← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript142 lines
- [00:04]
A
SA.
- [00:29]
B
Hello, friends, It's Greg Kokel here, your host for Stan to reason. Thank you for listening in today. And let's see, we just about a week ago, a little more than a week ago, got back from reality in where was it? Seattle. We had one first in a month earlier in Atlanta, Georgia, then Seattle. Excuse me. I went from Seattle to I spent a day with my brother there. I spoke at his church on Sunday, then a day with him resting on Monday. My brother and sister both retired there. Then I got in a plane for Nashville and spent some time with Kirk Cameron and Nate Sala and Alisa Childers, did different shows with them. Then finally got back and it's just like, oh, man, we're almost ready to go with another reality, which is Minneapolis, in a week and a half. And I just got to tell you two things that you need to know about reality this year. And most of you are familiar with this great project that we have that is meant to pass the baton to the next generation, which is always the most important generation. The most important generation is always the next generation. And so we're doing that by not dumbing anything down, just doing full on solid Apologetics Enterprises. And in Seattle, we sold out every single seat. Actually, we oversold it because we know some people aren't going to show and we didn't want to see any empty seats because so many people were turned away because it was sold out. But here's the deal. We sold that out four full weeks before the event. Four full weeks. Now that was only 1600. I mean, that's a pretty good number. But four full weeks before, now we have Minneapolis, that's got 4000 seats in it, and we've been pulling final analysis 38 and change for the last few years. And right now our number is 38 and change. In other words, we reached our in one and a half weeks before the event, what we usually reach as the final number. You think we can get 200 more? I suspect. So in other words, going to sell that event out. The largest church in the state of Minnesota, and we're on track to sell it out. Now, if you're in the area and you're thinking about coming, quit thinking and start doing. Because we had to turn lots of people away in Seattle. There just were no many. There were no more seats. And by the same token, it looks like we're going to be turning people away in Minneapolis and we hope it's not you. So if you want to be part of this fabulous event, and this will be the Third for me this year and an unusual circumstance. I'm actually on the big stage on Friday night, but usually I'm not. I spend the whole Friday just sitting in the gallery watching and enjoying and laughing and crying and taking notes, the whole thing. And I say crying because sometimes it's really moving what you see on the stage and the music that's played. And the final set on Saturday afternoon really broke me down. It was so magnificent from our worship team and all the students and adults that were there that were just praising the Lord in such a sweet way. It really just broke me down. It was great. I'd like you to come. And we're going to have the same thing in Minneapolis November 7th and 8th. So that'll be just more than a week away. And if you want info on that, just go to realityapologetics.com that's realityapologetics.com and there's all the details there. Now you'll see information for Minneapolis coming up in 10 days or so. You'll also see information for Dallas coming up February 20th and 21st, for Philly, March 13th and 14th and LA. So we'll do SoCal in the spring instead of the fall like we used to do it. And that'll be April 24th and 25th. So we want you, wherever you're at, listening, make a road trip, get on a plane, drive the car, join, be part of this because we're selling everything out and with good reason. It's a great conference. All right, let's. We got some callers on board. Wait, do I have something else I want to talk about here? I think I do. I want look at my notes. Not that. Not that I can't remember. I can't remember what I was going to talk about. So let's let you guys talk. And can I start going to calls, Amy? Yeah, I can. Yes. Thumbs up from Kyle and Ohio and Caleb. Hello, Caleb. Welcome to the show once again.
- [05:46]
A
Hey, Greg, thank you for answering my call. It's always a pleasure to be able to talk to you.
- [05:50]
B
Thank you.
- [05:51]
A
So I just had a question about the moral argument, one of the premises of the moral argument. I've been looking into it and I think that's really good, especially after reading C.S. lewis, Mere Christianity. I think it makes sense. But I know that in order for the conclusion of an argument to be valid, that the premises have to be true, correct. And so I want to know how to defend this specific premise of the moral argument, which says that there are objective moral values.
- [06:18]
B
How do we know?
- [06:18]
A
We don't just think that morality is objective when in reality it's not? What if it just appears to be that way to us?
- [06:25]
B
Okay, so, yeah, this is a fair question, and it is one that people bring up. And I'm trying to think of different ways. And even before you came on, I saw your question coming up. I'm trying to think of different illustrations. Okay, and what if we went into. You and I went into a restaurant, there are a bunch of tables and chairs, and half of the tables, half of the chairs are green. And I say to you, there are no green chairs in this room. And you would say to me, sure there are. I say, where? And then you point at it. And I say, as you point at it, you say, there's a green chair. You with me so far?
- [07:15]
A
Yes.
- [07:15]
B
Yeah. Very simple, very straightforward. You point at it for me to see, and I say, that's not a green chair. You have just evolved the ability to see a green chair that's not there. Or your culture has taught you that there were green chairs in this room, but there aren't really. That's just a delusion of your culture. Now, what would you think if I said that to you?
- [07:45]
A
I think that's crazy because they're right there. Just almost like an excuse. Like.
- [07:50]
B
Got it.
- [07:50]
A
Sure. I'm seeing it right here, but I'm going to make the excuse using evolution.
- [07:55]
B
Okay, so there we. Okay, that's good so far. So I'm just building analogies here because I'm trying to make the case inductively, so to speak, for an ability to see real things. That was a seeing of a real thing based on an empirical capability. Our eyesight, by the way, has our eyesight ever misled us?
- [08:30]
A
We have blind spots in our eyes.
- [08:32]
B
Well, that's one. Yeah, but you ever stick a pencil into a glass of water?
- [08:39]
A
Yeah.
- [08:40]
B
Okay. It looks broken or bent, right?
- [08:42]
A
It looks like it's disconnected. Looks like it's floating. Part of it's just floating there.
- [08:47]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I heard one comic say that's why he never takes baths. Anyway, some people thought that was funny. But anyway, I chuckled. Oh, yeah, I barely. Stephen Wright, by the way, just for the record. But anyway, yes, our senses can deceive us or the appearances can be other than things actually are. But we also have some faculty in our capability in our physical perceptions to correct the mistakes. You know, we realize, oh, it looks that way, but that's not the way it really is. Okay, so now I've got another illustration let's say that I can't do a visual for you here, so you just have to think about it. Mary is shorter than Bob and Bob is shorter than Bill. So what do we know about the relationship of Mary's site height rather to.
- [09:44]
A
Bill's height, shorter than Bob. Could you repeat that?
- [09:48]
B
Mary shorter than Mary shorter than Bob, and Bob is shorter than Bill than. What is Mary compared to Bill?
- [09:57]
A
Mary Jordan. I'm sorry. Trying to jot the stuff down here. I'm still. So I got, like, degrees.
- [10:04]
B
Yeah. Forget about the chairs. Mary is shorter than Bob, Bob and Bob is shorter than Bill. So therefore, Mary is what to Bill?
- [10:15]
A
Mary shorter than Bob. Bob shorter than Bill. I'm sorry, I don't know.
- [10:20]
B
Can you. Okay. Mary is shorter than Bill. Okay. It's a transitive property or something like that. Okay. By the way, I don't even have to have Mary and Bob and Bill. If I said A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, you would know that A is bigger than C. Even if A and B and C don't even mean anything, you'd know the relationship. You see that?
- [10:45]
A
Correct?
- [10:46]
B
Yeah. Okay. By the way, notice the word I just used. Do you see that? Now, obviously you can't see A, B, and C. You are. You are thinking about the relationship and that there's a logical relationship between these pieces such that if. If one is larger than the other and the other one is still larger, then the first one is. Then the last one is larger than the first one. I mean, that is actually a rational intuition that informs us about that we know that about those things given the description I offered, we actually see it, but we don't see it with our eyes. We see it with our minds. Okay with me so far?
- [11:33]
A
Yes.
- [11:34]
B
Okay. So now we have perceptive capabilities of different kinds. We have physical perception, which gives us information about the world. And sometimes if a person denies what seems to be obvious to everybody else who can see it, that person is likely wrong. And everybody else is within their perceptive rights to acknowledge the green chairs in the room. All right? Not the one who doesn't see it, but there are people who do see it. And when you have rational relationships. Now we've moved into a different realm. We're not talking about physical things. We're talking about a different category of things that are not physical. But we still can see relationships between them. And there's probably lots more I could give you examples of that allow us to make accurate assessments of things that some people may disagree with. But if people disagree with or don't get it, like the first time I went through that with you, with Mary, Bill and Bob, you were just having a hard time conceptualizing it in the middle of a phone conversation, on the air kind of thing. I get that. So nevertheless, if you were able to think about it for a while, you'd get it right. And if you didn't get it right and you said, well, prove it to me, I wouldn't be able to prove it to you because it's obvious in itself and there's no further evidence that you can give. And if you don't get it by, in a sense seeing it by reflecting on it, you're not going to get it, nor would it serve anybody's purposes for all those people who got it. Oh yeah, I see that. You know, the Mary, Bill, Bob thing. And somebody says, well, maybe that's just you believe that because of evolution or you believe that because of some other cultural influence and you're gonna say, wait a minute, no it isn't. I actually had this conversation with somebody at Berkeley where I gave a lecture many years ago and I had a Q and A afterwards. It was a big auditorium and it was filled with people and there were overflow rooms too. And there was a student who raised a question about knowledge. And this is right when the postmodern thing was really happening, peaking in the 2000s. And so I said, well, let me ask you this, do you think that is two the square root of four? And he said to me, well, that's what my culture has taught me to believe. Now notice I gave an example of a mathematical relationship that as long as you understand what 2 and 4 mean and the concept of square root, you see the self evident nature of the point that I was making. Is that fair?
- [14:38]
A
Yeah, that sounds like it would be. That's objective. It's not something that's based on culture.
- [14:43]
B
Exactly. But it's not something physical, it's a math relationship. It's a non physical thing and it's not based on culture. But that's what he was saying. He was saying that's what my culture has taught me to believe. And so I said, wait a minute, because I was just using this as a common sense example to move to something else. And I couldn't get an affirmation from him on this common sense math example. And he instead is defaulting to a kind of postmodern view that says that the linguistic customs of the culture have caused him to believe this. It's not necessarily true. In reality. All right? And so I say, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You know what the number two means, right? Yes. You know what the number four means, right? Yes. You know what the concept of square root means, right? Yes. So don't you just watch my language here. Don't you just see that 2 is the square root of 4 or that 4 is 2 squared? There's 2 ways of expressing it. And he said, well, that's what my culture has taught me to believe. And I said to him, pardon me, we have no basis for any further conversation. We have no basis for any further conversation. Because if I cannot get you to even acknowledge what everybody else in this room knows to be true about reality unaffected by cultural influence, if you can't do that, how are we going to have a conversation? We can't do that. Now, I learned later that in some of these overflow rooms, people rolling up pieces of, like, paper, and we're throwing them at the screen because of this guy, he's doing it. Oh, shut up. Sit down. You know, they're doing that because it was so ridiculous. Okay, so you're with me so far. That illustration from Berserkly. Okay? So my point simply is we have the ability to perceive different kinds of things. And that ability is part of the human. Part of human nature, part of the human condition, if you will, part of human capability. We have this ability to perceive things that every normal human being can perceive, whether it's green chairs or transitive relationship or the square root of four is two. Now, if somebody comes along and says, not necessarily. That could be the result of evolution or our culture has made us believe that, like that fellow said, the rest of us are going to start throwing, you know, spitballs at you, because that's ridiculous. There is no reason. And Bill Craig said this regarding morality. He said, there is no reason for me to doubt what everybody else can see just because one person denies it. And he was speaking about objective morality there. And so I have a way of kind of mentioning this or bringing this up. And I say, there's one thing that everybody knows, and it doesn't matter where they live or when they lived. Everybody knows that something is wrong with the world. The world is broken, and that's the problem of evil. Everybody knows this. Oh, you mean every single single one? No, there's some people who deny what's obvious to everybody else, and therefore they're wrong. That's the only argument that I need to give regarding the objectivity of morality. We have the capacity to look at A behavior and say, that was wicked. In fact, our capacity is so capable of doing that that it becomes the wickedness in the world. The evil in the world has become, for some, a significant barrier to belief in God. How could there be a good God? Notice there's no ambiguity in their mind what they think they mean by good. How could we have a good God, a powerful God, if there is evil in the world?
- [19:14]
A
They try to disprove God by using things that their own worldview can't even justify, like objective morality.
- [19:24]
B
This is exactly right. And actually, Richard Dawkins does this famously. So he has a piece he wrote years ago has a very quotable line in it where he said, this world is exactly the kind of world that you would expect if there was no God, if at the bottom there was no some people are going to get hurt, some people are going to get lucky. He says, there is no justice, there is no evil, there is no good. There is nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Now, that reflects accurately an atheistic view of reality. If atheism is true, that's what you're stuck with. But then he writes in the God Delusion, a tirade against the God of the Bible, who's a racist, homophobic, misogynistic ethnic cleanser. He's got this whole paragraph with these characteristics about the God of the Bible, and every one of them is a moral judgment. So where is Dr. Professor Dawkins getting the moral standard from by which he judges this God of the Bible as immoral? Because he has no moral standard in his worldview by his own admission. No evil, no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. So now he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. And that was the point that you were making a few moments ago. That's exactly what's happening here. So part of my way of answering this is the first what I just offered you, and that is, why would I doubt? Because one person doesn't see what everybody else sees. Wickedness or evil in the world, morality. If the problem of evil is real, then morals are objective. They are out there. Moral qualities are out there. They are not simply figments of my own mind or a cultural mind, so to speak. And by the way, if evolution is the explanation for our beliefs in morality, then they are just figments of our own mind. The evolutionary explanation can only give you relativistic morality. However, the problem of evil requires that morality be objective and not relative. Therefore, if the evolutionary view is true or any form of relativism is true, There is no problem of evil. But we know there's a problem of evil. Everybody knows that. What, are we all deluded but the atheist who denies it? No, I think we all know. And that's what I think makes the moral argument for God's existence compelling. Because that particular premise is secured by common knowledge. And no attempt to use culture or Darwinian evolution is going to explain away what we all know to be the case. By the way, if it was just culture, then whatever culture says is good is good by definition. So you couldn't have any evil cultures on that characterization of morality. Because if all morality is is a corporate cultural decision, then when anybody goes against the cultural decision which is by definition moral, that person becomes immoral by definition. So what do you do with Martin Luther King or Gandhi or any moral reformer? What about Wilberforce, William Wilberforce, who went against the entire culture in England regarding the slave trade? He was in a minority. They agreed that slavery was fine. So on that view, whatever the culture says is right by definition. Well, that's counterintuitive. It seems like some countries just do wrong and ought to be held responsible for it or ought to change their view to be better. All of this requires objective morality to be the case.
- [23:42]
A
So do you think that. Yeah, I was going to ask about. So what I've written down so far, just to put it in short, do you think a way that you could like sort of articulate this? In short, for someone who asks how do you know that objective morality actually exists? I would say, well, there are some things that we can clearly see. I can physically see Green shares. I can see we can see things in our head like math. And objective morality is something that we can all clearly see with our minds. There just happens to be some atheists who want to put that into question.
- [24:11]
B
Yes, I would say that we have a capacity to see, that you could say with our minds, because it is a mental soulish capacity, but we have a capacity to see. And by the way, this is why I used the math stuff because that's not in question right now. But it's a good example of somebody affirming the knowledge of a mathematical truth. And if somebody disagrees with an obvious fact like the square root of 4 is 2, then they're wrong. Even though I can't point at it with my finger and say there it is sitting over there on the table, or the chair's under the table or whatever. We point at things in different ways. We can do it physically, we can do it verbally. We can do it making reference to there. Can you see? Can you see this? In fact, that was the language I used when I gave the illustrations and when I talked to the guy at Berserkley. Can't you just see? You know what these terms mean, right? Yes, yes and yes. Can't you see that then two is the square root of four? And he wasn't willing to admit that. Now, this is silly. He knew better. He knew better. But he was slavishly clinging to a point of view that comported with a popular ideology developing at that day, which is postmodernism, which is not new, but it became popular, really popular among the rank and file in the 2000s. So you're right. There's a perceptive capability we have, and we can rely on that.
- [25:58]
A
I have the story of reality. I haven't read it all the way through yet. Do you. You go over this kind of. In the story of reality. Right.
- [26:06]
B
I'm trying to think if I. Maybe Amy remembers. Do I go over objective morality and the story of morality? Yeah, well, I do. On the relativism book, I actually think that I deal with this in more thorough sense. In the more recent book, Street Smarts, yeah, there's a chapter that says, can I be good without God? So I make an argument for God using the problem of evil. There's three chapters in Atheism back to back, and I think one of them is best explanation for the way things are. And the second one is evil atheism's fatal flaw. And the third one is Can I be good without God? And these are all connected because I developed the moral ideas, especially in the second and third of those three chapters. And I'd review that. That's where I'm just so painstaking in the way I went about trying to make clear these concepts.
- [27:12]
A
Yeah, definitely. Very, very clear answer. I think that will definitely help me because this was one of those things where we just kind of like. I wouldn't know what to say. And especially since I'm, you know, sort of learning more about the moral argument, I'd like to be able to articulate it.
- [27:29]
B
Be sure.
- [27:30]
A
I mean, I'd like to be able to someday be able to articulate as well as, like, people like you, Dr. William Lane Craig, would. Maybe someday.
- [27:37]
B
I believe I will. Well, keep at it now. But my basic thing is, is that. And back to this statement. I make something that everybody knows, no matter where they lived or when they lived, and there's something wrong with the world that's the problem of evil. And that's my basic foundation. What I'd have to say is for me to be mistaken about objective evil in the world means that 99.9% of the people in the world are mistaken. And this is why even atheists, when they don't have their philosophical guard up, are going to use language that reflects their internal knowledge of objective morality, just like Richard Dawkins did in the God Delusion. So you just pay attention to what they say and they're going to bear testimony to the truth of objective morality sooner or later. Nobody can live like that. All right.
- [28:27]
A
All right, I'll get on some of your other callers. Thank you for answering that. That was definitely very good.
- [28:33]
B
Okay, thank you, Caleb. Glad to talk to you anytime. No, I said hi again. Something like that. Caleb in Ohio, you've called before, right?
- [28:41]
A
Yeah, you were on my podcast.
- [28:46]
B
Oh, well, that's good. Yeah, Amy says we got a couple Calebs that call in. I was on a podcast yesterday with a Caleb too, but he spelled it with a K and he was 13 years old, so I don't think that was you. I was 13.
- [29:00]
A
I thought I was young.
- [29:01]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How old are you?
- [29:03]
A
17.
- [29:04]
B
Oh, that's right. You do not sound 17 at all. So you're doing great, Caleb, and thank you for having me on your podcast. Alrighty.
- [29:14]
A
Do I sound older or do I sound younger?
- [29:17]
B
Pardon me?
- [29:18]
A
Do I sound older or do I sound younger?
- [29:20]
B
No, you sound more mature.
- [29:22]
A
Yes. Let's go. All right, thanks. That's a way to close it off.
- [29:25]
B
Yeah, you sound like a grown man. I mean, you are a man, you know, at 17, but I mean, you sound like you're. You've been around. Yeah, I mean, very convinced. It's nice talking. You sound like an older guy, not an old guy. I don't know, is there a nice way to. Amy's laughing because I'm caught. You know what I'm talking about. You sound great.
- [29:44]
A
Yeah, yeah, thanks.
- [29:46]
B
All right, thanks for your call, Caleb.
- [29:48]
A
Bye.
- [29:49]
B
All right, bye. Bye now. Oh, man, I dig a hole for myself. Is this time for a break? Maybe I should take a break here and then we'll get to Vincent and Bryler and Warren and Jacob and whoever else calls in. Let's take a break. Back in a moment. Have you ever wondered how Stand to Reason is able to produce fresh, accessible content? Each week? We rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ? If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos. Consider making a financial contribution to Stand to reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift today@str.org donate 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@postposttr.org all right, let's let's talk with Warren in Vancouver, BC. Warren, thank you for waiting. What's up?
- [32:03]
A
Oh, oh, thank you so much. Thank you to Amy and yourself for taking my call. I have called in once before and I just love the conversation and all of your content and material.
- [32:16]
B
Thank you.
- [32:17]
A
Really great too. Yeah, it's really great. Thank you very much.
- [32:20]
B
You're welcome.
- [32:22]
A
My, my, my question surrounds somebody I know and care for that over the last couple years, even though professing to believe in God, I I hear a lot of what feels like blending Syncretism might be the right word, right? Blending of different worldviews into what they would like Christianity to be. And recent and some of the stuff from before was a little bit New Age, new thought and now I think really new thought. I've heard Melissa Doherty talk about that. Oh yeah, in particular Christ consciousness. I heard that come up as a solid explanation of something that was amazing that they were looking at or they spoke about. And to me, as soon as I heard that I this doesn't seem right.
- [33:30]
B
Well, you're right. That is a flag. That is a big red flag because there is no such thing biblically as Christ consciousness that comes out of new thought and Gnosticism and all that kind of distortion of Christianity.
- [33:48]
A
Okay, so you've confirmed my feeling on this, but now the next step is to what is, what is a kind, loving process that I can use or follow that me. Correct. It's a big topic and it's a big worldview.
- [34:13]
B
That's right.
- [34:13]
A
With other things blended in to try to reverse. So I'm looking for some guidance on how I might be able.
- [34:25]
B
Sure.
- [34:26]
A
Start this conversation.
- [34:28]
B
Well, I have a couple of thoughts that will be helpful. I don't know if they're in a sense definitive, but you mentioned Melissa Doherty. Her book is Happy Lies. I recommend that. Right. Right out of the gate. She has done a great job of clarifying what new thought is and how it's a bit distinctive from or distinguished from new age. Although, you know, they're in a sense some kind of kinship. She actually herself comes out of new age and new thought and so she brings a lot of insight to the table in her book. So I'd recommend that. The idea of which I do, which.
- [35:05]
A
I actually do have.
- [35:06]
B
Okay, that's great. Have you read it?
- [35:09]
A
Yes, absolutely.
- [35:10]
B
Okay, good. Well, I'm just making the distinction because I remember a comic once said, you know, I. I joined a gym and after three months I hadn't lost any weight. And then he said, oh, I gotta actually go there, you know, kind of thing. And so if you get the book, you gotta actually read it, you know, but that's good that you have and that will give you some insight. So this phrase Christ consciousness is not a biblical notion. There is no place that talks about this. Now what they do is New age, new thought type folk is they will grab verses, they'll cherry pick verses that they think they can infer what they understand Christ consciousness to be. Remember, Gnosticism started as a Neoplatonic view that competed with Christianity because it was a distortion of Christianity because it used Christian language. And so Jesus was not God. He was someone who experienced. He wasn't even the Christ. He was a Christ who came to attained Christ consciousness, realize that spark of divinity that's in all of us, and then excelled in that we can follow his example. That's kind of the approach, an oversimplification. And this isn't my, you know, my specialty at all. That's where Melissa comes in. But nevertheless, it's something like that. Now when you just hear that brief characterization of it, you realize, well, that's different from Jesus of Nazareth. There's no Neoplatonic thought in Jesus. When you read the Gospels, that comes later. And the Gnosticism, the hidden knowledge, the insight, the idea that Jesus becomes the Christ he always was the Christ. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. You know, John the Baptist said that right at the outset. Now that I'm thinking, I think he said it right after the baptism. And they might acknowledge or hold that Jesus received his Christ consciousness at the baptism. Some might say that, but even before that, at his birth. The prophecies that were made at his birth different ways, like Zacharias or the dream that came to Joseph, or some of the things that were said at the temple, these all identify Jesus as the one who would be the rescuer, the Messiah, who would save people from their sins. This is long before he got baptized, before he received the Christ consciousness. How is it that the mother of my Lord, Elizabeth says, would come to visit me now? Mary was pregnant, first trimester with Jesus. She's already the mother of my Lord. Mary's Lord was God. So even very early on Luke 1, we have Jesus being identified with language that clearly is deistic, if you will, identifies him as God long before he ever supposedly attained Christ consciousness. It's a totally different worldview is what I'm saying. So now your question, and you know that already from having your conversations, Warren, with your friend, but your question is. All right, with that in mind, how do I help? And this is where I think there's complexity here. And a lot of these notions are kind of slippery as you've already probably encountered a lot of our language, but other language, which almost sounds like they've redefined some of our language stuff, you know, Christ, for example.
- [39:13]
A
I agree with that.
- [39:14]
B
Yeah, it's not the Jewish anointed Messiah. It's the consciousness that is received, this spark of divinity that manifests itself in someone who gets the, you know, qualifies, gets to that level of their spiritual development. So I guess what I would want to do is ask a lot of questions.
- [39:39]
A
I thought this is where you were going to go.
- [39:42]
B
Yeah, well, when he says Christ consciousness, what does he mean? I presume it's a guy. Right. I'm just. Is it.
- [39:52]
A
No, it's a woman.
- [39:53]
B
Oh, it's a woman. Okay, so I'll get the right pronouns proper. Well, I'm pausing now because I think this makes the job a little tougher. It's a strange thing, but I think women are more susceptible to this kind of thing than men because I think the standard understanding, the biblical understanding of Jesus is, for lack of a better word, more muscular than the Platonic Jesus of the New Thought movement, who just strikes me as more feminine, I'm just saying. But in any event, asking questions and what you're trying to do is you're trying to take her language about Jesus and help her to see whether there is a clear, clean, legitimate connection with the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And she is believing in a different Jesus. She is not believing in the Jesus of the Gospel. And by the way, there are all kinds of variations that sprung up the first couple centuries. The Jesus that just appeared to be physical but wasn't physical, that's called docetism, where docer means to appear. And the reason there is because physical stuff was evil, spiritual stuff was good. And so spiritual stuff, like the pre incarnate Word couldn't really take on a human body. That would corrupt the spiritual stuff. And this is why in John, John says, talking about Antichrist, he said, anybody who does not declare that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, but he's an Antichrist. That's the spirit. So why does he say has come in the flesh? It's not talking about that. He arrived. Oh, he's arrived. That's the way some people will take it. Now he was talking about this Gnostic heresy that was already there in implicit forms in the first century. Did the word take on flesh, true humanity or not? That was what's at issue. And he said, yes, Jesus, the Messiah has come in the flesh. And when the others deny this, that's the Gnostics, those are the heretics. So I would ask more questions from her that relate to the biblical Jesus. And when she starts talking about Christ consciousness, I'd say, what is that? And then when she describes it, you say, where is that described in the Bible? Well, then she might assert that Jesus accomplished Christ consciousness at the baptism. So in other words, Jesus wasn't the Messiah before he was baptized because that's what Christ means. Or maybe you deny that, maybe you think Christ means something else. Notice these are all questions. And I'm going to be asking lots and lots of questions to get this person back to what the text actually says about Jesus. And I'm wondering, and it'd be fair to ask, where are you getting your information about Jesus? Because if she says from the text. Good. Well, then we'll go back to the text and look at it carefully. That's what I would say.
- [43:36]
A
Yeah, I don't. I just suspect because I've seen a picture of a different book and this one about auras. So I know that, you know, there's all kinds of, there's going to be many questions that I'm going to have to ask to get clarity. And then, as you say, move towards what's biblical and what is not and see if that percolates up. It should, of course.
- [44:07]
B
And she may push back a little bit, I think you could just say. The fact is, ma', am, what you're offering is a different Jesus than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John offered. You're offering a different Jesus. So sometimes just getting clear on something helps you move forward. Dennis Prager used to say, clarity before agreement. Clarity before agreement. I shouldn't say used to. He's still around. And speaking of advice. Yeah. So anyway, and that's what I. If I were in your place, that's what I'd want to pursue. Clarity before agreement. And then, see, once she gets clear, see what her responsiveness is. And that might give you a clue as to where to go next.
- [44:59]
A
Yeah, well, no doubt it's going to be a very, very interesting conversation. And I've just been leading that to the point of how I initiate it so that I. Maybe another time I'll come back on and tell you.
- [45:13]
B
All right, that would be fine with me. And I'd like to hear what, you know, what you heard, she had to say about some of this stuff. Okay, Warren?
- [45:23]
A
Absolutely.
- [45:24]
B
All right.
- [45:24]
A
Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
- [45:26]
B
You're welcome, buddy.
- [45:28]
A
Bye now.
- [45:28]
B
Okay, bye. All right, let's. Shall we go to Vincent and Torrance? Yeah, just kind of down the road here. Hi, Vincent.
- [45:38]
A
Hey, Mr. Greg.
- [45:39]
B
How are you doing, sir?
- [45:41]
A
I'm doing well. How you doing, sir?
- [45:43]
B
Okay. I'm getting. I got another hour and 15 minutes to go, and that'll be my. What is it, three, four, seven shows today? So I'm. I'm winding down a little bit, but glad to talk to you, Vincent.
- [45:56]
A
No, I appreciate taking my call and taking the time, sir. So if I can just. I guess, yeah, Nick is helping as concise as I can. I just want your advice and your insight how to kind of navigate my church's denomination and maybe bring more apologetic to church. So I'm dealing with the kind of issue of exclusivity within my denomination. It's the American Bachelor Association.
- [46:27]
B
Okay.
- [46:28]
A
And my pastor, he. He won't allow that. Any other speakers I mentioned, you know, you as a resource. Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace. All these other, you know, all you great speakers have helped me in my faith and just with the realm of apologetics. And he's just saying, well, no, we can't bring any other. Anybody Else, unless they're like minded faith.
- [46:53]
B
Well, what makes them think that they're. I'm a little confused here. What makes him think that any of these others are not like minded in faith? Maybe they're not American Baptist.
- [47:05]
A
Yes, correct.
- [47:05]
B
I'm not sure what the American Baptists would hold as vital theology that J. Warner Wallace or Frank Turek or myself or anybody else wouldn't hold. What would fall into that category?
- [47:19]
A
Something like he, he did mention once about like we don't believe in the universal church, you know, that maybe some other people believe and it's just more of like a kind of cautionary approach that he has. Well, he doesn't want to bring anybody else that's not within the aba.
- [47:37]
B
So I, I guess I don't know what he means by we don't believe in the universal church. Does he think that only members of. Is. Did you say American Baptist?
- [47:46]
A
Yeah, the aba. Yep, exactly.
- [47:48]
B
The aba. Only members of the ABA denomination are actually true Christians.
- [47:56]
A
I mean, I don't think he, he denies that other people are true Christian. You know, it's just like what secondary issues that he is more cautionary because like we talked about the whole, you know, tragedy of Charlie Kirk and he's. I believe Charlie Kirk was a true Christian. But you know, if it's not within anybody within the ada.
- [48:17]
B
Sure, yes. But my concern is that these fellows you mentioned and pretty much all of us, we really traffic in mere Christianity. We're not trafficking in any sectarian views. We're trafficking in the kinds and defending the kinds of things that every Christian would agree to. Even in the aba, I presume. Now the secondary issues, look, once in a while I'm not a young earther, okay? But I've spoken with lots of young earth groups. But we don't talk about the age of the earth or the universe. It's not on the docket. It's not what I'm interested in talking about. And they have no trouble. Now once in a while, very rarely we'll get an invitation from a church and it'll get set up. Then they find out that not a young earther. And it doesn't matter what I'm talking about, they don't want me speaking to their congregation. I think that's a mistake. But that's their choice.
- [49:15]
A
That's kind of the attitude, just so you know. Unfortunately, yes, like I think he mentioned that the issue with the younger and older, so. Yeah, yeah, so that's an issue. Not that you're here. You know, we invite people to preach on that or teach on that, but that will affect anybody else coming in, stuff like that.
- [49:34]
B
Yeah, I'm pausing here because I'm not sure there's much you can do in a circumstance like this. You're kind of stuck unless you find ABA apologists. And I don't mean apologists I don't have. You don't have. Okay, well, I don't know what to say. I'm sorry to hear that. I really am. And now, it doesn't keep you, obviously, from taking advantage of non ABA apologists, but it means that people in your local community are not going to gain capability of defending their convictions. And what this points out to me, Vincent, is how gee. Foolish this approach is.
- [50:24]
A
I hear you, sir.
- [50:25]
B
Yeah, of course. You wouldn't be talking to me if you didn't agree with this. It's so sad. I'm kind of shaking my head, but because this approach is not good for the church, I suspect they think we're protecting our flock. All right, from what? You think you have the truth in all these issues. Fine. That's true with everybody. Everybody thinks that everything they believe is true or else they wouldn't believe it. They may not know it's true, but they think it's true. But how do we help our people to grow? Do we just block them off from any dissident voices? Or do we help them grow stronger in their view, by at least being exposed or at least being exposed to people who have different views, even if they're not talking about them in your church?
- [51:16]
A
Exactly.
- [51:17]
B
So I guess, I mean, my feeling is this is just a warning to others to not do this.
- [51:30]
A
Yeah.
- [51:31]
B
This isn't good.
- [51:33]
A
No, it's very challenging. I mean, just to add another interesting dynamic, sir, it's. It's my father in law, who's my pastor.
- [51:40]
B
Oh, okay. That makes it even more difficult, so.
- [51:43]
A
Oh, yeah. I mean, and here's the thing, too, Mr. Gravy, don't mind me sharing a little bit why this is. Apologetics has been in my heart. It's really helped me grow. I actually was raised Buddha and I came to the Lord.
- [51:55]
B
Yeah.
- [51:55]
A
Like my early adulthood. And like your book on tactics, I mean, Frank Turek's book, Jay Warner Wallace, everybody's helped me so much, you know, grow, and I've really had a passion for apologetics. I'm actually a youth leader at my church now.
- [52:12]
B
Wow.
- [52:13]
A
And yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's all glory to God for that, but. And I wasn't trying to brag, but I'm just saying that I really further my knowledge reading all your guys material and I've taken classes from Turk and I actually went to his unshaken conference this weekend, actually.
- [52:30]
B
Oh yeah, that was Frank and Natasha and Elisa, right? They were.
- [52:33]
A
Yeah, it was. It was great. Yeah. So the thing is, my father in law, our pastor says that there's no prohibition for us to go ourselves individuals. So I went with a good group of my. My friends and help my family to go to this. But as, you know, like a church, you know, sanctioned event. Right. We can't promote it, we can't bring anybody else. So it's like I'm having to do things kind of like unofficially, you know, for myself or people that are close to me to further our growth.
- [53:05]
B
Vincent, it just occurred to me, you are aba, so you would be acceptable as an apologetics teacher in your circles. Right. So if you're not in a circumstance where you can invite other people who are not ABA to teach at some kind of localized thing that you have, like the outreach that you just mentioned, but you certainly can do it. And you know, what town are you located in? Torrance. That's right. Okay. Where in January, February, March, April, and here it is right here. April 24th and 25th, we're doing reality.
- [53:44]
A
I plan to go to that.
- [53:46]
B
Grab a whole bunch of people from your church and bring them along because we can train them at a different facility. We can't get into your facility, but we can train them at a different facility. And it's going to be Calvary Chapel, Downey. Is that right? Yeah, Downey.
- [54:05]
A
Our church is in Bellflower actually. So it's really close by.
- [54:07]
B
Yeah. So that's great. And it's close by. Relatively close to where you're at. I mean, it's a striking distance. Bring a bunch of people there. So that's. I think in your circumstance, this is what you do. You bring people to other things or when you're in church, you're the one who teaches because you satisfy the requirements that your pastor has. Too bad you can't get your pastor to come with you to reality.
- [54:37]
A
Yes.
- [54:38]
B
I mean, I wonder if it would change his views.
- [54:41]
A
Yeah. I mean, I'll ask, but you know, because I mean, it's something that we're preaching heresy or anything like that. My father does, you know, a great job exposing in the Word and.
- [54:51]
B
Sure.
- [54:52]
A
You know, and everything, but it's just more like, I don't know, you call it church politics in a sense where.
- [54:57]
B
Sure.
- [54:57]
A
Just because it's not aba. But then I asked him, well, how do we. Because we've used other material. But then I'm like, well, how do we bring this material back here? And he said, well, we can teach it. Just we have to do the filter. And I'm like, okay. So, you know, that's what I'm trying to figure out too. If I do some kind of, you know, apologetics conference at my own, you.
- [55:18]
B
Know, church, I don't see how he would object to using other people's material. Because you are the person who's teaching and you hold his views on the things he's concerned with and the things that are not a problem. You're teaching because you have resources from the outside. That shouldn't be a problem. It just strikes me as I'm not even trying to think of the right word to describe this approach that your pastor's taking. And I can't think. It's just so narrow and it's not even. I don't know how to say it. I don't think it's helpful to have the view that no one can speak in our church about anything unless they agree with us on everything. That's kind of what it looks like. Let me ask you, is this characteristic of the ABA or is this uniquely. It is.
- [56:15]
A
That's the way they're my friend. He's actually this. We have a bilingual congregation, so he's a Spanish pastor and he's more my age. My father in law is a lot older, but. Okay, even said it's kind of, you know, he says it, for him, it kind of goes into the realm of like sectarianism, I believe is what he said. Yeah, yeah, in a sense. So I was just very, very narrow minded.
- [56:39]
B
Yeah.
- [56:40]
A
Unless anybody's within the aba, same denomination, then we can use them, unfortunately. But we don't have any resources.
- [56:48]
B
Well, that's unfortunate. Look at. I'm out of time here. But I'm glad that you called, Vincent, and I do look forward to seeing you in the spring and just bring as many people from your church as you can. And because that'll help it, they will be there then to have a salutary influence on all those folks that you want to have an influence on and you can do some teaching yourself, hopefully from the things you learn. All right, gotta go. Thanks for the call. Greg Koukl here. Stan to reason. Give them heaven. All right. Bye bye. It.