Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 38

Apologetics with Brokenhearted Boldness and Contrite Courage

Applying the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42:3 to Jesus, Matthew says, ���A battered reed He will not break off, and a smoldering wick He will not put out.��� As followers of Christ, we���re told to emulate His humility and kindness towards those who are suffering, including those who don���t yet know Him.

John Piper wrote the following about counseling, but it also applies to using apologetics:

It is true that we must be personally bold and afraid of no man but courageous as we contend for the truth. If we are simply nice, concerned, genuinely curious, attentive, supportive, and affirming, we may win a hearing with suffering people, but we will never lead them to life. Grace means courage and clarity. But it is just as true that our boldness must be brokenhearted boldness, that our courage must be a contrite and lowly courage, and that we must be tender contenders for the truth. If we are brash and harsh and cocky and clever, we may win a hearing with angry and pugnacious people, but we will drive away those who suffer. Paul makes it so clear that we are laid low and given comfort ���so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God��� (2 Cor. 1:4). Those we counsel must feel that we are utterly dependent in our lives on the merciful comfort of God to make it through our days.

None of us likes to suffer, but know that suffering creates good apologists because suffering teaches us humility and gives us a greater experiential knowledge of God���s grace, making us better representatives of God���s grace to others.

Links Mentioned on the 9/25/15 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Commentary: Reality Is Never Outdated (0:00)

Snopes on the quote allegedly spoken by the Pope
What Pope Francis Really Said about Atheists by Stephen Kokx
John Adams on the Boston Massacre (from the miniseries ��� "Facts are subborn things")

Questions:

��� Announcements:

reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24

1. Have you noticed a trend to redefine pro-life away from the child? (0:17)

Moving the Goal Line (Audio) ��� Greg interacts with a woman who challenges him on his pro-life views

2. What are some arguments for God sustaining the universe? (0:26)

3. What should a Christian's view be about Planned Parenthood? (0:39)

4. Do heterosexuals have a "right" to marry? (0:51)

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.

Challenge Response: Salvation by Grace Causes Bad Behavior

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

Links Mentioned on the 9/23/15 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: Be Bold (0:00)

Greg's interview with J. Warner Wallace: Part 1, Part 2
When the Bride Is a Groom by Greg Koukl (1999 article on same-sex marriage)

Questions:

��� Announcements:

Upcoming events with STR speakers
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24

1. What do the keys to the Kingdom mean about Peter? (0:20)

2. Does Jesus' mention of Jonah's three days in a fish indicate that story is true? (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.

Challenge: Salvation by Grace Causes Bad Behavior

Here���s an objection to Christianity from an atheist:

Christianity credits what you believe far above what you do. This idea has caused much misery and suffering over the course of the past two millennia. The notion that what you believe can erase your bad deeds is a very attractive idea to someone who wants to take liberties with the lives and property of other people. If you believe that the threat of the death penalty is enough to dissuade people from breaking the law then you must acknowledge that the promise of unconditional forgiveness is enough to entice people to break the law. And this is exactly what happened during the scourges of the Inquisition and other atrocities committed by Christians.

How would you respond to him on this one? What questions would you ask? What ideas would you ask him to defend? Where is his reasoning shaky? What ideas about Christianity would you clarify?

Let us know what you think in the comments, and come back on Thursday to hear Alan���s response.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

What���s the Difference Between Bad Theology and Heresy?

Greg discusses the distinction between heresy and bad theology. 

Your Theological Preferences Don���t Prove Anything...Even if You���re an Atheist

An atheist friend of mine posted this video on Facebook, and it���s a great illustration of the fact that subjective reasons for believing your religion is true are not persuasive to anyone else:

 

Ironically, though, the atheist���s argument in this video is ultimately a subjective, theological one. The atheist says, (A) a real God would reveal Himself directly and clearly to everyone, (B) no being has done this, therefore (C) no God exists. But (A) is just a theological assertion about what he thinks a real God would do. Why should we believe that? I can think of reasons why God wouldn���t do what this atheist prefers. And if there is a God, He knows a lot better than we do what He should do because He has far greater knowledge, so I wouldn���t expect our personal preferences about theology to always be correct.

The atheist���s theological preference for a God who reveals Himself directly to everyone doesn���t prove the theists��� claims are false any more than the theists��� theological preferences prove the atheist���s claim is false. His preference is as subjective as theirs!

Preferences aren���t the way to determine what���s true, as the atheist points out very well���2+2=4, no matter who likes or doesn���t like that fact. It could likewise be a fact that a God exists who doesn���t reveal Himself to everyone, even if the atheist doesn���t like it.

There���s a right answer about the spiritual aspect of reality (which means either some or all theology in this world is certainly false, since people disagree); some people are getting the answer wrong, and some could be getting it right. But your preferences about what God should do don���t prove anything either way, even if you���re an atheist.

What���s Really in the Planned Parenthood Videos?

There���s some confusion on both sides out there about what���s in the Planned Parenthood videos. You can watch the episode that���s being debated here, in which a former tech from StemExpress describes what she witnessed in a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Here are some important clarifications:

At 4:02, O���Donnell says the tech said this before restarting the heart of the aborted baby: ���Come over here! I want you to see something kinda cool. This is kinda neat.��� 


There���s no explicit explanation given by the tech as to why she���s starting the heart. It���s unclear whether she was doing something ���cool��� just for fun, or whether she was doing it for some other purpose and simply called O���Donnell over because she might want to see it. Since I first saw this video, I have feared we may find out in future videos that it���s done to keep specimens fresh, but for now, that has not been specifically said. Regardless, playing with an infant���s life is evil enough.


We don���t know that the baby���s heart was still beating when they cut its face to procure the brain; O���Donnell does not specifically say either way.


The clip of the fully-intact and moving fetus (at 5:58) was not filmed at the Planned Parenthood clinic. The clip is, in fact, credited, ���Courtesy of Grantham Collection & Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.��� The image is intended to show the viewers the age of the fetal human being O���Donnell is describing, but it is not the human being described in the story. I don���t see anything illegitimate about adding this footage to help people understand what O���Donnell was seeing. Neither do I think CMP was intending to deceive people with it. (I say this not only because of the credit, but also because later on in the video they show another picture of a 19-week fetus that obviously wasn���t aborted at a Planned Parenthood clinic���care was clearly taken where the umbilical cord was cut.) But at the same time, because these videos are so shocking and most viewers only saw them once, many people have understandably misinterpreted what they were seeing and/or misremembered what they saw.


Yes, the moving fetus in the video was aborted. The website for the Grantham Collection says their images were ���lawfully obtained in working abortion clinics.��� I verified that the video clip in question can be found in one of their videos, as described here. (I���m not linking to the video of live abortions directly because it is extremely graphic and starts playing automatically, but there is a link to it on that page.) CBR has confirmed this, saying, ���The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage.���

We need to be careful about how we talk about these videos. If you give people even the smallest thing to quibble with (even if it���s not ultimately relevant), that is what they will focus on, and they���ll use it to justify dismissing everything in the videos. This is what I���m seeing happen now.

Even stranger, I���m seeing journalists out there saying obviously wrong things, like, ���There is nothing in the videos made by CMP, either in the edited or full-length versions, that has anything approaching images of legs kicking or hearts beating���; and, ���At no point do they include footage of an entire aborted fetus���; and, ���None of the videos have anyone talking about ���harvesting��� brains��� (actually, this topic comes up in a few of them); and, ���There is no moment where Planned Parenthood discusses procuring fetal tissue for profit��� (see here and here); and, ���The Center for Medical Progress released five videos��� (there are 10, not counting full footage videos); and, most amazingly, ���Each video made by an anti-abortion group, The Center for Medical Progress, merely shows people talking��� (i.e., without images).

Let���s not add to that confusion. Watch the videos carefully, and don���t assume anything that isn���t explicit. Stick closely to the facts; the facts are horrifying enough on their own.

A Response to the Reformation Project

Alan and Greg continue their response to the Reformation Project (the movement to change Christians��� minds about homosexuality) in this month���s issue of Solid Ground. (You can read Part 1 here.)

The article addresses several of TRP���s talking points (taken from the Reformation Project���s regional training conference in D.C. last year), including:

���Experience shouldn���t cause us to dismiss Scripture, but it can cause us to reconsider our interpretation of Scripture.���
���Sexual orientation is a new concept���one the Christian tradition has not addressed.���
���The New Testament points toward greater inclusion of gender and sexual minorities, including those who do not fit neatly within binary categories.���
���The Bible does not teach a normative doctrine of gender complementarity.���

Here���s an excerpt regarding that last point:

Scripture, TRP is claiming, is actually silent on the idea that males were made by God as the appropriate sexual complement to females (the ���normative doctrine of gender complementarity���). Rather, ���the focus in Genesis 2 is not on the complementarity of male and female, but rather on the similarity of male and female, over and against the created animals. The ���one flesh��� union spoken of in Genesis 2:24 connotes not physical complementarity, but a kinship tie.������

Eve was a suitable helper for Adam because she was human, not animal���true enough. But that is not the whole of it. God also said, ���Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth��� (Gen. 1:28). Complying with this command requires more than a species kin relationship. It requires the ���male and female��� genders mentioned in the verse right before it. Indeed, the reproductive system is the only human bodily function that requires uniting with a human being of the opposite sex to fulfill its purpose.

When a man leaves his parents, he cleaves to���becomes one flesh with���his wife (Gen. 2:24), not just to another human he is ���kin��� to. This is the kind of one-flesh union God had in mind, the only union capable of fulfilling the ���be fruitful and multiply��� creation mandate. That���s why there is not a single instance in Scripture where a pair of men or a pair of women are described in a ���one-flesh��� union.

Read the rest of ���A Reformation the Church Doesn���t Need, Part 2.���

Links Mentioned on the 9/16/15 Show

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

Guest Hosts: Alan Shlemon and Amy Hall (0:00)

Alan tells the persecution story on YouTube
Christians, You Will Suffer by Amy Hall
Don't Trust God to Protect You from Pain by Amy Hall
He Suffered Because God Loved Him by Amy Hall
Prosperity or Persecution? by Alan Shlemon

Questions :

��� Announcements:

Upcoming events with STR speakers
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24

1. Should my friend leave his church? (0:26)

Amy and Alan's previous response to the question, "When should you leave a church?" (Listen at 0:40.)

2. Do the keys of David justify the papacy? (0:43)

3. How do you react to Christian friends who get angry at you for what you believe? (0:53)

When Your Beliefs Make People Angry by Alan Shlemon
Be a Parable of God's Grace by Amy Hall

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.