Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 105

Challenge: Why Is Good "Good"?

This week's challenge is a question we received from a reader:

I've read Euthyphro's Dilemma, but I still cannot comprehend it. I read that everything a good God commands is good, but what makes God good in himself? I often think, "Why ought I to behave morally?" Because God commands it. And why does he command it? Because he's good. But in the end, I seem to miss the true concept of "good." Being loving, kind, just is good, but why? I've read that goodness is a quality of God, and therefore what he commands is good, and we should pursue good, but why is pursuing "good" good? I've fallen into an infinite regression, and I can't grasp God anymore. It seems like circular reasoning, or am I missing something?

What I am trying to say is that if good is inherent in God's nature, then by what standard does he see that his nature is good? A self-existing standard doesn't seem reasonable to me anymore because it deprives itself of meaning.

Can you help him answer his question? Tell us how you reason through this, and then Brett will post his video response on Thursday.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

The End of Apologetics?

James Rochford has written a thorough review of a new book by Myron Penner titled The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. I call your attention to it because it’s a good reminder that postmodern Christianity is still being advocated out there, and the many quotes from the book provided by Rochford in his review serve as a useful refresher course on the postmodern perspective.

These are a few of Rochford’s main objections to Penner’s book:

Penner ignores the biblical texts that support Christian apologetics
Penner denies the importance of reason and truth
Penner claims that apologetics are abusive
Penner seeks to replace a correspondent view of truth with an “edification view”
Penner exaggerates the inability of language to communicate truth
Penner mischaracterizes his opponents in their character and beliefs

Here's an example of Penner’s characterization of apologetics, which bears no resemblance to the rich conversations I’ve had with people about Christianity:

The lesson of apologetic violence is that there is more than one way to deny Christ in modernity. There is the straightforward way of the atheist… or it may be done indirectly, perhaps even with sincerity, by a Christian who uses the objective truths of Christianity to do things that are themselves unloving and unedifying. (pp. 162-163)

“Apologetic violence”? Again, all of this sounds more to me like theoretical ideas Penner has learned in a classroom, rather than what he’s experienced in conversations with real human beings who don’t know Christ. The use of apologetics has enabled me to be much better at drawing out and understanding another person’s particular view, at explaining my own beliefs more clearly, at understanding who God is and helping others to see Him. And I can’t count the number of people I’ve met (including myself) for whom God used apologetics to draw them to Himself.

And yet, postmodernists insist the opposite is true, so it’s a good idea to understand their perspective. Read the full review.

Do the Other Gods Mentioned in the Bible Actually Exist?

Greg discusses the distinction between false gods and other spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible. 

 

Love Requires Wrath against Evil

Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf wrote in his book Free of Charge:

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn’t God love? Shouldn’t divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That’s exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandparently fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators’ basic goodness? Wasn’t God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.

For more on God’s wrath and love, see “God Solved the Justice/Grace Problem” and “How Tim Keller Made Peace with the Wrath of God.”

(HT: White Horse Inn’s interview with Paul Copan on “Is God a Moral Monster?”)

Good Reasons to Believe Peter Is the Source of Mark's Gospel

The authorship of Mark’s Gospel is of great importance to those of us making a case for the reliability of the New Testament. Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus? Why should we consider his information to be reliable? There are several good reasons to believe Peter is the trustworthy source of information for Mark, beginning with the historical attributions of the early Church Fathers who affirm the relationship Mark and Peter had in the 1st Century. Beyond this, however, there are additional evidences within Mark’s text supporting the claim Peter (Mark’s mentor in Rome) is the source for Mark’s information. I’ve described the evidential case in much more detail in Cold-Case Christianity, but this brief summary may be helpful:

The Writing Style Is Consistent With Mark’s Background
The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a writing style and literary syntax exposing the author’s first language as something other than Greek. In fact, the writing style seems to indicate the author’s first language was probably a Semitic language such as Aramaic. This would be consistent with the idea Mark, a Palestinian Jew (who most likely spoke Aramaic), was the author of the Gospel. In addition to this, the Gospel of Mark includes a number of vivid and tangential details unnecessary to the narrative, but consistent with observations of an eyewitness to the events. This would indicate the author had access to an eyewitness such as Peter.

The Outline of the Gospel Is Consistent With Peter’s Outline
Papias maintained the Gospel of Mark was simply a collection of Peter’s discourses (or his preaching) as this information was received and recalled by Mark. If we examine the typical preaching style of Peter in the Book of Acts (1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41 for example) we see Peter always limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel omits the private birth narrative and other details of Jesus’ life described in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts.

The Omissions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence
There are many details in the Gospel of Mark consistent with Peter’s special input and influence, including omissions related to events involving Peter. How can Mark be a memoir of Peter if, in fact, the book contains so many omissions of events involving Peter specifically? It’s important to evaluate the entire catalogue of omissions pertaining to Peter to understand the answer here. The vast majority of these omissions involve incidents in which Peter did or said something rash or embarrassing. It’s not surprising these details were omitted by the author who wanted to protect Peter’s standing in the Christian community. Mark was quite discreet in his retelling of the narrative (other Gospel writers who were present at the time do, however, provide details of Peters ‘indiscretions’ in their own accounts). Here are some examples of Petrine Omissions grounded in an effort to minimize embarrassment to Peter (see Cold-Case Christianity for a more detailed explanation of the events summarized here):

Peter’s shame at the “Miraculous Catch”
(Mark 1:16-120 compared to Luke 5:1-11)

Peter’s foolish statement at the crowded healing
(Mark 5:21-34 compared to Luke 8:42-48)

Peter’s lack of understanding related to the parable
(Mark 7:14-19 compared to Matthew 15:10-18 and Acts 10:9-16)

Peter’s lack of faith on the lake
(Mark 6:45 compared to Matthew 14:22-33)

Peter’s rash statement to Jesus
(Mark 8:31-33 compared to Matthew 16:21-23)

Peter’s statement related to money
(Mark 10:23-31 compared to Matthew 19:23-30)

Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial
(Mark 14:27-31 compared to Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:34-38)

Peter’s behavior at the foot-washing
(Mark 14:22-26 compared to John 13:2-9)

Peter’s denial and Jesus’ direct stare
(Mark 14:66-72 compared to Luke 22:54-62)

There are a number of places in the Gospel of Mark where details related specifically to the words and actions of Peter have been omitted in what appears to be an effort to protect Peter from embarrassment. This doesn’t mean Peter failed to talk about these things. He may very well have included them in his sermons and teachings. But Mark, his scribe and close friend, simply chose to omit these details related to Peter, either at Peter’s request or on his own initiative.

The Inclusions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence
In addition to the omissions we have cited, there are a number of details included in Mark’s Gospel demonstrating Peter’s involvement and connection to Mark. As we describe a few of them, notice these inclusions are relatively minor and don’t seem to add much to the narrative. Their incidental nature is an indicator the author lacked a motive other than to simply include Peter’s perspective in the account. Peter’s involvement appears to have been faithfully recorded by his scribe and assistant, Mark:

Peter’s search for Jesus
(Mark 1:35-37)

Peter’s house in Capernaum
(Mark 2:1-5 and 1:21, 29-31 compared to Matthew 4:13-16)

Peter’s identification of the fig tree
(Mark 11:20-21 compared to Matthew 21:18-19)

Peter’s identification of the disciples
(Mark 13:1-4 and Matthew 24:1-3)

Respecting the limits and brief nature of blog posts, I’ve restricted my description of these internal details (compared to how I’ve described them in the book), but the verse locations should help you discover them for yourself. There is a reasonable, cumulative, circumstantial case pointing to Peter as the source of information for Mark’s Gospel. Remember, circumstantial evidence can be every bit as determinative as direct evidence in a court of law. The strength of such a case is based on the depth, quantity and quality of the individual pieces:

A. Biblical Passages Confirm a Relationship Between Mark and Peter

B. External Sources From History Tell Us Mark Wrote Peter’s Memoir

C. Internal Indicators Reveal Peter’s Direct Influence on Mark’s Gospel

There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. If this is the case, Mark’s Gospel was written within the lifetime of Mark (and likely within the lifetime of Peter). If the Gospel of Mark was written this early, it would have undergone the scrutiny of those who were actually present and could have exposed Mark as a liar:

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

What Dawkins Really Thinks

A reaction of “Tell us what you really think, Dr. Dawkins” in response to his famous quote about the character of God (see below) turns out to not be as rhetorical as one might think. Dawkins clarified his position a bit on a recent episode of the Unbelievable? podcast in the midst of his conversation with a rabbi and a Christian:

JUSTIN BRIERLEY (host): “The God of the Old Testament,” you said, “is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”…. Do you still stand by that description of the God of the Old Testament?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, I do….

RABBI JOSH LEVY: There is also a deeply, deeply ethical God, who 3,000 years ago is saying to the Israelites, “You have to care about the vulnerable in your society. You have to do your business honestly. You have to look after your workers. You have to care about the immigrant who comes into your society.” So to only describe the God of the Old Testament in that way, I think, is actually just simplistic and doesn’t help us to really engage with the Old Testament as a whole.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah, I accept that, of course. It was a passage that was semi-tongue-in-cheek actually, because, well, when I do public readings of my books, I do it with my wife, and we usually try to get a laugh from the audience early on in our performance because it sort of lightens up the atmosphere. And that passage, we always used when doing The God Delusion readings right at the beginning, because it does get the audience roaring with laughter…. So it was a sort of humorous passage, and I do accept that if you look through either the Old Testament or the New Testament, you can certainly find passages of wisdom, passages that one would ethically approve of tucked in amongst the others that one wouldn’t ethically approve of….

CHRIS SINKINSON: The problem, though, I think…is that, Richard, you are very good with rhetoric. You have a very powerful mastery of the English language, and that rhetoric can be very bullying sometimes. And…in terms of the passage, it’s clearly a very slanted view of how to read the text of the Old Testament. Most of us would take the clearer passages to interpret the harder passages. We would be talking about Leviticus 19—“love your neighbor as yourself”—before we’re looking at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, we would have an approach to Scripture that would weight things in such a way that that description of God just does not sound like the God who I believe in, or the God who I worship. So the rhetoric, I think, can generate a lot more heat than it does light.

RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s probably fair, yes.

Well, there you go.

Human Rights Reformers

There's a fascinating article in Christianity Today about a new and extensive study on the effects Christian proselytizing missionaries had on the societies they served. The detailed research contradicts the commonly held view in academia these days that missionaries were detrimental colonialists. Rather, the missionaries who went as agents of the church, not the government, with the Gospel message had significant positive and lasting influence on societies.

One example is John and Alice Harris who went to the Congo as Baptist missionaries at the turn of the last century. The couple photographed the human rights abuses of the Belgian colonial government who enslaved and exploited the native people for the rubber and ivory trade. The Harrises traveled Europe and the US exposing these actions, which led to reform in the Congo. John Harris campaigned against colonialism and in favor of self-determination for native people.

A new exhibit in England shows some of their photographs. 

Ensor, Piper, and Chan on Fighting to End Abortion

This is the interview Scott Klusendorf recommended on last week’s show, and I echo his recommendation. It’s a discussion between John Ensor (Scott’s co-author on Stand for Life: Answering the Call, Making the Case, Saving Lives), Francis Chan, and John Piper on the impact of graphic pictures, how teaching their congregations about human dignity and abortion glorifies God and His grace, the need for pastors to have courage on this issue and fight the temptation of a subtle loss of boldness, and how to preach about issues like this one within the full counsel of God.

Hearing about this subject from the perspective of a pastor glorifying God and caring for his congregation adds a depth and richness to this topic that will round out your understanding of abortion, the people who have suffered from it, and the gospel. Pass it on to your pastors and friends.

 

Links Mentioned on the 1/28/14 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Is God Anti-Gay? by Sam Allberry (see a trailer for the book)


Does Prayer Change God's Mind? by Greg Koukl (video)


Do Our Prayers Make a Difference? by Amy Hall


He'll Do Something He Would Not Have Done by Amy Hall (on prayer)


Prayer Begins with Hope in God by Amy Hall


Not Always Bread, Just No Stones by Amy Hall


Preaching in Hitler's Shadow: Sermons of Resistance in the Third Reich by Dean G. Stroud


Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics? by Greg Koukl


Judging Boy Scouts by Greg Koukl

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Beckwith: They Don't Understand Religious Conservatives

Unfortunately, I think Frank Beckwith is right about this:

There are many unfortunate consequences of the culture wars. But one in particular, rarely noticed, is how it has insulated secular progressive academics from the habits of mind, ways of life, and types of reasoning that are integral to the worldview of religious conservatives. Consider just these two examples.

On the matter of the sanctity of human life, secular progressives will sometimes accuse religious conservatives of only caring about the unborn child before he is born, but not afterwards….

On the issue of marriage, secular progressives often depict the view of religious conservatives as arising purely from animus against gay and lesbian citizens. In fact, this depiction has been so successfully advanced in the culture that even the deeply literate Justice Anthony Kennedy has made it the one dogma of his sexual orientation jurisprudence that cannot in principle be disproven.

But for religious conservatives, the distance between this depiction and how they really think of marriage is so great that they do not recognize themselves in it. Yet because the portrayal is so deeply ingrained in the wider culture, any rebuttal of the depiction sounds to the secular progressive as a desperate rewriting of reality in order to rescue a floundering political cause….

In the largely insular world of the secular academy, there is virtually no attempt to try to understand the beliefs of religious conservatives on their own terms. Although that certainly harms religious conservatives, it harms secular progressives and their students even more. For it denies them the sort of full-orbed appreciation of differences that secular universities incessantly preach, but rarely practice.

This is a real problem, and it’s one I’m not sure how to get around, because no amount of reasoned arguments can trump a suspicion of bad motives once it’s firmly implanted. If it’s assumed our arguments aren’t being made in good faith, why should anyone take the time to try to understand what they consider to be illegitimate rationalizations?

Just last week, after a brief back-and-forth between us, one commenter on this blog thought he was getting down to the real issue when he said in response to a post arguing for man/woman marriage, “Please ask yourself: what is the source of the bitterness or fear or personal discomfort that leads you to oppose an expansion of the concept of family? Is it all really just based on a half-dozen or so phrases from religious texts from thousands of years ago?” His characterization of the situation revealed not only that he didn’t understand the arguments I was making, but also that it didn’t occur to him we’re convinced our arguments are true. It’s only because we think the health of our society depends on an accurate understanding of what marriage is that we’re arguing against same-sex marriage; but because he hasn’t worked to see things from our perspective, the only thing that makes sense to him is that we’re reacting out of bitterness and fear.

Whenever something like this happens, I’m amazed that people are more willing to believe that half the country is made up of hateful bigots than to consider that either they’ve missed the arguments sincerely being made or they’ve failed to take them at face value.*

(It’s worth reading the rest of Beckwith’s article to hear his brief description of the conservative religious view on both marriage and abortion.)

_____________________________

*I can already hear the inevitable comparison of our arguments with those promoting slavery. Weren’t those arguments made out of bigotry? And weren’t they made by half the country? Yes, but the inability to see the difference between our arguments and theirs illustrates the very problem I’m explaining. Those arguing for slavery cited the ontological inferiority of black people as a premise in their arguments. But none of our arguments contains the premise that homosexual people are less deserving of rights than heterosexual people. The arguments aren’t about a lower status of human dignity for homosexuals, they’re about the objective and relevant differences between men and women. And yet, despite the fact that it plays no part in our arguments, bigotry against homosexuals is consistently read into them, and the real premises ignored. The fact that people can’t see this major difference between these two lines of argumentation merely proves they don’t understand the actual arguments well enough to do so.