Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 122

How Did Jesus Escape from Having a Sin Nature? (Video)

How did Jesus escape having a sin nature if he was born a human being?

Wisdom vs. Technique

You may know that one of the topics Greg teaches on is "Decision Making and the Will of God."  Greg shows that the Bible teaches us not to listen for God's voice in order to make decisions, but to develop wisdom.  (If you're not familiar with it, you can read out it here.) 

Nancy Guthrie make a good observation the common practice of hearing God's voice to give us guidance:

Does it really make a difference when we expect God to speak to us through the Scriptures rather than waiting to hear a divine voice in our heads? I think it does.

When we know that God speaks personally and powerfully through his Word, we don't have to feel that our relationship to Christ is sub-par, or that we are experiencing a less-than Christian life if we don't sense God giving us extra-biblical words of instruction or promise. When we know God speaks through his Word we are not obligated to accept—indeed, we can be appropriately skeptical toward—claims by any book, teacher, preacher, or even friend when they write or say, "God told me . .  ." We don't have to wait until we hear God give us the go-ahead before we say "yes" or "no" to a request or make a decision. We can consult the Scriptures and rest in the wisdom and insight the Holy Spirit is developing in us and feel free to make a decision.

We've heard from many people over the years after they've heard Greg teach on this that they are relieved because they thought something was wrong with their relationship with God because they didn't hear Him.

I think there's a further problem when someone is waiting to hear God's voice.  They never engage in the activity the Bible does teach is meant to help us make good decisions - becoming virtuous and wise people.  By focusing on a technique rather than becoming the kind of people who know how to apply Scripture to our decisions, Christians don't grow into the kinds of people Proverbs describes.

I heard a quote by C.S. Lewis recently that summed this point up:

For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the modern, the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique.

We need to be focused on trying to become virtuous, wise people rather than learning a technique the Bible doesn't teach.

Early Abolitionist

Cappadocian Church Father, Gregory of Nyssa, lived in the 4th century and was an outspoken critic of slavery. 

Because he was committed to the idea that humans have a unique value that demands respect, Gregory was an early and vocal opponent of slavery and also of poverty. Against the former Gregory marshals three arguments (Ecclesiastes IV [665]): (1) Only God has the right to enslave humans, and God does not choose to do so; indeed, it was God who gave human beings their free wills. (2) How dare a person take that precious entity–the only part of the created order to have been made in God’s image–and enslave it! (3) As humans who were created in the divine image, all people are radically equal; therefore, it is hubristic for some to arrogate to themselves absolute authority over others.

Robert B. Kruschwitzm from Baylor University writes:

The true offense of slavery, Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) argued in his fourth homily on the book of Ecclesiastes, is that God created humans to be free. Commenting on the Teacher’s proud claim “I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house” (Ecclesiastes 2:7), Gregory wrote:

If man is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). God would not there- fore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

The Second Story

As I listen to many of the subjects in debate today in our culture - the dialog between secularists and Christians - there's a fundamental difference in perspectives that I think we need to be aware of if we're going to try to be persuasive. Faith and religion have been relegated to the realm of wishful thinking and personal preference. For many we're talking with and in the public discourse, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion is a personal taste, like ice cream, so it's bizarre to them that we're trying to get them to like the same flavor we like.

This is a dynamic going on when we discuss same-sex marriage, abortion, and mandated health care that covers contraceptives. Unfortunately, it's a perspective that is expressed in the recent Supereme Court ruling on same-sex marriage - Justice Kennedy said there is no rational argument against it and opposition can only be motivated by bigotry and discrimination. He heard the rational, legal arguments presented in court and didn't even recognize them as such. Hobby Lobby's conscientious objection to providing contraceptives through their health insurance is met with a response that relegates their conscience to the private realm, which has no place in their business world. The same thing was said in the recent New Mexico case finding that a photographer's conscience was her private belief, but should not be practiced in her business.

We can believe what we wish in church and at home, but the "neutral public square" mandates we keep it private. Of course, it's a bizarre understanding of conscience. Our consciences are neatly divided between private and public life. The point of freedom of religion is practice throughout our lives. More and more we're hearing the First Amendment interpreted as the right to believe as we wish, but not practice as we believe. It's the freedom of belief, not the freedom of exercise our belief.

Brett writes about this shift in the definition of faith here. Greg talked about this dynamic in the New Mexico case in a recent podcast. 

Francis Schaeffer wrote a fabulously insightful little book decades ago called Escape from Reason. It's one of the first apologetics books I read (a very long time ago). He wrote about a trend he observed taking place, and it is even more relevant today to understand some of the background assumptions going on in public discourse. I highly recommend you read it to be more effective in unraveling disagreements with secularists and making a persuave case.

Schaeffer describes the affect the Enlightenment has had on modern thinking. Rationalism divided truth into objective and subjective and put religion and values in the subjective category. Schaeffer describes the world of facts, reality, as the first story in a building. It's bolted to the ground. Religion and values got sent upstairs to the second floor. It's the place for subjective belief, preferential tastes, mere desire. It doesn't belong on the first floor with reality. We all live together on the first floor of the real world, and when we practice our religion we get sent upstairs.

This is the view most people have about religion these days. Even many religious people themselves put religion upstairs and separate it from facts and reality. When we talk about our convictions, even if we give rational reasons, others see us trying to barge downstairs into the real world. We, of course, are talking about reality on the first floor when we talk about Christian convictions and values. And that's the huge worldview divide that is in the way of most conversations about values and religion.

As Christian ambassadors, we need to understand this dynamic and help people understand that we're not taking a leap of faith from the second floor. We're living on the ground level where our convictions and values belong because they are reality.

Links Mentioned on the 9/17/13 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:

Greg and the Duck Commander


Do You Take the Bible Literally? by Greg Koukl


TULIP and Reformed Theology: Part 1 by R.C. Sproul (Parts 2-6 linked at the bottom of the article)


Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl



Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer by Greg Koukl (PDF)


Review of The Harbinger by Tim Challies


Review of The Harbinger by The Alliance for Biblical Integrity


No More Free Rides by Alan Shlemon (on the burden of proof rule)


Do Atheists Merely Lack Belief in God? by Greg Koukl


Decision Making and the Will of God 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.

Why Would God Punish Finite, Temporal Crimes in an Eternal Hell?

I was interviewed recently on a large Los Angeles radio station about the existence of Hell.
One caller objected to the duration of punishment in Hell. From his
perspective, the idea our temporal, finite sin on earth warrants an
eternal punishment of infinite torment in Hell was troubling, at the
very least. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime; in fact, the
disproportionate penalty makes God seem petty and vindictive, doesn’t
it? Why would God torture infinitely those who have only sinned
finitely? I think it’s important to define the nature of Hell and sin
before our discussion of the eternal nature of punishment can have any
meaning or significance. Objections related to the eternal nature of
Hell result from a misunderstanding of four principles and terms:

We Fail to Understand the Meaning of Spiritual “Torment”

The Bible says those who are delivered into Hell will be tormented, and
the degree to which they will suffer is described in dramatic,
illustrative language. But, the scripture never describes Hell as a
place where God or His angels are actively “torturing” the souls of the
rebellious. “Torture” is the sadistic activity that is often perpetrated
for the mere joy of it. “Torment” results from a choice on the part of
the person who finds himself (or herself) suffering the consequences.
One can be in constant torment over a decision made in the past, without
being actively tortured by anyone.

We Fail to Understand the Insignificance of Sin’s “Duration”

If someone embezzles $5.00 a week from their employer’s cash register
they will have stolen $260.00 over the course of a year. If they’re
caught at the end of this time, they would still only be guilty of a
misdemeanor in the State of California (based on the total amount of
loss). Although the crime took a year to commit, the perpetrator
wouldn’t spend much (if any) time in jail. On the other hand, a murder
can take place in the blink of an eye and the resulting punishment will
be life in prison (or perhaps the death penalty). The duration of the
crime clearly has little or nothing to do with the duration of the
penalty.

We Fail to Understand the Magnitude of God’s “Authority”

If your sister catches you lying about your income last year, you might
lose her respect. If the IRS catches you lying about your income last
year, the resulting punishment will be far more painful. What’s the
difference here? It certainly isn’t the crime. Instead, we recognize the
more authoritative the source of the code, rule or law, the greater the
punishment for those who are in violation. If God is the Highest
Authority, we should expect that violations of His “laws” would result
in significant punishment(s).

We Fail to Understand the Depth of Our “Sin”

Finally, it’s important to remember the nature of the crime that
eventually leads one to Hell. It’s not the fact you kicked your dog in
1992. It’s not the fact you had evil thoughts about your teacher in
1983. The crime that earns us a place in Hell is our rejection of the
true, living, eternal God. The rejection of God’s forgiveness is not
finite. People who reject Jesus have rejected Him completely. They have rejected Him
as an ultimate, final mortal decision. God has the right (and
obligation) to judge them with an appropriate punishment. To argue that
God’s punishment does not fit our crime is to underestimate our crime.

The Bible describes Hell as a place where those who have
rejected God will suffer the torment of their decision. It’s an
appropriate punishment given the magnitude of God’s ultimate authority
and the mortal opportunities for each of us to choose otherwise in this
life.

Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

The Consequences of Ideas

A new study in Great Britain shows how quickly cultural values that have served us well for centuries can break down in a few short decades. A minority of people think marriage is important, even when having children. A majority think sex outside of marriage is fine. 

Individualism has become the primary value and, of course, when self-satisfaction is the primary goal, the personal sacrifice marriage and parenthood requires is unattractive. Moral relativism has eroded values that once served individuals, families, and society very well. 

What Are Some Questions You Struggle With? (Video)

You appear to us as having all the answers. What are some questions you struggle with?

Why Would A Loving God Create A Place Like Hell?

When Rob Bell released his book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and
the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, he capitalized on the historic
controversy surrounding the existence and nature of hell. Critics of
Christianity have cited the hell’s existence as evidence against the loving
nature of God, and Christians have sometimes struggled to respond to the
objection. Why would a loving God create a place like Hell? Wouldn’t a God who
would send people to a place of eternal punishment and torment be considered
unloving by definition?

The God of the Bible is described as loving, gracious and merciful (this can be seen in many
places, including 1 John 4:8-9, Exodus 33:19, 1 Peter 2:1-3, Exodus 34:6 and
James 5:11). The Bible also describes God as holy and just, hating sin and punishing sinners (as seen in Psalm 77:13, Nehemiah 9:33, 2
Thessalonians 1:6-7, Psalms 5:5-6, and Matthew 25:45-46). It’s this apparent
paradox reveals something about the nature of love and the necessity of Hell:

Mercy Requires Justice

When a judge pardons an unrepentant rapist without warrant, we don’t typically
see this as an act of love, particularly when we consider the rights of the
victim (and the safety of potential future victims). Mercy without justice is
reckless, meaningless and dangerous. True love cares enough to punish wrongdoing.
For this reason, a God of love must also be a God of justice, recognizing,
separating and punishing wrongdoers. Hell is the place where God’s loving justice
is realized and executed.

Freedom Requires Consequence

True love cannot be coerced. Humans must have freedom in order to love, and
this includes the freedom to reject God altogether. Those who do not want to
love God must be allowed to reject
him without coercion. Those who don’t want to be in God’s presence must be
allowed to separate themselves from Him if their “free will” is to be respected.
God’s love requires the provision of human freedom, and human “free will”
necessitates a consequence. Hell is the place where humans who freely reject
God experience the consequence of their choice.

Victory Requires Punishment

All of us struggle to understand why evil exists in the world. If there is an
all-powerful and all-loving God, this God (by His very nature) has the power
and opportunity to conquer and punish evil. If God is both powerful and loving,
He will eventually be victorious. God’s victory over evil will be achieved in
mortality or eternity. God has provided a mechanism though which evil will be
permanently conquered and punished in the next life. Hell is the place where an
all-loving and all-powerful God will ultimately defeat and punish evil.

The loving nature of God requires justice if it is to be
meaningful, and the justice of God requires punishment if it is to be fair. At
the same time, human freedom must result in a consequence if it is to be
significant, and the consequence for evil actions must ultimately be
appropriate if God is to be just. Finally, the power of God necessitates victory,
and eternal victory requires an eternal mode of punishment. The paradox of
God’s love and justice necessitates the existence of Hell. God’s love does not
compel Him to eliminate the necessary
punishment and consequence for sin, but instead compels Him to offer us a
way to avoid this consequence altogether. By offering forgiveness through the
sacrifice of Christ on the cross (who took our punishment), God demonstrated
His love for us. It cannot be said that a loving God would never create a place
like Hell if that same God has provided us with a way to avoid it.

Subscribe
to J. Warner’s Daily Email

Challenge Response: Your Pro-Life Views Are Just Religious

Here's my response to this week's challenge.