Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 134

Advice for an Introvert (Video)

What advice can you give to an introvert about how to engage others in discussions about God?

Reasonable Faith, Biblical Interpretation and “Tipping Point” Evidence

I’ve been reviewing a cold-case for a local agency this week, examining the evidence they’ve collected to help them determine if they’ve got enough to file the case with the District Attorney. We’re using an approach that I’ve described in my book, called “Abductive Reasoning”; a process that also has application for those of us who examine the evidence of Scripture. This local cold-case, like all my cases, relies on a cumulative collection of circumstantial evidences. Convincing circumstantial cases emerge when a large number of facts are most reasonably explained by the same common cause. If a particular suspect can account for all the evidence in the case, that suspect is the most reasonable candidate. In this particular local case, there just wasn’t enough evidence. I called the I/O (investigating officer) and told him the bad news:  The case needed a “tipping point."

How “Tipping Points” Impact Criminal Cases

The problem with some circumstantial cases lies in the alternate explanations that could be offered for each piece. Let’s say a suspect behaves in a certain way the day after the murder. I have to ask myself: Is that behavior most reasonably explained by his guilt? Could it also be explained in some other way? What if he made a statement to someone on the day of the murder; did he say something that can only be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of his guilt or is there another way to reasonably interpret the statement? The local case I examined suffered from the problem of multiple interpretations. Each and every piece of evidence could be reasonably explained as consistent with the suspect’s guilt or just a reasonably explained by some other cause. As I made a comprehensive list of all the evidence, I found that none of the facts were without a reasonable alternative explanation. While the detectives interpreted the evidence to demonstrate the suspect’s guilt, a member of the jury could just as rationally conclude that some alternate explanation was reasonable. The case lacked a clear, irrefutable piece of evidence to act as the “tipping point” to guide us in how we ought to interpret the rest of the facts.

“Tipping point” evidences help us understand which interpretive direction we ought to travel. If, for example, our suspect later told a friend, “I feel terrible about what I did to that girl. I can’t sleep at night, I feel like I have her blood on my hands. I didn’t think I was capable of killing anyone,” this one piece of evidence would guide us in interpreting other elements of the case that are less clear. It’s hard to envision another way to interpret that statement other than as an admission of guilt. Given that confession, we can now return to the other less certain pieces of evidence and see how they fold into the larger case. Everything makes sense now, because we have a “tipping point” statement from the suspect that helps us interpret everything else.

How “Tipping Points” Impact Biblical Interpretations

Something very similar occurs when we examine the Bible in an effort to make a case for a particular doctrine or theological truth. We begin by collecting all the evidence in the case; the verses that address the issue under investigation. Some of these versions will have more than one reasonable interpretation. How will we know which interpretation is correct? Begin by looking for “tipping points." Is there a verse that can only be reasonably explained in one particular direction? If so, you’ve located a “tipping point” verse. This piece of scriptural evidence can then guide you as you return to the less certain verses. It’s fair now to interpret these verses in a manner that is consistent with the “tipping point." If someone challenges your interpretation of those verses, you can simply return to the “tipping point” verse to make your case. This is the same approach we take in circumstantial homicide cases. It’s a reasonable approach in the court room and it’s a reasonable approach in Biblical interpretation.

I’m less aggressive about a homicide case when I lack an evidential “tipping point." Rather than argue belligerently with the District Attorney in an effort to get him to file the case, I recognize the liabilities and alternative explanations. Sometimes I have a “tipping point” and sometimes I don’t. When I do, I present the case aggressively with confidence; when I don’t, I present the case modestly with qualification. Even though (in the latter situation) I might still think I have the right suspect, I can respect the fact that the DA might not agree. We are still brothers in this cause; we’ve known each other for years and have become good friends. I’m not going to get upset and pound my chest about a case that lacks a “tipping point." In a similar way, I’m not going to divide from my Christian brothers and sisters over theological inferences that lack an irrefutable scriptural “tipping point." If my conclusions are built on verses that can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, I am willing to show charity to those with whom I disagree. We’re still brothers and sisters in the same cause; we all want to possess a reasonable faith. I’m not going to get upset and pound my chest about a position that lacks a “tipping point."

Will Right and Wrong Always Be Obvious?

A person doesn’t have to know the Bible in order to know
right and wrong, right? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what value system
is being fed to that person by society. A society saturated in a Christian understanding
of morality will reinforce that understanding, even among its atheists. A
society without the background of Christianity behind it will enforce a
different understanding of morality. Atheists have the mistaken idea that
objective morality is simply obvious to everyone, but the truth is, it’s not.
All one has to do is look back through history (and in other cultures today) to
see that this is so. Our damaged consciences are malleable.

Is murdering your child right or wrong? Ask these mothers in India, where
it’s commonplace in some areas to let your girl die if you prefer a boy. Ask pre-Christian cultures. This
is why I think atheists are being far too hasty when they argue that
Christianity is expendable—unnecessary for a good society. If we see atrocious
moral crimes in cultures not influenced by Christianity, we have no reason to
think our current standards will continue in a culture that rejects Christianity.

Case
in point:

You might recall that British
politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be
killed to save taxpayer money. You might recall that at the time he apologized
and stepped down in disgrace. But you probably didn't know that he was
re-elected to his old seat this year. And he's at it again.

This time, he reportedly compared
disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview
with none other than the Disability News Service, Councillor (yeah, they spell
it that way) Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children
like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them
against the wall.

‘If they have a misshapen lamb,
they get rid of it," he said. "They get rid of it. Bang."

Bang? That's sound fiscal policy,
huh? And that's what it is, according to Brewer. He said that disabled people
are just too expensive to care for so some may just have to go.

"We are just animals,"
Brewer continued. "You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and
two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt
with."

As I’ve written before, intrinsic
human value has to be taught. A society’s view of the human person and its
value will affect what that society views as being moral: We are just animals.
Imperfect animals aren’t worth the trouble. Therefore, there’s a case to be
made for killing them rather than caring for them. That conclusion reasonably
follows from the non-Christian premise. As Christianity fades in
influence and a different view of the human person gains acceptance, don't expect that our
society will continue to recognize that conclusion to be immoral. At that
point, people will still consider themselves to be perfectly moral…but only
because they’re judging themselves by a different
standard of morality.

It’s difficult for us to recognize the depth our depravity
when “everyone else is doing it.” Ask Gosnell’s nurses. Only the truth can
awaken and sharpen our consciences, and for that to happen, the truth has to be
heard and esteemed.

For now, there’s an outcry brewing against this politician in the UK,
and that’s a good sign. But it’s not as if he’s a lone voice out there (see Peter
Singer). As our belief in intrinsic human value wears away, we should
expect to see more like him. Just consider this:

But here's the thing – [Brewer] was
just re-elected earlier this month to his old seat. That means that being
pro-infanticide and culling the disabled is no longer a deal breaker in
European politics.

Bible Translation Standards for Muslim Audiences

Alan and Greg wrote about the "Insider Movement," a missions movement that, in some circles, has gone beyond contextualizing the Gospel to compromising key elements of doctrine.  In attempts to remove the stumbling block that Jesus is the Son of God - a particularly offensive concept to Muslims - some Bible translations were actually changing the meaning of Bible passages with divine familial references.  Mission groups have begun to look into this and one, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, has issued new guidelines for their translators.

Scott Klusendorf's Anniversary Greeting

Scott, who is now with Life Training Institute but was with STR for several years, made this video greeting
that was played at the Biola Apologetics anniversary conference.  We really appreciated his comments and reflection.  In truth,
what he says is due in large part to his time at STR.

 

Links Mentioned on the 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:

Kermit Gosnell to Get Life Sentence


20th Anniversary Conference on-demand video


Scott Klusendorf's Anniversary Greeting


The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything by Fred Sanders


The Bible: Fast Forward by Greg Koukl


 Five Bad Ways to Argue about Abortion by Scott Klusendorf


Should Women Teach in Church? by Greg Koukl

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

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

The Stuff We All Agree on When It Comes to Origins

Now that I’ve written a book, I get the chance to speak around the country and talk about how we, as Christians, assemble circumstantial evidence related to the reliability of the Gospels and the existence of God. As a result, I meet all kinds of Christians who hold a variety of views related to the Genesis creation account. Many are “Literal Day” creationists, while others lean toward some version of “Gap Theory”, “Day-Age Creation Theory”, “Creation Revelation Theory”, “Progressive Creation Theory”, “Genesis Creation Day Theory” or “Genesis Literary Theory” Creationism. Some believe that the universe is very young, others that it is very old. Some believe that God created everything in the form we see it in today (as the result of some form of “instantaneous” creation); others that God shaped His creation through some process of progressive interaction. When you ask these folks about the Bible, all of them will tell you that they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. All will agree that the Bible is the final authority. All will tell you that they believe what the Bible teaches. Christians simply disagree on how to interpret the first book of Moses.

I’m sensitive to the variety of views held by Christians on this matter. I see the reasonable nature of every view; I recognize that each approach to Genesis chapter one has its own virtues and its own liabilities. I’m not discouraged by this reality, but encouraged that there are so many reasonable resolutions. I am discouraged, however, when we allow our fallen human nature to get the best of us. Rather than finding areas of agreement, most of us choose to divide over areas of divergence. Regardless of your position related to the Genesis account, I’d like to point out the areas where all of us, regardless of creation theory, agree. As Christians, we all affirm the following premises:

God originated everything (all space, time and matter) supernaturally
God created the material universe (and our world) in incremental steps over a period of time (six literal days or six “ages”)
God was actively involved in the creation of all life (life is not the result of an unguided natural process)
God prepared everything in the universe as a home for mankind, the last of his creation
God created the first humans in his “image”
God’s relationship to his creation is accurately described in the Bible

As Christians, we all agree that God exists. He is the creator of the universe and all life within it. While we agree on the aforementioned critical, foundational issues related to God’s creation, we disagree on how long this process took, and precisely how God shaped each object of his creation (did God create everything in the final form we see today, or did God progressively guide his creation over some period of time?). We agree on the big stuff and disagree on the details.

It’s interesting to note that Christians also agree with atheists on a several important premises related to the nature of the universe:

Everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came into existence from nothing at a point in the past
Life on our planet appeared in incremental steps over a period of time
Humans appear later in history relative to the appearance of other animals
Humans possess a consciousness that is unique to the animal world

As Christians, we often think that we disagree with atheists on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but that isn’t actually the case. We also tend to think, as Christians, that we ought to agree with one another on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but I’m not sure that ought to be the case either. Christians disagree with one another on secondary issues. We disagree with atheists on the most important issue: Does God exist and is He actively involved in the creation of the universe? That happens to be the most significant question we can ask as a culture. The answer shapes everything in our worldview; what we believe about our origin determines largely how we will choose to live our lives.

So it seems to me that Christians have a choice. We can focus on the areas where we disagree with one another (secondary issues related to the amount of time taken and the precise mechanisms used by God), or we can focus on the area where we disagree with an unbelieving world (the foundational issue of God’s existence). I am inclined to begin my discussions with Christians by uniting around our common knowledge related to God’s existence and interaction in the universe, rather than dividing over our points of divergence. At the same time, I am also inclined to begin my conversations with non-believers by pointing out our areas of agreement before I address he most important foundational issue that divides us. It’s easy to forget that we have a lot in common, but these points of agreement ought to unite us as we engage other Christians and inspire us to begin a conversation with unbelievers who need to hear the Gospel.

Webcast Tuesday

Tuesday is the live weekly webcast 4-7 p.m. PT.  Greg's commentary and open calls.  Give Greg a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975.

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

What are the top three arguments for Jesus' resurrection? (Video)

What are the top three arguments for Jesus' resurrection?

#STR20 Anniversary Conference Video on Demand

Biola Apologetics @biolapologetics
Thanks for joining us for the #STR20 conference this weekend! If you missed it, all sessions will be online. watch.biola.edu/str20-on-demand