Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 35
October 23, 2015
reTHINK Live Stream Tonight and Tomorrow
Links Mentioned on the 10/23/15 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: Talking to a Mormon on a Plane (0:00)
Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination? by Greg Koukl
Sign up to receive Solid Ground articles by email
"Mormons Aren't Christians" Is Not an Epithet by Amy Hall
The Ambassador's Guide to Mormonism by Brett Kunkle
Quick Reference App (Includes a module on Mormonism ��� iTunes, Android, Windows, and Web versions)
LDS Test Is Necessary, Not Sufficient by Amy Hall (A response to the Mormon use of "You will know them by their fruits" as evidence Mormonism is true)
Is God an Exalted Man? by Amy Hall
LDS View of Atonement Clarified by Amy Hall
Strive for Clarity by Amy Hall (The goal of my conversations with Mormons)
��� Announcements:
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conference ��� Tonight and tomorrow in Dallas!
Upcoming events with STR speakers
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016
Commentary: Praying the Bible by Donald S. Whitney (0:26)
Praying the Bible by Donald S. Whitney
Praying the Bible (Review) by Melinda Penner
The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions
Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God by Tim Keller
Prayer: Does It Make Any Difference? by Philip Yancey
Pray! (The prayer app Greg uses)
Get this Prayer App by Amy Hall (Another prayer app option)
Prayer Begins with Hope in God by Amy Hall
S.I.P. by Melinda Penner (Greg's recommendation for prayer���pray specifically, intelligibly and persuasively.)
Commentary: Discussing Abortion with Compassion in the Case of Rape (0:44)
Life Training Institute ��� Scott Klusendorf's organization
Abortion and Rape: Four Steps for Compassionate Engagement by Michael Spencer (The article quoted by Greg)
The Hard Cases Objection: Does Rape Justify Abortion? by Scott Klusendorf
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.
October 22, 2015
October 21, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 10/21/15 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: Romans 1: Living in Rebellion (0:00)
#STRask Podcast with Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner
Video blogs
Sign up for the STR eNews emails
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser
Are Atheists Just Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness? (Video) by Greg Koukl
Repressed Knowledge of God? by Edward Feser
A Response to Edward Feser by Greg Koukl
Questions:
��� Announcements:
Listen to past podcasts
Subscribe to STR podcasts
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conference ��� In Dallas on October 23���24
1. What is the definition of free will? (0:27)
Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards
2. A challenge to Greg's view on prophecy (0:45)
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.
Twelve Points That Show Christianity Is True
I���ve had the privilege of taking a course on apologetics with Dr. Norman Geisler. He���s considered by many to be one of the foremost apologists alive today. I���ve certainly come to appreciate Dr. Geisler all the more since becoming one of his students.
In his lectures, he was adamant about driving home the twelve points that show Christianity is true. This is a logical case that starts by arguing for the existence of objective truth and concludes that the Bible is the Word of God. These twelve points have provided me with a strategy to keep in the back of my mind when asked about the veracity of the Christian faith. I hope this will be as helpful to you as it has been for me.
Truth about reality is knowable.
Opposites cannot both be true.
The theistic God exists.
If God exists, then miracles are possible.
Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
The New Testament is historically reliable.
The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus��� claim to be God is confirmed by miracles.
Therefore, Jesus is God.
Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).
October 20, 2015
A Response to Edward Feser on Romans 1
Last week philosopher Edward Feser raised some concerns about a recent video blog that I did on Romans 1. Here is my response to his assessment.
Feser���s concern, I think, is partly the result of taking general remarks made in a video blog about Romans 1 and asking of it the kind of precision not generally possible in that format. In a brief verbal summary of an issue there is little opportunity for nuance regarding the kinds of concerns brought up in Feser���s thoughtful 2,500 word blog, which may account for my own remarks appearing ���glib.���
Maybe a few brief comments (versus a full-throated response) will add more clarity, though it probably will not alleviate all the disagreement. No worries. I can live with opposing views, even from people I respect (I thoroughly enjoyed what I���ve read of Feser���s The Last Superstition).
Feser faulted me for lack of argument, yet my purpose was not to make a case, but rather merely to articulate what I take to be Paul���s assessment of man���s condition.
As to the comment, ������The Bible says so��� is, of course, not a good argument to give someone who doesn���t accept the authority of the Bible in the first place,��� I agree wholeheartedly, as those familiar with my work know. My comments in the video blog, however, were directed to believers (just as Paul���s were), not atheists, so a straightforward appeal to the text seems legitimate.
As to whether or not my take on Romans 1 is an ���extreme interpretation,��� I can only commend you to Paul���s wording itself. I don���t think it is the least bit vague, ambiguous, or moderate. He says that certain of God���s attributes have been ���clearly seen��� and ���understood��� (1:20), and certain particulars about God are ���known,��� being ���evident within them,��� since ���God made it evident to them��� (1:19). Yet men still ���suppress��� (katecho, ���to hold down, repress,��� Wuest) these truths ���in unrighteousness.��� It���s difficult to see how a more moderate (vs. my ���extreme���) understanding of the passage could actually be faithful to Paul���s words.
Further, if our knowledge of God is merely ���general and confused��� (Aquinas), it���s hard to see how God can hold us accountable for it (���without excuse��� 1:20), making us properly subject to his ���wrath��� (orge, 1:18).
Even after reading Feser���s critique (et al.), it still strikes me that, regarding man���s innate knowledge of God, Paul is saying something quite a bit stronger than that man has ���a natural inclination of the weaker and inchoate sort.��� Thus, his unbelief is properly culpable.
For the record, I take this knowledge to be dispositional (known even if not currently or consciously aware of), not occurent (in mind and currently aware of) for the reasons that Feser (and others) pointed out. So man���s state of awareness of God, and his heart���s disposition towards rebellion against God are both sub-conscious.
Thus, though many atheists are not consciously aware of their rebellion (some are, of course) and may feel they have intellectual integrity in their atheism (some demonstrate a measure of integrity in their reasoned rejection of God), still, when all the cards are on the table in the final judgment, when men���s deepest and truest motives are fully revealed (Lk. 12:2), rebellion will be at the core. This rebellion-at-the-core, I think, is what Paul had in mind in Rom. 1���a fairly ordinary, run of the mill biblical point, it seems.
Regarding beleaguered Emil (see Feser���s post), I am inclined to agree with Feser: ���A religious believer is not like someone trying to hold a beach ball underwater; rather, he is like someone trying to get a submerged beach ball with a leak in it to come back up to the surface.��� Nicely put.
Remember, Paul���s point is that fallen humans are in rebellion and unbelief. But regeneration changes that, does it not? Those who have come to Christ (e.g., ���Emil���) are not the subject of his concern. Doubt may still crop up, but for completely different reasons, I think. So the alleged reductio simply does not apply here since the scope of Paul���s comments (along with my reflections on them) is limited to man in rebellion, not to believers who have laid down their arms.
However, even deeply distressed Emil (and atheists with his same complaint) must account for the objective morality that was violated by the massacre, and no subjectivist account (biological or social) is going to be adequate. Ultimately, even man���s ubiquitous complaint about real Evil in the world (a complaint I share), ultimately and irrevocably (I think) points back to the God who alone grounds the Goodness necessary to make the problem of evil intelligible to begin with.
So, it seems to me that my general remarks about Romans 1 and atheists are defensible given the video���s intended audience and scope, and given the specific language of Romans 1. In the future when I address this issue, I will try to remember the ���dispositional knowledge��� qualification that might alleviate some confusion.
One final thought. Though I do not think it helpful to bandy this phrase about in the public dialogue, the statement, ���The fool has said in his heart there is no God,��� is not mine, but God���s.
Challenge: In an Age of Science, It���s Silly to Believe God Created Everything
For this week���s challenge, here���s a quote from a Salon article:
[I]t insults our intelligence to be enjoined to believe, now that we have split the atom, discovered the Higgs Boson, and sent a probe to Pluto, in the veracity of a supernatural account of the origins of our cosmos.
What���s your response to this objection? Give us your ideas in the comments below, and we���ll hear Tim���s response on Thursday.
October 19, 2015
Discussing Jesus' Death with Muslim Friends
How can I talk to a Muslim who uses Matthew 12 as proof that Jesus didn't die on the cross?
October 17, 2015
What If I Deny Christ Out of Fear?
Here���s a question you may be thinking about after the Oregon murders: Would I lose my salvation if I denied Christ out of fear? Jesse Johnson of Cripplegate responds to this question:
[M]any Christians have denied Jesus when faced with persecution. The most obvious example of this is Peter���he denied Jesus three times, yet Jesus directly told him that he was still a follower of Christ (John 21:19). So on the one hand, the heart of the gospel is a truth worth dying for (as evidenced by Jesus and most of the Apostles), but on the other hand the gospel offers forgiveness even to those who deny Christ.
This is potentially confusing because of 2 Timothy 2:12: ���If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.���
But the denial in this verse is not talking about the momentary denial like Peter, or like a student scared for his life in the face of a gunman. That denial references the absolute walking away from the faith; apostasy. And in that case, there is no salvation.
This verse seems so drastic, and that is the point. Paul���himself facing martyrdom (4:6)���challenges his readers to persevere. But Paul does not want true believers to lose heart, and so he immediately follows verse 12 with: ���If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).���
There will always be moments where we lose faith, but for those who are in Christ, we should have confidence that while we may lose faith, Jesus may never lose us. Even if we momentarily are gripped by fear, and value our lives more than the life of Christ, Jesus still possesses us, and he cannot deny himself.
Even so, Johnson says, you should say you are a Christian if an answer is demanded of you, even at the risk of death. He explains why you need not worry about whether or not you would be strong enough to do this in the rest of his article.
October 16, 2015
An Explanation of the Ontological Argument
Kenneth Keathley says of the following video:
Does the Modal Ontological Argument prove the existence of God? It at least demonstrates that God���s existence, if possible, would be necessary. So the only way God couldn���t exist is if his existence was impossible. This means there is no 50-50 chance of God existing, no 10% or 90% either. Either God cannot exist or he must exist. The probability of God���s existence is 0% or 100%.
The existence of a necessary being is not contingent on anything else. Therefore, there can���t be one set of circumstances that would cause Him to exist in one kind of reality but another set of circumstances that wouldn���t, such that He would exist in some possible worlds but not in others. A necessary being can���t have a ���somewhat probable��� chance of existing in a particular world, because He exists by necessity; and the different possible circumstances one could imagine existing around Him have no effect on whether or not He exists, because He���s not contingent on any of them.
For this reason, if a necessary being is possible in any conceivable world, then He would exist in every conceivable world, including this one.
I still have much thinking to do before this is settled in my own mind, but after watching this video and mulling it over for a few hours, this is the closest I���ve come to understanding (and finding meaningful) the ontological argument for the existence of God. Keathley's point is key: ���Either God cannot exist or he must exist.���
Give the ontological argument another chance. Take some time to think about it, and see how far you get. I���m interested in reading your comments as I���m working through this, but don���t comment if you haven���t watched the video.
(HT: @biolapologetics)
