← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
A
Sam. All right, friends, there's that rooster crowing. Is that a right thing to say? Can roosters crow or crows? Yeah, they can't do that, huh? Right. That's not just for crows, huh? All right. Anyway, it's me, Greg Koukl, your host. The Stand a Reason. Thank you for being part of our show by listening. And of course, you can always call in and then we could chat. My number, 562-424-8714. Now, that's a new number because we had some trouble with our phone. So just letting you know if you're listening live and many do streaming. Make that 562-424-8714. And if you're not listening live but want to call in live in the future, that's the number. My live show, or should say the broadcast time, the taping, however you want to call it, is Tuesdays from 4 until 6. Once again, 562-424-8714. Listen, I want to give you a little sneak peek on something. And so you heard it here first. All right? If you've ever thought about becoming a strategic partner, August is the time to join up. Now, I know it's not quite August yet, but that doesn't bother me. We start next week, but you can enlist this week. All right, in the month of August. And many of you know, if you listen for a while, we're asking 100 new people to step up and join our strategic partner team. We want them to be one of the 100. But you can beat the crowd. You can go to the head of the line, so to speak, and sign up this week. So that's the inside scoop. That's the sneak peek. Now, if you're wondering, strategic partners, and you've heard people call and say, hey, we're strategic partners. They are faithful monthly financial supporters of str and they make it possible, frankly, for us to do what we do every day. They're our foundation. And here's how it works. Again, just a sneak peek. So it's a quickie. Just go to str.org, and then follow the prompts. Easy. And as my way of saying thank you for and welcoming you into the strategic partner community, for your monthly pledge of $25 or more, I'll send you a copy of a book by Stephen Driscoll called Made in Our Image. And it's about AI and this is one of the most challenging issues facing our culture and the church today. And this is a thoughtful guide to help you think care about it. So that's my gift to you. Just go to str.orgpartner and join up there. Str.orgpartner and that is my, my sneak peek. But don't tell anyone I told you. Okay? So I was just talking with teammate, the bearded beast. Actually, to be specific, he asked me when I started reading the NASB Bible. That's the new American Standard, the Lachman Foundation. I said that's the Bible I started with because the Christian community that I was part of, well, right after I became a Christian, I probably started hanging out with the crowd at. Okay, don't laugh at this. What we called, or what was called then, the Jesus Christ Light and Powerhouse. It's an old fraternity house right next to the UCLA campus that was converted into this community, Christian community. We had a corporate living area and meals that were made and then there were rooms upstairs, the upstairs area for the men and there was a downstairs area for the women. And there were some that lived off campus. There were about 120 students there. And all told, and I became a Christian in the end of September 1973 and February 1st. So that was September, October, November, January. So I'm three years, I'm sorry, three months a Christian and I move in to this community and I was there for two and a half years and it was a phenomenal experience for me. Let's just say I would not be where I'm at today had it not been for that time at Stand to reason. Because my trajectory was set as a Christian, being closely involved with a group of people who were activist oriented regarding evangelism and a lot of people from Campus Crusade who left Crusade and joined together. One of the teachers there was Dick Day who discipled Josh McDowell, for example. Hal Lindsey was part of the, one of the founders there and was taught that Hal was, he just passed away last year, but he was the number one best selling author of the decade in the world, that's my understanding. And with his books about the second coming of Christ, the late Great Planet Earth, et cetera. And that was where I met Craig Englert, my dear and beloved first discipler who labored with blood, sweat and tears for not just the two and a half years that I was part of the house, but then soon after, we still lived in broadly the same community and spent time together. So all those years that he and his wife Kathy poured into me are still, I would say, bearing fruit now half a century later. So that's the community that I was in that helped me and there's a lot of things I take away from that that I could, in a sense, in principle, pass on to you. And that is how important it is to immediately get yourself tightly connected to a local community. That was a church, though we all kind of went to some different locations on Sunday. It really functioned as our local body of Christ, and we encouraged each other and held each other accountable. And this was during the Jesus movement. So there's lots of crazy stuff going on and lots of great things, too, and lots of opportunities. I spent my first two summers as a Christian for 10 weeks with Craig and his wife and a whole bunch of other people in Hawaii, in Oahu, sharing the Lord and discipling and suffering for the Lord. Somebody's got to do it there. So we did that two summers in a row. I mean, there's a lot of stories associated with that, but I was given different jobs and responsibilities and tasks. And the concept that you probably heard me talk, talk about, bloom where you're planted, turns out to be something I was practicing then without really thinking about it being a thing. It wasn't until I was married, and then I saw this little plaque my wife had kind of on the cabinet next to the kitchen sink where there were flowers, and it said, bloom when you're planted, that I realized this is a great principle. I've been operating on this principle for many years, and. And I'm passing it on as a simple saying, so to speak, so that it will help you as well. But that's where I was introduced to the new American Standard Bible. And I have been using it ever since. And there is a little lesson here, I think, and I think I have mentioned it before on the air, but I'll say it again. When you start as a Christian, or maybe when you're moving along, you haven't decided on a translation, find a good one. And in my view, the best ones to choose between are the new American Standard 95 is the 1 I'm using now because it has had a couple of little adjustments over the years. And that's the one we use in all our writing for standard reason. But. And I think the ESV also is a very, very good translation, and they tend to be very tight. NIV is a little bit looser as a translation, frankly, I don't like that. I like more precision now. It means that things will be maybe a little bit. What's the word? Less readable, maybe by some people's standards. I love the nasb. I'm used to it, and I don't think it's stiff at all. I think it's elegant, actually, and I know it's very precise and accurate, which is why some people think it's a little stiff. But nevertheless, I started with that Bible, and here, 50 years later, I'm still using the same Bible. Okay, now what's the benefit of that? Well, one, I started with a good translation. That's my number one recommendation. And my second recommendation is don't ever change. I mean, in your lifetime, if you start with a good translation, there's not going to be significant discoveries that's going to significantly change anything in the text. So I'm just saying, and this I know from people like Dan Wallace, who has trafficked in the textual criticism world for decades and decades, nothing's going to really change. The newer translations may, I guess they may be valuable because they upgrade their language a little bit. It's a little more contemporary. But I think the big change was from the King James to something more recent because that's 300 years and language has changed. Who was it? John Montgomery said that he uses the King James Bible with people who are 350 years old or older. All the rest, he uses a more updated translation because the translation, I should say the language has changed. I don't think it's changed enough in the last 50 years to justify a new translation for me. And the ESV is much more recent. And here's the other benefit for it. You stick with it the rest of your life. The benefit is you're always reading the same words. Sometimes if I pick up another translation, which is valuable if you're studying just to see how other scholars have nuanced the translation of maybe a passage that's in question, that's okay. But if you're trying to remember Scripture, stick with the same translation. I'm not waving my own flag here, but I have memorized very little Scripture. There are some passages I have memorized, and they're not so sticky. When I try, the passages I do know are sticky because I have read the passages so much or talked about them so much, I'd never had to memorize them. So that's a big advantage of having a translation that you're reading over and over and over again. Consistently reading it becomes part of you. John MacArthur once said, you want to read the Bible so much that your blood becomes bibbly. And if you stick with the same translation, those words that you frequently read and reflect on and talk about will get stickier and you won't have to work so much at memorizing I think that's great and I encourage people to do it. It just hasn't worked for me. I guess it doesn't matter because I found another way sort of to remember lots of scripture. It just happens. And that's okay by me sometimes. I memorized Psalm 51 once. Now I could still recite about half of it. The parts that are really, I think, matter to me. You desire truth in the innermost being and in the hidden parts, you will make me know wisdom. Okay, I like that line. So it helps if you stick with the same Bible. Start with a good one and stick with it. And that's what I did when I first became a Christian. Fortunately, the crowd I was trafficking with then were solid people, seminary trained, mostly Dallas seminary trained, and had street smarts with regards to witnessing and all of that stuff. And it was a great experience for me as a young Christian. But I stuck with the same Bible since then till now, which is more than half a century. And it's really made a difference. So I'm just passing that counsel on to you. Let's see. Let's go to our first caller here, and it's Addison in Downington, Pennsylvania. Addison, welcome to the show.
- [14:16]
B
Hello, can you hear me?
- [14:18]
A
Yeah, hear you fine.
- [14:19]
B
Great.
- [14:20]
A
I do have a question though. Being Pennsylvania, did you. Isn't Downington where our Philly reality is at? It's just outside of Philly.
- [14:29]
B
Yes, and I will forgive you for the mispronunciation.
- [14:32]
A
Oh, sorry, town.
- [14:34]
B
But yes, you are very much cor. Maybe the pre call got it fixed up, but yeah, Downingtown.
- [14:39]
A
Okay, how do you pronounce it?
- [14:41]
B
Downingtowne.
- [14:42]
A
So T o W a. Oh, Downingtown. Well, that's actually spelled properly. I just didn't read it carefully. So, Addison from Downingtown near Philly, Pennsylvania, welcome to the show.
- [14:54]
B
Yes, and I did have the privilege of meeting you actually on either. I think it was the first time that you did reality. So that is my church that I go to, Christ first church in Downingtown. So.
- [15:04]
A
Gotcha.
- [15:05]
B
It was a pleasure meeting you and pleasure hosting you for all reality.
- [15:08]
A
Oh, well, that's really sweet. Well, we filled it up last year and Missy Philly, that was actually this spring and last season and so we plan on filling it up again next spring. Next season.
- [15:22]
B
So yeah, I know every year we sell out faster and faster, so it's exciting to see.
- [15:29]
A
So what's up?
- [15:30]
B
So I had a question about hypotheticals. Basically hypotheticals, I think, and I hope you would agree are extremely useful for kind of fussing out ethical questions about what Christians should be obligated or even might be able to do in certain circumstances. And it was always kind of stuck with me. A couple years ago, I think you had a gentleman on your podcast who was posing some hypothetical situations, and eventually it got to a point where you stopped and you basically said you're not obligated to answer the hypotheticals he was asking. You summed up your view, and you moved on. And I was wondering, I can give more background if you want. I don't. I have. Sure. You probably, you know, you have so many conversations, you don't even remember this, but I was wondering if you have guidelines for when and when not to pursue these hypotheticals.
- [16:28]
A
Yeah, I don't have guidelines for most things in conversations because I'm just. I have some instincts, and I put some of the principles of the instincts down in writing, in the tactics book and the street smarts book, and I talk about them here. But once you got those general principles down, then it's just a matter of I'm using the word instinct, but just experience, where you think about how the best way to use them would be. And there are times when, as you just mentioned, Addison, hypotheticals are useful. I mean, philosophers do thought experiments all the time, you know, and these are. You're conjuring up these things, but you're doing it to create more clarity regarding an issue, and the thought experiment gives you that clarity, hopefully. I mean, this is. And it's useful for that purpose. And there's another tactic called taking the roof off. It's kind of a reductio. It's like you take the person's point of view seriously for the sake of application, and you give it a test drive and you see where it goes. In other words, if you follow this principle consistently, if it leads you off a cliff, then there must be something wrong with the principle. You got to come back and kind of rework a little bit. And I guess that would be a certain type of hypothetical. So they have a place. But sometimes when you're talking to people, you realize that all they're doing is kind of spinning yarns. And it isn't so much that they're really trying to create confusion. They're doing it on purpose just to create confusion, but it ends up because they hypothesize so much and they get so far away from in almost the real world that people can't see what's obvious and right before their eyes. And that's when I say, oh, you know, okay, this is we're done. I'm not going to say anymore. I don't specifically recall that call, but I know I've done that before and this is the way we're at this sometimes. My thought is, and if that's satisfying to you, well, you're welcome to it, but it's not satisfying to me. And I gave the reasons why. And then we move on, if that's what's necessary. So I remember. I don't know if you ever saw the movie True Grit, the recent one, not the John Wayne one, but the more recent one with.
- [19:00]
B
Yes, I believe I definitely watched the. Actually the one with John Wayne within the last year. But, yeah, the other one. I forget who the actor is.
- [19:08]
A
Yeah, Yeah. I have a hard time recalling the name Jeff Bridges. I think it is.
- [19:12]
B
Yeah.
- [19:12]
A
I'm just saying 10 times better than John Wayne. Okay. No, no, I'm. It's a magnificent movie. I've seen it three or four times. Coen Brothers directed it. And so it's kind of edgy and it's. The casting is perfect, especially Jeff.
- [19:26]
B
The John Wayne one is a little goofy.
- [19:28]
A
Yeah. When you look back on it, I agree with you. So anyway, there's a line in there where somebody has asked. There's a, there's, there's a, it's towards the beginning. And, and, and so there's this bargaining situation between the girl and another gentleman. And, and he says, hey, I don't, I don't deal with hypotheticals because real life is already plenty complicated enough, something to that effect. And so I think there's a. Like I said, there's some value to hypotheticals, but you don't want to get away from the real world, the actual things you're facing and the actual evidence, especially when it comes to ethical kinds of questions. We were talking and actually this is a big deal right now in pro life circles, a discussion about. Now that Roe v. Wade is off the table and states can now make restrictions on abortion. How do you punish people who give abortions? Given. Pardon me.
- [20:27]
B
That.
- [20:28]
A
That abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
- [20:31]
B
You've hit on exactly what the phone call that I'm remembering was about. The gentleman was talking about. He was giving. He basically. He gave a hypothetical. Suppose we lived in a country where it was legal to kill your child after birth.
- [20:45]
A
Yeah.
- [20:45]
B
They 1, 2, 3 years old. Would we ethically, as Christians be allowed to. And he started proposing possible. Violent.
- [20:54]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, fair enough. This is a little different. But that's interesting that it was Kind of right in the same lane. And what we are talking about today is how I've dealt with this in the past. We got to address it a little bit more carefully now, since it's now on the table in the culture, more so since Roe has been tabled, set aside. It's in the dustbin where it belongs. But now you got this discussion. And in the past, I would just simply say, look, because this would be used by pro choicers. Okay, so you think abortion kills a human being. That's murder. Does that mean now you're going to give the death penalty to women who have the abortions? Okay, and what I pointed out was that's a hypothetical, right? And what I pointed out with is I don't know how that's going to play out because I'm not a legal expert. And there are a lot of different elements that are involved in deciding the way to prosecute lawbreakers. But that has no bearing on the issue I'm talking about, which is what is the nature of the unborn? Is the unborn a real human being? And see this deflected that attention. I can answer that. And then we can decide after we answer this, then what do we do? That's another issue. But I don't have to answer how we litigate against, you know, people who are involved in abortions in order to answer the question, is abortion an act that takes the life of an innocent human being? So there's the. That was the. I'm giving this as an example, and it sounds like it was pretty similar to the conversation you'd heard. But when I was talking to our team members today, we're knocking this thing around six of us. And I said, sometimes you solve one thing first. And if you're distracted by these hypotheticals, they may be legitimate questions to ask, but they shouldn't be detracting or distracting from the main issue which needs to be decided. And that is what is the unborn? And in answering that is taking the life of an unborn, taking the life of, of a valuable human being. That's the starting point. And until you answer that question, the other ones are not relevant. You can't disqualify the first question because you can't answer the ramifications of your conclusion. You gotta come to this first conclusion on the merits themselves. So anyway, kind of like I said, there's a somewhat instinctual element here. You do what you can to navigate. And then if you feel like the issues are being obfuscated, more confused, cluttered up, covered up by the speculative elements. Well, then you want to bring it back to reality, you know, and then. And not entertain those things. And that's probably what was happening in the conversation that you were referring to.
- [24:05]
B
Yeah, I think that that makes a ton of sense. What you said first about how we use hypotheticals to bring clarity to certain questions. But then like you're saying, it can over a conversation transform into the person who's bringing the hypothetical is actually bringing confusion to the situation rather than clarity.
- [24:24]
A
Yeah. And sometimes, like I said, I don't want to suggest bad motives of people, but sometimes people do seem to like to throw a lot of dust in the air, you know, and a lot of confusion and stuff like that, in order to obfuscate, like I suggested. And anyway, so I just don't want that to happen. So that's why I. In that case, I just. I just. Okay, we're done. You know. Anyway. Does that help?
- [24:57]
B
Yeah, that helps completely. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question.
- [25:00]
A
All right, Addison, maybe we'll see you at Reality in the spring. By the way, do you mind if I ask you how old you are?
- [25:08]
B
I am going to be turning 40 in a few weeks time.
- [25:12]
A
Okay. Well, you have a young voice.
- [25:16]
B
I've heard that. And thankfully I've heard I also have a young face too. Maybe when you see me at Reality in Downingtown, you'll think I'm 10 years younger than I am.
- [25:25]
A
Yeah, well, you could have told me you were 18 and I would have believed you from your voice, but then applauded. Your perspicuity, your brightness, your clarity of thinking and all that for an 18 year old.
- [25:40]
B
Hopefully I'm still bright for a near 40 year old as well.
- [25:45]
A
All righty. Thanks for the call.
- [25:47]
B
Yep, thank you.
- [25:48]
A
All right, bye. Bye. All right, friends, let's take a quick break and then we'll be back with more calls on Stand to Reason. Hey friends, would you like to be encouraged throughout your week with timely, relevant, content meant to bolster your knowledge, wisdom, and character? Or maybe you have a desire to be connected with other like minded Christians from around the world? If so, then you need to follow Stand to Reason on social media. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Not only will you be able to interact with other Stand Treason followers, but you'll also stay up to date and informed on our latest resources and events. In our current culture, it's important to have something of value to break up your social media feed. So just visit str.org and find the links to all of our social media platforms at the bottom of the homepage. 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. STR Outposts are local communities of Christians seeking answers to the hard questions about Christianity. Each outpost is led by a qualified director who trains others with STR content and curriculum in their local church. By becoming an Outpost Director, you'll be equipped with the content and coaching you 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 trippallman outposttr.org 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 Strask. All right, we're going to go to some open mic calls, and those are calls from people who go to our website, str.org go to our homepage, go to our podcast link and go to where it says live podcast. Oh, broadcasts. And then leave a question because they're not able to call in or whatever. And so we have a list of them and let's see. How about Rachel, this is about what happens when you die. Okay, Rachel. Hi, my name is Rachel. I have a question about where we go when we die. So according to. Well, let me just read the verse Revelation 20:14. It says, Then death and Hades will be were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
- [29:22]
B
Fire.
- [29:23]
A
And it seems to me that it's saying that when you die there's like this waiting place before judgment, and it's not. It's not like heaven or hell. It's just a waiting place. Also, it seems to be implying that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus 16:22 to 23 and then 26, it seems to be implying that. But I was wondering what you think about that and how you interpret those passages.
- [29:49]
C
Thank you.
- [29:51]
A
Yeah, thank you for the question, Rach. I don't know for sure about this. I mean, there's a lot of things I don't know for sure about. And maybe I have an opinion, but I don't have much of an opinion about this. Those citations, the parable, the book I think you mentioned, the Book of Revelation. These seem to suggest there are things going on afterwards. It isn't like you die and you open your eyes, as it were, and you're either in eternal bliss or eternal torment, everlasting torment. You know, there's things going on, and that's what you see are acts you see played out there. In some cases, you see the quality of existence in Hades, which is the place of the dead. Sometimes people think Hades means hell. No, it's just the netherworld, that world you go to after you die. And in the Old Testament, there's not a lot of detail about that. In the New Testament, there's not a lot of detail either. What we do learn is in that netherworld, that there is a place of anguish and then there is a place of comfort. And so we have in the parable that Jesus told. It's not clear to me that it's a parable, by the way, just saying it might be a depiction. In any event, there are two different kinds of experience. One of them is anguish and the other one is comfort. In the book of Revelation, we see different things going on and different judgments. Jesus talks about a judgment in Matthew 25. I think that's the separation of the sheep and the goats. There's debates about what that entails. But it just strikes me that, that a couple things are obvious, and one of that is that there is something going on there. A passage of time, as things are being played out. I think the things that are being played out are for the purpose of God demonstrating his righteousness and mercy. Righteousness in those he judges and mercy to those he would have judged who deserved it but escaped judgment because Jesus took the judgment before them. And so on the one hand, God's mercy is magnified by his wrath against those who are punished. Okay? And so we see these different things going on. Now, Paul did say to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I think that's a general truth. I don't know if it's requires that there is a split second transition. You breathe your last breath, you give up the ghost, you shuffle off this mortal coil, and instantaneously, there's Jesus. I don't see that the text requires that Jesus said to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise. So, well, today that would be soon. Soon after he dies, I don't know instantaneously. So this is a question I can't answer. I will be able to answer it sometime in the future, but I can't do it now because I'm not dead yet. When I die, I'll be able to answer it, but I won't be able to tell you the answer. Hey, when I die, I'll probably know a whole bunch more things, but I won't be able to tell you. Okay, so that's my sense of things. Rachel, we have some hints. This is true about a lot of stuff. We get hints about things, we get some detail, but we don't get what might be called precision about these things. You know, I wrote this book called the Story of Reality. And when I got to this section of the book, it's divided up into five different segments or sections that are titled God, Man, Jesus, Cross, resurrection, the first things to the last things. And this would be the final resurrection to reward or judgment. And I confess to the reader that I'm having a hard time with this because what I'm trying to do is explain or express something that is unexpressible. It's ineffable. In other words, it's hard to grasp or put it into words. Paul said the same thing when he describes in Corinthians his being caught up to the heavens. And there were things inexpressible that he saw. So my goal at the end of that book was to try to express some of the things that I know would be true, like being perfectly cleansed. We've been dirty all of our lives, and we know it. This is why we have a guilty conscience. But there will come a time when we will not be dirty. The cleansing of the resurrection. And so therefore, we will not feel dirty. And we don't even know what it feels like not to feel dirty. Feeling dirty feels kind of normal to us because that is our normal experience. But when we get to heaven, we won't feel that because we won't be dirty. So. Well, that's kind of what about streets of gold, you know, and all that? What are we going to be doing? Well, I don't know. We're going to be doing something. There's going to be activity up there and meaningful activity and there's going to be new heavens and new earth and stuff like that. But it's kind of general and I think it's a mistake if we take the general stuff and we try to be too precise because we could be mistaken. And so I think we should reflect on the passages and consider what's possible in anything that's possible is possible, and I'm willing to leave it there. Rachel, not always sure how to answer some of those questions that have to do with things that are unclear to me. I'm comfortable with the ambiguity, as it were. Now, let's see what I got here. I've got Tom following Rachel. Let's take a shot at this one bearded beast. It's Tom Pointner and it's about me and Amy.
- [36:41]
C
Hey, Greg and Amy, this is Tom Pointner calling again. I always look forward to when you guys are both together on the Strask podcast, but I gotta say it was great when both of you were together for an extended few hours on Greg's regular STR1. I think your listeners really benefit when you're both on together and you can bounce ideas and opinions off each other. All that to say you you have both hinted that you don't always agree with one another and I'm just curious as to what those differences of opinion actually are. Maybe think about doing some more STRs together like you did when you were talking about Jewish issues and pick maybe the two or three major topics where you differ in your theology and talk about them. I think it would be valuable for all of us to listen to two trusted sources each offering a different view and then allow you both to dig into the topics. I think it would offer a great example of clarity versus agreement and serve to show how two people with different points of view, as committed Christians can still have a civilized discussion. We'd love to listen to that. Something to think about. Blessings. Thank you.
- [37:56]
A
Well, thank you, Tom. And I always love working with Amy. I enjoy it so much for some of the reasons that you just mentioned. She is sharp as a whip and she sees things that I don't see and I might obviously weigh a STRS work. And by the way, if you like this show and we have a commercial that comes up where I say this, you're going to Love Strsk. This show is an hour times two per week. STRS is 20 to 25 minutes times two a week. And you get Amy, and Amy feels the questions that you send in, I respond and then she responds to me. And we have a great time. In this particular show, many of you listen to it that Amy and I did together for two hours. We're talking about antisemitism. And she pointed out that there is a difference in the way we approach this broader question. But we are both united on the basic concerns that we talked about. Now, Tom, you asked, well, what do you disagree on? Maybe you should do some shows on that. Here's the problem with doing some shows on that topic or with that focus, and that is that most of the time Amy thinks I'm right. I kind of wish she was here to hear that. I guess that's just another way. Another way of putting it is most of the times I think Amy's right, which means that most of the times we are agreeing and actually I'm a bit stunned to know how to see how many times we agree. And we've been doing this show for about eight years, as far as I know, something like that. A long time. And since beginning of 2018. Yeah, that is eight years plus. And I never get tired of listening to her reflect. Now, she ends up a lot of times in the book of Romans with the grace of God, but that's the appropriate place to end up on so many different issues. But even though I do not have insight into all of her theological convictions, when she shares about things, it turns out that these are things that we're on the same page about. Tom. And I was actually a little bit surprised to hear that she is covenant and not dispensational regarding the issues that we were talking about. Now, some of you might be thinking, well, what's covenant? You believe in the covenants? No, everybody believes in the covenants. It's just covenant theology, which is something that Reformed people favor characteristically. And Amy is reformed, as I am. On the issue of sovereign grace, to me it's a little bit hard to follow. God had certain ways that he dealt with humans in the garden, and then, since then, I honestly wish I could articulate it really clearly, but I can't. So therefore, I can't fault it and I can't defend it. But that's Amy's view, and maybe she could talk about it a little bit more. The issue for me between us on that question is one that I've talked about a few times, and that is that God made a promise to national Israel, and it was an unconditional promise to the people. And then I read Jeremiah, among other passages, but the one that's central to make this point is Jeremiah 31, 31, and following. Because not only does he introduce the new Covenant, but that in verse 35, 36, and 37, God reaffirms His commitment to the nation of Israel. And he does so with a hyperbolic, metaphoric appeal. As long as the sun and the moon are still doing their thing, you know that I'm still doing my thing with the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel will be a people before me forever. So that's pretty clear. And that is the pivotal distinction between covenant types and dispensational types. Now, in both of those theological systems, there's a lot of other stuff.
- [42:27]
B
Stuff.
- [42:28]
A
But I am not dispensational, and that's why I believe in Israel. I read the text and I think God made a promise to Israel that he can't go against, and therefore that would put me at the dispensational camp. I don't want the doctrinal tail being wagging the dog here, the scriptural dog. I think this is what Scripture teaches top to bottom in the Old Testament. And nothing in the New Testament can counteract that. Can. If you're trying to interpret the Old Testament part in light of the New Testament, there is some legitimacy to that. But what you can't do is you can't take a New Testament statement or an apparent teaching and then have it completely upend something that seemed to be plainly promised to the people who received the Old Testament text. If that's what's happening, chances are pretty good you're misunderstanding the New Testament. Any event, that particular point, what you think about national Israel is a pivot point. A pivot point difference between covenant types and dispensational. That's what we disagree on. You know, I would kind of like to talk to her sometime about why we disagree. She holds the view even in that two hours we didn't get into that. She says, I disagree with Greg's theological foundation regarding Israel, but I agree with him with regards to the practical application of our relevant theologies. We still land in the same place with regards to the question of Jew hatred. And I'm now saying if you're not dispensational, then you hate Jews. However, there seems to be a lot of Jew hatred that is rising in the culture and in the church. And that's my term. I chose that term because I think it's accurately descriptive. Now, if you're not dispensational and you don't hate Jews and you're not necessarily supportive of this iteration of Israel that's in the Middle east right now, okay, I get that that's a noble difference of opinion, but that still doesn't justify anti Semitism. And this was the issue that we were dealing with, anti Semitism. Anyway, Tom, I hope that helps out. Okay.
- [44:56]
B
And
- [45:00]
A
let me see, you got another question just follows. Let's just go to that. Okay. About the afterlife, Tom, second one.
- [45:08]
C
Hey Greg, Tom Pointner here. There's a woman who I sometimes see at my office who's a self professed atheist and we've become friends over the years and had some great back and forth discussions with regards to her atheism versus my Christian beliefs. Been planting seeds the whole time and I have seen some progress. She seems much more open than she used to be. But so the other day she pulled me aside and asked if we could talk. And bottom line is her daughter and her daughter's family, they're very strong, committed Christians. And recently the grandchildren from that family, they have expressed their concern to this woman with regards to her lack of salvation. Now, she doesn't believe in an afterlife, but she doesn't know how to respond to her grandkids in a way that's honest. She doesn't want to lie to them and tell them that she believes what they believe, but she doesn't want them to worry about her. So she places no authority in the Bible. And other than talking about, I don't know, ndis or remote viewing, I'm not sure, one, how to present a non biblical argument for the afterlife and two, what advice to offer as to what to say to her grandchildren. Now, do I keep the discussion focused on her non belief and press her on why she believes there is no afterlife? Or maybe try to go deep with her peeling back the onion and just listen to her talk about her own faith journey and how she ended up without a belief in God or just leave her and her opinions out of it and just offer some advice as to what to say to her grandkids. And I'm not sure what that would be anyway, so whatever words of advice or wisdom you can offer me, that would be great. Thanks, Greg.
- [46:50]
A
All right, Tom. Boy, there's a lot there and I'm glad that you have this relationship with her and it's congenial and I expected no less from you. As a standaresan ambassador. And that has borne fruit. And in light of that, I think continuing on in that relationship, having discussions of various sorts about these spiritual things is just fine. You might ask her about her faith journey, just finish. Just to learn more about her, understand what's driving her lack of belief in God. And she might say, the reason I believe there is no afterlife is because I have no reason to believe there is. Which is understandable. But by asking her about that, you'll get more detail and your relationship will. Will grow a little stronger as you're interacting. And these are the. Look at. Many people become Christian because another Christian was there talking and sometimes talking and talking and talking. But at least they're there and they're. And they're engaging them and they're. Even if they. The non Christian is pushing back, they're getting them to think this was exactly my situation in the early 70s. That would be 1970s. I know this is a different millennium for many of you, but that's when my younger brother Mark, four years. No, two years my junior, had become a Christian. Then he started witnessing to me when he could. And it turned out that in late 72 and early 73, we were both in Southern California together. And we were both. Actually, I was in the West End by ucla, and he was down in Long beach, which isn't very far. It's half an hour. So Long beach area is where our offices are at right now, for standard reason. But he just kept talking to me and talking and talking and talking. And I pushed back. And we had differences, but he was never hostile. I don't recall ever getting any arguments with him, though I did press him on some issues and questions I have. But eventually the Holy Spirit just wore me down and it started to make more and more sense until I came to a point where I was convinced it was actually true. And then I became a believer. Actually, by that point, I think I already was a believer. I mean, Mark bumped against the fruit and dropped into the basket. And that's what happens with ripe fruit. When the fruit is ripe, it's very easy to harvest. Okay, so that's, I think, what happens with most people. And if you, Tom, you continue on this pleasant friendship with her, talking about these spiritual things, this is where, you know, the Holy Spirit takes time to work in people's lives oftentimes. Sometimes there's a. What you might call a Damascus Road experience, but it's not usually the case. It just takes a while for people to think through their own ideas via the Christian claims. About reality and. And have a change of mind over time. That's metanoia, which is repentance. That's the Greek word that's translated repentance. But that's what's going on, a transformation of thinking which has a consequence in the way we behave. Of course, that makes sense. So I would say continue to pursue that. All right. Now, with her grandchildren, this is a tough situation. I presume the grandchildren are fairly young. You didn't tell me their age. Maybe they're 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. But they're not young adults. I presume could be mistaken about this. However, I just said alarm go off. And I'm trying to say, think, why did that alarm just go off? Anyway, I'm concerned about. They're concerned about her, and she is, too. Now, she doesn't hold their view, obviously, and that's what they're concerned about. And this is a weighty concern. It's a weighty issue. So now what? Well, I think that there might be an alternative here that will be an honest answer, but not a thorough one that might put her grandchildren at ease. So you might ask your friend Tom, are you even, let's just say, theoretically open to the possibility that Christianity might be true? Are you open that it might. I know you don't believe and you don't think it's true, but are you open to the possibility that it might be? Now, if she says yes, I think you could ask her. So in a certain sense, you're kind of still working on it. You're not absolutely sure one way or another. Certainly not sure of Christianity, but not entirely sure of atheism. She's not absolutely convinced because, like I said, she's thinking a possibility that it might be true. Now, if that's the case, she can go to her grandchildren and say, I know you're Christians. I'm not, but I'm still thinking about these things. I'm still thinking about these things. And that might be enough to allay the fears. As long as her statement is true, if she's still thinking about these things, then she would have integrity when she tells her grandchildren that, and that even might encourage them. She could say, hey, why don't you pray for me? I don't know. Might as well. But if she can say that to them, I think that would help. I don't know any other way out of that one except for that point. Just find out. She's kind of open a little. Even then she could parlay that into a response to her Grandchildren and leave it at that. Now there's one other issue though, and this is one you brought up because she sounds like a physicalist of some sort, doesn't believe the Bible, doesn't believe in the afterlife. But you mentioned NDEs. Now that's near death experiences and you mentioned in passing remote viewing. This is a detail of some near death experiences where people see things that happen at a different location than their body is at and they're veridical. In other words, they come back and report truthfully what took place and it can be tested. So there's an empirical sort of assessment that can be made here. This happened over at this other place. I saw it happen. Then you check it out and say, oh, it did happen at that other place. And there's details that are involved that just simply can't be made up. That's not plausible. Well then how did that person know that? Well, their own testimony is that they were there. They were in a certain sense transported from where their body lie in probably a death state. Now These are called NDEs. Near death. But given the EKGs are the electrocardiogram and the EC, what is it? The brain state and the heart state. I'm getting my acronyms mixed up. Given those things, they're dead, their body is dead, but they're not. They continue on, they're viewing these things and when they come back and the body is revivified, the person in the body can tell you where they just were and here's what happened and you can check it out. So that's the power of NDEs, because they are empirically verifiable and there are lots and lots and lots of these. Some of them are questionable, even some of the famous ones, the shoe on the top of the hospital business, that was drawn into question. But maybe some of them are silly and they miss the point. They're not veridical, but there's so many of them that are that you could make the case that way. I sometimes have asked the question with audiences. I think I might have gotten this from JP Moreland. But I asked people to imagine their mother doing something like working at a computer or washing dishes or whatever. Then I ask, what? Close your eyes and picture this and what color is the blouse your mother is wearing? And then people give me different responses. And then the key question is, where was what you saw? Where was that? Now it wasn't in your brain because there is no mother washing dishes or working at a computer or sewing or whatever she's doing, changing the carburetor in your brain. If you cracked your head open you wouldn't see her doing those things. It's real. It's so real you could describe the color and a bunch of other things but it's not physical. It is somewhere else. So there is an immaterial world that exists that we have immediate access to and in fact we're trafficking in all the time and that's the kind of thing that I think would be helpful to ask her questions about and do little thought experiments about because that I think is very powerful evidence for an immaterial realm. Now if an immaterial realm actually exists then materialism is dead in the water and that opens the door of the possibility of our living in that immaterial world after our physical body dies. So there's a direction to go. Tom and I appreciate your calls. Thanks so much. Greg Koukl here for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven friends. Bye bye now.
- [57:25]
B
Sam, It.