← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:04]
Greg Koukl
SA.
- [00:29]
Grace Koukl
Welcome to the show, friends. I am Grace Koukl, your host and the show is Stan Teresen. And thank you for joining me being a part of what we're doing here today. And this hour is going to be open mic calls, which means I will be taking calls that you leave on a recording on our website. Usually you can also call it in, but we prefer you go to str.org to our homepage under Podcasts. You'll see live broadcast, go to that dropdown and then follow the prompts and you can leave a question and it'll get in the queue and then eventually we'll get to it and that's what I'm doing today. So I have a series of questions that and I think the first two, I might be mistaken about this, but the first two from an atheist or a non believer. Yeah, Amy's giving the nod there. So knowing that will factor into the oh, okay. She says, not sure if he's an atheist, but certainly I'm a nonbeliever, which is fine. Glad to have those kinds of questions. If a person is an atheist, and I know that that means that and I've talked about this in the past, the notion of entailment, that is certain ideas, points of view, worldviews entail other things other of necessity as a natural part of that worldview, even though it may not be expressed. And a lot of people don't understand that. And so if there is an atheist who is then complaining about something that is immoral, then my question is going to be how could something be immoral if there is no God? Because it seems that if we're just molecules in motion, materialistic understanding of the universe, and that's where most atheists are at, then there is no grounding, no place for no coherence to the notion that there are objective moral obligations that one can apply to, say, Christians who they think are acting in an immoral way or a God who is immoral. Anyway, that won't be the factor here, I guess, when I get to the question, but we'll see how this goes. So let's hear from Dan on the nature of, of prayer and God's omniscience and whether that makes any sense at all. Dan.
- [03:06]
Dan
Greg, my question is this comma. Christians believe that God is omniscient, meaning he believes he knows everything, past, present and future, period. If God knows what happens tomorrow, then God cannot change what happens tomorrow, period. Therefore all prayers are void and null. If I pray for someone tomorrow to be protected on Their safe journeys to where they're going and they get in a car wreck and die. God already knew that. My prayer means nothing. My prayer will not change God's mind. Because an all knowing omniscient God cannot change his mind if he knows that the car wrecker is going to happen and not change that fact. I look forward to your response.
- [04:05]
Grace Koukl
Thank you, Dan. Period. What's the point? I don't get the punctuation there, but nevertheless, it doesn't take anything away from the substance of the question of. Okay, there's a number of things that are going on here in this question. And by the way, this is a question that's raised by Christians as well who are concerned about the efficacy of prayer in light of God's omniscience. And also how is it that God can. Sometimes a parallel concern is raised. How can God hear all these prayers at once? Well, if God is omniscient, that means he never learns anything when you pray, which is true. There never was when he didn't know what it was that anyone was going to ask for. All right? He always knew that. So we don't have a difficulty with God trying to hear everybody at once. And we imagine some kind of super being who can listen to a lot of people at once without getting confused. That's not the right way to approach that particular challenge. The fact is omniscience solves that problem. He doesn't learn anything from your prayer. He already knew what you would pray. Okay, but the challenge here is if God knows what you will pray or at least what will take place, then this means that he doesn't. Your prayer doesn't affect anything because it's going to be what it's going to be. Since God knows everything that's going to be and that's fixed in the future, God can't change it and therefore God can't respond to your prayer. Or so the challenge goes. Okay. Now the difficulty here is understanding the difference between temporal priority and logical priority, or temporal order and logical order. Okay. And I think what I would offer here is maybe an illustration to help you see these two different notions. And these, by the way, distinguishing these notions is really important to understand why the issue that Dan raised is not a problem for God with regards to omniscience, which basically implies the fixed nature of the future in light of God's omniscience. If God is omniscient, then he knows what's going to happen in the future and therefore it will happen. And there's no way to change it. That means things are determined in virtue of his knowledge, and not even God himself can change it. That's the kind of challenge. Okay, first thing I want you to see is that knowing something doesn't cause that thing. Knowing something doesn't cause something. Knowledge of anything in the future does not make it happen. It doesn't secure its certitude. It doesn't establish its reality. It merely represents an awareness of God for the thing that will happen that has not happened before. So let me give you my illustration to help you understand why that does not entail determinism. I think this illustration come from CS Lewis, and he might have been using it for some other purpose, but it has to do with the nature of time. And I think it does a good job in explaining the distinction between a logical order and a temporal order. He suggests that you imagine two books, one sitting on top of the other, so that the first is upholding the second. So you realize there is a dependency relationship of a sort of the second book on the first upon which it rests. The first one is holding up the second one. So there is a priority to the first one causing, if you will, the second one to be upheld. But now Lewis asks, or suggests that we imagine that these books were sitting there forever. So since they were sitting there like that forever, there never was a circumstance in which one book sat there and then at some subsequent time, the other book was placed upon it, representing that kind of relationship where one upholds the other, the first one causes the second one to be upheld. All right, well, in that case, you would have no temporal order, but you would have a logical order. In other words, no temporal order, because the second book wasn't placed upon the first book at some point subsequent to the first book being there. They're both there all the time. Nevertheless, there still is this relationship of, you might call it causality or whatever, of the first one upholding the second. So there's a logically prior relationship of one holding up the other, a logical relationship even though there is no temporally prior element that's involved. Now, this is just an illustration meant to distinguish the logical relationship and the temporal relationship. I guess you could do the same thing with abstract things like math. So you could say 5, 5, 10. You can imagine that being the case timelessly. Well, there is a logical relationship between those letters. Maybe that's not the best illustration. Let's just count. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So 2 comes before 5 in logical order. But if those numbers are all just sitting there Forever. Then it doesn't come before five temporally. All right, It's a logical order, but not a temporal order. So now let's talk about God's knowledge of future events. Remember I said a few moments ago that God's knowledge of the future events don't cause the future events and they don't fix the future events in time. The future is what it's going to be for its own reasons. And arguably future events happen because people make choices that are genuine choices. The future is not fixed in the sense that it's determined. It will be a certain way, but it will be a certain way in the future because choices are made by people that establish the future to be that way. God knows in advance what those choices are are going to be. That's omniscience. But his knowledge of the future events doesn't cause the future events. His knowledge comes before those events in time. They are temporally prior, but they are not logically prior. That is, they don't cause those things to take place. God's knowledge of the future, of what the future is going to be, is based on other events in the future that result in those events happening. For example, people making choices. So God knows that tomorrow I'll be getting on an airplane to go to the East Coast. Now, that's my plan. Now, if that eventuates, if that will eventuate, let's just stipulate it will. Then God knows that's going to happen. But why do he know what's going to happen? What is the logically prior factor that grounds his knowledge? Well, the logically prior factor, not temporally prior, but logically prior factor, is me choosing to get on a plane and fly to the East Coast. Because I'm going to choose to do that. God knows I am going to choose that. Now, what if I decided not to go at the last minute, I changed my mind. Do I have the freedom to do that? Sure. But God would have known that I would have changed my mind. So even though God's knowledge is temporally prior to the events that take place in the future, that knowledge doesn't cause those things to take place. It is my own free choices that is logically prior to God's knowledge. It is because in the future I make choices that God knows what's going to take place. I guess you could think of it like, let's just say if I had a videotape of your behavior during the day, today and tomorrow. I looked at the videotape to see the events that you chose to do. Okay, now, once it's in videotape, you realize it's fixed forever. You already did that and you already chose to do those things. And it's all captured on the film. So nothing in the film is going to change because it's fixed. It's immutable because it's already done. But the picture I'm so me watching it doesn't change anything. But what if I were able to watch it before you actually videotaped it? I would still know the same sequence of events that you would choose to do on your own. Now, if you had chosen to do differently, the video would be different and I would know something different. But my prior knowledge is dependent on the future actions, is logically prior to the future actions that you take. So it's the actions that are the thing that cause my knowledge or that are the grounding of my knowledge, the free actions of the future. Even though I know those actions in advance, my knowledge doesn't cause anything to happen. So there with regards to one aspect of this. If God knows what will happen tomorrow, then God cannot change tomorrow. Okay, no, God can change tomorrow, but he will know what he is going to do. So in this particular case, instead of me making free actions in the future that God knows in advance, and the free actions ground the knowledge God has, now, we are talking about God doing actions in the future that God knows He is going to do. He's going to freely choose to do those actions, but he knows in advance. And if he wanted something different to happen, he would do something different in the future freely, but he still would know in the past what those things are going to be. And so that means that God can be aware in the future of prayers that we would pray, and also be aware immutably of what he will choose to do in the future in response to our prayers. So the liability here, Dion, is that you are confusing logical priority or a logical antecedent with temporal priority or temporal antecedent. And one of the key foundational things is knowing that something is going to happen of a certitude, not of necessity, because a whole range of things could happen, but only one set of things are going to happen. And because God is omniscient, he's going to certainly know that. But it could have been different. And if it would have been different, then he would have known the thing that was different. And he can also be the one who makes choices in the future that he immutably knows in the moment. It doesn't take away freedom of human beings making choices. And it doesn't take away the freedom of God acting in response to prayers that he always knew were going to be prayed, and he always knew how he was going to act in response to the prayer. So the future prayers are logically prior to God's actions, but they are not temporally prior to God's actions. So I hope that makes sense. I think it is a little bit of an esoteric notion. I did my best to try to explain it, but it is a kind of mistake in thinking about the nature of causality and the nature of omniscience that lots of people make, even Christians make. And I've even heard one Christian philosopher raise the issue. This is why he says God doesn't know the future because that would mean that it's. It's fixed, which I think is true. But that doesn't mean it's deterministically fixed. It just is going to be the case because of the free choices that humans or God makes regarding the future. All right, now, Dan had another question and might as well take this one. And this one's a little bit more difficult. I think the first question Dan asked is is not difficult to answer. I think it's difficult to understand the answer. And that's why I'm laboring to try to make this as clear as possible. But the second question is a little more difficult. So let's hear what Dan has to say about the second issue.
- [19:39]
Dan
Greg, my question is this, period. If the police showed up at your door and arrested you and hauled you off to prison for the crimes of your great great grandfather, how would you feel about that? Period? Are you responsible for the actions or the crimes committed by your great great grandfather, period? I'm assuming your answer is obviously not. We are not responsible for other people's actions. This is called personal responsibility, period. I assume we're in agreement up to this point. Now, let's talk about Adam and Eve. Why is it that anybody is responsible for Adam and Eve's decisions? The entire dogma of Christianity claims that we are born sick, in need of a savior. This is immoral and unjust. I am not sick, nor was I sick when I was born. This is Christian dogma. To control your mind. Greg, Are you responsible for Adam and Eve's decisions? No more than you are your great great grandfathers. Correct. Look forward to your response.
- [20:48]
Grace Koukl
Well, like I said, Dan, this is a little bit more of a challenging question. And part of the difficulty is trying to find parallels that matter. And you offered one parallel If I were dragged out to be punished for the crime of my parents, that seems to be unjust, and I would agree with that. Okay, but then it's interesting how you characterize the Christian view being a sickness. Well, I actually think that's a better parallel. I mean, the fact is that we can catch. In one sense, it's a better parallel. The fact is that we can catch a sickness from someone else, all right? Or we can have to live with the consequences of other people's behavior. All right, I talk about this a little bit in the story of reality, this particular issue. And we actually have parallels to this even in our modern culture here. In 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Okay? When they bombed Pearl harbor, it was not just an action against some sailors that happen to be on those ships at that time. It was an action not just against individual sailors, but against the corporate. What's the right word I'm looking for here? The corporate population of the United States of America, which is why the United States of America, under FDR's leadership, declared war not on those pilots that were responsible for the attack on Pearl harbor, but on the leadership and on the country that was responsible for the attack. Okay? So since some pilots killed some seamen, Navy men, all America was at war with all of Japan. So there is a corporate element that's involved there. Now, somebody could have said at that time, wait a minute, no Japanese person attacked me, so why am I at war with all the whole country of Japan? And the answer was, and they totally understood this, that there was a corporate relationship here. And when the country goes to war against Japan, it's the corporate country altogether. We have a federal representative in the President of the United States that then pits the whole country against another country which is responsible for that act. So there are corporate kind of relationships in things like that. Now, by the way, what I'm offering right here now is not really that controversial. I think most people understand this. And even though they understand that when they're in battle, that one American against one Japanese in the Pacific theater, they realize, well, we're just guys and we're following orders or whatever, and he may be just like me, with a wife and a family or whatever, there's an individual element there still. There is a participation in a corporate effort. And that soldier understands that he is part of a corporate enterprise seeking to overpower another corporate enterprise that's represented in that individual soldier on the other side of the jungle. All right, well, you have something like that going on here. And this is where in a certain sense, the word sickness has an interesting application, because sickness can spread. One person can be sick and then the sickness spread to somebody else who is associated with that first person in a certain way. In this particular case, it's a filial relationship. Adam and Eve are the corporate heads, if you will, or let's just put it Adam right now, because he's the one who's held and spoken of as the head of the human race. And when Adam fell and became a rebel against God, all those that followed from him and born from him are also rebels against God. That's the way they're born. It's the consequence of that fall that influenced everybody else. So it becomes the race now that is like Adam in his fallen state, that is against God, that is is fighting God and therefore responsible for their rebellion. Now, as to whether I personally must be punished for Adam's personal sin, there's actually disagreement on that issue in the ranks of Christians. And there are different ways to characterize this. I think the federal headship approach makes the most sense. So in the same way that Japan is guilty for the attack on American sailors At Pearl Harbor, 12-7-41, we are responsible for the corporate rebellion. We participate in the corporate rebellion against God in virtue of the initial act of rebellion and disobedience by Adam. And that's the way we're connected. It isn't just this person did a sin. Now the second person is punished for that sin. There is a corporate relationship. There is a federal headship. And in the same way that countries go to war against each other, in the way I described, you have the human race at war against God. And so the whole human race participates in that war. By the way, it isn't as if in the case of warfare, human warfare between nations, you have some people that are just not actively involved. In this particular case, every human being is actively involved because of the influence of the Fall and the influence on human beings that everybody's in an act of rebellion because they're fallen. And they are held responsible for that rebellion, even if they're not held technically respons the particular sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve created a set of circumstances that affects or infects everybody. So I don't think that the circumstances, Dan, are the way you've simply described it. Your parents, your dad, your ancestor commits a crime, you get dragged off to be punished for it. I don't think that's an accurate parallel, an accurate characterization. I think sickness maybe is a little bit more Parallel, because one person can catch the sickness from another, and that second person who caught it has it and has to suffer as a result of the consequences, even though somebody else is responsible for them getting it. All right, so there's a loose parallel there that I think is a little bit more accurate than the one that you offered. But I do want to take. Now, what I've explained to you may not be persuasive at all. Fine. That's the best I can do with that. And it looks like that's the way the biblical record characterizes it. We are all part of a nation of sorts in rebellion against God, and we are all participating in the rebellion. And the fact that, well, being born sick, I mean, who was it? I'm thinking of the writer Chesterton, I think, is the one who said that the fall of man is the one thing that all human beings that can be empirically proven to be the case. Just look around you. Look at all human beings. Forget about theology for a moment. Human beings are broken. They do evil and they do it naturally. They don't need to be taught. They have to be taught to be good. And this seems to come at the very earliest stages that any human being can make any choices for themselves. So the idea that we are fallen from birth, we have this sickness, we are born sick, is not so foreign to human experience, regardless of how you theologically explain why that's the case. Human beings are nasty and persistently so and universally so. Now, the Christian view of reality has a way of explaining why that's the case. A materialistic view can't make any sense of it at all because there are moral judgments that are entailed in that assessment, that observation about humanity that have no place in a materialistic, atheistic worldview. And I don't know what your convictions are on that, Dan, but I'm just saying I do want to speak to one other issue. This is Christian dogma meant to control your mind. I don't. I don't know where that comes from. I don't even see how this way of looking at the human condition and this explanation of the human condition controls anybody's mind anyway. It's not a mind control thing. Here we have some aberration of some sort. It's a moral aberration. Call it a moral sickness, all right? This is an observation of the nature of reality that virtually everybody makes. It doesn't matter where you lived or when you lived. Everyone knows that the world is broken, and they know the world is morally broken, which is why they raised the question or the issue of the problem of evil. All right, so we all know that we are guilty. I don't know how such an observation has anything to do with mind control. All right, now there's a solution that Christianity offers, and the solution that it offers for the obvious evil that everyone participates in at some level is forgiveness. I don't know how that's mind control either. It's a free gift. Now, if we were asked to believe something that was just seemed to be out of the realm of possibility, and then there was a command that we must do other things in order to escape this problem, well, I can see that might be manipulative, but the fact that we all do evil is not out of the realm. It's possibility. It's obvious. So I don't understand how that's weird. And then here's the solution. Forgiveness. How was that mind control? I guess the point is notice the intention that was expressed. It is Christian dogma. Meantime, to control your mind. So who is meaning to control people's mind through the view of the fall of man, to be met by the mercy of God or to be punished? And the punishment, let's face it, even if the punishment isn't for Adam's sin, and that is a controversial point even among Christians, we each have done plenty of bad things on our own without adding Adam's rebellion to the list for us to be guilty. Notice that in the end of the story, Revelation 20, the books are open and people are judged according to their deeds. According to their deeds. So, Dan, God is keeping a record of every evil thing that you've ever done. And every one of us has a long list of those things. And then he will judge you not based on Adam, but based on your own crimes. That's what it says will happen at the end of the age. We will give an accounting and either Jesus pays for us or we pay. That's the calculus. All right, I thank you for your question though, Dan, or your questions in this case. Let's take a moment and take a break. Greg Koukl here for Stand to Reason.
- [34:23]
Robbie Lashua
Would you like a Stand to Reason speaker to speak at your church or eventually. Greg Allen, Tim John and I, Robby Lashua, are available both in person and online. Just email bookingstr.org to schedule us. Today we can address a wide array of topics from bioethics, gender issues in science to theology, philosophy, and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a Sunday sermon, Zoom conference or YouTube live event. Our skilled and engaging speakers can be there either physically or virtually, with the goal of equipping Christians to effectively influence the culture for Christ. To read our bios and learn more about the topics we cover, visit str.org then email bookingstr.org to schedule. Greg, Alan, Tim, John, or me, Robbie today.
- [35:18]
Amy Hall
Friends, if you like this broadcast, I know you'll love Strask. It's our shorter 20 minute podcast where I am paired with the wonderful Amy hall, and together we the questions you send us on Twitter. Strask is released twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays, and it's only about 20 minutes long, so it's perfect to listen to on your morning jog or while driving around running errands or cleaning your garage or just plain loafing at home. Amy and I tackle your questions on theology and ethics and culture and lots more, offering our insight on the questions you're asking or the challenges you face. You can listen on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your own shows. Just remember, send us your questions on Twitter using the name of the podcast. Strask. That's Strask.
- [36:24]
Grace Koukl
Open mic calls today for this hour at least. And we have a question from Stephanie that in kind of an interesting way dovetails in with the last question that had to do with Adam's sin. So let's hear from Stephanie. Go ahead, Steph.
- [36:43]
Greg Koukl
Hey, Greg. This is Stephanie again with another Jehovah's Witness question. I read in one of their materials that we do not go to heaven when we die. And the verse they cited for this is John 3:13 where Jesus says that no one has ascended into and descended from heaven except for him. When I looked up explanations about what Jesus was saying in that verse, the general consensus is that he is the only one who has been in both heaven and earth. And as a result, he is the only one with the authority to say what happens after death. But I was wondering how that reconciles with Lazarus and the 12 year old girl whom Jesus had both raised from the dead. Based on 2nd Corinthians 5, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So presumably Lazarus and this little girl had gone to be with the Father in heaven before being raised back again. And so I was just wondering how you would reconcile all these things together. Thanks, bye.
- [37:40]
Grace Koukl
Okay, that's a little different one than I thought. We have two on Stephanie here. So the question, the verse in question is John 3:13. And Jesus said, now he's talking to Nicodemus here All right? And he's saying, look, you're not really following me, right? Because you're asking about being born again and you're not getting it, all right? And he says, truly, I say to you, verse 11, we speak of what we know and testify to what we've seen. And you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? So now he's shifting into the idea of heavenly things. And then he says, no one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. That's the verse in question. And then he offers, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life for God so loved the world. And that's the famous verse 16 in chapter three of John. And we all know that verse, okay? So the question is, what is he talking about here when he says, no one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. I actually think that's an unusual way of putting something. And in my own mind, I'm not entirely certain. When he says, no one who has ascended into heaven. What he is talking about, though, is the Son of Man, him who has descended. So it's almost like no one has gone to heaven to learn these heavenly things that he is talking about. But I have come from heaven to be able to tell you authoritatively what these things are. That's the only kind of point that he's making. No one has ascended into heaven, but he's descended from heaven, the Son of Man has. And now I'm going to tell you these heavenly things. He is not saying there that no one goes to be with God when they die. In fact, we have other teaching of the Scriptures that specifies something about the consequences when a person dies, what happens to them? Paul says, for example, in 2 Corinthians, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Now, I don't know what your Jehovah's Witness friend thinks about this, Stephanie. If they think, well, Paul's wrong because Jesus already said that no one has ascended into heaven, so we're not going to ascend into heaven. And Paul, when he says to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord, he must be mistaken on that. What we're trying to do is we're trying to apply a principle called you interpret the unclear in light of the clear. And I think that there is a little bit of an ambiguity about John 3:13. No one has ascended into heaven. What is he talking about? Well, here he's talking about understanding heavenly things, and that Nicodemus is not getting it. And so Jesus is going to tell him heavenly things. Now, why does Jesus know heavenly things? It's not because he's gone up to heaven to get the information, but he's come down from heaven with the information. And that's why he could tell Nicodemus the things that he's already spoken of about being born again, and then he can speak the rest of the things that he speaks in the rest of John 3. I don't think this is talking at all about the intermediate state. In other words, what happens when you die between the time you die and the time your body is resurrected and joined to you? Now, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in soul sleep. I understand that, okay? But that doesn't seem to comport with what Paul's saying in 2 Corinthians. And so since Paul seems to state something very clearly, we have a clear point regarding the intermediate state from Paul. Then we have to take a second look at this ambiguous statement, or at least initially ambiguous, that no one has ascended into heaven. But when you look at the context, it seems to me all he's referring to is since he's talking about heavenly things that are going to be communicated, nobody's gone up to get that heavenly information. But I've come down to bring it to you. That seems to make sense of the passage and does not create an apparent contradiction with what Paul says in 2 Corinthians. Now, you know, whether the Jehovah's Witness is going to accept that or not is another matter. I actually don't think this is that important a point. There are lots of things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that I think are contrary to biblical teaching. But when you're dealing with someone in a group like that, you have to decide what hill you're going to die on. And this isn't the one to do that. Even if a person agreed, a Jehovah's Witness agreed, that there is an intermediate state in which we're conscious and we go to heaven to be with God. In other words, even if you could persuade them of that point, that they're reading John 3:13 incorrectly, it isn't going to make any difference at all in their spiritual state. Because the issue really, and this is true with all groups like this, it comes down to two basic issues, and it can be summed up in the person and the work of Christ. The person and the work of Christ. In other words, who was Jesus? You got to get that question right, because there are different conceptions of Jesus, not just now, but even then. And Paul talks about in 2 Corinthians, if someone comes preaching a different Jesus, oh, you bear him well, he's speaking sarcastically to the Corinthians. They put up with things they shouldn't put up with. Okay? Paul also says, if anyone brings a gospel other than what I've given to you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1. Even if it's an angel from heaven, so it's the person of Christ and the work of Christ. What is the correct answer to the question, what must I do to be saved? Of course, the Philippine jailer answered that, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. That is Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Messiah and who also is the Lord? There's only one Lord God. So you need to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God and his Messiah the rescuer. Now, that's not something they agree with, but that's the core of it. So my recommendation is for everybody, Stephanie, you included, and I know you have another question we'll take in just a minute about Jehovah's Witnesses. But my recommendation is that you don't get drawn off of the track on what amount to inconsequentials, and the way you know if they're inconsequential or not, is to ask the question. If I was able to persuade the Jehovah's Witness on this particular point, would it have any ramifications or effect on their spiritual condition before God. I think the answer regarding John 3:13 is no. They'd still be lost in virtue of their understanding of the person and the work of Christ. They get Jesus wrong, they get the cross wrong, they get salvation wrong. That's big. And that's what I encourage you to focus in on when you're having these conversations. Now, Stephanie had another question. Let's just jump to that, because it also has to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. So the second question for Steph.
- [46:32]
Greg Koukl
Hey, Greg, this is Stephanie out of Milwaukee. Before I ask my question, I wanted to let you know how I first found out about Stand for reason. Over 12 years ago. I was taking a little road trip with my sister, and then brother in law, and my brother in law started playing something in the car, and the first thing I heard was your chicken impression. I immediately thought, good Lord, what am I going to be subjected to here. But then you began your commentary, and I still remember that it was on the topic of abortion. Just a few minutes into the commentary, I thought, my goodness, this guy is speaking truth. I was so impressed by the clear and convincing remarks you made that I decided to begin listening to your podcast on my own. I became a faithful listener from there. And since I believe that you should pay where you eat, I decided to become a strategic partner as well. And I've won ever since. And I wanted to say that and also to thank you for your ministry.
- [47:29]
Grace Koukl
Wow.
- [47:30]
Greg Koukl
And that's my question. I occasionally get visited by Jehovah's Witnesses, and when I do, I usually take the time to talk with them. One lady actually wrote and sent me some additional material after we had spoken together. And I took that as an opportunity to write back to her and continue our discussion. But something she wrote took me by surprise. I'd never heard it before. She said that God had embedded good in Adam and Eve's DNA. And when they rebelled against God, sin then became embedded in their DNA as well. And I had never heard that. And I wrote back asking how something non physical can be embedded in something that is physical. But that also got me thinking about the soul. I know that many people question the existence of a soul by asking how something non physical can have an impact on something physical. I don't believe that the soul is embedded in the body, but there's definitely an interaction between the two. And what happens with one affects the other. Having a hard time articulating the difference though, between believing in the interaction of our non physical soul with our physical body versus believing that good and evil are embedded in our DNA. If you can kind of help me see what I'm missing here, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks so much.
- [48:49]
Grace Koukl
Bye. Wow, Stephanie, a lot there. And by the way, thank you for being a strategic partner. And it's kind of. It's really interesting to hear the whole story. Just stumbling upon the show while you're driving, hearing the chicken and becoming a regular listener. And just for everybody's information, that chicken is me. It's not really a rooster. I'm just playing around. And they recorded it and it's become a fixture for our show. But I missed a word there and I'll do my best to answer it without having that. But something was embedded and then SIM became embedded. I got that part. I didn't get the something else. But I don't know if Amy got that something was embedded. Okay, so let's Just go with what I have here. And this is one of those issues that doesn't really matter that much compared to the big issue that I mentioned earlier of the person and the work of Christ. Okay, I'm going to do my best to respond to this, but again, I'm going to repeat my encouragement, try to stick with issues that are central and pivotal to one's salvation. Who is Jesus and what must I do to be saved? Okay? Those are the key ones for any group like this, which includes not just Jehovah's Witnesses here, but also lds, which is another alternate religious view that is not Christianity. It's something else. Okay, I'm not even saying that it's wrong right now. I'm just saying it's different. I do think it's mistaken, but it certainly isn't classical Christianity. They repudiate, explicitly repudiate classical Christianity. Okay, two Jehovah's Witnesses here, that sin became embedded in Adam and Eve's DNA. Now some Christians actually think that's the case that since Eve, I'm sorry, Jesus did not have a human father but had a human mother, then it must be through not Adam and Eve's DNA, but Adam's contribution, physical contribution to pregnancy that passes on the sin nature. And Jesus didn't have a human father and that's why he had no sin nature. Now, I don't have any reason to believe that's the case. It's a curious speculation, but it's just a speculation and nothing rides on it at all. There's nothing theologically that is dependent on that answer or that speculation being sound or true. I'm just bringing it up because there is a. There is a tendency in some circles for Christians to say something similar. All right, now the question you raised, Stephanie, how could something non physical be embedded in something that's physical? Is the same question that I had when I started looking at your question. That occurred to me, but now it's occurred to you too. And then you raised the issue. Well, the soul seems to be interacting in a meaningful way with the physical body. So what's the difference? I think there's a difference between being embedded and having an impact on. Embedded seems to be mixed in. All right. And maybe it's an imprecision in language by the Jehovah's Witnesses that. And maybe they just mean that there is something in our physical constitution that carries the effects of sin being passed down. This is called sin nature. And a nature isn't physical, but it certainly can be for the best way I can think of it is unified or influenced. So our souls are not our bodies, but our souls are certainly deeply and profoundly unified with our bodies. So much so that we can call our bodies our own. All right, that's because the soul is intimately, after a fashion, connected, and the nature of that connection is unusual. How does that work? And the answer is, I don't know. And some people have taken that as an argument or an evidence against mind, body dualism. Well, we don't know how an immaterial self can move a material body, so therefore it doesn't happen. Well, look at. For a long time, the effects of gravity were observed, but it wasn't until recent times that we know how that works, how you can have attraction at a distance. This was very controversial, by the way, with Newton. A lot of very solid scientists did not want to believe there could be attraction. There could be influence, causality at a distance. But that's exactly what. As opposed to like a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball, one thing directly moving another. How do you have attraction at a distance and influence and causality at a distance. But nevertheless, it seems to be the case. Notice that there could be things that clearly are the case, even if we don't know how they work. I don't know how a soul moves the body, but I am a soul. I am an immaterial self that has the ability to move my body. I'm moving my lips right now. I'm moving my hand as I speak. There it is. I may not be able to unpack that right now, but nevertheless, it seems to be taking place because every time I want to move my mouth, my mouth moves. All right? So I think the same thing can be true. We can have an immaterial element that is a central part now of being human. Our fallenness, our sin, nature, our flesh. These are all different ways. The scriptures have described this circumstance, yet it's real. I don't know if I would use the word embedded in our DNA as apparently the Jehovah's Witness did. I don't think that's a very precise word, but I can live with it. If it just means there's something about our bodies that are influenced by our flaw in nature. And this seems to be fairly sound theology. I know that there is no good in me that is in my flesh. All right? And the flesh there being used as a characterization of our fallen self. Now, that doesn't mean he's got no good in him. He's made the image of God. But nevertheless, there is part of him that does no good at all. And when we are resurrected, our bodies will be resurrected sans flesh, minus flesh and the influence of the flesh on our behavior. Okay, So, I mean, I wouldn't take exception with the Jehovah's Witness on this particular point because there is a sense in which I think it's sound. Whatever other things they might believe about the nature of the fall and the influence of the fall on the body and on the mind, those are other matters. But I do think that certainly the fall of Adam has a profound influence on us. Our noetic structure, the structures of our mind, our ability to decide and do things. This is what total depravity means. Doesn't mean we're as bad as we can get, but it means that the totality of our existence is influenced by the fall. All right, so there you go, Stephanie. Thank you for both your question. Dan, for both of your questions. And that's it for my time with you. Greg Koukl here for stand a recent. Give him heaven. Bye bye now.