← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript20 lines
- [00:00]
A
Sa. Well, hello, friends. Greg Kokel here, and I'm glad to be back with you. I've been on kind of medical leave for the last few weeks now. You don't know that because probably because we've, we put shows in the can before I leave. The thing about my job is I always have to do my job, even when I have time off. So we got, we anticipated that and that's what you've been hearing. But I'm new in the studio now since the beginning of February and now it's the beginning of March. So I've missed a few weeks here, had some back surgery and apparently that news got out. I don't know if I mentioned it or not, but I've had people tell me they've been praying for me. Back at Sweet Gal Church last weekend told me that she kind of pretty much dedicated a whole day to prayer for the surgery. And it's good that she did. The way I look at it, prayer is always good. But I actually had some difficulties. I just needed a fusion for L4, L5. And people with back problems know what that means. But there was a few complications that took longer than they thought. But I, I did end up coming out okay. Although it was a four, four and a half, five hour surgery. I went in at 7:30. When I woke up, it was 4:30. I actually told the people there that were working with me, I said, your clock's wrong. They said, no, it's right. You've just been gone for about eight hours or so. I didn't know I was down, but things are looking up and moving forward. This is a slow heal as characteristic of back surgery like fusions. I got three months of no blt, no bending, lifting or twisting. And so they gave me a brace, the whole deal. And anyway, I'm moving forward. So thank you for your prayers. For those who did pray. We had an unbelievable weekend last weekend in Dallas, so I didn't go there. And in fact, in Philly, I won't be able to do that either because I was just. My doctors grounded me for those trips, but they were, we were full to the gills at about 3,000, I think it was like 3,005. And it turned out that is the event that we live stream, which means if you missed it, you can still livestream it. I think it's available. And there were 3,000 that were watching on Livestream. So we were, we had a, you know, 6,000. That's like the record for us if you count the livestream. But it was A great conference. And we got one coming up in a few weeks in Philly and March 21st and 22nd. Last I heard, we had about, about 70 seats left. Alright. So you might want to get on board with that if you are in the Philly area. It's a fabulous conference. Jay Warner Wallace, Jason Jimenez, Megan Allman and our whole team, obviously. And some have said this is the best reality we've ever done. We'll also be in Dayton, Ohio on the 25th and 26th of April. We're almost sold out for Philly and that's a month away, three weeks. Dayton, Ohio. We're about eight weeks or seven weeks out and we've got about 500 that are signed up for that. We can hold 1500. So all the information is@realityapologetics.com reality apologetics.com and you can check that out if you like. Let's see, I, I was talking with my, the staff today about growing up and I was thinking about the status of young people today, which I think. I mean, I was born in 1950 and so I have a whole. I'm a boomer. Right at the front end of the boomers, actually. And my perspective on life is very different. So my mom and my dad, they lived through the Depression. My mom lived in the projects in Chicago. My dad was an orphan. They were Both born in 1929. By the time he was 10, he had lost his parents in a car crash. And so they were kind of cut from a certain cloth. And that had a big influence on me and the rest of us and our family. Good influence. I'm glad for that influence. Okay. And when I think about young people today, I hear people making statements like, will kids grow up, up so fast nowadays? Kids grow up so fast. And as I thought about that, I actually don't think that's true now. I think that the person who makes the statement is onto something. They are observing something that's real, but it isn't growing up. What they're observing is the way the culture has been velocitized. So younger people are facing the kinds of things that a generation or two before, young people would be older when they faced it. Okay? But they're getting it younger. And here's the way I would characterize it, that younger people today are getting the privileges of earlier. You know, when I was a kid, it's like you got responsibilities and responsibilities earn you privileges. My dad says, you're older, you get more privileges, but you got more responsibilities. And the two go together. But now here, what I've seen is the privileges are being dished out. Kids are getting all kinds of goodies that they didn't earn. And so they're getting the privileges without the responsibilities that serve as a kind of ballast to their lives. And so, consequently, because they're getting the privileges without the responsibilities, they are being corrupted. They're getting the privileges early, but they're not taking the responsibilities that go with that. And this is not good for them. So as I was thinking about this the other day, I remembered something I read somewhere that was suggested as a bromide or as a. Maybe that's not the best word as a corrective. That is, the young people are, in a certain sense, by comparison to other generations, are so much less mature. It is not hard to rise above them for our young people. So if you're raising your kids and raising a family, it's not really hard to have your kids be head and shoulders above everyone else. You just have to do some basic things. And this particular person, I can't tell you who it was or even where I heard it or read it, but it immediately registered with me when this person said, there are four things that if your kids do that aren't hard, that they will stand head and shoulders above everyone else. So I want to share those four things with you because they're not just for our kids. Many of the adults listening are millennials. And consequently, in some of these four things, you may be lacking, though it's not hard to repair that. And so I'm offering these things with some commentary attached so that you can think about pursuing these particular things in your own life and investing in the lives of others, especially your own children, so that they can have this kind of foundation of maturity. And it turns out each one of these things is characteristic of a maturing person, a person who their executive skills, their capability of dealing with life well is increasing. The kind of thing that was very characteristic, I think, of younger generations because the world was different, but are lacking now in more recent generations. So this could be for your kids. It also could be for you as well. Okay, here are the four things. The first one, say please and thank you. That's hard, right? Say please and thank you. When I was a kid, those were called the magic words. And my folks would say, hey, don't forget the magic words. What are the magic words? Please and thank you. In other words, ask politely and be grateful when something is given to you. Ask politely. You don't act like something is owed to you. You Ask for it. Realizing that it's a favor if somebody does it for you, probably. And because it's a favor when somebody does it for you, then you can express gratitude for what is given to you. Please. Thank you. The magic words. All right. And very simple, very, very basic. Second, first, say please and thank you. Second, show up on time. Show up on time. Now, for some of us, this is hard to do because we've developed a habit of not doing that. And I will say autobiographically, that was a circumstance that I struggled with for a long time. And it wasn't until Melinda Penner, who was the co founder of standard reason, almost 32 years ago, and my conscience somewhat, as our executive director for me as a president, she said to me, you got to fix this, because this is not a good quality. This is not presidential. It's not grown up. It's not mature. It's not considerate to other people. We got to be able to count on you. If we say we're going to have a meeting at this time, you got to be there. Now, obviously, there are exceptions to this, but in my case, I was almost always 15 minutes late. And some of you may be able to relate to this. By the way, did it occur to you that if you're always 15 minutes late, you are very consistent to a certain time? The problem is that the time you're consistent to on a regular basis is just late. And had you started 15 minutes earlier in every one of those occasions and conducted yourself the same way, you would have been on time every time. The point is, this is solvable. And I realized that for myself, and I think this is true of a lot of people like this. I was not motivated by being on time. I was motivated by not being too late. And 15 minutes late wasn't too late. Now, a half hour, that was too late, so I'd be motivated. I realized I'm a little bit late, but I'm not 15 minutes late yet. Okay, now I gotta get going. And then I'd be consistently 15 minutes late. What I had to do was to simply make an adult decision to stop that and to plan to be not just on time. The safest thing is to plan to always get there early. Shoot for 15 minutes early. Now, some people think, well, what a waste of time. It's not a waste of time because it's an action that you do that is a reflection of your character and your concern and consideration for other people. So they're not waiting on you, for one. It is also something that gives you margin. You know how it is. If you're always late, you're frantic. You can't have anything get in the way of the time that's left. You get a traffic jam, mom, my goodness. And then you say, oh, I'm sorry. Gosh, the traffic was so bad. Well, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that you left so late that if there was a little traffic, now you're late. And if you would have taken consideration for that possibility and built some margin, you would have been on time. Even in spite of some of the problems that pop up now. That's just being a grown up. Although I was older and an adult of sorts, I wasn't acting like a grown up in that area. And I will say this, and Melinda told me this. This is hard to change. Most people who are consistently late never change. But as it turned out, with her coaching and encouragement and my resolve, I changed. And it's made a tremendous amount of difference. Now. Am I late once in a while? Sure. I was late this morning a half hour, but that's because of traffic. And it's what, an hour and 15 or hour and a half drive? I left two hours early, but it took me two and a half hours to get here. So sometimes you can't control that. But if you develop the habit, especially as a young person, to always show up on time, guess what that does. People notice. It impresses them, and it sets you above the rank and file. So first, say please and thank you. Second, show up on time. Here's the third one. Do what you say you're going to do. Just do what you say you're going to do. Now, there are some people that say they're going to do stuff because they're trying to get other people off their back, but they really have no deep intention to do what they say they're going to do. At least not in a timely fashion. Maybe eventually. But they don't want people poking at them and asking them for this or that. Oh, yeah, I'll take care of that. Which is just another way of saying, get out of my hair, get out of my face, go away. And then they don't do it. When you don't do what you say you're going to do, people understand that you are not a reliable person. It is not a good idea for you to traffic with others doing important things if they are not reliable. You know, the book of proverbs is thick with these references to fools who are not reliable. You give this job to a fool. Are you kidding me? You can't count on that person. There's different ways that Proverbs expresses that concern, but that's the heart of it. You want to be a person that people can count on. And by the way, that's not so hard. Here's the way Jesus put it. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. In other words, speak in a straightforward, forthright way and do what you say you're going to do. All right? Don't say, oh, I'll do that. Oh, I will. I swear that I'll do it. He said, don't swear. That sounds like you have two different standards of truthfulness. If you swear, then you got to really be truthful. But if you don't say the swear thing, then you just do the. You know, you can say whatever you want. You don't have to mean it. That's not good. Like your yes, B, yes, your no, B, yo, finally finish what you start. Just finish what you start. I remember my own dad just emphasizing this. There were lots of chores that we had to do when I was a kid. I was responsible for the yard. That's part of it. We did more obviously. And my dad would emphasize, don't do it halfway. Don't start and not finish. Do the job. If you do the job, then people see that and they draw conclusions about your character based on how you perform in a reliable fashion. And that also may influence them wanting to employ you in some fashion because you're a person they can count on. Or, let's just walk it back. You're a person who says please and thank you, who shows up on time, who does what you say you're going to do, and who finishes what you start. Simple things, very basic, not profound. At one time in our history, part of the warp and woof of growing up, it was all built in. And those who were responsible showed those characteristics. But now it's like. It seems like it's hardly emphasized because those characteristics are not much in evidence in the rank and file. And not just kids, young people, adults as well. All right, you want to be a good ambassador. You want to reflect Christ well to the rest of the world. Build these virtues into your life. And most of them are easy. The time thing is a little harder, but it can be overcome. I know because I did it. You just have to make a decision that you're going to get moving before you're late. Something like that. All right. Hey, let's take a break. We'll be back with your calls when I Return on Stand to Reason do.
- [18:25]
B
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.
- [19:15]
A
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. We're going to do some open mic calls now, and those are people who've called in and left their questions on the computer. Essentially, you can do that by going to our homepage@str.org look for podcasts, and then under live broadcasts there's a place where you could leave your question and then eventually we get to it all right, and we take that on the air and then you could listen to it later. So this one is from Tom, and it's about the nature of time. Tom, what's on your mind?
- [20:51]
C
Hey Greg, Tom Pointner here. On your October 18th STR podcast, you had addressed Dan's question about if keeping separate the A and B theories of time is a false dichotomy. And I I totally agree with your viewpoint that the B theory of time just does not fit with how we experience time. But that being said, to use Lewis's book analogy that you mentioned from the Perspective of the characters in the book in A Theory of Time is what those characters would experience. But that's not so for the author. The author of the book, as Lewis characterized it, exists in more of a B theory of time. And what I think that Dan may have been asking is why can't we exist under an A theory of time while God exists under a B theory of time? Why does it have to be one or the other for both us and God? I mean, our perspective and experience of reality is vastly different than God's in every other aspect of our existence. So why can't that include time? And if God is in fact, quote, tensed and exists under an A theory, doesn't doesn't that cause problems? If, I mean, if time came into existence when the universe began, as science seems to indicate, then there would not be a, quote, time when God got it all going. And if God is tensed and eternal, don't we then run into an infinite regression issue whereby if God exists into the infinite past, he'd never get to A time when he made the universe? It just seems that a B theory of time, at least from God's perspective, is the better fit here. I'm sure I'm missing something and probably confused, but at the same time, I am quite fascinated by this stuff. So as always, I very much looking forward to your comments. Blessings, Greg. Thanks.
- [22:34]
A
Well, thank you, Tom. And you have thought through this quite well. You're not confused. I have some thoughts about this, but I want to bring the rest of the audience a little bit up to speed on this. The question here is what is the nature of time? What is the essential nature of time? And this has to do to some degree what is the nature of reality, at least as it relates to the notion of the passage of time. And when I put it that way, I think it's going to be clear that you can't have two different natures of reality. You can't have one essential reality for God and a different essential reality for human beings. Because if the B theory of time is true, there is no now. And if the A theory of time, which I'll qualify in a moment, is true, then there is a now where there can't be a now and no now at the same time. In other words, time is a whole thing. It's part of the nature of reality. It isn't like living on different continents and in one continent. You could have kind of a warm tropical environment, but you move somewhere else and it's a different kind of environment. It's the nature of the entire reality that's in question here. And when it comes to time, what is the nature of time in reality? So it's going to be one or the other. All right? Time is a feature of the universe. Or maybe I'll put it this way, time is a feature of the world because the way I'm using the language here, the world is larger than the universe. Now, if you're a materialist, the world and the universe are coterminous. In other words, that's the same. They're the same thing, essentially. But if there is an immaterial realm, then the world entails that immaterial realm too, okay? And so time is a feature of the world. And in that sense, given its metaphysical role, you're not going to have two different types of time in play for different individuals or beings. God on the one hand, humans on the other hand. Now, the A theory of time is actually quite easy to understand because this is the common sense understanding of time. It's what seems to be the case that time passes. There was a past, there is a present, there will be a future. And we are kind of moving. Time has a flow to it. And what could be more obvious than that to our awareness, right? Time is passing is the way we use it, the way we describe it. And there are temporal terms that we use that seem to describe reality. We talk about past, present, and future. We have tensed words or tensed verbs. I did this, I'm doing that, I will do it in the future. All of those things make sense in a world in which time is flowing. Okay? That's the A theory. B theorists say. And by the way, when I say A theory or B theory, these are the different views. So either time is the way the B guys think it is, or it is the way the A guys think it is. So these are theories about the nature of reality. But it's one or the other, as I was just talking about now, B. And you can just think about B. I think of it two ways. B as book and B is bad because I think the B theory is false. But the reason I say B as book is the same reason. Tom, you raised it. The CS Lewis in Mere Christianity does characterize God's relationship to time as one would have a relationship to a book. If you think of a novel, there is no past and present in the novel. There's no time in the novel. There is before and after characterized in temporal ways. You know, John did this and then he did this or whatever. But notice, you could page back and forth to the beginning and the end and somewhere in the middle. And you're not jumping back and forth in time, you're jumping back and forth in the story because actually no time is passing in that story. It's like a fixed box, so to speak. Nothing is happening in a book, strictly speaking. But as Lewis describes it, this is the way God understands time, the nature of all things that ever happened or will happen. Now, I'm speaking in a theory language. Right now really is no different than a story in a book that has a beginning, a middle and an end. And God is able to behold all kinds of points in that book. He can turn to any page that he wants and be aware of that. So there's a certain sense that God knows the future because he's immediately aware of everything that's already in front of him. Now, I think this is compelling, and Lewis seemed to think it was a good idea. But the problem with it is that on this B theory, this book theory of time, which I think is the bad theory of time, nothing actually happens. Just as in the same way nothing ever happens. Certainly not in a temporal sense. In a novel, you have logical relationships between things, but you don't have temporal relationships. And if that's the case, then there is no such thing as now, because now is the moment of time that I am at. It is the time I am at in the moment, the time spot that I'm at in the moment that I'm experiencing now. That's what now means. It's a temporal index, soul philosophers call it. But there would be no now. But it does seem that now is real. And if now is real, then the B theory is wrong. Now, I think people have done this for theological reasons to try to get God outside of time. And you'll hear people say, well, God is outside of time. I don't think that's the case. If God is outside of time, he doesn't do anything. He may be the ground for the things that have happened, but he doesn't actually do anything. Because if you act, then the moment after you act, the act is in the past, which is temporal. So everything is coterminous. It all happens all at the same time, but it's not even happening. It's just existing. All these. It's hard to even describe it without using temporal language. All of these events that take place simultaneously and just have a logical relationship to each other, there's all kinds of problems with that, but there's an appeal. And apparently this is the physicalist view of time as the B theory. Alright. I think many Christians just say that God is outside of time because this sounds like it makes God more expansive. I think it makes him more limited actually, and inconsistent with the way Scripture describes God. Just for the record, there is no biblical standard on this issue. What the Bible teaches is that God has no beginning and he has no end. That's orthodoxy. But the Bible doesn't teach that God is outside of time. You have to determine that by some other means, another way of thinking or reflection. And that's kind of what we're doing now. Now as far as the infinite regress issue is concerned, and this was something, Tom, that seemed like would be a problem if God was temporal. Because if God's temporal, then you have all these beats of time that God is participating in forever and ever. And that would mean that there's an infinite number of beats of time, as it were, that lead to this moment. But now you've traversed an actual infinite and there are difficulties with that problem. Okay, so there is a way around this and this is what Bill Craig has offered. I took a whole course on this with him many years ago. But that's why I have some insight into these issues. But what Bill thinks is that God was atemporal prior to creation. So nothing was happening prior to creation. God just was existing atemporally as a trinity until the moment of creation. And the moment of creation was the first temporal act after which things happened. Time begins. And that's consistent with physics too, as I understand it. Although I don't think you have to collapse time big to just physical events like historical events. I think there can be a transcendent time before the physical events. But that's another issue. And if it turns out that time begins the series of events, temporality begins at the creation, then you don't have any problem with an infinite regress. But what you do have is you have a God engaging, interacting with his creation. Either the things in the creation or the people or the persons, the agents in creation. And that's what we see, a dynamic interaction with God, with people. So I hold the view that Bill Craig holds and I think a number of reasons why. And, and that is it appears one could argue, put it this way, that God was atemporal prior to creation, at the moment of creation, then time began and he has participated. He's not in time like he's in a box. That's not the point. He is participating in temporality. He experiences the passage of time and I don't think this does any violence to any divine quality at all. It does raise other questions. How does he know the future if he doesn't see the future in the sense that the B theory allows him to see the future, he can behold the whole book at once kind of thing. That's another issue. But I think that maybe that gives you something to think about, Tom, on a very interesting issue. Maybe some of you I've already left behind. That's okay. Maybe Rebecca and her question will. Will interest you. So let's hear from Rebecca next.
- [34:01]
D
Hi, Greg, my name is Rebecca and I'm from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and I'm a lifelong Lutheran. And I had a question for you based on a conversation I had with my pastor a couple of weeks ago. We were having a conversation about a sermon that my pastor had preached a couple of weeks prior. He had everyone close their eyes and raise their hands, and he inquired of us whether or not we see ourselves more as saints or sinners. And he had revealed to the congregation in that sermon that most people identified more as a sinner versus a saint. And I know that this sinner saint dichotomy is a. Is a teaching that Martin Luther spoke about. And I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this being simultaneously sinners and saints and how that plays out. My pastor and I had kind of been talking about how we really shouldn't be identifying ourselves as much with the sinner mentality once we are redeemed.
- [35:14]
A
Under.
- [35:14]
D
The blood of Jesus because he's made us a new creation and that while we still sin, that sinner identity is washed away in the blood of Christ. And so I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are on this. I feel like it can be a bit schizophrenic to think that we are sinners and yet we're also saints. And we need to daily be repenting for our sins and receiving forgiveness, yet also being saints. And how does that work out with being made new creations? We're not being made new creations every single day. We're not becoming saints every time we're forgiven. And so, yeah, I just, I just like to hear your thoughts on it. Maybe some verses and just some wisdom so that I can. I can keep piecing this together, dissecting it and figuring out what the Bible has to say on it. I appreciate it so much. Thanks so much for your time. Have a great day.
- [36:31]
A
Well, thanks, Rebecca. And it's a great question. And I actually gave a lot of attention to this issue when I was a younger Christian. And I guess because there are very strong opinions regarding this, especially for those who want to emphasize that we should see our identity in Christ, which, by the way, I don't take exception with that as far as that goes, but to the degree where we're thinking about that in Christ and not kind of affirming the fact that we're sinners, too. And the way you put it was the identity. What is my core identity? We are new creatures. One of the first verses I remember, I don't memorize verses. They just stick. The ones that are important to me, and that was one of them. If any man's in Christ, he's a new creature. Old things have passed away and new things have come. And so that relates to this particular question. Rebecca. I actually think if we're not careful, we are setting up a false dichotomy because the fact is we are sinners and we are saints, properly understood, sinners. That's easy, that we are falling short of the glory of God. And we do that every single day, every single moment. On my view, if the greatest commandment is to love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, then I have never fulfilled that commandment in my entire life. So I'm always in sin after a fashion. That's a reality in my life. But there is also a reality that this isn't the only thing that drives me. There is a self, there is an aspect that is this new creation. And some want to dichotomize in this way to say that you are the new creation and the thing that you are fighting. You might call it your old man or call it your flesh, but you make a division between the two. And this is where I just got wore out trying to make sense of this or to try to thread the needle on these kinds of things. The way I approach it now, Rebecca, is I think of myself as a fallen person who is rescued by Christ and made new. And every day as I follow him, I am increasing in my holiness. And I think. I'm not sure if I got my Greek right here, but I think the haggai is the word that's used for maybe holy or for saints, but there's a conn. Connection there that is that saints are the holy ones. But of course, the holiness isn't meant to describe the totality of us. It describes the place that we've been put in and the trajectory that we're on. Okay. And so we can say, yes, we are saints, holy ones, certainly saints on our way to heaven, and the destination is secured. We just haven't arrived there yet. Yet at the same time, there is something else in us. And this is where you want to be. Careful how you use the language. I guess some people fuss about it, but there's nothing good in me that is in my flesh. Paul says in Romans 7. So I have a flesh that's me, it's my flesh, but there's also a me that's on a different trajectory. So, yeah, if you want to call it schizophrenia, some people won't be comfortable with that. But I am comfortable with acknowledging I am deeply fallen and my life manifests my fallenness on a regular basis. But I also know the trajectory that I'm on and that I am rescued, I am forgiven, I am cleansed. Jesus always lives to make intercession for me, and that's where I camp, because the fallenness is annoying. Probably an understatement, but it doesn't change the direction that I'm going as a saint. Some of you know that I spent time in a devotional called the Valley of Vision. And these are prayers, Puritan prayers. So they go all the way back hundreds of years, prayers that Puritans have prayed. And the editor of this book kind of puts them together in verse form and like two small pages, and you can go day to day and kind of reflect on it. I actually use it as a prayer. I pray those prayers, but I have to make modification quite often because there is too much darkness in it for my theology, you know, and too often you'll see statements like the there is nothing good in me, I am a worm kind of thing. But that's not what Paul said. There's nothing good in me that is in my flesh. Now, we're made in the image of God, and we are children of the most High God, and we are rescued and cleansed by his Son, Jesus. And those are real elements that affect how I view myself. Though I still have a fairly healthy understanding of my fallenness, which I can acknowledge and which keeps me from exalting myself too much and at the same time drives me to the cross. So I guess I'm going to say both are true. And I think sometimes we have to be careful we don't get too morose focusing in on our fallenness. And I think sometimes I see that with Puritans, the older Puritans, but then at other times, I don't want to be like a Pollyanna and not be cognizant of the evil that is crouching at my door, to use the metaphor from the Book of Genesis. And it's crouching ready to spring and it's it's going to get me. Peter says that the devil prowls about like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour but resist him. Firm in your faith. Now of course that's the devil out there, but what is the devil in a sense? How does he get his hooks in us? Well, we've got part of us that cooperates with that. You got the world, the flesh and the devil, right? The devil's there, but we got the flesh and the world. And these are make occasion for the devil to get at us. So we have to be alert to all of those. They are real powerful forces. And the fact that I'm a saint doesn't make me immune to their influence. So I just have to keep my eyes open and stay vigilant on both. Kind of the way I look at it. But I know what's behind me and I know what's ahead of me. The sinner is behind me. I'm leaving that behind. The saint is ahead of me and I'm moving towards that. And as I move towards that, I become more like that, which I'm moving towards. And that's called sanctification. Hope that's helpful there. Rebecca was a great question. Let's take another quick break and then we'll finish up here with more of your questions on Stand to Reason Would.
- [44:12]
B
You like an STR speaker to speak at your event? Greg, Allen, Tim and John are available both in person and online. Simply email bookingstr.org to schedule them today. Our speakers can address a wide range of topics from bioethics, gender issues and science to theology, philosophy and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a Sunday sermon conference or online event, we are here to equip Christians to effectively influence the culture for Christ. To explore speaker bios, learn more about the topics we cover, or discover additional options, visit str.org then email bookingstr.org to secure Greg, Alan, Tim or John for your event.
- [44:55]
E
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 stantries and 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.
- [45:44]
A
All right, final segment here for our show. And the great question so far, and that's actually usually the case, whether it's Strask with Amy hall, that's another show we do where we field questions. Amy and I do it together. And by the way, if you like this show and don't haven't listened, pardon me, to Strask, be sure to do that. Go to our website and you could find the links and you could have it delivered. But Amy adds so much more to what I'm able to add. She really does a great job and it's a fun show. Let's hear from Jake from Perth, Australia.
- [46:29]
F
Hi, Greg, my name's Jake. I'm from Perth, Australia. And I just want to say, firstly, thank you so much for all of your podcasts, all of your resources. You and your organization have had a great impact on my journey in apologetics. So my question today for you is I have a friend who seems quite spiritual and is quite open to talking about spiritual things, but she often references this idea of the universe, and, you know, it's the universe, it must be the universe. I asked the universe for this and it gave it to me. And almost frustratingly, these things sometimes do happen. So how would you advise that I, you know, engage in a conversation with her? How would. What kind of questions would you ask? Yeah, I'm sure there's a Colombo tactic out there for it, but I'm just not sure how to go about this conversation. Anyway, thank you so much for all your help and I look forward to hearing your answer.
- [47:36]
A
Bye.
- [47:37]
F
Bye.
- [47:38]
A
Well, Jake, great to hear from you. And I'm flattered to get notes from good people, brothers, in this case, from down under. I've been to Australia a number of times, actually. I was in New Zealand. I know there's a big difference between Aussies and Kiwis, but I was there just a few months back, August, or I think it was August, or maybe early September or something like that. But here's the deal with this. When someone keeps making reference to the universe as what it sounds like, a sufficient explanation of what you're pointing to that you think might be evidence for God, and she keeps saying the universe, this is confusing to me. I'm not sure what she means. And maybe You've asked her that because that's the first Columbo question. What do you mean by that? And it's a very, very genuine question in this regard because I am not sure. Now, I could speculate, but it's hard for me to think of any answer to that question. What do you mean by the universe in the way that you're using it, that will be coherent to the conversation? If what you're saying is, how do we make sense of, oh, say, the information in the DNA double helix or something like that? Then we've got information. Information is a function of mind. There's an intelligent designer. Oh, that's just the universe. Maybe that's what she's going to say. Well, what do you mean, just the universe? You've got to have more than a word as a placeholder in an argument, discussion like this. You have to show how the word you're using is an adequate, what, explanation or rebuttal to the claim you're making. You can't just say the word. I mean, because you could say, well, leprechauns. Now, I don't mean to be disparaging, but I'm asking what would be the difference between just identifying the universe or using that word universe as the causal power of whatever you're trying to explain and not just saying leprechauns? Well, there are no leprechauns. But there is a universe. Yeah, but that's not the point. The point has to do with capability. How is it that what you're calling the universe, whatever that is I'm interested in finding out, is able to do the work that I'm suggesting God is doing? Now, I'm at a little bit of a liability here, Jake, because I'm not part of that conversation. I don't know what she would say. It sounds kind of a little bit New Agey to me, as if the universe itself is alive and conscious and is responsible for all of these things. You don't have to go any further than the universe as an explanation. But how is it that. How is it an explanation? What about all the evil in the world, by the way? This is a question that now I'm posing to the other person because this is a problem that everyone has to solve, not just theists. Every worldview has to deal with it because evil is an actual feature of the real world. It's part of the nature of reality. So given any person's worldview, how do they make sense of evil in the world? Okay, so if you say there's evil in the world. I can explain that from a Christian perspective. Evil makes sense because there's good, and evil is a departure from good, and there's a standard for good in an infinite God who is good himself. It all makes sense. But how is the universe an explanation for the evil in the world? Now, I don't know what she'd say, but I don't know if she'd be able to answer it without trying to, without essentially attributing some kind of mind or agency, thoughtful agency, some kind of personal character to the universe itself. So the devil's in the details here, Jake. And the key here, I'd say, is just to get her to talk more exactly about what she means by the universe. And how is just saying the universe an adequate explanation, a counter explanation of whatever you're discussing? Now, here's my suspicion that she's not going to be very clear on that. I could be mistaken, but I think this is just one of those moves that people make to be dismissive of any theistic explanations for things, and they use this word that doesn't have very much content as a placeholder. All right, all right. I have just a minute to get to one more question we're going to go to. Let's go to Paul here. Hopefully that'll be pretty quick. Paul.
- [52:54]
G
Hi Greg, I was listening to a discussion between a Catholic apologist and a former Catholic Protestant apologist on the Unbelievable podcast recently. And the Roman Catholic apologist argument for the Catholic Church being the one true church seemed to focus mainly on precedent set by the early Church. And the apologists put a lot of emphasis on priority and valuing the beliefs and practices of the Christians of the first few centuries after Christ. I've heard both Protestants and Catholics put a lot of value and importance on the doctrines and practices of the early church. But I kind of want to ask a potentially dumb, maybe controversial question. Why exactly should we look at the early church for guidance on doctrine and practices when it seems as though when you read the New Testament, there was plenty of disagreement and heresy amongst the early Christians? To be blunt, if we Protestants to are going going to concede the Catholic argument for adhering to the precedent set by the early church. And honestly, the Catholic apologists made a pretty strong argument for the historicity and primacy of the Church. In addition, if all the early church, if the early church is our model, and I'd like some clarification on that. For example, how early when in history did we stop giving the teachings and traditions of the early church, automatic default, priority and credibility.
- [54:03]
A
Appreciate your work.
- [54:04]
G
Thanks a lot.
- [54:07]
A
Well, that's a really deep question. I only got a few minutes to cover it here, like two and a half. But I think there is merit to hearing what other Christians thought the Scriptures meant. And there is an advantage to hearing from those who were much closer to the source, especially some of those in the early church, the earliest, like the Ante Nicene Fathers, some of whom were actually disciples of the disciples of Jesus. Okay, but you're making a very good point. You don't have a unified system of thinking. For one of early church fathers, you had some that were kind of a little bit screwy. Origen had good things to say, and then he also had some odd things to say. But ultimately, the standard has got to be the Scripture, all right? And early Church fathers can give us insight just like any other Bible teacher. But keep in mind that kind of, as you pointed out, it didn't take long for the Corinthian Church to go sideways, right? Read 1 Corinthians, read 2 Corinthians. And so Paul was there as a standard for truth to correct the excess. Now, the excess or distortions followed very soon after that. So you have Neoplatonism, then you have Gnosticism, you have Arianism, and you have all kinds of different false teachings that are rising up now, of course, in response to that, you have Church Fathers that are arguing against those things. But the arguments they're making have to be arguments that are grounded in the texts themselves, because only the texts have the authority of inspiration. The Fathers do not have that authority. So everything that the Fathers say has to be weighed against the text. I heard a YouTube presentation the other day about water baptism. And the appeal was that virtually all the early church fathers believed water baptism was necessary for salvation. The problem with that view is that I have to go back to the text. I have to go back to the verses themselves that talk about salvation and draw my conclusions from that. And I draw a different conclusion. So are you saying the early Church fathers were wrong? Yes. Based on what authority? The authority of the text. And then I would give my argument based on the text. So there is a merit to going back to the Fathers, but we have to be careful, and we have to measure even the traditions of the fathers by the text itself. And that's what's going to keep us safest. And that's what's called sola scriptura. Thanks for the question, Paul. It's a good one. And that's all the time we have friends. Thank you for being part of the show. I'm Greg Kokel for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. Bye bye now. Ra.