Are All Values and Duties Subjective Since They Only Exist in Minds?

Summary

Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast

Episode Title: Are All Values and Duties Subjective Since They Only Exist in Minds?
Host: Greg Koukl
Date: December 19, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a deeply philosophical challenge often directed at Christians: Are moral values and duties inherently subjective because they only exist in minds? Greg Koukl addresses a specific challenge from a listener's online encounter, explores critical distinctions between subjectivity, objectivity, and the nature of reality, and takes related theological and ethical questions from various callers. The episode maintains a thoughtful, gracious, and reasoned tone throughout, encouraging Christians to think more clearly and confidently about their faith.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Announcements and Setting the Stage

• (00:28-04:48)
  • Greg Koukl updates listeners on upcoming reality apologetics conferences, emphasizing a cultural “harvest” as interest in Christian apologetics appears to surge.
  • Encourages listeners to support STR financially at year’s end, highlighting gifts for donors aimed at equipping them for outreach.

---

2. Caller Q&A – Are Morals Merely Mind-Dependent Concepts?

[Caller: John from Fort Wayne, Indiana]
(04:48-16:22)

Listener’s Challenge Recapped

• John presents an online assertion:
  “Objective moral values and duties is nonsensical. Values and duties are inherently subjective since they are concepts, not things, and concepts exist only in the mind. … If God exists, then the moral values… are simply concepts in God’s mind. That doesn’t make them objective values.”

Greg Koukl’s Response

• Definitions and Clarifications

  • Relativism vs. Objectivism:
    • Relativism: Morality is mind-dependent (subjective), varying between individuals.
    • Objectivism: Morality is an objective feature of reality; right and wrong exist regardless of personal opinions.
    • "When a person says rape is wrong, they mean to be describing a quality of wrongness that rape has." (08:19)
  • Physical vs. Objective
    • Objectivity does not require physicality.
    • Conceptual realities (like mathematical truths) can be non-physical yet objectively real.
    • "Even though the quality is not physical doesn’t make it any less an objective quality." (10:03)

• Grounding Morality in God’s Character

  • Morality isn’t arbitrary in God (unlike human whim in relativism).
    • "It’s not grounded in His whim… God doesn’t change. His commands flow from an objective source, His unchanging, morally perfect nature." (13:40)
  • God’s character is fixed, making His goodness an objective standard.
  • Memorable Explanation:
    • “God is a subject, a personal individual, but he is also an object of fixed moral perfection.” (14:10)
    • The analogy: Physicalism excludes non-physical qualities, but a reality with only non-physical (yet real) things is still possible and would contain objective facts.
  • The error in the challenger’s argument:
    • "You can have a world in which there is nothing physical… populated with all kinds of concrete objects, real things… Even though they’re not physical… they are objective realities." (15:10)

• Summary of Position

  • Objective morality is best understood as rooted in God’s unchanging character.
  • The fact that this standard “exists in a mind” (God’s) does not make it subjective or arbitrary.
  • Challenge to listener: Confusion arises from conflating non-physicality with non-objectivity.

• Memorable Exchange:

  • John humorously asks if Greg could "pencil in an afternoon" in heaven after "10,000 years bright shining as the sun" for further discussion.
    • Greg: “Sometimes I think I can spare the time.” (05:24)
    • John: “See you in 10,000 years.” (16:21)

---

3. Theological Q&A – Paul on God’s Kindness and Wrath

[Caller: John from El Granada]
(16:23-22:23)

• Question revolves around understanding Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:7 and Romans 9:22—are these passages talking about the same thing regarding God’s mercy and wrath?
• Greg’s Explanation (paraphrased):
  • Ephesians focuses on the manifestation of God’s grace and kindness for those saved.
  • Romans addresses both God’s mercy and His wrath: the punishment of the wicked serves as a backdrop highlighting His mercy to the saved.
  • "In both cases he’s talking about the mercy of God, but in the Romans he brings in the judgment side.” (21:22)
  • Greg encourages holding both truths together, recognizing the contrast between punishment and mercy in Paul’s teaching.
• John expresses the emotional and spiritual struggle of “praying for years... not seeing results” and trying to understand God’s mind.
  • Greg gently affirms that while “there are mysteries, especially with the Romans passage,” the core truth is God’s extraordinary grace demonstrated both in salvation and in the judgment that clarifies and highlights that grace.

---

4. (Ad Break removed; resumes at...)

---

5. Christian Zionism and How Christians Should View Israel

[Caller: Jeremy from San Jose]
(25:08-49:16)

• Jeremy relates his journey from strongly supporting Christian Zionism to theological doubts after studying the New Testament. He questions the standard Christian Zionist stance that Christians must uncritically support Israel, lest they be “cursed by God.”

• Greg’s Response (breakdown):

  • Definition Checking: Greg asks Jeremy to clarify if he means support for Israel’s right to exist on biblical grounds or full endorsement of every action of the Israeli government.
  • Scriptural Foundation:
    • Cites Genesis 12:1-3 (the Abrahamic covenant): “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”
    • Emphasizes it is possible to affirm Israel’s biblical right to the land and role in salvation while also calling out the nation’s moral failings—just as the Old Testament prophets did.
    • "You could be pro Israel…still oppose particular behaviors of Israel. That wouldn’t be a violation, because… all the prophets would be in violation, too." (29:56)
  • Land Promises and the New Covenant:
    • Mosaic (works-based) covenant now obsolete, replaced by the New Covenant, but the Abrahamic (unconditional) covenant persists, with the promise that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed” ultimately fulfilled in Christ.
    • God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants is not abrogated by the church; there remains a distinction between national Israel and the church.
    • "I think God is fulfilling the promise by allowing them back in the land." (34:50)

• Political & Moral Realities

  • Greg is careful to note that supporting Israel’s biblical claim does not mandate approving all modern political actions.
  • Cites ongoing hostility and aggression towards Israel from surrounding nations and characterizes modern Israel’s actions as largely defensive, not colonial (“this is not colonialism”).
  • Raises Dennis Prager’s famous comparison (46:34):
    • If the Arab side laid down arms: "there would be peace."
    • If Israel laid down arms: “there would be genocide. The Israelis would be wiped from the map.”
    • "One side wants peace, the other one doesn’t… They want the nonexistence of Jews." (47:43)
  • Greg’s summary: There’s a need for discernment (“a sweet spot”) on Christian support for Israel—affirming the people and God’s promises, while not rubber-stamping all government actions.

---

6. The Problem of Evil, God’s Character, and Salvation

[Open Mic Caller: Matt]
(50:09-57:32)

• Matt’s friend is struggling: How can a loving God create so many souls knowing most will be “vessels for destruction”? Isn’t Armenian theology (stress on human free will) easier to reconcile with God’s goodness than strict Calvinism (divine election)?
• Greg’s Response:
  • Framework: Both Calvinist and Armenian positions face the same core problem:
    • Armenians: Why create people who God knows will never choose Him?
    • Calvinists: Why doesn’t God sovereignly save everyone?
  • "Armenians face the same problem... God create[s] so many people that he knew would never freely accept Him?" (52:23)
  • Romans 9 is cited as the scriptural answer, but Greg acknowledges the emotional unsatisfactoriness of this teaching.
  • Greg strongly warns against starting from what we think “ought” to be true and instead insists that our assessment must begin with, “What does the text teach?”
    • "We don’t start with the what about questions and then challenge the text unless we want to let it all go… the whole package is gone. Now what? And we’re back to… what’s the alternative?" (55:37)
  • Emphasizes that all moral reasoning depends on the existence of God as a transcendent standard of goodness; if we reject the God of the Bible, we all lose a basis for morality and meaning.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On objectivity of morals:

  • “Even though the quality is not physical doesn’t make it any less an objective quality.” (10:03, Greg Koukl)
  • “God’s character is fixed... He is also an object of fixed moral perfection.” (14:10, Greg Koukl)
  • “You can have a world in which there is nothing physical… but populated with all kinds of concrete objects, real things… Even though they’re not physical… they are objective realities.” (15:10, Greg Koukl)

• On the challenge of Christian Zionism:

  • “You could be pro Israel in the sense that you affirm the role that God has given Israel in its presence in the Middle east… and still oppose particular behaviors of Israel.” (29:56, Greg Koukl)
  • “This is not colonialism. It just isn’t… It’s the Jews that seem to be treated in an inequitable kind of way when it comes to these sort of things.” (45:53, Greg Koukl)
  • "One side wants peaceful coexistence, the other… the non existence of Jews." (47:43, Greg Koukl)

• On theological dilemmas:

  • “The right question is the textual question: what does the text teach?... If it’s not true, it’s because the text can’t be relied on and the God of the Bible is not the true God. But that puts our own salvation questions in peril…” (55:37, Greg Koukl)
  • “Armenians face the same problem… God creates so many people that he knew would never freely accept Him?” (52:23, Greg Koukl)

• Humorous banter:

  • John: “Once we’ve been in heaven for 10,000 years… if you could pencil in an afternoon to talk with me, I’d love that.”
  • Greg: “Sometimes I think I can spare the time.”
    (05:24)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:28–04:48: Announcements, encouragement to attend Reality Apologetics conferences, and year-end giving.
• 04:48–16:22: Caller John on whether all morals are subjective if they only exist in minds; Greg’s full-length philosophical response.
• 16:23–22:23: Caller John on Ephesians 2:7 and Romans 9:22—are these passages teaching the same thing?
• 25:08–49:16: Jeremy from San Jose on Christian Zionism, biblical and political aspects of support for Israel.
• 50:09–57:32: Matt’s open mic question—dealing with the problem of evil, predestination, and the challenge of trusting God’s character when most people are apparently “vessels for destruction.”
• Memorable banter and key clarifications distributed throughout (see quotes above).

---

Conclusion

This episode gives listeners an articulate, biblically-grounded framework for some of Christianity’s toughest intellectual and emotional challenges—objectivity of morality, Christian support for Israel, and why God allows (or ordains) so many to be lost. Greg Koukl consistently urges listeners not to discard difficult doctrines in favor of emotional comfort, but to let the shape of their faith be guided by honest engagement with Scripture and the logical necessity of God as the foundation for the world’s moral structure.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hello, friends. Greg Kokel here stand to reason, and this may seem like a little premature, although I've talked about it in the last few shows, but premature only because the reality starts next year in February. But I need to let you know that the last two realities, the one in Seattle and the one in Minneapolis, sold out. Well, Minneapolis 10 days before the event and Seattle four weeks before the event. And I think our spring events, and that would be coming up in Dallas on the 20th and 21st of February, coming up in Philly March 13 and 14 and coming up in LA April 24th and 25th. I know that Dallas and Philly has sold out and we have a new location in la and we're hoping that'll sell out, too. But there's quite a surge here. And I'm just saying where are my notes here? We're nine and a half weeks out of Texas and we're almost half full. And I half full. That includes all the overflow and we're 12 and a half weeks out of Philly or by the time you listen to this, let's call it 12 weeks and we're one third Phil. So if you're interested in those events, and I hope that you are, because this is a fabulous season for reality, I want you to go to realityapologetics.org and sign up. Don't miss your tickets. In Southern Cal. We've got a new location this year. I think we're in Calvary Chapel. Downey may have close to 3,000 that can go that can be held there at that church, something like that. That's big. But we've been filling these up like crazy. So on that event on April 24th and 25th, we expect to be pretty much to the gills. So just letting you know, also those are anticipating next year. This year we're looking to end strong this year in December. We've got a couple weeks left, two and a half weeks left to do that. We're thankful for your or maybe only two weeks now or less than two weeks at the time that you'll be listening to this. We are so thankful for the so many people all the years long who help us financially to do what we do. And we're especially thankful to those who have been giving just this month. We're filling orders like crazy. When I say orders, we're talking about what we give to those of us who give, those who give to us. And this year with your gift this month we are giving a copy of the Story of Reality. We're giving You a bonus reality quick reference guide, a laminated page that has the basics of the story of reality content on it. It's like a cheat sheet, if you will. And we're also including two copies of the story of why God died and came to life again, which is the Jesus portion of the story of reality. And the reason we're giving those to you is not only to say thank you, but for you to be prepared to meet harvest that we think is building in our culture right now. And it's just I can see it everywhere. And not just from we noticed from standard reason and our events being filled up and sold out, but also when I go to other churches, as I do, I'm asking, hey, what's happening? I'm getting the same story. Churches are filling up, youth groups are thriving, and Bibles are selling out. Their sales are just through the roof right now. That means there's a harvest in play and we want you to be ready. That's where why we're giving these gifts to you for your gift to us this month in December. And so my request is simply, if we've helped you, you help us help us finish this year strong to start next year strong. Please consider making a generous gift to str. And the simplest way to do that is to go to str.org donate and you can do it right online. We send things in the mail. You can use snail mail any way you want, as long as it gets postmarked this year. But when your gift comes in, we will send you our gift to story of Reality, the quick reference guide and two copies of the story of why God died and came to life again. All right, so. And I'll thank you in advance. It's great. Thank you. Let's go to callers right now. Excuse me. And Fort Wayne, Indiana. John, welcome to the show, John.

[B]

Hello, Greg. Thank you for taking my call.

[A]

Yes, sir.

[B]

All that you and Amy and everybody else do for us, I appreciate it a lot.

[A]

Well, you're so welcome. And they work hard. I was mentioning this the last show. I got a few fabulous team of people working here. 20 people.

[B]

We sure do.

[A]

Wow. And now we're 32 years and counting, so thanks for that.

[B]

So I have maybe start with a request. I know that your calendar is really busy, but I'm wondering once we've been in heaven for 10,000 years, bright, shining on the sun as the sun, if you could pencil in an afternoon to talk with me, I'd love that.

[A]

Sometimes I think I can spare the time.

[B]

Okay. Thank You.

[A]

Glad to do it, John.

[B]

Okay, I.

[A]

Look, although you probably won't have any questions to have answered because all of them will be answered by that time by someone far superior to me.

[B]

I also thought of that, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I still want the time to chat with you.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Personally. So, anyway, I like reading the comics online and there are a couple of comments where the topic of God and comes up a lot. And I like reading the comments afterwards. And then sometimes I like throwing out a bunch of pebbles and hopefully that one lands in somebody's shoe in a conversation.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And I was talking to somebody about the moral argument and they wrote back. And sometimes my mind gets tangled up when it comes to philosophy and I can't untie this Gordian knot.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So I thought I'd call you and ask you to help me slice through it, if you would, please. But here's what the.

[A]

Well, hopefully I could untie it. Slicing through is when you get really frustrated. Just whack it. But that's not a solution.

[B]

There we go. That's right. Thank you very much for the clarification. Okay, so here's what the person wrote back to me about objective morals and duties. They wrote the phrase objective morals and values. Excuse me, the phrase objective moral values and duties is nonsensical. Values and duties are inherently subjective since they are concepts, not things, and concepts exist only in the mind. They have no physical reality. Then he says, if God exists, then the moral values and duties you refer to are simply concepts in God's mind. That doesn't make them objective values.

[A]

Okay, that's it. All right. I'm jotting some things down here, and this is a little bit more of a trying to think of the best way to describe it esoteric or involved discussion. Okay. Because there is a point here, and in fact, I don't know if you received a recent solid ground, Amy. Is that the one that just went out?

[B]

So that was the one Amy mentioned that November. I'm going to go read it after we talk.

[A]

Yes. Okay. But just for the rest of the audience, I actually address this challenge that morality based on God is just another form of relativism. Okay. Now, relativism is when a claim. I'm thinking moral relativism in this case, when a claim about morality is mind dependent as opposed to mind independent. Now, the alternative for mind independent is that it is an objective feature of the world. Okay. So it could either be an objective feature of the world or just in the mind of a subject and that's it. In relativism, morality is not fixed. It is in the mind of different subjects. And so different people have different idea ideas about what morality amounts to. It's relative to the individual. It is not a quality of an object. So I'm just defining terms now to make it as clear as possible what we're up against. So when a person says rape is wrong, they mean to be describing a quality of wrongness that rape has. He's not describing the person who says rape is wrong. If that person is speaking in the objective sense. They're talking about rape. They're not talking about their opinions or their feelings or what they like and don't like. Okay? They're talking about the nature of rape. Now I have to make a clarification here that reflects a blunder I think your challenger offered. Equality doesn't have to be an objective. I'm sorry, equality doesn't have to be physical to be an objective feature of the world. If you're a physicalist, then there are no non physical qualities of any kind, because that's the definition of physicalism. But if you could have a concept in your mind, and if the concept is actually a true concept or a specific thing, the concept has its own identity, its own existence, as it were were. And therefore it is an objective thing. It could even be in your mind, objective. When we talk about relativism, moral relativism, it is the judgment of something that's right or wrong that is merely an individual opinion, merely mind dependent. Whether or not rape is wrong depends upon what a person individually believe. So you could have dozens of people and have dozens of different moral opinions because it's all relative. Rape itself has no quality. An objectivist would say, yeah, it has the quality of wrongness, it's immoral. And even though the quality is not physical doesn't make it any less an objective quality. And that's an error, I think that the person you're talking with or interacting with makes. In this case, it's just a concept in the mind, not it's a concept. And so it's not physical. And if it's not physical, it can't be objective. That's a mistake. Okay, now here's the tricky part. Morality. Our case is that there is objective morality and it is, if you will, in the mind of God, after a fashion. It is grounded in God, in his character. Okay, now that's an important step First I'm saying it's grounded in God, but what is it grounded in? It's not Grounded in his whim. That's the way it is with relativism. With humans, it can be many different relativistic views because there are many human beings, and human beings are capricious. They may believe one thing one time and then another thing another time. So they're all over the map. Okay. And if morality is like that, well, there is no objective morality. We're claiming that there is objective morality partly because it's obvious that there is. This is why people raise the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a feature of the objective world. It's not something I just don't like, you know, like Brussels sprouts or something like that. I can't believe a God.

[B]

I'm with you with that.

[A]

Okay, good. Yeah, but I mean, that would be a silly argument against God, that we don't like the taste of Brussels sprouts. No, people think there really is evil in the world world. Okay? Now you have to make sense of that real feature of the world. And there's only one way to make sense of it that's going to work. And I've looked at a lot of them, all of them, as far as I can tell. The only way to make sense of it that's going to work that fits the issue itself is some form of divine foundation for the moral project. Okay. And the way Christians have characterized it is that it is God's character that is the ground of the objective ground. God himself is the paradigm of moral virtue. He's perfect goodness. And therefore from him his commands come obligations that we're obliged to fulfill in virtue of their inherent and objective goodness. Now, what's a little bit odd about this is that. Wait a minute. God is a mind? Yes. Well, then you're saying that the morality that you're saying is objective is mind dependent, but in this case, it's God. Why is that not relativistic? Well, it's similar only to relativism that I described earlier, only in that it is mind dependent. God's mind. But the grounding isn't in his mind. It's in his character.

[B]

Got it.

[A]

And his character is fixed. His character is a fixed object of the universe, if you will, that it is an objective feature. So even though God is an individual subject that is an individual, he's a completely different sort of subject. He is a personal being, but he also is the very ground of being. And he doesn't give his commands arbitrarily according to his changing whim. That's like we do. And that's ordinary subjectivism. But God doesn't change. His commands flow from an objective source, his unchanging, morally perfect nature. So even though God is a subject, a personal individual, he is also an object of fixed moral perfection. Now, I think that understanding and all I'm describing now is our view, more precisely and accurately characterized, that is not vulnerable to the challenge that your friend offered. I don't think it is. Now, he may not receive it. Okay, fine. But if he's going to argue, well, morality is a concept, and a concept is in a mind. It's not concrete and it's not physically concrete and therefore it can't be objective, well, he's just mistaken about that. You can have a world in which there is nothing physical, where everything is non physical. But that world is populated with all kinds of concrete objects, real things, substantive things. Even though they're not physical and they are objects, they are objective realities. They are not simply their in the mind of a perceiver, they are there in themselves. You know, they have their own existence. So I think your friend is. He's raised a fair question, which I do deal with in the solid ground piece. But part of his concern is based on a confusion about the nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

[B]

Got it, got it, got it. Thank you so much, Greg.

[A]

All right, John and Fort. Fort Wayne. Happy Christmas to you, brother.

[B]

You too. Happy Christmas, brother. See you later.

[A]

All right, bye. Bye now. Bye.

[B]

See you in 10,000 years.

[A]

All right. Yeah, will do. All right, let's go to El Granada. And John, John, welcome to the show. What's up?

[B]

Hi.

[A]

Hi.

[B]

I'm trying to figure out if Paul is talking about same thing in two different verses.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I've been praying for salvation for several people, and I'm looking at his choice and how God chooses. And he says in Ephesians 7 so that in the ages to come he might show the surpassing riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And then in Romans 9:22, he's talking, he says, What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

[A]

Right.

[B]

And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.

[A]

Okay, I got it. I'm not sure what the apparent conflict is. On the one hand, he's talking about salvation and showing his wisdom and his grace through saving. And then by contrast, in the Romans passage, his destruction of those wicked and he punishes them also is by contrast, an evidence of his grace towards those He Forgives. Am I getting that right?

[B]

I'm not sure.

[A]

All right.

[B]

Do you think he's talking about the same thing?

[A]

I think he's talking about two different things that are joined at the hip. On the one hand, in Ephesians, he's talking about, great, by grace you have been saved. Let me just take the whole pericope, the larger chunk there. By grace, you're saved through faith. It's not of yourselves. It's a gift of God, not as a result of works that no one would boast for. We are his workmanship, created in Christ for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. That's your verse, right? Oh, in verse seven. My bad. Yes. Okay. He raised up Christ Jesus, seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ. So in ages to come, there's a manifestation, as we are raised up in heavenly places that is a manifestation of God's grace to those of us who are saved in Christ, a manifestation of God's grace and in his kindness towards us in Christ. Now, the Romans passage says verse 23 and 24. Oh, wait, I don't want to get the wrong verse again, so you tell me. Yeah, 21 and 22.

[B]

Start in 22.

[A]

Okay. What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath, to make his power known, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory? I think those passages are talking about the same thing from two different angles. Yes. In Ephesians, he's simply talking about the rescue, the grace that rescues. And it's kind of by itself. So that in the ages to come, he might show the surpassing riches of his grace and kindness towards us in Christ Jesus? Now, in Romans, he's talking about judgment, and he's saying some are going to be judged by God. And what if God, Though willing to demonstrate his wrath to make his power known, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And he did so. So now he's talking about not salvation, he's talking about judgment. But notice, what's the point here that he's making? It's a contrast. He did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory. So on the one hand, you're looking just at the salvation side, and it has that characterization of prepared for glory, essentially. And then you're looking at the punishment side. And what the punishment does, not mentioned in Ephesians, but mentioned in Romans, is the punishment shows the greatness of the mercy by contrast.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So in both cases he's talking about the mercy of God, but in the Romans, he brings in the judgment side.

[B]

Yeah, well, I was just trying to figure out. You're praying for years and you're not seeing results, and you're trying to figure out the mind of God and our small mind not doing too well.

[A]

Yeah, well, we run into that all the time, don't we? I think in this case, though, though there are mysteries, especially with the Romans passage. I think the question you asked is answered simply by saying he is making the same point. And the point is the greatness of the grace of God on behalf of those who are saved. Isolated as such in the Ephesians passage and. And underscored as such by contrast to the punishment of the wicked in the Romans passage. We got it.

[B]

Good, good. Thank you so much.

[A]

All right, John, all the best to you and happy Christmas.

[B]

Happy Christmas.

[A]

Thank you, brother. Bye bye. All right, let's take a break and we'll come back and we got Jeremy on board in San Jose and maybe somebody else will call in in the last half hour. 855-243-9975. That's 855-243-9975.

[C]

As a high school teacher, I always had a red pen close at hand. When I wasn't in front of my students teaching a lesson, you could find me assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluating exams. The red pen played a crucial role in the educational development of my students. With it, I questioned their assumptions, exposed their errors, and challenged them to think critically. You see, a good teacher doesn't merely tell his students that they're wrong. A good teacher shows his students why they're wrong so they don't make the same mistakes twice. He corrects because he cares. Last year, I was scrolling through social media and frankly, I was discouraged at all the bad thinking that undergirded much of what I was reading. Then it hit me. What if someone applied the red pen to this flawed thinking? And Red pen logic with Mr. B was born. In the last few months, Red Pen Logic has grown in popularity through our engaging and shareable educational graphics and videos. We are helping people, especially young people, assess bad thinking by using good thinking. And we have a lot of fun in the process. So here's your homework assignment, like the Red Pen Logic Facebook page so you don't miss our next Graphic and subscribe at the red Pen Logic YouTube channel so you don't miss a single video. Class dismissed.

[A]

Do you have a passion to train people in apologetics but you don't know where to start? You may be interested in starting an STR outpost.

[C]

STR outposts are local communities of Christians

[A]

seeking answers to the hard questions about Christianity.

[C]

Each outpost is led by a qualified

[A]

director who trains others with STR content and curriculum in their local church. By becoming an Outpost director, you'll be

[C]

equipped with the content and coaching you

[A]

need to lead your own outpost. We currently have around 160 outposts spanning 38 states and in eight other countries, and we're adding more each month. If you're interested in learning more about starting an outpost or you want to find a current outpost in your area, visit str.org outpost you can also email me [e-mail]. All right, in San Jose, we've got Jeremy. Jeremy, welcome to the show.

[B]

Hey, Greg, it's an honor to speak with you.

[A]

Thank you. By the way, if you're on speakerphone, you need to get on the phone.

[B]

Oh, let me try that.

[A]

It's just easier for me to hear.

[B]

Can you hear me better now?

[A]

Oh, man, can I. Thank you. Much better.

[B]

Oh, yeah, yeah. Wonderful. And if I could just say, longtime listener and my friend gave me a CD called Conversations with an Atheist back in 2008, and that really helped with my faith.

[A]

Oh, no kidding. Well, I'm glad to hear that, I think. Was that a series of interactions I had with an atheist who kept calling?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you.

[B]

And then your book tactics, highly recommend it to everyone listening.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

Yeah. Well, Greg, my question is, I guess it has to do with apologetics. It's more a trend I'm seeing in the. In the Western Christian Christian church, and that's Christian Christian Zionism, I'd love to get your thoughts on. I grew up a Christian Zionist and lately, I mean, I've applied a lot of your tactics to questioning like my own beliefs and strengthening my faith. And one of those rigors that I can't get beyond is really justifying Christian Zionism anymore, just after kind of putting it to the acid test in the New Testament. And then there's of course, like the political baggage that comes with it. And I haven't felt that way strongly much, but lately I've seen a lot of it in the news and it's sort of taken by fire. A lot of Christians I see are questioning it and I want to Say it's justified. But I'd love to know your thoughts, because a lot of the arguments that I see people bring up are not even the ones that I've gone through myself, which are way more rigorous. And so I don't know what it's turning into in, say, 10 years. But what are your thoughts on that?

[A]

Well, I guess a lot depends on what you mean by Christian Zionism. Do you mean just Zionism, that. That Israel has a birthright, a national birthright in the area of Israel? I hesitate to call it Palestine. Might have been called Ancient Palestine, but that was the name given to it by the Romans, because as a takeoff in the word Palestine. Oh, now I'm drawing blank here.

[B]

Palestina, I think it was.

[A]

Yeah. The Philistines.

[B]

The Philistines.

[A]

The Philistines, yeah. Kind of taking a pagan name and associated with the land of Israel. But in any event, so they have an ancient land of Israel that was given to them, and they have a right to it, and they occupied in 1947 or whatever, and they were given that land at that time through a political process. And now they've been flourishing there for a generation. And so if what you are describing as Christian Zionism is an acknowledgement that the Jews have a rightful homeland there in Israel, is that what you're characterizing as Zionism?

[B]

I guess the stance that I'm highly questioning would be like the John Hagee stance, Christians United for Israel. Their stance, which is not only that Israel has a right to be a country unquestioned by Christians, but that Christians have that obligation to support Israel as a government, or we're cursed by God and we're not going to receive some kind of blessing. So that question.

[A]

Yeah, well, this is a question that goes back to the text. And so the reference, at least one reference, is the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12. 1:3, the Abrahamic covenants repeated in verse 15, or chapter 15 rather. But here's the way it reads. The Lord said to Abram, go forth from your country and from your relatives and from your father's house to the land which I will give you. And I will make you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great, and so you shall be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you. And the one who curses you, I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. So that is the core covenant right there. There's more that's added later, more detail about the land, but that's the core. Now, what this means is that if you are not supporting the nation of Israel in the way that God intends, then you are against the nation of Israel and against God's purpose with that nation. I mean, that would be a kind of a loose way of characterizing it. Could I could give it more detail, but at least at this point, that's what it says. If you are completely opposed to Israel, that seems like that would put you at odds with these things that God has said. Now I have to qualify this because keep in mind that all of the prophets were essentially covenant enforcers. And most of the time, most of the prophets did not have anything good to say about Israel. And that's because Israel was living in an immoral way and therefore needed to be chastised by God's prophets who came to enforce the covenants. The principal one that they were concerned with was the Mosaic covenant. Now so the point I'm making is you could be pro Israel in the sense that you affirm the role that God has given Israel in its presence in the Middle east and its role in salvation history and still oppose particular behaviors of Israel. That wouldn't be a violation, because then all the prophets would be in violation too. But if you were opposing the nation of Israel, like say, who's the guy there, that Balaam. If you're Balaam and you're hired by some pagan king to curse Israel and then you oppose Israel as a nation, big trouble. Now Balaam didn't do that. He kept blessing Israel every time because he knew he couldn't oppose Israel. But others have opposed Israel and that has not worked out well for them. So I do think that we have an obligation in light of the Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1:3, to affirm Israel's vital role, God ordained role in world history and based on what is revealed. Further, that would include their rightful claim on the land of Israel as well, which they were bereft of for 2,000 years. And then through a series of political circumstances, which is always the case, they were able to take that land back, just like political circumstances allowed them to return after the Babylonian captivity. So Genesis 15 has more detail about that, about giving a promise to Abraham's seed, those who would come forth from his own loin, further characterized or further limited to Isaac and then to Jacob and the twelve. But that was God's promise. So I don't know if that would qualify me as a Christian Zionist or not, but I'm one who is not going to want to oppose what appears to me to be a straight ahead blessing or commission that God has made to Abraham and his Descendants Isaac, Jacob, etc. Right on down the line. And their rightful claim to the land, which is right there in Genesis also where God has promised that to them. And I think God is fulfilling the promise by allowing them back in the land. Now you're right, it is politically charged, there's no question about that. And when Israel is at fault for something, then they should be held accountable for that fault. I think that there's much more made of that. And this is my own political assessment, as far as I could tell, much more made of the faults than the Israelis deserve. They are a beleaguered people who have been beleaguered by nations all around them that to wipe them from the face of the earth, quite literally. This isn't hyperbole here. And that is the goal of those enemies of Israel. It isn't like they want to have a two state system. They want Israel gone and they are explicit about that politically. So they are setting themselves against God when they do that, in my view.

[B]

No, no, thank you for that. When we believe. Because I also believed that God let them have the land back in or let them back into the land. But when I looked into how that was done and we're talking about events post Jesus, right, where he says his kingdom is not of this world. I mean, people were massacred on both sides. Who knows how many, I mean in the hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, Arabs and all of that, for them to get land where we're told, you know, there's no promised land to Christians on this earth. So having this dual, like dual rule sort of is really confusing. And that's right. To me it doesn't make much sense that God would let that happen.

[A]

I agree there's confusion here. There's a place for much more precision in dealing with these issues. I did a teaching that you can find online. It's actually a course called the Bible Fast forward. There are eight sessions, 50 minutes each. And I go from the Abrahamic covenant all the way to the time of Jesus. And I deal with some of these things. I don't deal with the present state of Israel, but I certainly make clear that the biblical promise entails the land and God working through the nation of Israel. Now when Jesus says my kingdom is not of this world, I mean that has to be qualified properly. He wasn't going to come right there and establish his kingdom at that point in time. However, there is a time when he's going to be coming and establishing the kingdom in this world. And we read about that in the book of Revelation. Jesus, there's a comment made in the Book of Acts that he's going to Acts one, he's going to return. The angel said just as he left. This seems to be the location he's going to land, so to speak. So there is a physical dimension to the kingdom, but that's something different that we're talking about that is eschatological, that is future end times stuff. The question is, what is God's purpose for national Israel right now? And in my view, there is a distinction between national Israel and the church. Jews who become Christians are part of the church, but they're still part of national Israel. Christians Gentiles who become Christians are part of the church, but they're not part of national Israel. There are particular promises that were given to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that's specified in Genesis 15, when Abraham is appealing to God, said, look, you made this promise, but I don't have any kids. And Eliezer of Damascus is the head of my household. And normally if a person died, then the inheritance, if a person died childless, the inheritance would go to the head of the household. And God says, look, it's not going to go to Eliezer, but one who comes forth from your own loins. So he's speaking of their physical descendants and promises that were made to the physical descendants of Abraham, then Isaac and then Jacob, and following that, the nation of Israel. And God has been good to keep those promises there in Genesis 12, where he does make a great nation out of them. That happened when they were in slavery in Egypt, but they multiplied and they were protected there in certain sense. And then he brings them back to the land and he first gives them the law, which gives them a kind of a constitution to organize the government he has the people, he's bringing them to the land under Joshua. So all of that is moving forward. So that's the Abrahamic covenant. Now, the Mosaic covenant was a different kind of covenant. It wasn't a unilateral covenant like the Abrahamic. And in Genesis 15, when God cuts the covenant with a sacrifice, Abraham is sleeping, he's put to sleep, and God himself, the Shekinah glory, the flaming pot passes through the pieces of the meat, you know, in the sacrifice, showing that he is the sole signatory to this covenant. He's going to see that it's done. Mosaic covenant is conditional and it's a blessings and cursings covenant. And that's passed. That is Done with, because now we have a new covenant. But the Abrahamic Covenant has not been abrogated by the New Covenant, only the Mosaic. The Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are hinged at the hip, so to speak, joined at the hip. And the New Covenant is actually the fulfillment of the ultimate, ultimate purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant in you. All the nations of the earth shall be blessed. So I think that those broad elements I just described there need to be held in tension when we're thinking about the work of Jesus and what he's doing and his Second Coming and all of that. And even in modern times now, what God seems to be doing by reinstating the nation of Israel after 2000 years back in the land. And what's very interesting is after 2000 years, and I think this is 2000 years of discipline in virtue of the Mosaic covenant, the curses and the blessings that are associated with it, and those are evident in Deuteronomy 28:30, just for the record. But I think return to the land is in virtue of the promise that God made to Abraham. And now he's doing something new. If you want to look at Ezekiel, you look at the dry bones, prophecy, the bones that come to life. These things are all probably in play now. People have different theological persuasions about this. They're not going to see any difference between the church and national Israel. I think it's really clear in Scripture. And there was more I could talk about, but I mean, that would be my take on it. So all I'm saying here is that when you talk about Zionism, that is Israel in the land, it has a rightful place there. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that Israel does, because the prophets didn't do that. And that doesn't mean that. But it also means that we can't be in opposition writ large, I guess, to Israel and oppose them, because any countries that did that, they were in big trouble with God and they didn't last. The Jews have lasted all these years as an identifiable people for 2000 years, even though they've been out of the land. And they're the only group of people that have occupied that land for any period of time. And they occupied it three different times. So there is a long history of their rightful involvement, I guess, in that piece of property that is so central to this whole issue. I mean, I'm just giving you a summary of my theology on this. I don't know what. What name properly applies to me, what tag, whether that means I'm a Christian Zionist. I don't know if I'm like a haggie type guy, not sure about all his views, but those are mine. What do you think?

[B]

No, you're much more intelligent, I would say, because you have a deeper theological background. And I would say it was very political and rehearsed not through scripture, but the. I really like your stance because you're basically saying support the descendants of Abraham because there's that honored tradition. But we don't have to agree with every single thing that the Israeli government does unquestioned. Right. I think that a lot of confusion among Christians and even Christian Zionists is what does opposing Israel look like and what does it, what does blessing look like? Does it mean everything the government is doing right now with the Israeli government sending aid packages and whatnot, or is it just not going to war with them? There's a lot of gray area when it comes to describing what blessing Israel looks like. And I think there's a sweet spot somewhere in there.

[A]

Yeah, that's a good point. A sweet spot. It may be hard to find the sweet spot, but the extremes are really obvious. Being totally supportive of Israel, that might be too far if that means every single thing they do. Although in my view, I think Israel has comported itself amazingly with amazing civility, all things considered. You know, they keep getting attacked. They're not attacking other people. They kept getting attacked. And you have the 67 war, you've got the 73 war, you have this more recent thing, they gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they just use it as a rocket launching place with Hamas in charge, constantly peppering Israel with rockets. So it's been largely a defensive enterprise. They have the so called occupied territory, but that territory is territory that was won in a conflict that they didn't start. It was a defensive conflict and they push the opposition, the enemy as it were, back. And they were able to take the Temple Mount and the so called west bank or occupied territory. Yeah, but that's the way war works, you know. So anyway, on balance I'm rather impressed with what I've seen to be the activities of Israel and you know, backing Hamas, this is not a good thing. And there's a lot of people in this country that are backing Hamas and they say, well, we're against Zionism, it's not anti Semitism. Well, why are you killing people in Australia then? Or wherever? You know, if you're making it hard for Jewish students at Harvard, they're not Zionists, they're just Jewish kids that are trying to get an education. It does seem to me that this isn't just anti Zionism. It seems to me that it's anti Semitism.

[B]

Yeah. And I'll just close with this. I know that there's a lot of statecraft at play, you know, a lot of the political agenda, a lot of the political motives of the Israeli government for understandable reasons. Right. They're a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors. It works in their benefit to kind of merge Zionism and Judaism into one, so that if you question what they do, they sort of hold Judaism as a way of saying you're anti Semitic. And it doesn't really do it justice to people who are truly anti Zionist and meaning, like anti colonialism, I guess you'd say. But then there are real. There are real people out there who hate Jews for whatever reason.

[A]

Right. But this is not colonialism. It just isn't. It just isn't. I mean, this is part of critical theory, and it's the language that's being used by a lot of people, but that's not what's going on. Nobody complained about Pakistan being hived off from India. That was all. Wasn't that colonialism? No, nobody's complaining about that. That's in the past anyway. But it's the Jews that seem to be treated in an inequitable kind of way when it comes to these sort of things. And I like the way Dennis Prager puts this issue, and he really simplifies it.

[B]

He.

[A]

With regards to the Jews and the Palestinians, he asked this question. He said, if the Palestinians or the Muslim Arab population itself that's opposing Israel, if they laid down their arms, what would be the consequence? If all of them, the Arab Muslim contingent, if they laid out the arms, what do you think would be the consequence, Jeremy? What would result from that?

[B]

Well, I might have an answer that he wouldn't like, just because.

[A]

No. What do you think? Give me your true answer. What do you think? Will I have an answer? But it's quite simple. But what's your answer?

[B]

If Hamas laid down their weapons.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Well, I think it's already happening right now, the ceasefire, but there's still. What do you call it, targeted hits on Hamas leadership during the ceasefire. So I think that you run into, like. I think there would still be killing for sure. Yeah, there would still be.

[A]

I'm just. Okay. That's because Hamas hasn't laid down its arms. If all of these hostile forces laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel, by contrast, was the one who laid down its arms, There would be a massacre, there would be genocide. The Israelis would be wiped from the map. And that's the distinction. I think that tells the story of what's going on here. One side wants peace, the other one doesn't. One side wants peaceful coexistence, the other doesn't want that at all. They want and the non existence of Jews. They want to erase the Israeli state gone. That's why they chant from the river to the sea, because they don't think the Jews have a legitimate place. So that's why I'm saying this is largely a defensive operation, even though there are offensive moves. I mean, look at Ukraine. It's defending itself now. It's going to go after places in Russia because this is the nature of warfare. But they're just trying to defend themselves. There wouldn't be a war if there wasn't the aggressor. In this case, the aggressor is not Israel. They are responding to aggression, trying to snuff it out so they could live peacefully anyway. So, I mean, that would be my take on that situation and I didn't talk about it very often, but I think that's a great observation that Dennis Prager is made. Okay, Jeremy.

[B]

Thank you, sir.

[A]

All right, buddy. Okay, thanks. I appreciate the call. We got a few minutes left here. I want to go to our. Where's my sheet now? To our open mic calls. And if you want to participate in open mike calls, it's very easy. Go to str.org our homepage and under podcast you'll find live podcasts and then you can leave a question and when you speak the question into your computer, it records on our site and eventually we get to it and we have an opportunity now since we are callers and we can do some open mic calls. So. Well, let's start with Matt. Do we have him at the head of the class there? We've got about seven minutes to go. This is a tough one, but I think I can do Matt.

[D]

Hi, Greg. My wife Jamie and I have been strategic partners for a couple years now.

[A]

Great.

[D]

And we are so thankful to for the unique work that your team is doing to tend soil. I'll say. And to make us ready to bear fruit. And I'm glad we get to be a part of it. Thank you so much. I'm calling today about what might be a case of rocky soil. A friend of mine accepted Christ years ago, but has since become weary as doubts have crept in. We've been meeting together and worked out that there are two Separate questions. Is the God of the Bible real as opposed to a materialistic worldview? And two, what is he like? Regarding the first, we're going through the case for Christ together. But I've struggled to offer a compelling case for the character of God in the face of the narrow road to life versus the broad road to destruction. If God is capable of saving us all, why doesn't he? In other words, Referring to Romans 9, I can see how it would not seem very loving to create vessels for destruction, much less for most vessels to be for destruction. I've offered that I have seen enough of God's character in scripture and I believe in my own life to trust that he has a good reason for doing so. So yeah, even if he doesn't disclose that reason to me, we have enough to suppose like was summarized in the closing words of my kids Jesus storybook Bible, it will one day be better for once having been so bad and we can trust that. I I feel for my friend though, who's also a father and trying to come to terms with why God would create so many eternal souls only to allow them to walk away from him off the cliff into destruction. It's basically a variation of the problem of evil question. I think I'm looking for the best means to convey to him the trust that I have come to.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Now the God's choice, our choice Calvinist Armenian topic has not come up with my friend, but my wife who leans more Armenian while I lean more Calvinist. She suggests that that's that that Armenian theology smooths over this difficulty. How would you respond to that and how would you respond to my friend? Thanks for any help.

[A]

Wow, Matt, thank you for being a strategic partner, calling in and all of that stuff. I'm just looking at my time and I got five minutes less than that. I don't have enough time to deal with justice. This question. Let me make a couple of quick observations. Armenians face the same problem. That is they can can always be asked, even are Armenians, why did God create so many people that he knew would never freely accept Him? I mean that's a legitimate question. And the answer that Romans 9 gives is an answer that applies to them. Now, when you're thinking of sovereign grace and God electing those to be saved, you might add, well, the Reformed crowd, based on their view, they could argue the challenge that could be offered them is why doesn't God sovereignly save everybody? And I think that would be a unique wrinkle for the Reformed crowd. But Romans 9 does give the answer to that, and it does seem hard to swallow. And you've cited the passage already, and this is Paul's answer. I think this is probably the most difficult theological issue to deal with. And the hard issues are not so much apologetics, they're theological in my view. They're the harder ones, and this is one of them. There's another one that's similar to it, but it has to do with the fall. But nevertheless, I'm the first to admit this is a hard issue to deal with. And the answer that Paul gives is not an answer that is emotionally satisfying to us. Now, I fall back on your comment, Matt, the way you approach it. If there is evil in the world, there is good. There is a standard for goodness and God is the only source. If there is no good God, then there is no foundation for morality at all. And there can't be any evil. But we know there is evil. Therefore there must be a standard for good. And therefore there must be a God who is the standard standard. So God must be good. Now, it may not be the God of the Bible in principle. You could go elsewhere and say, yeah, I don't like the God of the Bible, I'm going to find another God, but you got to have a God who is the standard for all morality, or else you're not going to have any morality at all. And if God of the Bible is the true God, then he is the source of goodness and there is no external source available to us to be able to call God bad. So that's kind of like the logic, the moral logic there. Now, part of the problem, I think about framing the issue this way with this question, and I'm very sympathetic to it, but I'm just saying we sometimes ask the wrong what about what about what about what if? What if? Why did God, why didn't God. Those are the wrong questions to start with. The right question is what does the text teach? That's the right question. What does the text teach? Now, this is the same text that we're talking about that might teach about God's sovereign grace, his design and fate of the wicked, and also for the saved, if you will. So it's the same text that teaches on both issues. And if we are going to go to the text and come up with salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and we're rescued, it's the same text that says these other things about those that are lost and that may not be palatable to us, but it doesn't mean it's not true. And if it's not true. It's because the text can't be relied on and the God of the Bible is not the true God. But that puts our own salvation questions in peril because the same text is substantiating both things, which puts us in a difficult spot, doesn't it? I agree, but this is why the right question is the textual question. What what does the text teach? And once we do our best to determine that, then we try to answer the what about questions in light of what the text seems to clearly teach. We don't start with the what about questions and then challenge the text unless we want to let it all go. We might say, hey, that whole Christian thing, I can't accept any of it. All right now. But the whole package is gone. Now what? And we're back to this question I raised earlier in the show. What's the alternative? All right, I'm out of time now, and I apologize for giving you the short shrift, Matt. I hope that that will help. And the Armenian point of view does kind of dodge this bullet somewhat, but that doesn't mean it's true. Whether Armenianism or Calvinism is true has to be determined again by the text and not just adopted, because it dodges this bullet. All right, thank you for the call, Matt, and for your wife as well. Happy Christmas to you both. Greg Kokel here for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven, friends.

[B]

Bye Bye, Sam.