Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 99
March 25, 2014
Webcast Tuesday
Greg is live online today 4-7 p.m. PT. Give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229.
Greg will talk with Nabeel Qureshi, author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity.
Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.
Challenge: Morality Comes from Us
The British Humanist Association recently created four short animated videos to promote their views. So for the challenge this week, we'd like you to give us your thoughts on this one:
Respond to the video in the comments below, and then we'll hear from Brett on Thursday.
Hobby Lobby Case: Are Religious Exemptions Unconstitutional?
Robert George and Hamza Yusuf argue against the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s claim that religious exemptions made for the sake of religious freedom (such as in the case of Hobby Lobby) are actually unconstitutionally establishing religion:
The robust conception of religious freedom that has served our nation so well is now being challenged in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 25. Hobby Lobby (a chain of arts and crafts stores) and its owners, the Green family, are seeking a religious exemption from parts of ObamaCare's contraception and abortion-drug mandate. Their Christian faith forbids them from paying for insurance coverage for the provision of four drugs and devices that may act to terminate newly conceived human lives. Although the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an exemption is required under federal civil-rights law, the government has asked the Supreme Court to compel the Greens to violate their consciences—which they will not do—or suffer crippling fines.
Some of the government's supporters—like the Freedom From Religion Foundation—have offered the high court in an amicus brief an even more extreme argument. They claim that the whole practice of religious exemptions constitutes an unconstitutional "establishment of religion," at least when protecting religious minorities deprives others of the chance to benefit from these minorities' forced service….
This argument misunderstands both the nature and purpose of exemptions as protections for religious beliefs from majority coercion.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly—and unanimously—rejected the claim that policies enacted to vindicate free-exercise rights by accommodating religious beliefs and practices violate the Establishment Clause…. These Supreme Court rejections make sense, because the same First Amendment that prohibits the establishment of religion also expressly protects the free exercise of religion. It would be illogical to treat protections for religious exercise as establishing someone's religion….
The argument against exemptions would be plausible if such laws only protected religious believers of one faith, or if the laws stipulated that religious interests should prevail in every case in which they competed with other interests and values. But the federal civil-rights law at issue in the Hobby Lobby case—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—protects people of all faiths. Exemptions are not automatic, because the government is always permitted to show that it has compelling reasons to deny the exemption. Historically the government has often met this burden and won the case.
Read the rest of the article: "Religious Exemptions Are Vital for Religious Liberty."
(HT: Dustin Steeve)
March 24, 2014
Why Talk About Abortion and Homosexuality So Much?
Alan explains how discussing controversial issues like abortion and homosexuality relates to sharing the Gospel.
March 22, 2014
Is God Real? Are the Laws of Logic Simply Human Conventions?
All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) are directed and restrained by the Laws of Logic. Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of these transcendent laws. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth; the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. Is God real? Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic, this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to engage.
As an atheist, I rejected the existence of God and offered a number of objections and alternative explanations in an effort to account for the Laws of Logic. We’ve been examining the theistic explanation for these laws and several naturalistic objections on the Cold Case Christianity blog to see if atheism might offer a viable alternative. If the Laws of Logic aren’t simply a “brute reality” of our universe, could they merely be a matter of human agreement?
Objection:
Aren’t the Laws of Logic simply human conventions?
By “convention,” most people typically mean “a principle everyone has agreed on.” If Laws of Logic are simply ideas about truth people have agreed on, two things would be required before we could ever have a single Law of Logic: people, and agreement. But the Law of Identity (for example) existed before people were here to think about it. Prior to the existence of people “A” was still “A” and could not be “Non-A.” In addition, people disagree about what is true (or untrue) all the time, and our positions often contradict one another. How then, can the Laws of Logic be transcendent unless they exist for all of us, whether we agree with them or not? If the Laws of Logic are merely accepted human conventions, they would, in essence, be subject to a “vote”; the laws could be changed if enough people agreed.
Objection:
If God created the Laws of Logic, they are dependent on God. They are not necessary truths but contingent truths, and this means they are not foundational to the universe. And if God created the Laws of Logic, wouldn’t this mean He could change them whenever He wanted? Couldn’t God arrange things so “A” is also “Non-A”? After all, He created the Laws; He should be able to change them. But, the proposition “A” is also “Non-A” is irrational. If God is unable to change such a law, the Laws of Logic don’t appear to be dependent on God at all.
God did not create the Laws of Logic. These laws are simply a reflection of the thoughts and logical character of God, and as such, they reveal His logical, perfect nature. God, in His perfection, will not (and cannot) do anything to violate His own nature; He is not self-contradictory. Just as there is no such thing as a “square circle” (because this violates the nature of circularity), God cannot exist outside His nature, including the nature of His logical thoughts. Logic is foundational simply because God is foundational. The Laws of Logic are objective, unchangeable, internally consistent and transcendent because they reflect the nature of God.
Objection:
Aren’t there different kinds of Logic? If there are a variety of differing views and laws, the idea of transcendence is inaccurate. There is no need, therefore, for a transcendent source of these Laws.
While it is true that there are different categories of Logic applying to different aspects of propositional truth, mathematics, and reasoning, the basic underlying principles of Logic remain intact and foundational. In addition, while many “laws of thought” have been proposed over time by great thinkers (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Boole, Welton, and even Russell), these laws merely reflect, in one way or another, the same universal, pre-existent, objective logical axioms. In essence, we continue to find ourselves restating and reformulating the same Laws of Logic over and over again. When someone says “there are different kinds of logic” they are failing to recognize the objective, unchanging, underlying axioms. These foundational Laws of Logic remain constant within each system.
In order to live consistently within our worldview, each of us must examine the basis for our rational claims. If I don’t believe something, yet act consistently as though I do, my life is contradictory. If I reject astrology, but purchase a lottery ticket today based on the numbers provided in today’s horoscope, I’ve acted inconsistently. When I used to argue against the existence of God, I employed Laws of Logic my atheistic worldview could not provide. I had to borrow these concepts from the very worldview I was trying to defeat. Today, as a theist, I have an adequate foundation for these logical axioms. I can respond to objections in a way that is consistent with my worldview.
March 21, 2014
Think of the Mosaic Covenant Like a State Law
A caller on this week’s show had a friend challenge him with Deuteronomy 13:6-11. Shouldn’t Christians “surely kill” anyone who entices them to serve other gods, as that biblical law demands?
Greg responded by saying that the challenge is based on a misunderstanding of what Deuteronomy is:
The Mosaic Covenant is an agreement that God made with Israel; it is not an agreement God made with anyone else…. Nothing that is in the Mosaic Law applies to me as a Gentile in virtue of it being in the Mosaic Law. No command is incumbent upon me in virtue of being part of the Law.
Here’s the best way to characterize this: You and I both live in California. There is nothing in California law that applies to somebody living in Ohio. Ohio has its own statutes. Now, there is a statute against murder in California. Does that mean since I’m not in California, it’s okay for me to murder in Ohio? No, I’m not under the California statute, but I am under the Ohio statute.
And part of the reason is that there are a lot of rules that are in statutes that turn out to be the kind of rules that should apply in any situation in any state, and you’re going to find them repeated. But then there are also going to be laws and rules that are unique to that state’s situation.
Think of the Mosaic Covenant like a state Law. It was given to the people in that state for that period of time. We are in a different state now. We have a different covenant that applies to us (and that’s the New Covenant) and different moral obligations. We are not obliged by everything in the Mosaic Law. That was a set of civil obligations that were applicable to those people under that time. It was made between God, and Moses, and the Jews….
Does that mean we can go around murdering people because we’re not under the Mosaic Law? No, the obligation not to murder is a universal and should be in any Law….
[A person might say,] “Well, you’re just picking and choosing.” No, I’m not; I have a rationale why this doesn’t apply in the same way and why others might. And the things that do apply as universal moral obligations from the Mosaic Law are going to be repeated in the New Testament to Gentiles. These things are not repeated, because we are not under that theocracy. It’s just exactly like being in a separate state.
To hear Greg’s full answer, listen here (the question starts at 00:36). For a more lengthy discussion on the relationship between Christians and the Mosaic Law, see 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas Schreiner.
March 20, 2014
Caring for the Sick
Christians have been at the forefront of building hospitals and providing care for the sick for centuries.
...It wasn't until Constantine granted the first Edict of Toleration in AD 311, that Christians were able to give public expression to their ethical convictions and undertake social reform. From the fourth-century to present times, Christians have been especially prominent in the planning, siting and building of hospitals, as well as fundraising for them. Cities with significant Christian populations had already begun to change prevailing attitudes, and were already beginning to build hospices (guest houses for the sick and chronically disabled).
Stories of Christian caring had enormous impact, even before Constantine's decree of toleration. Clement, a Christian leader in Rome at the end of the first century of the Christian era, records how the Christian community was already doing much to relieve the plight of poor widows. In the second century when plague hit the City of Carthage, pagan households threw sufferers onto the streets. The entire Christian community, personally led by their bishop, responded. They were seen on the streets, offering comfort and taking them into their own homes to be cared for. A few decades after Constantine, Julian, who came to power in AD 355, was the last Roman Emperor to try to re-institute paganism. In his Apology, Julian said that if the old religion wanted to succeed, it would need to care for people even better than the way Christians cared....
In AD 369, St Basil of Caesarea founded a 300 bed hospital. This was the first large-scale hospital for the seriously ill and disabled. It cared for victims of the plague. There were hospices for the poor and aged isolation units, wards for travellers who were sick and a leprosy house. It was the first of many built by the Christian Church.
There's a lot more about this history to read here.
March 19, 2014
Another Claim to Deity?
There are two similar passages in Mark where someone asks Jesus about righteousness and the commandments, and when you put the two passages together, an interesting parallel emerges. Consider first Mark 12:28-31:
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that [Jesus] had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
When the scribe agrees, Jesus says he is “not far from the kingdom of God.” But if “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” is the greatest commandment, why would Jesus leave out that commandment in Mark 10:17-20?
As [Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Maybe Jesus didn’t leave it out, for He goes on in verse 21:
Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.
Does Mark 12 clarify Mark 10? Could the one thing the rich man lacked have been the greatest thing: loving Jesus with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, above all other things he loved (and in the process, loving his neighbor as himself by giving his possessions to the poor)? Was Jesus preparing the man to make this connection between the greatest commandment and following Him by calling attention to the fact that He had the goodness of God? Is there any other way to explain Jesus leaving out what He considered to be the greatest commandment of all?
It gets even more interesting when you consider that immediately after Jesus commends the scribe in Mark 12 for acknowledging that "Love the Lord your God" is the greatest commandment, He hints at His deity yet again, saying:
How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.’” David himself calls Him “Lord”; so in what sense is He his son?
So in Mark 10, we have a hint of Jesus’ deity (“Why do you call Me good?”) and a command to love Him more than all possessions, with no mention of the “love God” commandment. Then in Mark 12, we hear that loving God above all else is the greatest commandment, followed by a hint of the Messiah’s deity.
It does seem like these closely related passages connect Jesus’ command to follow Him with the greatest commandment.
March 18, 2014
Links Mentioned on the 3/18/14 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:
Levitical Law – Video by Greg Koukl
40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas Schreiner
The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
When a Baby Dies by Ron Nash
The Heathen and the Unknown God by Greg Koukl
What About Those Who've Never Heard? – Video by Greg Koukl
What Is Classical Education by Susan Wise Bauer
Resurrection iWitness by Doug Powell
The Truth about Arizona's Religious Freedom Bill by Amy Hall
Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen
Theistic Evolution: Designed by Chance? by Greg Koukl
Drifting towards Darwin by Greg Koukl (PDF)
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.
How to Alleviate Poverty
Impact 360 Institute recently had Jay Richards, author of the excellent Money, Greed, and God, speak on “How to End Poverty in Ten Tough Steps.” He began by clarifying where the disagreement on poverty really lies:
I won’t spend a lot of time on the question of whether we should care about the poor. I take this for granted that this is a non-negotiable as Christians, that we are supposed to care about our fellow human beings. God cares about the poor, and he expects us to care about the poor….
[In the culture today,] we don’t actually argue about whether we should be concerned about the poor. In fact, atheists, and secularists, and liberals, and conservatives, we all actually agree on that point…. What do we disagree on? We disagree on what to do about it….
What’s frustrating about this to me is that it would be one thing if we were disagreeing with how to develop cold fusion, or something like that…. That’s an understandable disagreement that people could have, because we have no idea how to do that, right? It’s unknown. But poverty, and poverty alleviation, and wealth creation are not unknowns. We actually know the answer to these questions. They’re tough, but we actually know what it is that causes cultures to prosper and what it is that prevents cultures from prospering….
So my question is, as Christians, if we’re supposed to care about the poor, and we’re supposed to care about the poor in the developing world, and we actually know the way in which cultures create wealth and alleviate poverty, why would we try something different? … I think, as Christians, if we’re really serious about poverty alleviation, what we need to do is focus on the known steps….
Justin Taylor summarizes the ten steps cited by Dr. Richards:
Establish and maintain the rule of law.
Focus the jurisdiction of government on maintaining the rule of law, and limit its jurisdiction over the economy and the institutions of civil society.
Implement a formal property system with consistent and accessible means for securing a clear title to property one owns.
Encourage economic freedom: Allow people to trade goods and services unencumbered by tariffs, subsidies, price controls, undue regulation, and restrictive immigration policies.
Encourage stable families and other important private institutions that mediate between the individual and the state.
Encourage belief in the truth that the universe is purposeful and makes sense.
Encourage the right cultural mores—orientation to the future and the belief that progress but not utopia is possible in this life; willingness to save and delay gratification; willingness to risk, to respect the rights and property of others, to be diligent, to be thrifty.
Instill a proper understanding of the nature of wealth and poverty—that wealth is created, that free trade is win-win, that risk is essential to enterprise, that trade-offs are unavoidable, that the success of others need not come at your expense, and that you can pursue legitimate self-interest and the common good at the same time.
Focus on your comparative advantage rather than protecting what used to be your competitive advantage.
Work hard.
Because economics is the study of human decisions, it’s unbelievably fascinating; and because economic policies have the power to either help or hurt real people, we need to know something about it. Watch the full lecture below.
(See a list of Impact 360’s upcoming free live-stream events, including Del Tackett tonight at 7:00 p.m. ET.)
