Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 17

Links Mentioned on the 4/15/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Dreaming of What Heaven Is Like (0:00)

Wednesday's commentary on near-death experiences ��� Greg Koukl
Imagine Heaven by John Burke
Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland
Gary Habermas: What We Can and Cannot Learn from Near Death Experiences (interview starting at 1:56:04)
Heaven by Randy Alcorn

Questions:

1. Why does Jesus say God has forsaken Him? (0:19)

2. What does Proverbs teach about disciplining children? (0:31)

3. What are some good points to explain to students why the Bible is reliable? (0:46)

The Bible: Has God Spoken? (Audio) by Greg Koukl
The Top Three Reasons the Bible Is Reliable (Video) by J. Warner Wallace
Ancient Words: Reflections on the Reliability and Proper Use of Scripture by Greg Koukl
An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts by Justin Taylor
Is the New Testament Text Reliable? by Greg Koukl
A Peculiar Glory: How the Christian Scriptures Reveal Their Complete Truthfulness by John Piper

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

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Discrimination Is Legitimate When the Distinction Is Relevant

Is it wrong to discriminate against biological males by denying them access to women���s bathrooms? When I was asked about this today, I pointed to a comment I wrote years ago on the blog:

When differences are relevant, it's not an invalid systemic discrimination. For example, if two guys walk into a bar and the bartender says, ���I can't serve people like you���get out!��� Is that wrong? Illegal? One can���t say until one knows why the discrimination is occurring. If the bartender is saying ���get out��� because the guy isn���t white, then that���s invalid. Why? Because a person���s race is completely irrelevant to the issue of drinking at a bar. But what if he says ���get out��� because the guy is only fifteen? In that case, the age is relevant because drinking affects youth differently, they don't have the developmental ability to handle the impairment, etc. Yes, we systemically discriminate against fifteen-year-olds by law because of differences between them and adults, but it���s not invalid to do so.

I wrote that in 2008 as part of a discussion about same-sex marriage. My overall point in the comment was that just as we separate men from women in bathrooms because the differences between the sexes are relevant to bathrooms, so we ought to support opposite-sex marriage because the differences are likewise relevant to marriage. The example of the bathroom was meant to demonstrate the legitimacy of government discrimination according to sex when it comes to marriage (unlike discrimination according to race, which is irrelevant to marriage).

But instead of following the accepted bathroom logic forward to opposite-sex marriage, our society chose same-sex marriage and pushed its distinction-denying logic back to the bathrooms (as I predicted here and explained here). This is where we find ourselves now.

Is your biological sex related to what goes on in bathrooms and locker rooms, particularly when it occurs in front of other people? Yes. But so is biological sex related to marriage. As a society, we denied that was the case with marriage, and now we���re just following that reasoning to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Archaeological Find Supports Pre-Exilic Date for Biblical Texts

The AP reports:

JERUSALEM (AP) ��� Israeli mathematicians and archaeologists say they have found evidence to suggest that key biblical texts may have been composed earlier than what some scholars think.

Using handwriting analysis technology similar to that employed by intelligence agencies and banks to analyze signatures, a Tel Aviv University team determined that a famous hoard of ancient Hebrew inscriptions, dated to around 600 BC, were written by at least six different authors. Although the inscriptions are not from the Hebrew Bible, their discovery suggests there was widespread literacy in ancient Judah at the time that would support the composition of biblical works.

The New York Times explains more:

The new study, published on Monday inthe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, combined archaeology, Jewish history and applied mathematics, and involved computerized image processing and the development of an algorithm to distinguish between the various authors issuing the commands.

Based on a statistical analysis of the results, and taking into account the content of the texts that were chosen for the sample, the researchers concluded that at least six different hands had written the 18 missives at around the same time. Even soldiers in the lower ranks of the Judahite army, it appears, could read and write���.

One of the longstanding arguments for why the main body of biblical literature was not written down in anything like its present form until after the destruction and exile of 586 B.C. is that before then there was not enough literacy or enough scribes to support such a huge undertaking.

But if the literacy rates in the Arad fortress were repeated across the kingdom of Judah, which had about 100,000 people, there would have been hundreds of literate people, the Tel Aviv research team suggests.

That could have provided the infrastructure for the composition of biblical works that constitute the basis of Judahite history and theology including early versions of the books of Deuteronomy to II Kings, according to the researchers.

It���s amazing how many different angles there are from which we can examine the truth of the Bible. (Here���s another recent one.)

Links Mentioned on the 4/13/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Near-Death Experiences (0:00)

Imagine Heaven by John Burke
Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland
Gary Habermas: What We Can and Cannot Learn from Near Death Experiences (interview starting at 1:56:04)

Questions:

1. Define inerrancy, and is it an essential belief of Christianity? (0:21)

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

2. Was killing the Canaanites God's way of preventing serious diseases from wiping people out? (0:49)

The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment? by Greg Koukl
The Judgment that Led to Salvation by Amy Hall
Not Genocide, but Capital Punishment by Amy Hall (quoting Clay Jones)
The New Atheists and the Old Testament by Amy Hall (includes video of Peter J. Williams)

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

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Are Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy?

Richard Mouw, professor of Faith and Public Life and former president of Fuller Seminary, has written a piece at First Things titled ���Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy.��� It���s a lengthy article and there is much that needs responding to, but it���s too much for a single blog post. So let me just offer a few thoughts on some of his key points.

(1) First, Mouw sets up a false dichotomy when he writes:

At stake in this dispute is a choice between two approaches to Mormon teachings and practice. One is skeptical and presumes that Mormonism is a deeply heretical form of Christianity, so much so that dialogue is impossible. The other is more trusting and is willing to entertain the possibility that Mormonism has the resources for theological self-criticism and self-correction, and that dialogue might help in this process. Recent Mormon history suggests the latter approach is more fitting, and more in keeping with the way Mormons themselves understand their tradition.

These are not our only two choices. Why can���t one presume Mormonism is deeply heretical and that dialogue with Mormons is still possible? This is a third option, and it���s actually the option I personally practice. And with this approach, I���ve had many productive conversations with Mormons through the years.

(2) Second, Mouw gives us no reason to think that "Mormonism has the resources for theological self-criticism and self-correction.��� I���m willing to ���entertain the possibility,��� but Mouw has to provide some good reasons why we should think so. So, what are those resources? The seeming uncertainty of one past LDS president in a couple of interviews is not enough reason to think Mormonism can self-correct. Indeed, Mormon apologists were quick to correct any perceived misunderstandings of Hinckley���s comments. Later, Mouw asks, ���Or will we adopt the more optimistic assumption that Mormonism is capable of self-reformation?��� I wish I could be optimistic about this. But again, I need some reasons why I should be optimistic. Actually, I think we have good reason to be pessimistic of the LDS capacity for self-correction because of the LDS view of the Bible as corrupted (see the LDS Article of Faith #8). God���s Word is our primary resource for self-reformation, and LDS theology undermines the Bible so as to strip it of its authority.

(3) Third, Mouw puts a lot of stock in LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley���s interview comments regarding the Lorenzo Snow couplet, but why? Why not examine the larger teaching of the church and, in particular, go directly to the founder of Mormonism and its preeminent prophet? Joseph Smith clearly taught God ���was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!��� (See ���Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father��� in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith ��� pages 36���44.) Or just read the Mormon scriptures: ���Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them��� (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20). Or just consult the teaching found on the official LDS church website: Becoming Like God. Instead, Mouw writes:

The second view, the one that I accept, is that Hinckley was signaling a decision on the part of the Mormon leadership to downplay the Snow couplet within the corpus of Mormon teachings about the deity, not just to outsiders, but within their own community.

Again, Mouw simply asserts this without giving us any justification to accept it. However, he does discuss what, or who, has significantly influenced his own views:

I must confess that my own decision to presume sincere Mormon self-questioning has been strongly influenced by many conversations over the past fifteen years in my role as co-director of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue with my friend Robert Millet.

Could it be that Mouw takes this naive view because his friendship with Mormons has distorted his views about their doctrine? I certainly think one can have close friendships with Mormons and yet understand LDS views are absolutely heretical.

(4) Fourth, Mouw assures us Mormons want to keep the ���becoming gods��� theology ���on the margins of their historic teachings��� by referencing three Millet affirmations:

���One is that the strong emphasis on deification in LDS thought has to be seen in connection with the theosis tradition in traditional Christianity. Patristic writers make frequent appearances in Millet���s writings, as well as C. S. Lewis���s insistence that God ���will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature.������

���Millet also argues that the LDS version of theosis, like the traditional Christian formulations, does not entail turning human beings into equals of the Godhead in glory and power, much less rivals. ���We do not believe,��� says Millet, ���we will ever, worlds without end, unseat or oust God the Father or His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.... I am unaware of any authoritative statement in LDS literature that suggests that men and women will ever worship any being other than those within the Godhead.��� He specifically appeals to the clarification offered by President Gordon Hinckley, in a 1994 conference address. The LDS teaching about deification, Hinckley asserted, ���in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so.��� As a loving Father, God wants his human children to ���approach him in stature and stand beside Him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.������

���A third emphasis in Millet���s presentation of the Mormon view is the insistence that the path to deification is possible only ���through the cleansing and transforming power of the blood of Jesus Christ.��� He cites Joseph Smith���s teaching that our goal of becoming ���heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ��� is possible only ���through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.������

If you���re familiar with Mormon doctrine, you know that any Mormon can you look you in the eyes and sincerely affirm all three affirmations that Millet outlines here, while at the same time affirming that God the Father was once a man and that we will become gods ourselves. Furthermore, what authority does Robert Millet have to influence official LDS teaching? Is there any good reason to think Millet can sway the machine that is the LDS church? Is there any past record of Millet influencing official doctrinal change?

(5) Fifth, Mouw can���t be unaware of the terminology problem between LDS and orthodox Christians, can he? He writes:

Hodge is making an important distinction here. A person���s actual trust in Christ is not the same as his theological account of what goes into a proper trust in Christ. Hodge assumed that the former can be legitimate even when the latter is faulty, and in Schleiermacher���s case, he took seriously the liberal Protestant theologian���s expressions of spirituality and the hymns he chose to sing. Hodge seems to have been convinced that what Schleiermacher ���meant��� when he was singing about Jesus was a more accurate expression of his personal faith in Jesus than the Christology he outlined in his systematic theology. I���ve drawn a similar conclusion from Mormon hymnody.

Wow. Mouw knows LDS use the same terms but have completely different meanings, right? When Mormons talk about Jesus, they mean the literal firstborn son of the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, a created being, and our literal older spirit brother. But later, Mouw writes:

And when it is accompanied by a genuine willingness to engage in serious conversation with others, as it is in the Evangelical-Mormon dialogue, it can be a sign of a sincere desire to bring a historically heterodox tradition into greater conformity with the orthodox Christian consensus.

So it seems Mouw thinks that LDS theology is merely heterodox (out of step with orthodoxy but falling short of heresy), not actually heretical. So clearly he misunderstands orthodox LDS doctrine, which is heretical through and through.

(6) Sixth, Mouw suggests our works are a better test for true faith than is our theology:

What did those tears ���mean��� in relationship to, say, the first half of the Snow couplet? Were the words that the LDS scholar was singing informed by his desire to become his own ���god���? Or did his personal experience of what it took for him to be reconciled to God the Father ���mean��� that he looked forward to the eschatological posture of kneeling in praise and adoration at the ���glorified throne,��� in gratitude for ���hands pierced and bleeding to pay the debt���? I choose the latter interpretation with considerable confidence, with the conviction that a person���s piety is often a better test of his faith in God than are his theological formulations.

God gives us a better test for eternal life in John 17:3: knowing the one true God. So yes, according to God our ���theological formulations��� are vitally important. If Mormons worship a radically different God than Christians, we can���t both have eternal life, no matter how pious a life we live.

Of course, I would love to see Mormons approach orthodoxy. Unfortunately, Richard Mouw does not give us any good reason to think this is actually happening.

How Can You Use Your Knowledge to Serve Others?

These words by Matt Perman apply as much to non-physical resources (like your theological and apologetic knowledge) as they do to any other kind of resource:

It makes no sense for us to live in a society of abundance while half the world lives in great need, and not be diligent and creative and eager to figure out ways to use our abundance to help meet those needs.

When we look around and see our comfort, privilege, and affluence, we shouldn���t fall into the trap of asking ���how can I get more of this?��� As Kingdom-minded Christians, our first thought should be: ���how can I use this technology/money/time to serve���especially those in greatest need?���

I was reading John 13 this morning and thinking about how central being a servant is to Christianity. This utterly amazes me every time I read it:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end���. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples��� feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

Knowing that all things were His, and that He had come from God and was going back to God���that is, knowing His infinitely high position above all those around Him���Jesus washed His disciples��� feet. Let that sink in for a moment. The text actually intimately connects these two facts about Jesus���His high position (and its corresponding abundance) and His humble act of service. His service is, in fact, the way in which He loved them.

From the incarnation to the cross, this was Jesus��� life; He humbled Himself to serve others. He defined love for us as service. To love is to serve. To be great is to be a servant. It���s good to seek to increase your knowledge, but consider Matt Perman���s words: How can you use the abundance you already have to serve those who are in need of it?

As always, I recommend Matt���s blog.

Should Christians Keep Children in Public Schools to Be "Salt and Light"?

Brett shares advice on how to prepare children to engage others with different beliefs. 

 

Live Online Event with Tim Barnett on April 25th

Mark April 25th on your calendar���we���ll be streaming a live event with Tim Barnett on ���Shattering the Icons of Evolution.��� You can view it on Google+, YouTube, or right here on the blog at 6:30 p.m. (PT):

After assessing numerous arguments for macroevolution, Tim Barnett has found that each falls into one of three categories: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence. Once you have determined which category the evidence belongs to, you will be in a better position to respond accordingly.

We���ll be posting a video of the live feed on the blog on the 25th, and it will be available for viewing anytime after that evening.

Links Mentioned on the 4/08/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Review of Movie The Young Messiah (0:00)

The Young Messiah
Risen
Jesus of Nazareth

Questions:

1. Is contemplative prayer biblical? (0:23)

The New Testament on Prayer: Outline of Observations by Greg Koukl
Divine Direction and Decision Making in the Book of Acts by Greg Koukl
The Ambassador's Guide to the Voice of God by Greg Koukl
Decision Making and the Will of God (CD/MP3) by Greg Koukl
Does God Whisper Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (PDF) by Greg Koukl
Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God's Will by Kevin DeYoung
The Answer for Making Good Decisions by Amy Hall

2. Advice for going to a Free Thinkers Society meeting? (0:32)

Getting Out of the Hot Seat by Greg Koukl
Strive for Clarity by Amy Hall
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

3. What happens when we die? (0:45)

3. Advice having attended a Free Thinkers Society meeting (0:53)

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

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Be Willing to Submit to Our Good God on the Issue of Homosexuality

I received an email from a college student who was struggling to figure out ���if a Christ-centered, monogamous homosexual relationship is just as godly as a heterosexual one.��� He had many questions. Is the Old Testament law about homosexuality really a law we still need to follow? Didn���t Jesus fulfill the law? Isn���t the Old Covenant obsolete? He had prayed, read books and blogs, and talked to numerous people on all sides of the issue, but he couldn���t resolve the conflicting messages he was getting from them. He said, ���I know that this topic requires faith, but I need proof somehow.���

He closed his email with this: ���I���ve tried justifying the combination of acting upon homosexuality and being a follower of Christ, but I���m really not sure anymore that there is sufficient, or any, proof to back it up. This is honestly a cry for help. I���ve lived with having a foot in both worlds at the same time, and it isn���t working.���

I���m posting my response to him below in the hope that it will reach others who are in the same situation.

_____________________

First, a few questions:

When you say it ���would be new��� for you to believe Christ died on the cross for your sins, does that mean you don���t yet believe it?

When you say you���re trying to decide whether or not homosexuality is wrong, does that mean you���re trying to determine what you think about the matter, or that you���re trying to determine what the Bible says about it? The next question clarifies this a bit more���

If, hypothetically, you were convinced that the Bible said homosexuality is wrong, would you submit to that, or would you reject it if it didn���t seem right to you?

You need to seriously think through those foundational questions because their answers will affect how you go about answering your primary question. If you do not yet believe that Jesus died for your sins, or you do not trust the Bible enough to submit to it as the Word of God, then you might not ever get anywhere trying to answer your question about homosexuality. Those questions really need to be settled first in your own mind.

If you do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then discovering whether or not it says homosexuality is wrong doesn���t take faith, it takes a proper study and interpretation of the text. The faith (trust) comes when you submit to what you find there even if, emotionally, you have difficulty understanding why it���s there. Since we���re fallen, we can expect that we will not always easily see what���s right. We���re affected by our sin and our culture, and our understanding is distorted. This is why God has given us a written standard by which we can measure everything.

The struggle you must go through first of all is to be willing to submit to what God says���whatever it turns out to be. You need to settle in your own mind whether or not you���re willing to do this before you figure out what God has said. That is the deeper, more important issue (see ���Gay or Straight, We All Must Decide if We Love Jesus above All Else���), and as long as you are holding out on whether or not you���ll trust and obey God until you see if you agree with what He says, you���ll never come to a conclusion on this. Decide whether or not you trust Him first, and then that will take some of the emotion, uncertainty, and fear out of figuring out what He has said on this topic. If He is trustworthy, then obeying Him is the best thing to do, no matter what it turns out to be, no matter how difficult or how disappointing. Suffering is part of the Christian life because we���re in a fallen world, and sometimes we suffer for doing what���s right. Yet that���s still better than the suffering that eventually comes from doing what���s wrong in an effort to grab what God has not given to us.

As for the Law, here���s an article Greg wrote on our relationship to the Old Testament Law: ���How Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians Today?��� Though laws and penalties specific to times and places (such as ancient Israel) may change over time, the very character of God is what determines what is moral throughout time. There are laws everywhere, in every country, that continue to reflect the moral character of God���against murder, stealing, etc.

Many of the laws in the Old Testament were meant to visually represent Jesus and the gospel to the people (such as the temple, the sacrifices, the Passover, etc.). These were just shadows pointing to what would be fulfilled in Jesus. Now that we have Him, the shadows are no longer part of our covenant. And since, unlike ancient Israel, the church is not a physical nation, we don���t need the laws that separated Israel from other cultures���laws put in place by God to protect and build up a culture out of which would come the Bible and the Messiah. The purpose of those laws has been completed.

Sexual morality and immorality, however, has not changed, because it���s grounded in our nature���in the creation order���according to the character of the God who created us for His purpose. Other laws (such as the sacrificial system) are logically subsequent to creation, but our sexuality is part of creation itself. Sexual immorality is referred to in 1 Corinthians 6 as being sin against our own bodies. And what is sexual immorality? It���s anything that goes against the created order of one man and one woman becoming one flesh in the covenant of marriage. This was the understanding of sexual morality at the time, so whenever sexual immorality is spoken against in the New Testament, that includes anything contrary to this���including homosexuality. (This has been the clear understanding of the text throughout the millennia of Judaism and Christianity���until recently, when our culture began to push for the acceptance of homosexuality.)

And while laws such as the sacrificial system pointed to a gospel that has now been fulfilled by Christ, the one-flesh marriage of a man and a woman points to the marriage of Christ and the church (according to Ephesians), and this has not yet been fulfilled. The union of man and woman is still pointing to this future event. Jesus says there will be no marriage in heaven. This is likely because, at that point, the thing that marriage and the marital union pointed to will have been fulfilled in the marriage of Christ to the church. (See this N.T. Wright quote.) After it���s fulfilled by the real thing, there will be no more shadow���no more marriage. And until then, any other kind of union is a rejection of the purpose of marriage and a rebellion against God.

Sometimes it���s easy to get lost in an individual verse here and there, so as you���re looking at individual verses, don���t lose sight of the big picture of God���s creation of us, our nature, and our purpose. Here are a few more relevant posts for you that touch on aspects of your email:

Why Not Sin?
Did Paul Know about Homosexuality?
Worshipping Images of Ourselves
The Reformation the Church Doesn���t Need Part 1
The Reformation the Church Doesn���t Need Part 2
What Does God���s Love Look Like?

I also recommend Kevin DeYoung���s book if you haven���t read it yet.

It���s unclear to me from your email whether you're simply trying to decide your view on this controversial topic, or if this is more personal because you're attracted to men and you desire a relationship. If it���s the latter, consider how your desire to be close to another person could be clouding your ability to understand an issue that may be more clear than you think, and try to adjust for that. Boy, is that easy to say but hard to implement! As a single person in my 40s, I know what it���s like to be alone and assume that I���ll never be married. I���ve always said that the temptation that could bring me down���the one I fear more than any other���is being tempted to a relationship that would not be pleasing to God, for whatever reason. I know well the pull of the desire to love and be loved by a partner. It is incredibly strong. I pray for God to help me desire Him and His will even above this strongest of desires, and I pray often for single Christians���both heterosexual and homosexual���who, like me, struggle with loneliness. One book you might find helpful is Wesley Hill���s Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. There���s an emotional component to your question (beyond the hermeneutical question of what the Bible says) that this might help address for you.

And finally, sometimes people who have same-sex attraction try to ease their burden by deciding it���s less sinful than they previously thought. But that���s not the way to ease the burden. The burden of sin is eased not by making our sins smaller, but by seeing the gospel as bigger. The truth is that we are all desperately sinful, but Christ���s sacrifice covers all of it. All of our wrong actions, and all of our wrong desires. Everything. We rest in that, and we���re free to openly say we���ve sinned because He covers all guilt. He���s bigger than all of it, no matter how big it is. We don���t have to deny the height of our sin, because we rest completely in Him and His righteousness. Neither does this give us a license to sin, because we are new creatures in Christ.

I hope something in here brings you some clarity.

_____________________

Don���t ever take this subject lightly. It affects real people and involves real pain. But don���t ever take God lightly, sidestepping Him in a misguided attempt to help someone ease that pain. Only the true God, in all of His truth, is big enough to conquer pain.