Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 120

Webcast Tuesday

Greg is live online today 4-7 p.m. PT. Give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229.  He'll be taking calls all three hours.

Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.

Are You Good Enough?

I think one of the biggest obstacles to people grasping the meaning of the Gospel is that they misunderstand the message. For various reasons, people think what we're offering them is a way to be good enough to go to Heaven. It's the message of every other religion – a system to follow to be moral enough or appease God. It's what has been preached in a lot of purportedly Christian churches.

So if people think we're simply offering our preference for how to be good, it's understandable why they'll respond by thinking any other path is just as legitimate since they also offer a system or code. It's understandable that when we insist our system is the only right system that they think we're narrow-minded.

This is where the Law – the bad news – comes in. It's why the Good News needs to be accompanied by the bad news. It's part of what distinguishes Christaintiy from every other religion. The Law shows us that we are completely incapable of being good enough or appeasing God with our own goodness. We have no goodness. The Law puts to death any hope of being good enough to get to Heaven.

Greg gives an example of how he engages people here.

Once we've given up any hope of being good enough, the central message of Christianity then makes sense to people. Christianity isn't a system, it's a Person. Jesus was good enough on our behalf and makes us righteous enough to go to Heaven apart from anything we can do. Then our exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way makes more sense. It clarifies that we're not offering just another way to be good; we're offering the only Person who can forgive us and make us fit for Heaven.

There are times that we have to work really hard, repeat ourselves, and find different ways of saying the same thing in order to break through the assumptions people have about the Gospel.

I think two simple questions (Columbo-style to elicit information) can be of use sometimes. Years ago I was trained in the Evangelism Explosion method developed by James Kennedy. The two questions are: If you were to die tonight, do you think you would go to Heaven? If you were to explain to God why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say? These questions can help clarify what someone believes about the way to get to Heaven, and helps you address specifically what they believe so you can clarify what the Gospel is so they understand we can't be good enough.

The Implications of Atheism (Video)

What do you do with someone who has no problem accepting the implications of atheism (no morality, something from nothing, etc.)?

Christian Power

Justin Taylor posted an interesting and beautiful interview
with Andy Crouch, author of Playing God,
Redeeming the Gift of Power, wherein Crouch discusses the nature of
Christian power:

[Henry Ossawa] Tanner’s painting [“The
Banjo Lesson,” 1893] is an amazing portrait of true power, in the context
of a music lesson…. Tanner was not only the first African-American painter of
international renown but arguably the last American painter of that stature to
be a serious and devout Christian.

What really got me thinking about
Tanner’s painting is the two levels on which it operates. At one level, it is
simply a portrait of the exchange of power that happens in all musical
instruction (and instruction more generally), where the student acquires
power without the teacher giving up any of their own power. Teaching
is a paradigmatic example of how power can multiply and lead to flourishing
without anyone being diminished or dominated. The teacher has real,
asymmetrical power, capacity, and authority—something we too easily
automatically associate with domination—but that authority is all devoted to
the flourishing of the student. And yet the teacher also flourishes in that
relationship, precisely by exercising power. Tanner captures the intimacy,
trust, love, and patience involved in the true use of power for flourishing—and
by including a jug and loaf on the golden-lit table in the background, suggests
that what is happening here is not just mundane culture but a foretaste of
glory.

At another level, Tanner was operating
within a profoundly broken system of power… By painting a banjo lesson, Tanner
was taking this visual symbol of the exploitation of his own culture and
rescuing it from caricature and diminishment. He infuses this humble musical
instrument and art form with all the artistry of the salons of Paris and all
the dignity of “classical” instruments (like, say, the cello). I see this
painting as a kind of restoration of image-bearing possibility—it restored
dignity, agency, and beauty to a culture and a people who had been robbed of
them….

[Tanner] was not a
genre painter. But when he turned to this subject, he brought all his skill and
power to restoring others’ image-bearing capacity. That is true power.

Christianity changed the West’s understanding of power. Our
culture is saturated with its ideas today, so it’s easy to forget how radical
this was:

Christ Jesus,…although He existed
in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but
emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the
likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason
also, God highly exalted him (Philippians 2:5-9).

Jesus, who had ultimate power, humbled Himself to the point
of death for the sake of others. This is the life He called us to when He said:

You know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you
shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your
slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25-28).

Certainly there have been those in the West who have abused
power, but when you look at what is admired
in this culture, you’ll find that it’s this vision of Jesus as the
self-sacrificing servant that is held in high regard. We take this for granted,
but it has never been a universally-held ideal. “The word of the cross is foolishness”
to those who haven’t been shaped by the Christian story.

Nietzsche is one example of someone who explicitly rejected the
Christian view of power in favor of a “zero-sum conception of power as
domination,” as Crouch mentions in the interview.
But even those who aren’t atheists have difficulties with the cross. Muslims,
for example, reject the idea that Jesus died on the cross for the very reason
that their concept
of God’s power doesn’t allow for a prophet to suffer this kind of humiliation.
They find our vision of a divine Jesus on the cross incomprehensible.

Ideas shape individuals and cultures, teaching
them what they should love and pursue. May you become as steeped
in the Christian story as Henry Ossawa Tanner was so that everything coming out of
you takes on the shape of truth, beauty, and human dignity.

Read the rest of the interview.

Rethink Conference in Three Weeks

The Rethink
Apologetics Conference for students (and their parents and youth leaders) is
coming up in Orange County in just three weeks. Here’s an overview of the plenary sessions:

John
Stonestreet: It Matters What You Believe (Maybe More Than You Think)
Brett Kunkle: If
God Is Good, Why Is There Evil and Suffering?
Scott Klusendorf:
Equipped to Engage: Making the Case for Life on Hostile Turf
J. Warner Wallace:
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Alan Shlemon: A
Closer Look at Islam
Brett Kunkle: Your
Turn: The Role-Play Challenge

There are several breakout and Q&A sessions, as well
(including one by Greg on the topic of tolerance). You can see all the topics
and speakers here.

One of Alan’s topics at the conference is Islam—a subject
most of us know little about, unfortunately. And I say “unfortunately” because
of these opening words from Alan’s booklet, The Ambassador’s
Guide to Islam:

I recently drove to a Muslim
neighborhood near Los Angeles. The falafel shops and Arabic script made it
obvious I was in the right place. I parked, walked up to a Muslim, and said,
“Hi, I’m a Christian. Would you like to talk about God, Jesus, and the Bible?”
His response was, “Sure. Sit down and let’s talk.”

Contrast my experience with what
would happen if I walked up to a non-Muslim and asked the same question. The
likely response would be, “Umm…no thanks. Go away!”

Compared to the average non-Muslim,
most Muslims love talking about religion. This is good news. It makes it easy
to start religious conversations. And since one in every five people on the
planet is a Muslim, there are plenty of opportunities.

They’re ready and willing to talk to us about Jesus, so give
your students the opportunity to learn how!

Review the info and register here.

Appealing Packages

I've seen it time and time again. People are less likely to notice bad reasoning when it's presented in an appealing package. Our thinking, no matter how clear, is liable to be swayed by whether or not we like the messenger.

Debates, you would think, are the epitome of rational thinking. But people don't follow arguments very well and instead focus on the personalities. I remember the audience responses to a debate between a Christian and an atheist. The audience was mostly Christians since they were members at the church that hosted the debate. A lot of the feedback to the question of who won the debate went like this: I know the Christian must have been right, but I think the atheist won because he was funnier. That's a pretty common response if the Christian doesn't work at being appealing rather than assuming the argument will sway the audience. I know the Christian in that debate, and he went on to become very intentional about improving his style. And he became more effective in debates.

I have watched clever videos that people ask us at STR to respond to. Sometimes the gulf between the premises and the conclusion is so obvious that I think it must be the fun video that was doing a lot of the persuasive work.

Look, this is natural. We're not purely rational creatures.  Reason isn't the only thing that influences our thinking. What this points out is that to be effective ambassadors we have to have knowledge, wisdom, and character. We can't rely only on the soundness of our arguments. We have to be appealing messengers to commend the message. 

That won't seal the deal either, but it will go a long way to being more persuasive.

Based on Eyewitness Accounts

This is a lecture by Dr. Peter
J. Williams titled “New Evidences the Gospels Were Based on Eyewitness
Accounts.” (There’s also some good evidence for why the non-canonical gospels
were not.) Dr. Williams has an
engaging style, and the information is fascinating, so it’s well worth your
time. The lecture was given a couple of years ago, so the evidences are not as new today, but I’ve found that the
information is still not as widely known as it should be.

(Although the visuals are helpful in the case of this lecture, if you don’t have time to sit and
watch the video, try using ListenToYouTube
to make an MP3 of the audio so you can listen anywhere.)

 

You can view the Q&A portion of the
lecture here.

Kepler and the Scientific Revolution

Joseph Spradley writes:

Schooled not only in mathematics and astronomy but also in theology, [Johannes] Kepler initially intended to serve as a minister. However, in 1594 Lutheran authorities assigned him a job as a mathematics teacher in Graz, Austria. There his duties included compiling an annual calendar of astrological predictions, which he did with reluctance and cautious generality.

In 1596, Kepler published his Cosmographic Mystery, on the spacing of the planetary orbits. On the eve of its publication, he wrote to his astronomy teacher at the university of Tubingen, Michael Maestlin, "I am devoting my effort … for the glory of God, who wants to be recognized from the Book of Nature."

Kepler's efforts produced their most famous fruit in his first two laws of planetary motion, published in his 1609 masterpiece, The New Astronomy, and his third law of planetary motion, discovered in 1618. These laws set the stage for the emerging scientific revolution. Fifty years later, Isaac Newton's search for an underlying explanation for Kepler's laws led him to formulate his own law of universal gravitation.

How Could John, a Poor, Uneducated Fisherman, Write the Gospel of John?

A fellow Christian Case Maker I met at Frank Turek’s CrossExamined Academy
is teaching a church group about the reliability of the New Testament. A
question was raised about the Apostle John: “How could John, an
uneducated fisherman, have written such a literate and theologically
rich gospel account?” After all, John was just a fisherman; was he
educated enough to accomplish something this sophisticated? Irenaeus,
certainly thought so. This historic Bishop of Lugdunum, was the student
of Polycarp and Ignatius (two men who were taught directly by the
Apostle John). Irenaeus identified the Apostle John as the author of the
fourth Gospel, reflecting the historic understanding of the earliest
Christians. In spite of this, many skeptics are eager to dismiss the
authorship of John (often in an attempt to further discredit the
supernatural New Testament claims related to Jesus) by doubting John’s
level of education and degree of literacy. There are, however several
good reasons to resist the notion that John, the son of Zebedee, was too
illiterate to have written the fourth Gospel:

John May Have Been Educated After All

Don’t be too quick to dismiss John as uneducated. Hebrew children were
required to memorize the first five books of Torah before they were
twelve years old. Young students were also required to discuss these
texts and write them. There is good reason to believe John and James
were not exempt from this requirement. In fact, the internal evidence
from the Gospel suggests John and James were more than familiar with the
rabbis and Jewish teachers of their day. Take, for example, this
description of Jesus’ arrest and arrival at the residence of Annas (the
father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest):

John 18:15-16

Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that
disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the
court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So
the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and
spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in.

This
“other disciple” is none other than John, the son of Zebedee, and he is
described as someone who was well known to the high priest. In fact, he
was known adequately enough to gain admission for himself and
Peter. Interestingly, while Peter was here in Anna’s courtyard, he was
identified by his simple Galilean accent (see Luke 22:59). No one ever
identified John in this way, however. John may have been a fisherman,
but this doesn’t mean he was necessarily uneducated or unsophisticated.
Paul was also quick to identify himself as a tentmaker, but obviously
had access to a good education.

John May Have Employed a Scribe

But even if John was under-educated, this does not preclude the
reasonable use of a scribe. An assistant of this nature (known as an
“amanuensis”) was commonplace at this point in history. Paul repeatedly
used a scribe to help him as he dictated his letters to the Church.
Tertius helped Paul write the letter to the Romans (Romans 16:22), and
Paul admitted using a scribe to help him with 1 Corinthians (1
Corinthians 16:21). If John wrote his Gospel and letters in a similar
manner, it is reasonable to infer his use of a scribe. If this was the
case, the degree of Greek sophistication would be attributed to the
scribe rather than to John. When skeptics point to differences in the
form of Greek seen in some of John’s writings (when compared with one
another), they most certainly are ignoring the use of an “amanuensis.”

John May Have Grown into a Wise Author

Finally, we must also resist the temptation to deny John the
theological sophistication necessary to write (or dictate) the Gospel.
John spent three years with Jesus, and would reasonably have grown in
his understanding of God’s nature and his ability to articulate this to
others. John’s Gospel is the last of four accounts of Jesus’ life; it
clearly demonstrates the benefit of time and reflection. John may have
been a fisherman, but this doesn’t mean he could not have grown, over
many years, into a multi-lingual, thoughtful, articulate spokesperson
for the early Christian movement. As I reflect on my own life and growth
as a Christian (and especially as I re-read many of my earliest
writings on Christianity), I am often embarrassed by my early naiveté
related to many Christian concepts. I’ve come a long way in a short
period of time. John must certainly have grown similarly. He didn’t pen
his texts immediately, but wrote them instead as a wise, reflective
elder statesman.

Attacks on the educational level of John are
aimed at discrediting him as the author of his Gospel. But the earliest
students of the Apostles accepted John’s authorship and the historic
attribution continued through the Church Fathers. In addition to this,
there is good internal evidence to suggest the author of John’s Gospel
was very familiar with the culture, geography, and political conditions
surrounding the life of Jesus. The author was clearly part of Jesus’
inner circle and is likely the disciple who, at the Last Supper, laid
his head on Jesus’ breast. There is more than enough historical and circumstantial evidence to infer the Apostle John as the author of the fourth Gospel, in spite of the fact he may have begun his career as a simple fisherman.

Links Mentioned on the 10/01/13 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:

reThink Apologetics Conference for students (Southern California)


You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church...and Rethinking Faith by David Kinnaman


The Pilgrim's Regress by C.S. Lewis


Subscribe to the STR podcast


Ustream – If you have a Roku, add the Ustream channel, and you can watch a live video broadcast of the show (our Ustream feed now has caller audio)


Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study by Glenn T. Stanton


The Five Points of Calvinism by Bethlehem Baptist Church


Pope Francis' Letter


Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? by Gary Thomas


Transgender Politics vs. the Facts of Life by Nancy Pearcey 



New Evidences the Gospels Were Based on Eyewitness Accounts


Unbelievable? Four Simple Principles to Determine Ancient Historical Reliability by J. Warner Wallace

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.