Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 45
July 22, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 7/22/15 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: What Was Jesus' View on the Definition of Marriage (0:00)
Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage
Questions:
1. How to answer conspiracy theorists who use the Bible to justify their theories? (0:24)
2. How do you introduce spiritual topics into conversation? (0:44)
Just Do It by Greg Koukl
The Best Question to Ask When Starting a Conversation about God by J. Warner Wallace
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.
July 21, 2015
Read Our Vigorous Rejection of The Reformation Project
If you haven���t read our most recent issue of Solid Ground (that I co-wrote with Greg), I encourage you to read it now. You need to understand a challenge the Church is facing and will continue to face in the foreseeable future. It will be tough for Christians who want to remain faithful to Christ and Scripture.
With the recent SCOTUS decision legalizing same-sex marriage, we will be increasingly living in a culture that is supportive of homosexuality. That will exert external pressure on Christians. We���ll also have internal pressure from Christians who want the Church to be gay-affirming. Given both of these forces, we���ll have our hands full. It will be tempting to want to compromise our convictions. We���ll need to stand firm and not conform to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:2).
Even if you���re not the least bit persuaded by The Reformation Project (TRP) and their revisionist interpretation, you might need to become familiar with the material Greg and I present because a believer you might know will need your help. If you don���t read it for yourself, read it so you can help them when and if they���re beguiled by TRP���s revisionist interpretation of Scripture.
Right now I���m working on Part II of this Solid Ground series, but in the meantime I want you to consider what TRP, the Gay Christian Network, and others like them think. They believe that Judaism and Christianity have, since their inception, been permissive of loving and consensual homosexual sex acts. In other words, they believe the Bible does condemn some homosexual acts, but only abusive or exploitive ones. It���s hard to imagine Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples all affirming some forms of homosexual behavior, but that���s TRP���s incredible view.
As Greg and I clarify in part I (and will again in part II) of this Solid Ground series, the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is a categorical rejection of all male-male or female-female sex acts, not just abusive or exploitive ones.
Even the Jewish historian Josephus based his condemnation of homosexual intercourse on the Mosaic Law by stating, ���The law recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman���But it abhors the intercourse of males with males.��� Notice he mentions sex that is "according to nature," which is heterosexual, in contrast to that which is against nature (homosexual). There���s nothing here to narrow the type of sinful homosexual sex acts to merely exploitive forms.
Don���t get me started! There���s so much wrong with TRP���s assessment of the Bible and homosexuality, but I���ll save it for part II of Solid Ground that comes out in September. Be sure to keep it and part I together as a handy tool to see through TRP���s case.
Against Apion 2.199 as cited in Robert Gagnon, Horizons in Biblical Theology, Vol. 25 (2003), 232.
Greg Is Back - Live Broadcast Today
You've waited for him to get back for a month and today is the day!
Ask your question. Share a piece of your mind. Call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229. The broadcast is live today 4-6 p.m. P.T. - commentary and your calls. Streaming live online.
Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets.
The program is two hours now, and one hour podcast episodes are posted on Wednesday and Friday.
July 20, 2015
The Importance of Studying Apologetics Regularly
Alan shares how he uses apologetics in conversation.
July 18, 2015
Ask Good Questions, Search for Answers
What do you do with doubt? Impact 360 explains how you can use your doubts to grow in your understanding of reality: ���Raise your doubts. Ask good questions. Search for answers.���
July 17, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 7/17/15 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 Host: J. Warner Wallace
reTHINK ��� STR student apologetics conferences: September 25-26 (CA), October 23-24 (TX)
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016
Guest: Abdu Murray ��� Grand Central Question (0:00)
Grand Central Question: Answering the Critical Concerns of the Major Worldviews
Embrace the Truth International
Abdu Murray: A Muslim Comes to Faith in Christ ��� Videos on why Abdu became a Christian
reMind Conference ��� August 14-15, Michigan
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���7:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
The Church and Slavery
In a recent post, I quoted historian Rodney Stark extensively about how religions are not all the same. The different theologies of god in the world religions produce very different kinds of moral systems ��� some religions have no moral features at all. Consequently, monotheism, and Christianity in particular, was uniquely capable of theologies of God and humanity that made slavery incompatible with faithfulness. It was only when the Bible was corrupted by unchristian motivations that it was perverted to excuse an evil and sinful institution. From the beginning of the church, Christianity developed theology that condemned slavery. The church in the American South and other Christians throughout history who used the Bible to justify their bigotry and enslavement of human beings were the tragic exceptions to the rule. Their abuse of the Bible stood against the broad and historical understanding of what Christians believed the Bible taught about the equality and intrinsic value of every human being, not matter their race.
Some excerpts from Rodney Stark���s book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:
Antislavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome and were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently ���lost��� from history until recently....
Except for several early Jewish sects, Christian theology was unique in eventually developing an abolitionist perspective....
As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops���including William the Conqueror (1027���1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009���1095) and Anselm (1033���1109)���forbade the enslavement of Christians. Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe....
The first shipload of black slaves [arrived in Portugal in the 15th century], and as black slaves began to appear farther north in Europe, a debate erupted as to the morality and legality of slavery. A consensus quickly developed that slavery was both sinful and illegal���. The principle of ���free soil��� spread: that slaves who entered a free country were automatically free. That principle was firmly in place in France, Holland, and Belgium by the end of the seventeenth century. Nearly a century later, in 1761, the Portuguese enacted a similar law, and an English judge applied the principle to Britain in 1772. Although exceptions involving a single slave servant or two, especially when accompanying a foreign traveler, were sometimes overlooked, ���beyond a scattering of servants in Spain and Portugal, there were very few true slaves left in Western Europe by the end of the sixteenth century.��� ...
The problem wasn���t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen....
In 1787 the Quaker-inspired Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery was headed by Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, two of the most respected and influential living Americans. Not to be outdone, many Christian groups and luminaries took up the cause of abolition, and soon abolitionist societies sprang up that were not associated with a specific denomination. But, through it all, the movement (as distinct from those it made sympathetic to the cause) was staffed by devout Christian activists, the majority of them clergy. Indeed, the most prominent clergy of the nineteenth century took leading roles in the abolition movement...
Moreover, as abolition sentiments spread, it was primarily the churches (often local congregations), not secular clubs and organizations, that issued formal statements on behalf of ending slavery. The outspoken abolitionism expressed by Northern congregations and denominational gatherings caused major schisms within leading Protestant denominations, eventuating in their separation into independent Northern and Southern organizations....
[A] virtual Who���s Who of ���Enlightenment��� figures fully accepted slavery���. It was not philosophers or secular intellectuals who assembled the moral indictment of slavery, but the very people they held in such contempt: men and women having intense Christian faith, who opposed slavery because it was a sin.
July 16, 2015
July 15, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 7/15/15 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 Host: J. Warner Wallace ��� What Should Christians Do in Tough Times? (0:00)
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016
Now More Than Ever, It's Time for the Church to Be a Thermostat by J. Warner Wallace
Cold Case Christianity ��� J. Warner Wallace's website
Commentary: Why Christians Make a Big Deal about the Trinity (0:19)
Why the Trinity Is so Important in the First Place by J. Warner Wallace
Why Is the Trinity an Essential Christian Doctrine? by J. Warner Wallace
The Athanasian Creed
Commentary: Why Are You a Christian? (0:31)
Verifiability Is a Christian Distinctive by J. Warner Wallace
Questions:
1. Why are some verses missing from the Bible? (0:40)
The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism ��� Free video series by Daniel Wallace on iTunes U
2. How to deal with family members living in immoral relationships? (0:49)
Homosexuality: Know the Truth and Speak It with Compassion by Alan Shlemon
What Does God's Love Look Like? 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���7:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
Why Is Evolution so Widely Believed?
A common question that comes up after I give my talk titled Why I Am Not an Evolutionist is, ���If there are so many good scientific arguments against evolution, why is it so widely believed?���
I recently came across an article by Dr. William Lane Craig where he responds to this exact question. In his brilliant response he makes two key observations, which I will highlight here.
First, Dr. Craig points outs that the mainstream acceptance of the theory of evolution is not for scientific reasons; it���s accepted for philosophical reasons. More specifically, it���s believed because of a commitment to methodological naturalism. Craig says:
I think the short answer is that it���s the best naturalistic theory we���ve got. If, as a result of methodological naturalism, the pool of live explanatory options is limited to naturalistic hypotheses, then, at least until recently, the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution driven by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection was, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, the only game in town.��� [Emphasis mine.]
Methodological naturalism simply means that scientists must assume philosophical naturalism���only natural causes exist���when doing science. Of course, this assumption excludes all supernatural explanations a priori. Therefore, for anyone holding to methodological naturalism, creationism and intelligent design are not on the table as possible explanations. Even if all the scientific evidence pointed away from evolution and towards intelligent design, they would still need to cling to the theory of evolution because it���s the only possible naturalistic explanation. It���s the only game in town.
Second, Craig offers a helpful reminder. He says, ���It���s helpful to remind ourselves that the word ���evolution��� is an accordion word that can be expanded or contracted to suit the occasion.���
Evolution is an equivocal word. This means that it can have more than one meaning. For instance, it can mean anything from simple, biological change over time���change in allele frequency���to universal, common descent of all organisms from a single, common ancestor. The former is accepted by virtually everyone, including the staunchest young earth creationist. The latter, on the other hand, has many highly qualified biologists questioning whether the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations is up to the task.
So when the question arises as to why evolution is so widely believed, we need to find out what the questioner means by evolution. In one sense, evolution is believed because it���s true; organisms change over time. In another sense, it���s believed because it���s the only theory in play given their commitment to methodological naturalism.
Craig concludes:
So while evolution in an innocuous sense is well-established, belief in evolution in [other senses] is not universal among scientists, and the dominance of neo-Darwinism heretofore is due to the constraints of methodological naturalism and the want of a better naturalistic alternative.
