Loading summary
Transcript26 lines
- [00:05]
A
Sa.
- [00:29]
B
All right, friends, welcome to the show. Great. Mike Koukl here, your host. The show is called Stand to Reason because we stand to reason, metaphorically speaking. I'm actually sitting now. But we are standing up in the public square and wherever we have opportunity to make the case for classical Christianity and classical Christian values. And we're making the case in a reasonable way, giving our justification, rationale, why the scriptural view of reality is the true one. All right, so that's standard reason. That's why you've listened for so long. I want to start out by saying that we're going to have open calls today or make that open mic calls. And I want to start out by making a distinction that might be helpful that is often missed. And that distinction is one that's important in Scripture. When you're reading a passage, particularly in the Old Testament, and critics will come down and say, or come in and come down on Scripture or Christians by saying or citing something in the Hebrew scriptures especially, that took place that's pretty awful and gnarly. And see what your book teaches. And there are things obviously that the book teaches that are hard to follow, far hard to understand, and things that you need to be mindful of the cultural background, the historical background, and some of the aspects of the way people did things back the way that back then and the way they talked about them back then that will help you understand what's going on. So you got to be mindful of some of that. But sometimes there's a different mistake going on. And I want to introduce you to two related concepts. And that's the concept of being descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive versus prescriptive. Now, descriptive is pretty straightforward. When something is descriptive, you're describing it. You're simply saying the way it is or the way it was. And you may not even be weighing in on whether that thing is good or bad. You're just saying this is the way it was. That's descriptive. Prescriptive is quite different. Prescriptive isn't saying merely the way it was. It means saying the way it ought to be or about something that's already happened, that that thing happened and it was good. So you prescribe something. You make the point that the thing that you are prescribing is something that you ought to do. That's what the word normative means. By the way, a lot of people misuse this word normative, and they mean that it's just normal. Well, it's normative that people then they look at some behavior that Happens all the time. That's not what normative means. Normative means that it's appropriate. It's like a description, or rather a synonym for prescription, that this is normative behavior, that is the behavior that ought to take place. But it may not be normal that it happens frequently. So the reason this distinction is helpful. It turns out that there's a lot of challenges that come regarding Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, where things are simply recorded as they happened with no. No sense of affirmation given to the behavior. It's just saying this is what happened in the Book of Judges. We see a lot of nasty things that take place in one circumstance where it looks like a man butchers his own daughter because he made a vow to sacrifice that which comes out of the door next because he's celebrating a victory he had, and then it's his daughter that comes out to greet him and, oh, no, now I have to sacrifice my daughter. And there was some sense that, or at least some take that to mean that she will now forever be a virgin, she'll never get married, and that's the sacrifice she makes on his behalf. Or that just means he sacrifices her. And it just, you know, there's some debate about that. The point I'm making, though, is people look at that and they say, man, look at this terrible thing that's in the Bible. Well, look, there's lots of terrible things in the Bible. There are lots of things that are described that take place that are morally terrible. That doesn't mean God wants us to do them or he is offering his approval of. Just means that in this case, it happened. It's described. Oftentimes, though, we have things that are prescribed. This is what you ought to do. The Mosaic Law prescribes certain things to take place or to take place. The trouble comes when people read something as descriptive and assume that this is what the Bible is teaching we ought to do. David had many wives. Look at that. Well, he did. He had concubines, too. Solomon had even more. And what's your point? Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean that it's good. Lots of bad things there. And in fact, in the Mosaic Law, the kings were explicitly forbidden to multiply wives to themselves. Polygamy. There's a reason for this, especially with kings, and that is because oftentimes kings would marry someone or add another wife to their harem, as it were, as an act of political partnership with another country. So if you marry another king's daughter, then you have a kind of a union there between the two countries, and you're unlikely to go to war with each other. Now, the problem is when you marry someone from another culture, especially back then, you also marry her cultural gods. And this is what happened to Solomon. He multiplied women towards himself and they brought in a lot of pagan stuff, and you got taken in by it. So this is one of the reasons that God says, don't do that. But I'm just making the distinction right now between descriptive and prescriptive. And just because something happens in the Old Testament, it's described as having taken place, that doesn't mean that God is approving of it. It's merely something that happened. And you have to look closer to see if there was an explicit or maybe implicit approval of the behavior. Incidentally, even when God is regulating what seems to be problematic behavior like divorce, and we see that in the Mosaic Law that there was a provision made for divorce. But then Jesus was speaking against divorce in Matthew 19, and he was asked, well, why is it a provision in the law? Well, God's trying to take a bad situation and improve on it. It's not. Improvement isn't ideal because of the hardness of your hearts. Jesus said, you have to write a certificate of divorce if you're going to disown your wife. And that was an act of protection for the woman. So even though it wasn't ideal, it was still an improvement in the circumstance. So sometimes we do see a less than ideal set of circumstances approved by God to make them more ideal. I should say that less than ideal now, but because they were better than they were before. That's probably the right way to put it anyway, the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive. Now we have some callers here from the open mic that we're getting to now, little by little, actually many pages of it. And we've encouraged you when you have a question and you're not able to call into the live show, which is Tuesdays from 4 until 6pm that you go to our website or at maybe our homepage, look under podcasts and see live broadcasts, and then you can go ahead and leave a question there. That's probably the best way to do it. And the information is there, how you do it, but you just open your mic and you ask the question, and then it gets delivered to Amy. That's the open mike method, and I'll deal with some of them here today. And so let's go to the first one on my list, and this is Gael, it's a French name. And From Quebec. So, Gael, what's on your mind?
- [10:19]
A
Hi Greg, this is Gael from French Speaking Quebec. I just finished listening to your conversation with Frank Turek called five Easy Biblical Issues that Culture Gets Wrong on the I Don't have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist podcast. In that podcast you spoke with Frank about an argument towards the pro life view saying if you are against the taking of life in the womb, then you shouldn't support capital punishment. It seems to me that one could flip the argument around onto the pro choice ideology by saying that if people believe a woman has the authority over her body to end the life of a baby, then really a pro choice individual should be happy when any human being at all chooses on the their own to kill themselves slash commit suicide. It's sad to say, but I feel like that's the escalation of the pro choice ideology and the direction it is heading in, for example, euthanasia. And it's even sadder to say that some would actually agree to that argument
- [11:13]
B
and be at peace with it.
- [11:14]
A
Tell me your thoughts on this. Well, yes, escalation of the pro choice argument.
- [11:20]
B
Okay. Yes, you're welcome, Gail. And I appreciate this. First of all, just a clarification. When I gave that talk for Frank, and I've done it in a number of places, five easy issues, one of them being abortion. I'm not giving that talk because culture gets it wrong. Certainly they do get it wrong, but my concern in that talk is that many Christians get it wrong. People identify as followers of Christ, believing in the Bible and then they're pro life. I'm sorry, they're pro abortion. Makes no sense to me. Now. Maybe there's some ambiguity in their own mind about it, but when I go to the best place in scripture to make the pro life case, that is that it's wrong to take the life of an unborn human being. In fact, the conclusion I draw there is from a biblical perspective, it's actually murder. And I walk through that particular point to make the point. Clearly it's not just a rhetorical twist for me. I do that from Luke chapter one and the birth narratives, looking at how the text characterizes the one we know as John the Baptist and also Jesus the Son of God, how the text characterizes each of them while in the womb. And so the reason I'm using Luke 1 is only because Christians who have a somewhat high view of scripture are going to think that this is an authoritative source. So that's why I go there just to clear up that little bit of Confusion. My concern isn't in that talk that culture's got it wrong. It's that Christians go wrong on a host of issues, too, and one of them is abortion. I seek to rectify that by going to Luke 1. Now, on this other issue, I'm not sure I agree with you. Or maybe I agree with the point so much that it becomes somewhat of a non issue. And what you've said then is if there's somebody who's pro life that's arguing based on bodily autonomy, I can do whatever I want with my own body. Well, then, as you're putting as a point of consistency, they should be all right when anyone kills themselves because of the argument for bodily autonomy. Now, my only concern about that point that you're making, Gayle, is that I think that many people who are pro choice will be okay with that. It isn't like in my mind, you're saying to them, well, if you're going to do that, this leads to this, and you don't like this second thing. But it's the same rationale. Bodily autonomy, euthanasia. I think that most of those people who argue bodily autonomy in favor of the right to abortion are going to actually say, even though I don't like the idea that someone is going to commit suicide, I would say they have a right to commit suicide, euthanasia for the same reasons they have a right to have an abortion. Bodily autonomy. Not everybody will hold that view. And part of the way to answer the bodily autonomy argument is to do what you're doing, Gayle, and that is to take it out to its logical conclusion. Now, this is also called a reductio ad absurdum or just simply a reductio reduced to the absurd. In the tactics book, I use Francis Schaeffer's characterization of it, and that is taking the roof off. And you're showing, okay, if you believe this and you are consistent, it leads to this. Now, if you don't like where it leads, when that conclusion is an accurate or careful application of your view regarding this other thing, then maybe your view is mistaken. Let's rethink it a little bit. So if you have somebody who advances the bodily autonomy argument in favor of abortion, who also is against euthanasia or a particular kind of euthanasia, which is called death with dignity in some cases or whatever, but it amounts to just suicide. Yes, a person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own body. I think most people are going to give that the nod. Now, if somebody is not willing to give it a nod, then it's fair to ask the question why not? In light of your prior bodily autonomy stance regarding abortion. Now there's another little wrinkle in this though. And it strikes me that a person would be more justified based on bodily autonomy to justify euthanasia for themselves than they would be for abortion. Because in euthanasia it seems to be a much stronger point about bodily autonomy. Look, this is all about my body and only my body. And I can do what I want with my body and I want to take my life. But in abortion that's not the same thing because it isn't about the mother's body and only the mother's body. It entails another human body growing inside the mother, which is exactly where that human body belongs. In fact, it doesn't just end up there, she's making it there. It's a human body that she is actually producing inside of her body. But it's a separate individual. That's why it's always odd to me when people will will cast pregnancy as parasitism. And by the way, people do this. John Noyes was doing a noise on the street not too long ago, went to one of these no King rallies and was questioning somebody about the pro life issue or pro abortion signs. And this is what one of the women said. She said that baby is a parasite. When I was pregnant, that baby was. Or child, I'm not sure what word they use it, but I don't know what else they would say was sucking out the life out of my body. Well, yeah, that's the way pregnancy works. And by the way, after they're born, that doesn't stop because then they start sucking the life out of your body in a different way through lactation. And then kind of more indirectly for the next 20 years, suck the life out of your body is. You got to take care of them with the work and labor of your body. So in a certain sense it's more defensible. Bodily autonomy argument for euthanasia, for taking one's own life, doctor assisted suicide or whatever, then abortion, because clearly two lives are involved. We know this because something is alive that gets killed during abortion and it isn't the mother. Sometimes the mother dies. But that means you have two deaths, not just one, but an abortion that's successful. You always have a dead human being. So that means you've got two people involved, not just one. So anyway, something to think about there, that the pro choicer will be forced, based on the bodily autonomy argument, to say that they're fine, at least in one sense, with a person killing themselves. I think that's consistent, like you point out. But I also think because it's consistent, the rank and file are going to acknowledge that. Now when they say fine with euthanasia, they don't mean that they're thrilled about it. They mean that it's morally acceptable for the same reason. So that's the way I kind of handle that issue. Let's take a quick break and we'll come back with Jane. Here's a question about baptismal regeneration when I return on Standard Reason.
- [19:42]
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.
- [21:00]
D
Would you like a Stand a Reason speaker at your event? Greg Alan, Tim John, Megan, and I Tripp are available in person or online. Just email bookingstr.org Our team speaks on a wide range of topics, from issues in bioethics, gender, and science to topics in apologetics, theology, and philosophy, and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event, or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter.
- [21:47]
B
All right, let's see what we got here. We've got a question about memory care, and I don't know a lot about that, but let's see What Gary has to say about it. Gary.
- [22:03]
A
This is Gary
- [22:06]
B
asking, what can I
- [22:08]
A
give a person in memory care?
- [22:14]
B
Help them along.
- [22:16]
A
Thank you.
- [22:19]
B
Well, Gary, this is a hard one for me. My suspicion is it's hard for you too, because that's probably a circumstance you find yourself in, maybe your wife. And my understanding is memory care is when you're working with someone who's losing their memory, maybe through some form of dementia. Not an easy situation, obviously. And I was thinking about this, anticipating this question, and had an odd kind of thought, and maybe it doesn't even apply, but I find that the thing that in a certain sense, takes me back most vividly to an earlier time. There are two things, and they're both sensory, actually, and many of you, I think, can relate to. This is either a song or. I was gonna say a smell because it's got a nice alliteration, but that's not a nice way to put it. How about a fragrance? Either a song or a fragrance. So I went to high school in the 60s and college in the early 70s, actually for quite a while after that. But there are songs that, if I heard them again, I would be transported somewhat to this ear earlier time in a very powerful sense. So the. Simon agarfunko Parsley, Sage, Rosemary in Time. When I was a high school senior in 1968, there was a documentary that the students made about senior year aboard. Oh, I wish we had that. Oh, would it be great to have that somewhere? It got lost in time. But there was a song by Simon Agar Funko, Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme T H Y M E so it was talking about these spices. But it was a beautiful song, melodic, and that was the background song to this documentary. But if I heard that song again, bang, I'd be in senior. I'd be my senior year. And there are a lot of other songs that are like that that would carry me back to that very emotional time. So the music has a way of taking me back, jogging my memory, helping me have a feeling awareness of that period of time back that takes you back. You know how people say that? And the other thing is a fragrance. So I had a girlfriend there for my high school sweetheart, which who I'm still in contact with, is a wonderful friend, but we were into college with sweethearts, but she used to wear this fragrance called Mugue des Bois. And that was Lilies of the Valley, I guess. Right? It's those little flowers that have that very beautiful fragrance. If I smelled Muguet, man, I'd be taken Back, I'd be transported in time because it has such a powerful influence on taking me back, so to speak. Sometimes when I smell bacon and eggs, it takes me back to Saturday mornings in my house when I was in junior high because my dad used to make bacon and eggs for us all when we were there at our home in Prospect Heights in the suburbs of Chicago. So there are certain odors that have a transporting capability when it comes to time. Now, like I said, that was just off the top of my head. For memory care, the liability is you may not know what fragrance or melody would be the thing that would transport somebody back who's already losing their memory. So there's a little liability there. If you know them well and have spent time with them for years, this is something you might be aware of. And maybe I've actually never heard of that, like as a therapy for memory care. But it did occur to me that these are two things that pretty universally can rock people out of the present and take them to the past after a fashion. So you might want to find a way, maybe taking advantage of that now. When Melinda Penner had her accident 2017, on, what is it, December 2, and she was in coma for quite a while or incommunicado for quite a while, and then when she came back for those numbers of years, almost six years, the two year anniversary is November 1st, when the Lord finally took her home, she was having trouble remembering and recalling. And I think what we did is a lot of us just wrote some remembrances down, some reflections on the times that we had spent with her, and then gave those to her. She could read, but she wasn't always completely lucid in the way she was thinking about the moment, could think enough to read and maybe reflect on what was written. And we were thinking that this would be something that would help her remember us and the times that she spent with us. So that's about the only other thing I have to offer. Gary. I wish I had more. And actually this is a question that you might ask a professional in the field or possibly somebody who's. You can Google it, you know, AI it. I don't know, chat GPT. I don't use those things. I use Google, but I haven't used AI yet. I probably will eventually, but not at the moment. So check that out. There might be some other things you could do to help jog her memory if it's a her that we're talking about. All right, let's see. Jane. Oh, see, I preview Jane. And at the end of the segment and I didn't get to Jane, so. Oh, maybe I'm the one who needs memory care, huh? What do you think? All right, let's hear from Jane.
- [28:34]
A
My name is Jane and my question is about baptismal regeneration. Is this a deal breaker? If you're going to a church that you really enjoy and then you find that this is what they believe, is that a church one should not stay in, and can you believe this and be saved, or is that salvation by works? Thank you, Jane.
- [29:00]
B
This is a good question, and it's because there are a number of respectable denominations that hold this view. So let me explain what it is. For those who don't understand it. Of course, you know what baptism is? Water baptism, Christian baptism. That's when the Christian is baptized. Now, actually, there's a split view on this. Christian baptism is the phrase that is used to describe people who become Christians and then get baptized in virtue of their profession of faith. But there's a strong tradition in a number of Christian environments that babies should be baptized. And I think the history of infant baptism goes back pretty far. And Roman Catholics hold this view. And so do Lutherans actually reformed as well. You know, that pedal baptism or infant baptism is appropriate. It plays, I think, maybe a little different role than Christian baptism. I mean, it's meant to function as a Christian baptism, but it's not based on the conscious expression of faith of the individual when the child's a child. It's to kind of draw them in to a larger covenant relationship that the believing parents are part of. Now, Kyle, did I get that more or less right? Yeah, Kyle, give me a thumbs up because Kyle's Lutheran and they practice pedal baptism and so is Derek a Lutheran. And Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, is that right? Yes. So they hold that view. So we have at least two non Christians on our team. I'm just saying that's a joke. I do not think. I don't agree with the view of baptismal regeneration personally, but I don't think it's a mark of. I don't think it disqualifies somebody from being Christian or being saved because they believe that, obviously. So we have two people on our team, at least. We haven't had this discussion with some others, but my, my. Yeah, and there are some denominations. Lutheran's one of them. And I don't know, Catholicism may have a little twist on this, but the Church of Christ groups like Disciples of Christ and Christian Church, that group of churches also hold to baptismal regeneration. And again, I Don't agree with that, but I don't, I don't count that as a works based salvation because I don't count baptism as a work. It is not something that is being done to attain merit. Am I doing okay here, Kyle? To attain merit before God, that would be works based. It is something that God has ordained on their view to be done in accompanying a testimony of faith that kind of completes the package. So I'm not going to give my reasons why I don't hold the view, but I'm just saying I respect people who hold the view. But I do think there's a liability and I don't think it's with my Lutheran friends here on our team. But I think that what it can do is lead to a very. It can lead to a legalistic environment where works become an issue. And I'm not saying there's a necessary kinship between them. But I have been concerned about some churches that emphasize this, that you're not saved even if you have a profession of faith until you are water baptized. And those churches, by the way, usually baptize immediately. It isn't go to the class and be a good boy for six months and go to church and all that and then we'll baptize you. No, they're baptized right away, as was the case in the Book of Acts. So the reason they're baptized right away is because the salvation project still isn't completed until the baptism takes place. So I don't hold the view, but I don't think it's a works based righteousness. And I think you can belong to a church that believes in baptismal regeneration and still be in a pretty good place as long as other things are properly in place. Now there is a group that is very, very aggressive right now on college campuses and it goes by different names. I was at Kennesaw State University about two months ago in Atlanta, and I was told that this particular group was very active on that campus. Now, I have known this group by a different name than they offered me, and I can't remember what their name was, but the one I'm familiar with is the International Churches of Christ. Does that sound right? International Church of Christ. They're very aggressive in evangelism and very aggressive in discipleship. And this is appealing to a lot of people because they don't mess around. You want to be a Christian, you get involved in a class, you get involved in the community. Here you come every time week or whatever it is, and you're making a change in Your life to follow Jesus, which is great. And sometimes when we do evangelism, we're kind of meek on that issue. We're just a little soft when we could be a lot more aggressive. These folks are aggressive, and they get people involved in their Bible studies, but they teach this. In fact, they take it a step further. They teach not only baptismal regeneration, but they teach conscious baptism. And what that means is, if you get baptized, that doesn't mean you're going to be saved. You have to believe that your baptism is essential to salvation, for your baptism to work for your salvation. I mean, on the one hand, people believe in baptismal regeneration. All right, whatever Jesus said, get baptized. So we don't have to worry about that. Just you believe then, great. Now get baptized. That's like, standard. But they take it a step further. He says, not so fast. If you believe and then are baptized, but you are baptized without affirming the baptism is a critical element of your salvation, then the baptism doesn't count. Now, that's way off the deep end. And these folks are pretty aggressive about it. And sometimes when there are groups that teach baptismal regeneration, they end up getting a little bit strange. So I think you'd have to keep an eye on that. I probably would not belong to a local church that taught baptismal regeneration because I'm just not comfortable with that teaching. I don't think it's sound, and so it's hard to get behind it. But I could go to the Lutheran church with my buddies here at Stand to Reason and probably feel fine about that because so many other things are in place. Strongly. But if you're involved with the church that teaches that, just keep your eyes open and your ears are open, watch for what else is going on, and make sure that this is a group that's solid in other ways and you don't have to worry about that. Okay. All right, let's see. Not a deal breaker, but Rob from Indianapolis has a question here. Okay, let's hear from Rob.
- [36:57]
A
Hi, Greg and Amy. My name is Rob.
- [36:59]
B
I'm calling from Indianapolis, Indiana.
- [37:01]
A
I'm wondering how you'd respond to someone who says, my love is my religion. I'm sure your first response would be, what do you mean by that? But I'm wondering where you would go from there. Thank you.
- [37:14]
B
Okay, Rob. Yes, good instincts there. And yes, that would be my first question, because it sounds nice and poetic, but it doesn't sound sound because love isn't a religion. Even if you're really dedicated to something you Wouldn't say, look it, there are people maybe don't go to church and don't, whatever. They might say my job is my religion. But they're just using that phrase, the term religion there, in a very, very loose and nonspecific way. They aren't saying, well, there are religions to choose and I choose religion of my work. No, they're saying I don't have time for religion because my work takes up all my time. It's as a God to me. That's all they're saying. We get it. But when somebody says love is my religion, I think what they're trying to do is make their denial of any organized religion or any standard religion. They're trying to take that denial and sanitize it and make it sound like, no worries, love is my religion. And I don't really know what that means to that person. So, Rob, I would ask the question you suggested. What do you mean by that? What do you mean it's your religion. So religion usually entails, like God and the afterlife and spirit realm and transcendent elements. So in what way is love your religion? And then see what they happen to say. I actually think what is going on here is a way of disregarding all religion that makes any kind of personal demand on them that they don't want to give into. But they're ennobling their rejection of religion to talk about L O V E as their religion. And everybody loves love. So what's there to argue with? You're in. You are so loving that you made a religion out of it. Now my suspicion is they're not so loving. I don't know. I don't even know the person. But this is my suspicion. Love needs to be defined. And characteristically, what love is defined as nowadays is either an emotion or an attitude of complete and unmitigated acceptance, particularly of those things that are considered unacceptable to Christians, to genuine followers of Christ. And that's what we ought to be loving to homosexuals. Well, I agree with that. Well, then why are you saying their life is wrong? Well, I don't believe that saying their lifestyle is wrong is inconsistent with love. Remember, Paul says in the Love chapter, which people have read frequently, probably the most popular Bible verse at a wedding, First Corinthians 13. Among the other things, love is patience, love is kind, love doesn't take into account wrong, suffered, etc. Great stuff. But it also says love does not rejoice in unrighteousness. So according to Paul, in the great Love chapter in the Bible love has moral boundaries around it it and I think when somebody says my love is my religion, they are trying to ennoble their boundary less point of view about things that the Bible has something to say about regarding morality. I'm the loving one, so I'm better than you Christians or whatever who are condescending, condemning, looking down at finding fault with all these other nice people that I love. Because love is my religion, not judgment. That's not my love is my religion. So I think that's what's going on there. Like I said, I could be mistaken, but I don't think that the phrase makes a lot of sense. I know what they're getting at. They're totally committed to love and not to any other kind of thing that other people would call religion. But love isn't a religion, so it doesn't qualify. All right, let's shall we take a break and then we'll get a couple more of these calls? Let's do that. I'll be back with you in a moment on Stand to Reason. 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 answer 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 Strsk.
- [42:51]
D
Are you looking for a community where you can grow in your understanding of Christianity and learn how to defend your faith? Consider joining an STR outpost. STR outposts are groups of believers within a local church dedicated to exploring answers to the hard questions about Christianity. Each outpost is led by a trained director who uses STR's content and curriculum to equip members with the tools they need to think clearly and engage confidently with their faith. With around 160 outposts across 38 states and in eight other countries and growing, you're likely to find one near you. Joining an outpost is a great way to connect with others, deepen your knowledge, and be better equipped to make an impact in your community for Christ. To find an outpost in your area, learn more or to consider becoming an outpost director yourself, visit str.org outposts or email me trippallman@instpostcr.org.
- [43:56]
B
All right, we got two more questions here. And the first one I don't know if I have much to say to it. The second I do. So let's give it a shot. We're going to talk here from Sunny from North Carolina, Sonny.
- [44:12]
A
Mr. Kohl, hey, this is Sonny from North Carolina. I've got two questions and both questions have nothing to do with each other. All right, my first question is I've seen it on a couple of signs within the same county church signs, and it seems like both of them, for whatever reason, were Presbyterian churches. Do you know what is up with the animal blessings? I mean, do they have any scriptural references for this? I just don't understand. I thought it was weird. Understand what's up with it? And number two is I saw a YouTube video of a lady that was ex Jehovah's Witness, she's now a Christian and she was talking about how the Jehovah's Witnesses, the new living translation is called Holy Scriptures instead of the Holy Bible. And she said it was because they changed so much of it that if they called it the Holy Bible that they could be sued. Is there any validity to that? Just want to know your, your opinion on both those things. Thanks. Hope you all have a wonderful day.
- [45:37]
B
Okay, Sonny, thank you. And what's up with animal Blessings? I have no idea. I have seen, I'm thinking of different things here, odd things that Christians have done, putting oil on the walls of a room like anointing the room that they thought was maybe demonic. And when I was in Madras, India at a Christian place, it was a seminary that I taught at and a bunch of other people from my church, part of an enterprise there. And I remember hearing from the local Christians that they thought it was rather odd that they were putting oil on the walls to anoint the walls to protect them from evil spirits. Then they were praying over it and stuff like that. And that strikes me as odd. I don't know how oil on the wall is going to keep an evil spirit away, but that's what they did and it might be that blessing. You know, I've heard somebody plead the blood over a car once. Plead the blood of Jesus over this vehicle, Lord, plead the blood. Well, Jesus didn't die for vehicles. And I think that the impulse is well intentioned, but I don't think it does any good. Now, if you want to pray that God would protect the vehicle so that you don't have a crash, something like that, Nothing wrong with that. But I don't know about how pleading the blood over the vehicle does anything for the vehicle. And this like, as if that's protective because you use that language and I don't know certainly how blessing an animal works into anything. I guess you could pray for an animal. You might have a dog that's sick and you're praying that the dog gets better because you care about your pet. Now, I'm not dissing that, but the idea of bringing like laying hands on or praying a blessing on an animal or a church, that makes no sense to me. And I think blessings are for people, they're not for critters. And it almost demeans the process. I could be mistaken. Maybe somebody find a verse that says, you know, David blessed the lamb or something, I don't know. But as far as I can tell, that's never happened in scripture. And it becomes sometimes people will take a legitimate spiritual activity and apply it in a way that's not legitimate. They'll apply it in a somewhat, if you pardon this word, superstitious way. They think that it's going to have power to accomplish some end when it's a powerless thing. Think of a rabbit foot. People have the rabbit foot, right? This will be the good luck charm that has power to protect you because it's this thing. Well, that's superstition, because the rabbit foot has no power. Indeed. My dad used to say the rabbit had four of them. And look at where he is right now. Right. Common sense response. So I think blessing animals falls into the same category. I don't get it. Now, the Pope, not too long ago blessed a big block of ice. I think this is just as illicit as blessing an animal. In fact, it makes less sense to me than blessing an animal because this is just a block of ice. I think it had something to do with climate change or whatever, but it just struck me as silly. And my heart isn't to poke fun at it. I think it is a silly act from a person who has a tremendous amount of power in the world. And that silliness demeans something significant like a blessing. Blessing on a piece of ice. Okay. Nevertheless, there's another part here. Let's see, what do I have? Okay. It has to do with what you said, Sonny, was the new living translation. Actually, the new living translation is a paraphrase of the Bible, a legitimate paraphrase. What you are thinking of is the New World Translation. It's not New Living. Okay? Amy says it's thought for thought. Oh, and the New Living is less of a paraphrase. Okay, It's a mini paraphrase because it's thought for thought, not word for word. Okay, I stand corrected modestly. But in any event, the New Living translation is a real translation of the Bible that takes a little bit liberty to make it more readable to some people. The New World Translation is meant to be a bona fide translation of the Bible, the one that the Jehovah's Witnesses use that has many errors in it in virtue of the adjustments that were made in Scripture to fit Jehovah's Witness theology. Okay, These adjustments aren't legitimate. No other Creek scholars agree with those adjustments, nevertheless. But the concern that you have raised, Sonny, is that they call it the Holy Scriptures instead of the Holy Bible because they change so much that otherwise so much in their stuff that they would be sued for calling it a Bible. Now, this makes no sense to me. Apparently somebody who used to be a Jehovah's Witness, now as a Christian, said that that's why they call it the Holy Scriptures instead of the Holy Bible. But every Bible, every translation, changes things from one language to another and then from time to time change it all around. Now, I'm not saying they change the meaning. They're trying to really be precise to the mean. But even the New Living translation, which is a thought for thought, according to Amy, that still is a variation from more of a direct correspondence. I forget some of these terminologies related to Bible translation, formal correspondence like the new American Standard. So there are other perfectly legitimate Bibles or Holy Scriptures that do take liberties with the language to make them more understandable, but nobody's going to get sued. And by the way, who would sue them? Because nobody owns the Bible. You took my Bible and you changed the words. Nobody owns that. We have ancient Greek manuscripts that people draw from to make translations of the Bible. Now, if you're messing with a particular translation, NASB and abusing that translation, then. Well, there are copyright concerns for translations themselves. But you're not going to. Nobody's going to get sued because they do a lousy translation from the Greek. There's nobody to sue them. The person that puts a suit up has got to be the injured party. And the only person that would be injured is the party that owns the property that is being abused. Nobody owns this. It's just out there. I mean, if anything is public domain. It's the Bible after thousands of years. So I don't think that that's a relevant distinction. Holy Scriptures, Holy Bible, same thing. And the New World translation is the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is faulted for a different reason. Okay, enough of that. We got one more Seth. Let's hear from Seth. I only have three minutes. Oh, so I don't have time to talk about the question about time. Oh, okay. So I'll save that for another time when I have more of that stuff. So maybe what I'll do is I'll talk a little bit about translation. People ask, what's a good translation versus a bad translation? Well, well, that kind of depends on what you want to do with the Bible or how you want to use it. If you have a really, really, in a sense, strict translation that's very, very close to the wording of the original, you're going to get a little bit more of a wooden translation. If you want something that is a little bit more flexible, sounds better, you're going to go not for word for word, but thought for thought. And by the way, even when you go word for word, there are different ways to texts that are legitimate. So there's a lot of different philosophical points that may be involved in that decision. Pretty much any actual translation, any straight up translation. Would you call an niv, New International version, Nearly Inspired version? Would you call that. Amy, Would you call that a thought for thought? Not quite. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So would I. But there is more flexibility there. And I actually use the new International standard, nasb, not New International Standard. How did I say that? The NASB 95 is that we use it standard reason. Now, I started out with the NASB and that was 50 years ago. And I'm never going to change. I think this is a good idea for people if you get a good translation. NASB has a very good translation. So is the esv. And a whole bunch. Most of the translations are good, even the niv. I joked about it, but Zondervan publishes it now. They're going to cut my royalties. Right. But they have different philosophies. You read the first couple of pages of any translation, it'll talk about their philosophy and who was. I read a really good book about the Bible text that goes into that too, but I can't remember the name of it at the moment. But in any event, all these translations are going to work. The issue I'm pointing to here is if you're going to, you should stay with the translation that you start with. If it's a good translation, it will help you in memory work, because if you keep going to different Bibles where the same verse is worded differently, it's not going to stick. I like going through nasb. I know so many NASB verses just because I read them so many times. I haven't memorized hardly anything. But I know a lot because I've just went through them a lot. And they stick because it's the same words every time I go through it. It that's a benefit. Find a good translation and stick with it. And keep in mind, though, the New World translation is not a good translation. It's corrupted theologically for the sake of Jehovah's Witnesses. All right, friends, that's it for this show. Greg Koukl here for stand a reason. Give him heaven. Bye bye now.
- [57:35]
A
It.