t deter crime.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>It always deters the offender. Dead people don’t commit more crimes.</li>
					<li>If it lacks in deterrence, it might be because it is not widely exercised or not done speedily enough to be a threat.</li>
					<li>The principal goal of capital punishment is not deterrence, but punishment. In that way it works every time.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“Why not a life sentence?”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>Confuses a life sentence with a death sentence.</li>
					<li>It’s unjust (doesn’t fit the crime) because the criminal only loses liberty, not life.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“This kind of death is undignified.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>In one sense, all death is undignified.</li>
					<li>Argues only against certain aggravated forms of capital punishment and not capital punishment itself.</li>
					<li>In the final analysis, the question is not the dignity of death, but its equity or justice.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>“There’s no opportunity of to reform the criminal.”&nbsp;Justice is the goal of punishment, not reform.</li>
				<li>“Capital punishment violates human dignity.”
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>It is specifically because of man’s value and dignity that we punish his moral wrongdoing. We don’t punish animals for stealing or killing (we don’t punish them, we remove them for our safety).</li>
					<li>We hold men morally responsible because of dignity.</li>
					<li>“It is based on the assumption that normal adult beings are rational and moral beings who knew better, who could have done otherwise, but yet who chose to do evil anyway, and who therefore deserve to be punished.”&nbsp;JPM p. 118</li>
					<li>Arguably it is undignified to force rehabilitation on free moral agents who don’t want it.</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
				<li>Roman Catholic objections
				<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
					<li>The Catholic position against capital punishment is somewhat ironic given their position on purgatory, in which even when God forgives a sinner, still he must suffer for his own sins.</li>
					<li>What of the practice of penance?</li>
				</ol>
				</li>
			</ol>
			</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>Study questions:</strong></p>

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal">
	<li>Where is capital punishment first mentioned in the Bible ?</li>
	<li>What is the biblical rationale for capital punishment ?</li>
	<li>Show how capital punishment was assumed in the New Testament.</li>
	<li>Does Jesus’&nbsp;ethic of love and forgiveness disallow capital punishment? Give reasons for your answer</li>
	<li>What is the basic view of man behind rehabilitationism? Retributionism ?</li>
	<li>How are the notions of praise and blame related?</li>
	<li>Reply to the arguments that capital punishment should be abolished because it is applied unfairly and innocent people may be condemned.</li>
	<li>Refute the “seamless garment”&nbsp;argument.</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-bible-and-capital-punishment" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-and-capital-punishment" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-and-capital-punishment" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should Christians Tithe?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-christians-tithe-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Christians shouldn’t “tithe,”&nbsp;Greg argues. This O.T. legal obligation has been replaced by the New Testament moral obligation to give...and with a smile on your face.</em></p>

<p>There is an obvious disjunction in the Scripture between the Old Covenant period and the New Covenant Period. I’m not referring to the division between Malachi and Matthew. That’s merely a textual division. Jesus’&nbsp;entire life was lived under an Old covenant system even though the events of His life are recorded in the New Testament. Jesus initiated the New Covenant at the end of His life at the Last Supper, but it wasn’t until Pentecost that it began in force. The theological disjunction, then, is pre-Pentecost and post-Pentecost, not Old and New Testament.</p>

<p>This doesn’t justify throwing out the entire Old Testament. Rather, it informs our hermeneutic so that when we look at the Scripture we have to ask if our interpretation needs to take this disjunction into consideration. Are there some teachings, precepts, or promises that are strictly Old Covenant—meant for pre-Pentecost Israel—and are not meant to be directly applied to the Church today?</p>

<p>For example, the dietary laws of the Old Testament, the worship liturgy of ancient Israel, the animal sacrifice system etc. are obviously changed. The enduring moral precepts, however, have been repeated in the New Testament writings—that is, in Acts and the Epistles—and are still in force, though they serve a somewhat different function.</p>

<p>What about tithing? Is the tithe meant to be applied to post-Pentecost, New Testament Gentile believers? Clearly the tithe—the moral obligation to give one-tenth of one’s income—was an important part of the Mosaic Law given to Israel for specific purposes. Does it apply to the Church?</p>

<p>I think not, for a couple of reasons. First, virtually all of the support for the idea of New Testament Christian tithing comes from the Hebrew Scriptures in the context of the Old Covenant Law, not the New Covenant. Tithing was for Jew under Moses in a theocracy, not for Gentiles in the church. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 made it clear that the burden of the Mosaic Law that was distinctly Jewish in nature should not be laid on the shoulders of the Gentile believers.</p>

<p>One rejoinder to my assessment is that the New Testament actually does teach the obligation of tithing. In Matthew 23:23 Jesus says, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you tithe mint, dill, and cumin and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness. But these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”</p>

<p>This seems to be a clear statement from Jesus that justice, mercy, faithfulness and tithing are all to be practiced by believers. This amounts to a direct command by Jesus to the church to tithe.</p>

<p>A closer look shows this won’t work, though. Jesus’&nbsp;remarks occur before Pentecost. He was simply reinforcing the teaching of the Mosaic Law already incumbent on the Jews in virtue of the fact that the Old Testament economy was still in force.</p>

<p>I’m not just making this up. You’ll notice that virtually all of Matthew 23 consists of the words of Jesus. He is giving a continuous discourse to the Jews, including His comments on tithing in verse 23. Look closely at the beginning of the chapter, at the beginning of this very same discourse. In verse 2 Jesus says, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe.”</p>

<p>Now here’s my question. When Jesus starts out a discourse giving the command that the listeners ought to do and observe everything that the scribes and Pharisees tell them by the authority of the “chair of Moses,”&nbsp;is that command appropriate in a New Testament, post-Pentecostal context? The answer is clearly “no.”&nbsp;We’re not obliged to obey everything that the scribes and the Pharisees told the Jews to obey regarding the Law of Moses. We’re in a new system.</p>

<p>If verses 2 and 3 don’t apply to the New Testament Christian, then Verse 23, which makes the comment about tithing—another part of the Mosaic Law—seems to me to be suspect also. It’s part of that larger discourse that is in an Old Testament context.</p>

<p>My point is that simply because Jesus commands tithing in this verse is not enough to show that Christians ought to tithe in the Church. One must give further New Testament justification, and none is forthcoming.</p>

<p>It doesn’t mean that nothing in the discourse is useful in New Testament sense. Certainly much of it is. But with regard to commands, it’s appropriate to ask whether these commands are necessarily part of the Old Testament context and don’t apply to the post-Pentecostal context. Jews were to tithe and be just, faithful and merciful. Christians are commanded in other contexts to be just, faithful and merciful, but are not similarly commanded to tithe.</p>

<p>The second reason I don’t think tithing is a rule for the church is that, when you look closely at the tithe of the Hebrews, it wasn’t just ten percent. It was closer to 30 percent, because the tithe was given at different times of the year and for different purposes, sometimes for the priests and sometimes for the government. Actually, the priesthood and the machinery of government were tightly interwoven. One could almost think of the tithe as a civic tax, to some degree. If the OT law on tithing applies with equal force to Gentile Christians as to Old Testament Jews, then multiple tithes are required, not just the one-time 10%.</p>

<p>Third, the New Covenant teaching of Paul appears to replace the Old Testament tithe with a different directive. The new ethic explicitly states that we are not under obligation or under compulsion, but rather to give cheerfully as we purpose in our own hearts. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says God loves a cheerful giver. God is able to prosper us, but we are to set aside what we determine in our own hearts to give.</p>

<p>Instead of a legal requirement to tithe, we are offered the opportunity to give. One can decide for himself whether he should give five percent, 10 percent, or 15 percent. It’s up to him, according to whatever he has purposed in his own heart as God has prospered him.</p>

<p>To put it in a very straightforward way, there is no moral obligation in the New Testament to give ten percent of one’s income regardless of the circumstances. That was a provision given to Israel under the theocracy that is not repeated in the New Testament itself but, in fact, is replaced by a new ethic that we see in 2 Corinthians, chapters 6-8.</p>

<p>To whom should we give? Follow the guideline in Galatians 6:6. It says, “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.”&nbsp;We have a moral obligation to support financially those people or institutions that are feeding us spiritually. For most people that would be the local church. For those who get their primary feeding from a “parachurch”&nbsp;organization, though, that group should be the main object of their giving. Keep in mind, even Christian organizations are part of the church in the New Testament sense.</p>

<p>Generally as a first order of priority, financially support the work of the local church that’s feeding you on a regular basis. However, there is full legitimacy to helping other organizations that are also feeding you: Stand to Reason, CRI, Focus on the Family, or whatever. If you’re getting fed there, then it’s fair and good—and also consistent with Paul’s teaching—for you to support those organizations financially.</p>

<p>There is a different category of giving that might be called a charitable offering—kicking in some cash to send someone to the mission field, etc. In this case you’re not giving back financially to those who have been giving to you spiritually, but rather you’re offering help unilaterally. That’s a separate category.</p>

<p>When I give money to my church, I consider these offerings—gifts for food programs for the homeless, or for women in crisis pregnancy, etc.—as separate from my regular giving to advance the mission of the church that has been feeding me spiritually. I count them as charitable gifts, not as direct giving to my church. That should come first.</p>
</div>

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


title: STR Violence Statement
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/str-violence-statement
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it destroys a valuable human being without good reason. Therefore, civilized people are morally obliged to campaign vigorously against this wrong and use appropriate means to end it.</p>

<p>In opposing this evil, however, one is only justified in using the degree of force necessary to stop a harm that is within his power to prevent. Lethal force is never justified when other means are available. Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.</p>

<p>Killing abortionists, then, is also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle that pro-lifers are committed to defending. Therefore, Stand to Reason condemns the use of violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who condone it.</p>

<p>In like manner, Stand to Reason condemns mistreatment of any human being, including those who are singled out because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. All human beings—regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender expression—are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). Because they have intrinsic dignity, worth, and value, they should be treated that way and do not deserve degrading comments, dehumanizing talk, or violent abuse.</p>

<p>While we affirm the biblical teaching that sexual intimacy is reserved solely for a man and a woman who are married to each other (Gen. 1:27, 2:24, Matt.19:4-6), we deny that anyone engaging in fornication, adultery, or homosexuality are less valuable or should be singled out as a unique class of sinners. Rather, all people (including Christians) are sinners, and all are guilty before God (Rom. 3:23).</p>

<p>Some have said the biblical teaching on homosexuality leads to hate and violence, but history tells a different story. Because those who follow Christ’s commands understand they are equally guilty of sin before God, the mercy God has shown towards them motivates them to reach out in kindness and compassion to others who need the same grace. Just because malicious people will seize upon any excuse, even a religious one, to justify their evil does not mean that the teachings of Christ and the Bible are to blame.</p>

<p>[<em>Updated 3/13/17</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%2Fstr-violence-statement" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstr-violence-statement" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstr-violence-statement" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: “Christian”: A Sound or a Word?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/-christian-a-sound-or-a-word-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Any love that is not based on truth is not love, but <em>adultery</em>. Watch out when someone encourages you to not argue about things—but to just love the Lord and not make doctrine an issue.</em></p>

<p>Is “Christian”&nbsp;a word or a sound? That may seem like an unusual question to ask. But it relates to the broader question how unified the Body of Christ is, given the fact that we have different ideas about things—specifically, the unification of Roman Catholics and Protestants. It also relates to the statement, “Let’s not argue about things. Let’s just all love the Lord and not make doctrine an issue.”&nbsp;When I hear comments like that I raise the question “Is ’Christian’&nbsp;a sound or a word?”&nbsp;There is a difference between the two.</p>

<p>I often get approached by people who complain about something I say on the air. I make a defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values to a world that rejects both of those things, by and large. I try to appeal to sound thinking to make my case. But many times my objections are not just with those who are outside the camp, but with those who are within the pale, as it were—those who identify themselves as Christians.</p>

<p>I have two points of conflict with these Christians. One is when they believe the same as I believe, but defend those beliefs with bad reasoning. Those beliefs are critical. If we are defending Jesus as Savior, or the Bible is reliable, or the sanctity of the life of the unborn, but we defend those points of view—points of view that are important, critical beliefs that have great moral or theological weight—if we defend them with bad reasons, I feel compelled to take issue with the reasons, though I agree with the conclusions. The conclusions in most cases can be supported by good reasoning, so why not use the best reasons we have and get rid of the bad ones? That’s one thing that brings me into ideological conflict with some Christians. The other issue of conflict is when there is disagreement and the issue at stake is something theologically, morally, or ethically weighty. Oftentimes the issue is a view that would not be considered orthodox. It would be heterodox, and it may even be heretical, such that believing this thing is not only contrary to the Scriptures, but also damaging to the individual and those who hold it, and is damaging to the church at large. Part of the job of an apologist is to defend orthodoxy against those on the outside and those on the inside.</p>

<p>This always sets up a problem. If you start defending orthodoxy against those on the inside, people say, “Why are you fighting with other Christians? Why are you arguing with your own? This is simply divisive.”</p>

<p>For example, the issue has been raised of the new document “<em>Evangelicals and Catholics Together</em>,”&nbsp;which is meant to help bring Catholics and Protestants together on those things that they really agree on so they might accomplish the task of world missions. But I have problems with this document. Is it possible to bring us together on the issue of missions when we have foundational disagreements on the nature of salvation? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>This also comes up in the electronic church. I think the medium of TV lends itself to excess, such that people who are not well trained in theology can be launched into positions of high influence and authority, and end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird. When that happens I take exception and try to be a defender of the truth, as I understand it. but then people call in and say, “Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord.”</p>

<p>If you’ve been around for a while and understand the issue of tactics here—especially the suicide tactic—you notice that this objection immediately defeats itself because this person is calling me on the air and publicly telling me that I am wrong for speaking on the air about other people who are wrong. In other words, they are accusing me of doing the very thing that they are in the process of doing. It doesn’t bother me because I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, per se. But their whole point is that I’m so divisive. Why don’t we stay unified? After all, we’re all Christians. We all love Jesus—as if there is something magical about this sound “Christian,”&nbsp;or this sound, “love Jesus,”&nbsp;such that those who have a commitment to the sound should therefore not have any meaningful differences between them.</p>

<p>My view is that “Christian”&nbsp;is not a sound, it’s a word. And the phrase “loving Jesus”&nbsp;is not two sounds, it is two words. The difference between a sound and a word is that a sound is a noise and a word means something. It has particular and peculiar content.</p>

<p>I would be the first to agree that sometimes we major in the minors. Christians get all hot and bothered about minuscule theological issues, and Paul himself says don’t fuss about it; don’t waste your time with the silly things. I think one characteristic of an ill-educated church is that they create a tempest in a teapot. They fuss over the things that mean very little and they ignore the things that are really critical.</p>

<p>What’s the difference? If you know anything about church history, you know the difference. It is easy for someone to say, “Koukl, you think that what’s important to you is really critical, and the rest is insignificant. Well, maybe you’re wrong.”</p>

<p>Well, maybe I am wrong, but I’m trying to line up my understanding of what is critical with what the church has characteristically lined itself up with over the last 2000 years. I’m trying to maintain a historical perspective and not simply play my own evangelical joy-toy, my own hobby horse. A historical perspective will help protect you from doing that.</p>

<p>I’m deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity’s sake. This is the problem with the World Council of Churches. Their idea is, “Let’s just ignore our differences and get together.”&nbsp;But any love that is not based on truth—as a teacher of mine once said—is not love, but adultery.</p>

<p>I want you to think carefully about this for a minute. It really hinges on the distinction between the sound and the word.</p>

<p>I might ask you then, “What unites us?”&nbsp;And you say, “We all love Jesus. That’s really what is important here. Not all those little theological minutiae.”&nbsp;My response is going to be, “Why do you want to be so divisive?”&nbsp;You��ll say, “What do you mean?”&nbsp;I say, “Why would you exclude all these people who call themselves Christians, but who don’t feel about Jesus the way you do? In other words, they don’t ’love Jesus.’&nbsp;Why do you want to impose this doctrinal standard of ’loving Jesus’&nbsp;on them? That’s very divisive. You probably want to start your own denomination of people who are the ’Love Jesus’&nbsp;denomination, excluding all those who don’t love Jesus.”</p>

<p>There’s a reason I gave this little dialogue. Some take exception with people like me by saying, “Don’t draw lines that exclude people.”&nbsp;But in fact, everyone draws lines. The question isn’t whether one draws a line that excludes or divides or not, because we all have to at some particular place. The question is which lines are valid and which ones aren’t. Which lines identify fundamentals that determine what it means to be a Christian, and which lines miss the point completely, or which lines are unnecessarily divisive?</p>

<p>It’s possible to strike the line either too broadly or too narrowly. Our goal is to strike it accurately so as not to divide genuine Christians in an inappropriate way, but also not to include those whose teaching is clearly aberrant and hostile and destructive to the church that Jesus founded.</p>

<p>What is the basis of our unity? Is it the sound “Christian?”&nbsp;Or is it two sounds, “Jesus Christ?”&nbsp;Do sounds unify us, or does truth unify us? Is it enough for me simply to make the sound “Christian”&nbsp;with my lips, or “I love Jesus,”&nbsp;in order to be included with the group and therefore protected from theological censure? Is that all that it takes? If it’s a sound that unifies us then any person who applies the sound to themselves is part of the group, no matter what the sound means.</p>

<p>By the way, that’s the difference between a sound and a word. A word is a sound that means something. However, if it turns out to be meaning or truth and not the sounds themselves that unite us, then we have to look carefully at what it is people hold to be true regarding the sound they make with their lips.</p>

<p>Here’s another way of putting it that sharpens the point. Do sounds give substance or do meanings give substance? That’s a rhetorical question; the answer is obvious—not sounds, but meanings. How do we know? If sounds, then everyone who identifies themselves with the sound is in the group. Conversely, if our unity is based on the sound “Christian,”&nbsp;then Spanish speakers wouldn’t be included because their sound is “Christianos,”&nbsp;not “Christian.”&nbsp;You’ll say, “That’s silly, because the English word ’Christian’&nbsp;and the Spanish word ’Christianos’&nbsp;mean the same thing.”</p>

<p>Now, what is this “mean”&nbsp;business? The minute you introduce this concept of meaning you necessarily tie yourself to content. Then my question is going to be, “What does it mean to be a Christian?”</p>

<p>Somebody called in yesterday and identified himself as a “pure Christian”&nbsp;who rejected the Trinity. There is no such thing as a pure Christian who rejects the Trinity. Why? Because the word Christian means something. It means a number of particular things, and if you disregard or reject those particular things then you can’t be called a Christian. A pure Christian is someone who holds to all of the essential teachings of Christianity, which includes the Trinity. If you reject the Trinity, theoretically it may be that you are right in that rejection, but I am not dealing with that issue now. Maybe your belief is true and Christianity is false, but you can’t call it pure Christianity because a necessary part of being a Christian is belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. Now, you might be something else—a modalist or a Sabellian or an Arian—and maybe you’re right, but you are not a Christian. Why? Because words are sounds with meanings.</p>

<p>It’s the meaning that’s critical, not the sound. Simply applying the sound “Christian”&nbsp;to oneself doesn’t solve the problem. We must know what one means by the word, and you must get your meanings of words like “Christian”&nbsp;or “Jesus Christ”&nbsp;or “loving Jesus”&nbsp;from the source material that introduces the word to begin with. And that source material is the Scripture. The Scripture ultimately defines what it truly means to be a Christian, what it truly means to love Jesus.</p>

<p>That’s how you resolve the debate. You can only resolve it by going back to the text. That’s the only way to do it. There’s no way of avoiding it, which means we have to introduce this ugly term that those who hate discord of any kind also can’t stomach. It’s the “D-word”—doctrine. What is doctrine? It is accurate knowledge about God and the things of God.</p>

<p>Doctrine cannot be avoided, because the minute you say “Christians shouldn’t let doctrinal differences divide them,“&nbsp;I’m going to a have to ask you, “What does the word ’Christian’&nbsp;mean?”&nbsp;You’re going to give some kind of exclusive standard, a standard which excludes some people who might otherwise call themselves Christian, a standard which will include others. In other words, it will be a standard that divides. You can’t avoid it. It is part of the program—unless, of course, you want “Christian”&nbsp;just to be a sound and not a word.</p>

<p>How do we know what the word means? We have to go back to the source. Then we find out that a Christian is something in particular, someone who believes particular things, and lives in a particular way. If you object to those things, then you need to be corrected, and that’s a good thing. That is healthy.</p>
</div>

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


title: Knowledge and Truth
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/knowledge-and-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>For any knowledge at all to be possible there must be true things and there must be false things.</em></p>

<p>The <em>L.A. Times</em>, February 22, front page, “Anti-Gay Video Highlights Church Agenda.”&nbsp;This front page article in the LA Times speaks of this video that is entitled “The Gay Agenda,”&nbsp;a 20 minute videotape that has been sent to a lot of congressmen and senators and public officials, to some degree made popular by James Dobson’s show “Focus on the Family.”&nbsp;Many of you have seen this because it’s been to your church. It comes under heavy attack Monday in the LA Times . There are also some things going on in Long Beach which we’ll find about shortly and at 4:00 we’ll talk with Jane Chastain. She’s been reflecting on this issue all last week. It’s an important issue, one that we need to be clear headed about.</p>

<p>I’d like to start out by making some comments about knowledge and tolerance by way of laying a predicate to any further discussion on this issue because there have been a lot of charges flying these last few years as this issue has come into the fore and Christians have raised moral objections about the social acceptability of homosexuality. I have come under quite a bit of attack.</p>

<p>I’m actually a little stunned by the way that people have responded to me in some regards. I got a letter about a month and a half ago. The writer of the letter said, “You are one of the few truly evil people that I know.”&nbsp;I know I’m not perfect but that sounds a little bit extreme to me, especially considering what I represent and what I’m trying to accomplish. The interesting thing, though, is that this assessment was made because of my particular moral position on homosexuality. So let me just start out and talk a few moments about the notion of knowledge and the notion of tolerance because the two are tied together.</p>

<p>I want to start out telling you something you already know but haven’t thought about in a very detailed fashion. It has to do with knowledge. It has to do with how we learn things. When you ask the question, how do we learn in general, many of you might answer that we observe. That’s a start. Observation is a beginning, but observation isn’t really the learning process because we need some way to sort out those things that we observe. We need some way to evaluate the things we observe. It’s much like building something. You have to start out with some raw materials, but what you need to take the materials and build them into something useful is tools. So we employ certain tools with our observations in order to learn things. When you think about what knowledge is it is basically what we get when we separate what is true from what is false. It’s building form observation much like you would build furniture from raw materials using a particular plan and using tools.</p>

<p>What are the tools that we use in our observations of the world that help us to separate fact from fiction? To put it very simply, the tool is rationality. Rationality, the ability to think, to observe, to reason, to sort out and ultimately to eject some things that aren’t true, enables us to know. Rationality is the tool that we use to acquire knowledge.</p>

<p>Of course, this whole process is based on a very important notion, a notion, by the way, that we’ve never learned in a formal sense, but it’s part of the raw materials of thought. The notion is this: there are some things that are true and there are some things that are false. Rationality gives us the ability to think, sort out, eject that which is false so that we can know that which is true. For any knowledge at all to be possible there must be true things and there must be false things. Very straight forward. Like I said you didn’t learn that, you already knew that. That’s part of the raw materials of rationality that we’re born with.</p>

<p>In a formal sense it’s stated as the Law of Non-contradiction. A cannot be non-A in the same way and in the same relationship. A thing can’t be its opposite at the same time and in the same way. Opposite views can’t be true at the same time. There is truth and there is falsehood and rationality helps us to sort through that which we observe so we can determine what is sound and unsound. This is very practical. As a matter of fact we do this every moment of virtually every day.</p>

<p>Take mushrooms for example. When we go to harvest mushrooms we must observe and then discern between different types of mushrooms because some are not edible, some are even poisonous. I actually had someone tell me the other day that all mushrooms are edible, but some mushrooms you only eat once because they kill you. I use this as an illustration because most of us aren’t in the habit of gathering food. We go to the market and everything there is healthy and good for us, we don’t have to think about it much, by and large. But if you imagine for a moment that you were a mushroom aficionado and you went out into the forest to pick wild mushrooms you would have to know the difference between a healthy mushroom and an unhealthy mushroom, a tasty one and a poisonous one. You would apply your rationality, thinking, observation and reason to sort through the mushrooms and choose the good ones and reject the bad ones because good ones are delicious and bad ones can kill you.</p>

<p>This gives us a little bit of a clue when we say that something is true. When we say that we have true knowledge of something we mean that something we know for sure or something that is true corresponds to what actually is. I think it was Aristotle who put it this way. If we say that it is and it is, or that it isn’t and it isn’t, then it’s true. If we say that it isn’t and it is, or that it is and it isn’t, then it’s false. It’s very simple. True knowledge corresponds to what is really there. Some mushrooms kill. Some mushrooms are delicious. Our knowledge helps us to distinguish between what is truly good and truly bad in the area of mushrooms.</p>

<p>Just think for a moment what if we lived in a world where it was not possible to separate truth from error? What if we couldn’t make those kinds of discernments? What if we didn’t have rationality as a tool that we could use on the raw materials of observation to define and divide that which is good and bad. That would be a terrible world because we wouldn’t be able to tell food from poison. We wouldn’t be able to tell friend from foe. We wouldn’t be able to tell good from bad, or right from wrong, or healthy from unhealthy, or safe from unsafe. In fact, we would die in a world like that. We could not survive.</p>

<p>Like I said at the beginning, I’m telling you something that you already know. You do the things that are necessary to live life in a healthy, safe, sane life. You get into a car and follow the traffic laws. Or you cross the street and look both ways. There are millions of examples. Just think about what you’ve done in the last three hours and all of the decisions that you’ve made that were life and death decisions based on your ability to discern the difference between what is good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, times when you invested your rationality in the observations you made about the world around you in a way that made a difference whether you lived or died. This is so pedestrian we don’t even think about it, but it happens all the time.</p>

<p>I want you to think for just a moment what you would say to someone who wanted to change those rules.</p>

<p>We would say that person was foolish. We would die in a world without those rules and quickly. But that circumstance is precisely what we’re facing right now. We have a way of doing thought, of discovery and analysis that is absolutely critical to our physical survival. But when it comes to moral and spiritual knowledge people want to change the rules because the rules attempt to separate truth from fiction in the area of morals and religion.</p>

<p>My contention is that if it’s absolutely necessary for us to use rationality to discern truth from error in the physical realm, it is just as important to use rationality to discern truth from error in the spiritual and moral realm as well. The problem is that when we employ rationality and critical thinking to the physical realm we are considered sane and prudent, but when we apply rationality to the area of moral and spiritual truth we are considered intolerant.</p>

<p>This is where this whole notion of toleration relates to searching for knowledge. Tolerance is a very confusing term, especially the way it’s been used of late. It’s much like the term pluralism which has been distorted in the last twenty years to mean something entirely different that what it originally meant. It originally meant that everybody got their say. Everybody threw in their two cents, was able to argue for their point of view, discuss it, give their reasons why they were right and the others were wrong. Everybody got to play in this game and then a consensus came in society from that notion of pluralism. The notion has changed and I’ve mentioned this several times because I want that idea to stick with you because most of the time when you hear the term pluralism now, and this is captured in much of the conversation about multiculturalism these days, it is that pluralism now means that nobody’s view is no more superior to anyone else’s view. People have given up on the notion that there is such a thing as true truth, especially in spiritual and moral things. If you suggest that your view is more sane, sound, reasonable, has better critical assessment than someone else���s view, then you are considered to be an intolerant person.</p>

<p>I’d like to make a very critical distinction here when thinking about the issue of tolerance. Tolerance is a word that applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas. Tolerance is a word that applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas. We are to be tolerant of people, but we are not to be tolerant of ideas. What do I mean by not tolerating ideas? We are to address ideas in the same way that we address any other observations that we make in this world. We look at this world and make observations and we use rationality to thread through those things and be critical of our observations, to try and discern right from wrong, truth from falsehood. When it comes to religion and when it comes to moral and spiritual issues, anything dealing with the immaterial realm, we are to be just as assiduous in applying rational, critical thinking to the process of separating truth from error as we are in the material, physical, amoral realm.</p>

<p>If we don’t do it there will be the same consequences as not applying rationality in the physical realm. We will die. The reason is that if we apply this new kind of tolerance to ideas, if we apply this notion of tolerance that nobody’s ideas are any better than anyone else’s and it’s wrong to argue against somebody’s idea, what happens is that it becomes impossible to know anything at all. All truth ultimately turns out to be the same. If all truth is equally true then there is no way to make any distinctions and no knowledge is possible because true knowledge is only possible when you separate truth from error.</p>

<p>Dr. Frank Beckwith was a guest a couple of weeks ago on my show and he also spoke at Hope Chapel last week. He tells a story of his sister over at Loyola Marymount University when she went to one of her classes taught by a woman professor. The professor started her class with this statement. “All truth is relative. There is nothing we can know for sure. Therefore we ought to be tolerant of every person’s viewpoint and let everyone have a say.”&nbsp;What was really curious about this, and Frank pointed this out, is that any professor who is willing to make that statement at the beginning of her class has just taken away all possibility of learning anything. As a matter of fact, that professor would be most honest by saying, “Class dismissed.”&nbsp;You can’t know anything at all. You can’t know anything for sure. Everybody’s opinion is equally valid, equally reasonable, equally true. Therefore, there’s nothing to learn. Let’s go home.</p>

<p>If education is the search for true knowledge rather than false knowledge why learn at all? One could ask why we should tolerate people if all knowledge is equally true? There’s no reason to tolerate anything because your truth that we ought to respect and tolerate people is no more true than its opposite if that notion is to be respected. In other words, why ought we tolerate? That’s a particular truth that may not be valid either. In fact it isn’t if your statement there is no truth is a true statement.</p>

<p>That’s why this view of truth actually destroys true tolerance. Is it tolerant to say something is true when it’s really false? That might be tolerant but it’s a strange kind of tolerance and a kind of tolerance that brings a tremendous amount of danger. That’s like saying that mushroom is healthy when it’s not healthy. In fact, if everything is the same we have no real choices whatsoever. That includes the moral arena. We can survive if we don’t tolerate other people. I mentioned a moment ago that we should tolerate people, but if we don’t we can survive. But we cannot survive if we are irrational. If we tolerate every single piece of information as equally true we will not survive. If we are intolerant we are unpleasant human beings, but if we are irrational when it comes to truth we are not merely unpleasant, we are dead human beings because we can’t survive that way.</p>

<p>Once again let me say tolerance is how you treat people. Rationality is how you treat ideas.</p>

<p>Here’s the application to social issues. It flies directly in the face of the current notion of pluralism. The application is we are to respect and tolerate people because people are made in the image of God and have transcendent value. They are worthwhile, they are intrinsically valuable in themselves. Because they are we don’t mistreat people because we don’t agree with what they say. We are to respect and tolerate people. As Christians we are to express an attitude of graciousness and respect to people we disagree with. That doesn’t mean that all morals are considered equal or all forms of moral life are to be considered legal. That’s not healthy, that’s not safe and we do make moral distinctions about the way we live our lives with our law. We make those distinctions. But we are to show toleration to people.</p>

<p>What we don’t tolerate is ideas. Instead of tolerating ideas we are to examine ideas jut like we examine anything else. We are to use rationality. We are to use our thinking, our reasoning, our logic. We are to sort out. We are to use our best critical faculties to try and determine what is true and what is false. We should be very critical of ideas. We should use rational, critical faculties in a rigorous way to determine if an idea is good or bad, healthy or poisonous. And in the public marketplace we have to do this aggressively because fewer and fewer people are willing to take this on.</p>

<p>What I’m very frustrated about is when Christians seek to be tolerant of the individual person but also seek not to be tolerant of the ideas, but very critical of the ideas and ask the questions: Is this idea a good idea or is it bad? Is it true or false? Then they are attacked as being intolerant.</p>

<p>Why do I believe in this notion? Because it’s impossible to argue against it. If you really hold this other form of tolerance, this other kind of pluralism, it makes it impossible for you to distinguish between good and bad but also to make any meaningful statement about anything whatsoever. As a matter of fact the statement that you ought to be tolerant of people’s viewpoints is a nonsense statement.</p>

<p>That’s why on this show we talk about many different things. I talk about what I believe and I give my reasons for why I believe it. I expect you to tolerate me as a person just as I seek to tolerate you as an individual and I seek to be kind and gracious and open to what you have to say and treat you with respect. But please do not tolerate my ideas. Criticize them. Think them through. Use your rational capabilities to decide whether they are good or true or right ideas. If they’re not then you should reject them.</p>

<p>This is precisely the point at which Christians are being attacked right now. We have been faulted for even attempting to engage the process of moral reflection and discernment. That brings us right to the issue that I opened up with, the homosexual issue.</p>

<p>As I was flying back from India and about to arrive in India, the gentleman next to me for most of the flight, an Indian man who slept most of the time, talked with me about this. He was on his way to Colorado to do some teaching. He’s a professor and he’s very concerned about what is happening in Colorado, about what he understood to be an anti-homosexual sentiment. I clarified for him the law that was passed. The constitutional amendment was actually an equal right amendment. It basically held that every person should have the same rights as every other person. It wasn’t an attempt to attack a particular group but to equalize things.</p>

<p>He made the point that in India they are very tolerant. I was thinking they are very tolerant much the same way that Americans are tolerant. They are tolerant of everything except Christianity. I wanted to respond to this and reflect on this notion of tolerance. I tired to make it clear to him that in this country homosexuals can do pretty much what they want. There are some laws on the books in some states that limit the behavior of homosexuals, but for the most part that’s not being enforced and that’s not what is at issue here.</p>

<p>The point of this issue used to be that homosexuals used to ask to be left alone to do what they want to do. Now that’s essentially happening. There is tolerance nationwide for this behavior even though many people have moral problems with it. Even though it creates a tremendous drain on the health resources in this country there is tolerance. Even though there’s a health risk to the rest of the people in this country there is still tolerance. People have a very tolerant attitude when it comes to homosexual behavior. In fact it’s considered impolite to reflect negatively on it, which is my point by the way. No one now is making homosexuality illegal. No one is saying that. I know of no Christian leader saying that we ought to make homosexual behavior done in the privacy of their own home illegal. So there is tremendous toleration of homosexuality.</p>

<p>What they’re asking for goes way beyond that. That movement and many who are attached to it don’t want us to even believe what we believe about it or, worse yet, to tell anybody what we believe about it. They don’t want us to even believe that homosexuality is immoral. They don’t want us to tell anybody the we think homosexuality is immoral or try to persuade them. This is an issue of ideas right now, not behavior. Nobody is intolerant of the behavior. They’re saying that we shouldn’t be able to think about it or tell anybody about it. That is true intolerance. The Christians are not wearing the shoe of intolerance here. The shoe is on the other foot. We are simply asking people to use rationality to discern good from bad, true from false in the area of morals.</p>

<p>We have come to the conclusion and we are arguing in the marketplace for that conclusion and for that we are being attacked. For that we are being told to shut up. For that we are being called fascists, bigots, arrogant and narrow-minded. Why? Because we want our point of view to be heard.</p>

<p>If we abandon rationality in the process of making decisions between what is true and false in the area of morals then we’ll be just as dead as if we did it in the area of mushroom gathering.</p>

<p>Some people think that Christians have no right to believe in morality in this country. It’s a strange notion. Dr. Beckwith made this observation. In our country now the guy with the fewest moral rules is the most tolerant and amazingly is considered morally superior. The least morality is the most morality. Strange ethic and a good example of what happens when rationality is abandoned on the moral issues.</p>

<p>At least that’s the way I see 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%2Fknowledge-and-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fknowledge-and-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fknowledge-and-truth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Not a Hint of Politics
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/09/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/not-a-hint-of-politics
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Does Christian involvement in politics do nothing for the Kingdom?</em></p>

<p>Some Christians hold that our public presence as Christians should not display even a hint of politics. Here is their concern: that we’ll replace the work of the cross with a works righteousness. But the goal of Christians being involved in the political sphere is not to build civic righteousness to commend a nation before God on the basis of their works. It’s to ensure a just society.</p>

<p>This introduces one of three serious problems with this view.</p>

<p><strong>1. Laws are not primarily meant to change hearts but to change behavior, and it does that very well.</strong></p>

<p>According to 1 Peter 2:14, government is for “the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.”&nbsp;Romans 13:3-4 “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”</p>

<p>Proverbs has 14 references to justice, including:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Prov. 20:8 “A king who sits on the throne of justice disperses all evil with his eyes.”</li>
	<li>Prov. 21:15 “The execution of justice is joy for the righteous, but is terror to the workers of iniquity.”</li>
	<li>Prov. 29:4 “The king gives stability to the land by justice, but a man who takes bribes overthrows it.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Are we to be silent while others supply all the content of what is evil, leading to punishment, and what is right, leading to praise? What keeps them from doing just the opposite—the praise of evildoers and the punishment of those who do right? If the church does not stand in the gap, who does?</p>

<p><strong>2. The term political is vague.</strong></p>

<p>More and more things are falling under this broad rubric. With this policy in place, all one has to do to silence the voice of the church is to call any particular issue political. They’ve co-opted all the moral issues by calling them political.</p>

<p>These include:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Abortion</li>
	<li>Stewardship of the environment</li>
	<li>Care of the poor</li>
	<li>Sex (including sexual education, birth control, sexual harassment, pornography—including child porn—and so-called alternate sexual lifestyles like homosexuality, lesbianism, man-boy love and incest)</li>
	<li>Divorce and child support</li>
	<li>Reproductive technologies</li>
	<li>Education of our children</li>
	<li>All morality in the public square</li>
</ul>

<p>In the past it would have included the abolition of slavery in the 19th century and the civil rights movement in the 20th. The church is still being blamed for its silence during those times. Its silence in the face of injustice didn’t communicate purity, but approval of slavery and racial prejudice.</p>

<p>When we are pushed out of these areas, what is there left to talk about? Modes of baptism, eternal security, sovereignty and free will, transubstantiation vs. real presence—that kind of thing.</p>

<p>We will be allowed to have our parochial discussions behind the closed doors of our churches, <em>but we can speak of nothing that—in the minds of those we’re trying to reach—has to do with the real world.</em> Is it no wonder that our faith is called irrelevant?</p>

<p>Are we to believe that it is in keeping with the commands of Scripture to be silent as children of God on anything that doesn’t directly have to do with the eternal salvation of souls? Is it God’s desire that we abandon everything on this side of the grave as profane and utterly lost?</p>

<p><strong>3. A properly constructed set of laws</strong> <em>can</em> <strong>change the heart.</strong></p>

<p>How? A sound moral code—one that’s consonant with “the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness”&nbsp;(Rom. 2:15), the internal capacity for moral development that God has given each person—tutors us on the notion of right and wrong.</p>

<p>Do you practice this in the moral education of your children? How do we train children?</p>

<p>When you undertake the moral training of your children, do you satisfy yourself with just merely telling them about the love and forgiveness of God so that their hearts might be changed, or do you “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it,”&nbsp;as the proverb instructs? (Prov. 22:6)</p>

<p>Would we not consider it unconscionable to neglect a child’s moral instruction in that way? Certainly we’d never accept as justification for negligence in this area the excuse, “My rules can never change a child’s rebellious heart; only the Gospel can do that.”</p>

<p>Don’t we give them rules to obey? Don’t we threaten punishment for a violation of the rules? Don’t we then expect that through a judicious application of these moral <em>rules</em> the children will develop the moral <em>virtues</em> they are merely acting out now because they’re commanded to?</p>

<p>How is it that we believe in the transforming power of moral instruction in the family, but then admit that it’s powerless to even <em>inform</em> the moral consciousness of a country, which is merely a large collection of families? It’s made up of the very same people.</p>

<p>We cannot abandon our Christian responsibility to provide moral instruction in this nation to those who have no moral foundation to instruct from.</p>
</div>

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


title: Witnessing: How to Get Things Started
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/witnessing-how-to-get-things-started
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What I have found with folks is that the more you are confident, the more courage you will have. And confidence comes, to a great degree, from training. If you have training, then you will have confidence. If you have confidence, you will have courage. And you will be able to more effectively go out and engage people.</em></p>

<p>I had a radio interview a couple of weeks ago with a Northern California station. The question was, How do we share the Gospel with our neighbors? How do we go about bringing the issue up or steering around to Jesus? I hadn’t really thought about it in so many words, but as I prepared for the show, I got some things together, and I thought I’d share the same thoughts with you. As you will see, these are not radically different from the things I’ve talked about in the past year, but maybe just put together in a different way.</p>

<p>The first question that was asked of me was, “Why are so many people afraid to preach the Gospel?”&nbsp;That is, why are Christians timid? I do believe many Christians are timid about preaching the Gospel. As I reflected on it, I realized this is not so much a bad thing in the context of our culture, but it actually reflects something good. It is not a good thing to give in to timidity, but that one is timid is a good sign.</p>

<p>The reason that they are timid, of course, is that they are frightened. They are frightened that when they give people the message that they need to hear, that those people are going to be mad, upset, or frustrated with them. They may even turn on the believer and try to marginalize him by calling him names like “narrow-minded,”&nbsp;“arrogant,”&nbsp;“intolerant,”&nbsp;that kind of thing. Why is that a good thing? If you are frightened about sharing the Gospel, that shows you understand that the true message of the Gospel is something that the other people aren’t going to like. This means you are still in touch with classical Christian roots.</p>

<p>Let’s face it. There is a growing contingent of the church, largely on the seeker-sensitive side of the spectrum, that has erred in excess in the way it has communicated the Gospel. I’m not saying that all of them are like this, but this is an error that those who are seeker-driven are more prone to. Since the seeker is the all-in-all in the more extreme forms of that view, you don’t want to do anything or say anything that is going to bother the seeker. There has been a metamorphosis, as a result, in the so-called Gospel. But Gospel, which is good news, is good news only in context of the bad news. And if the bad news offends people, why don’t we just get rid of the bad news and just tell them good stuff? So to a great degree, the Gospel has morphed into Christianity as life enhancement.</p>

<p>If you are offering Christianity as life enhancement, there is no reason to be frightened at all because that version of Christianity - try my ice cream, it’s better than your ice cream - is not the least bit offensive to people. It fits in perfectly with a pluralistic world view. All religions are routes to God. Each is just as legitimate as any other. Find the one you like. Our message then is “Ours is better!”&nbsp;Not “Ours is true.”&nbsp;And if your view is that ours is better, try it and see if you like it, then we are peddling life enhancement, and that never bothers people. They may not think that ours is better, but they aren’t going to be offended by the appeal that we offer.</p>

<p>If you are frightened about sharing your faith, it is because you know that what it is you have to share is something that is likely to offend. The stumbling block of the cross is offensive. We dare not remove the offense that is inherent in the Gospel. We shouldn’t make it more offensive than it is, but we should not take the offense out of it. That is part of the nature of the Gospel itself. If we are frightened to preach the Gospel to our friends and neighbors, that is actually a sign that we are still in touch with the real McCoy.</p>

<p>But how do you overcome this?</p>

<p>What I have found with folks is that the more you are confident, the more courage you will have. And confidence comes, to a great degree, from training. If you have training, then you will have confidence. If you have confidence, you will have courage. And you will be able to more effectively go out and engage people. That is why Stand to Reason is here, to provide that kind of training. Not just on the air, but also through our tapes, and seminars, and teachings, and the like.</p>

<p>But there is an important bridge that I think every Christian has to cross, given this challenge. The Gospel, at its core, in its naked truth, with no offense added to it, just as it is, is offensive enough. The bridge is the knowledge that communicating the bare Gospel is going to offend people and that it’s going to put us on the outs with them.</p>

<p>I was teaching last week on Sunday night. Some of you were at the session there in Huntington Beach. I was asked a question about a woman who is obliged to take tolerance training at the public school where she teaches. Of course, whenever you see the word “tolerance,”&nbsp;just always read homosexual. Ninety percent of so-called “tolerance”&nbsp;training is acting as if homosexuality is just fine. She said, As a Christian, I can’t give in to that. I’m going to have to take a stand publicly on that. She’s concerned about doing is as a good ambassador; but she’s even more concerned about becoming a target once she makes her views known.</p>

<p>My answer to that particular problem is very simple. Christians are going to have to cross the bridge, that is, make a decision in our lives that we are going to stand with honor with Christ, even when we get the approbation of the world. We have to admit to ourselves that, as followers of Jesus, we are simply going to get people ticked off - not because we are offensive, but because our message necessarily offends. And if we stumble there, if we get ready to try to communicate but we pause because now wee are going to be a target, that means you haven’t crossed that bridge yet.</p>

<p>I challenge you to come to a point in your life where you say, I’m going to stand with Jesus as graciously and as persuasively as possible, not seeking to offend, but willing to take the anger and approbation that is really directed at Jesus on myself. I’m committing myself to that kind of life. I’m accepting the fact that I am not going to be liked all the time because I’m a follower of Jesus. We have to make our peace with that, ladies and gentlemen, because we will never be effective until we do that.</p>

<p>Pick a battle. If you go into the battle with bullets flying, and you think, if I get out of this foxhole, I may get shot and so I’m just going to sit here, you won’t be effective as a soldier. You will not be able to do what you are commissioned to do. The best soldiers are the ones, not that aren’t frightened, but have made their peace with the idea that their lives are expendable and they go out regardless. Maybe I’ll get killed. Yep, that’s the lot of a soldier. Easily expendable. So you need to make your peace with that as a Christian.</p>

<p>With that in mind, there are a couple of points that I offered that I think are helpful in terms of guiding us in sharing our faith. First of all, for me, I don’t think about witnessing. It isn’t my goal to witness. I think about being an ambassador, and that is a bit different, as we’ve characterized it. Witnessing means sharing your faith. Being an ambassador means representing your sovereign’s goals and purposes to a people accurately with a mind towards tactical wisdom and doing it in a winsome and attractive way that makes it persuasive. You have knowledge, wisdom, and character that are involved. It’s not just getting the information out. There also has to be attention given to the manner in which you do that. So, when I go out, I don’t think, how can I share faith with these people? I ask, how can I be a good ambassador, that is, representative for Christ? Sometimes it means being explicit about the claims of the Gospel. Sometimes it means dealing with some other issue that allows them to get closer to the point where they can take the claims of the Gospel seriously.</p>

<p>I want to create an atmosphere that is conducive to the Gospel, after a fashion, rather than just spit out the Gospel to them and figure I’ve done my job because I’ve witnessed, they’ve rejected it, and their blood is on their own head. No, a good ambassador has as his goal, persuasion, so he is going to work to maneuver to try to communicate his information as tactically and carefully as he can, given the situation. My first goal is to be an ambassador when I go to my neighbors. That is the motif that I am placing myself in.</p>

<p>Second, because of that, I don’t feel that I have to get to the cross immediately or ever. How about that? I do not put myself under the pressure that if I don’t get to the cross of Jesus Christ with this person that I’m talking to that somehow their blood is on my head. No, I’m not the Holy Spirit. I’m just an ambassador. And people are at different places at different times.</p>

<p>Look at the way that Jesus dealt with Nicodemus in John 3 versus the way he dealt with the woman at the well in John 4. He followed the advice that Paul later gives that we season our words with salt so that we know how to respond to each person. I know a non-believer is somewhere along the continuum of radical unbelief to total belief and that God is interested in moving him along that line. It is God’s responsibility to move him forward and I am just a player at some point in time who hopefully is pushing him a little in the right direction, but probably not all the way down the slide. So my part may be very small as an ambassador. When I finish with my part, as an ambassador, then another ambassador picks up where I left off, according to the sovereign interaction of God. So I don’t feel that I have to get to the cross immediately. I’m looking for the particular job that I can do effectively as an ambassador for Christ in that circumstance with that unique individual.</p>

<p>Here’s a third point. Take a tactical approach. We emphasize this all the time at Stand to Reason. You can be tactical by asking questions. We use the Columbo tactic. You get the ball rolling by asking questions. Questions like, What do you mean by that? When they make reference to something, draw them out a little bit. Ask a question like, How did you come to that conclusion? Ask for their rationale for their point of view. Then maybe ask a question like, Have you ever considered this possibility? And then you offer your ideas from a Christian perspective. Questions help to move along in a non-combative, but fairly direct and involved, interactive kind of way.</p>

<p>As you are asking these questions, the thing you want to get to is the ultimate point in to whether a person’s beliefs are true or not. That’s the key issue. Is what you believe regarding God and Jesus and any religious thing and the ultimate aim of life, is that thing true? Not, Do you like it? Is it fun? Is it satisfying? Those are not relevant questions here at this point. The question is whether it is true or not. So in my tactic of asking questions, I am trying to get information and present challenges to their views by asking questions to help them see the flaw in their thinking. I want to offer them something they can think about.</p>

<p>The final thing that I do is I try to get the focus on Jesus. The reason I want to get the focus on Jesus is that He has credibility. I could say all kinds of things about what I think is true about the world. That’s just another guy’s opinion. But when you talk about Jesus, He is a man with respect; He is a man with credibility. This is why everybody wants Jesus on their team. The New Agers want to quote Jesus for their view. The homosexuals want to quote Jesus for their view. Everybody wants Jesus on their team because He is somebody that you have to reckon with. So let’s reckon with Him. Let’s get to what Jesus said about things and then have them focus in on that because after all, the decisions that they make about Jesus will determine where they spend eternity.</p>

<p>My recommendation is that if you are nervous about witnessing, that’s a good thing it means you are still in touch with the truth that is offensive to many people. The way to overcome your fear is to get training and the training will give you confidence. It also helps to make your peace about receiving flak for being a Christian. You have to decide who you will stand with. Will you stand with Christ and receive the flak the world gives out or will you stand with the world and seek its approval? And then the four points I offer: 1. Don’t think about witnessing, think about being an ambassador, and that helps to color the way you interact with people. 2. Don’t feel you have to get to the cross immediately, or at all; just move the person forward as the Lord gives you opportunity. 3. Begin by asking questions, and maybe end by asking questions. It’s a great tactic. Keep in mind that the real question out there is whether their beliefs are true. 4. As soon as possible, get the focus back on Jesus because He is the issue and He has credibility.</p>
</div>

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


