Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
A
Sam. Oh, hello friends. Greg Koukl here, your host for Stand a Reason. All these years and I think I still got a while before I'm hanging up my cleats with this, this job. Although I just crossed the crossed the bridge of my 79th. No, 76th. See, that's not a good sign, is it? Bearded beast. All right, it's starting to settle in. My dad called it old timer's disease. I'm an old timer. Nevertheless, I'm still here and happy to take your calls. Number currently 562-424-8714. It's a single line. We're still working on fixing that. But that's the number you call if you're listening virtual, that is as I'm speaking. 562-424-8714. You're welcome to call. Love to hear from you. I want to do a postscript to call that I took an open mic call that I took at the end of last show a couple days ago for you probably and see who is it, Tom, who asked about the doctrine of inclusivism, which is the doctrine of the Roman Church right now, Roman Catholic Church, regarding salvation. Inclusivism, as he pointed out, was the idea that though Jesus is the only way for salvation and in God's economy, the blood of Christ is necessary for anybody to be forgiven, you don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved by Jesus. And he read from the catechism which said anyone who seeks truth and does the will of God as he understands it will be saved by Jesus. Now, I gave the reasons why something like that in the Old Testament was going on, but is not applicable in the New Testament. And when I first wrote the piece I did, which is on the website, trying to deal with the veil of inclusiveness. I'm not going after Roman Catholics. I'm just dealing with the view. And it's not just Catholicism that implicitly holds this view. And by the way, this is pretty much in functional terms, it's the same as pluralism. And pluralism says that all roads lead to Rome, right? Every path leads to the top of the mountain and God's at the top. So whatever path you take is going to get you there. Now, the details of the doctrine are different. Pluralism doesn't take into account anything about Jesus and what he did. It just says God's happy with all the different roots and that's okay with God. Now, how they know that's okay with God is another question. Because these religions hold contradictory views about God and about Jesus and about a host of other the nature of reality. But apparently God doesn't care that much about the details as long as somebody's sincere and as the catechism puts it, seeks the truth and does the will of God as they understand it. Now, the problem, of course, in the New Testament times with applying something like that happening in the Old Testament, is that in a certain sense, the rules have changed. That which was ambiguous and unclear in the Old Testament is now clear. The ground of salvation, which is always the work of Christ. But in the Old Testament, wasn't the object of faith because Jesus hadn't been born yet or been crucified and resurrected yet, but now he has. And so the ground of our salvation is also now the explicit object of our faith, which is why we are called to have faith in Jesus. And those who are religious and who don't have Jesus are in Scripture, in New Testament Scripture, chastised. So Paul in Romans 10 says that he bears them witness. They have a zeal for God. I mentioned that in the last show, but not according to knowledge. They're not willing to confess Jesus as Lord. They just crucified him. Why did they crucify him? Well, they had some bad motives, some of them, but a lot of them thought, this guy's a heretic. He claims to be the Son of God. That's blasphemy. The chief priest tore his robes at the trial. When Jesus says, you have said it yourself, Messiah, son of God, then of course he quotes from Daniel and this divine figure coming forth and identifies himself as. That just made things worse. And so because of religious fervor, conviction, the chief priest tore his robe. Blasphemy is worthy of death. Jesus is crucified. Now, they had a lot of bad motives. I know a lot of that's going on, but they were following the law, or so they thought. So they would fit here. They were seeking the truth and doing the will of God as they understood it, and that's why they killed Jesus. So in that view, killing Jesus is an example of having saving faith according to this criteria. Does that strike anybody as odd? I actually asked many years ago when I was doing a guest on this is in the 80s on Dennis Prager's religion on the line that had Dennis and a rabbi and a Roman Catholic priest and me a Protestant, and I was the Protestant, of course, when I was there, did that show 24 times over a few years. But every single one of the Roman Catholic priests advance this doctrine. And I asked Father Liam Kidney, I knew These guys I was on with a lot, and I asked as we were going out one day after the show, then, those who persecute Christians because they think they're doing God's will are, by the action of persecution, evidencing their saving faith. And he said, yes. Now, that certainly would follow from this criteria, but do you see how crazy that is? Those that persecuted Christians, the Romans because they called them atheists, the Christians because they weren't polytheists and they wouldn't worship Caesar. This is why the Christians wouldn't go in the army. Not because they were pacifists, but because the army required a pledge to Caesar as God. Essentially, they weren't going to do that. So you had all these people of religious conviction, fervor, seeking to do the truth and the will of God, seeking the truth and doing the will of God as they understood it. And what led to persecution and martyrdom of Christians? No, this doesn't work. But that isn't the biggest reason that I reject it. I reject it from what the text says. Now think about Paul in Romans. He's making his case. Romans 1, the second half of the chapter, it's all condemnation of all these people in all these places that have enough revelation to bend their knee to God but don't. Instead, they then, you know, exchange the creature for the Creator, is what Paul says. And by the way, that is exactly what happens in a lot of these religions. You know, Mother Teresa, I mean, I almost said, God bless, right? She's gone, obviously. But I mean, I mean, God bless her in the sense that she did noble work and not. I'm not dissing that at all. She was magnificent in the things that she did, the kindness that she showed, the mercy. The Mothers of Mercy, is that the name of the group? And the mercy she showed. And she mentored so many others to do the same. But in her autobiography, she said that it wasn't her job to make Hindus into Christians. Okay, this is her testimony. She's a Roman Catholic nun. It's not my job to make Hindus into Christians. It's my job to help Hindus be better Hindus. So this is in keeping here somewhat with what the catechism is saying. Although it is odd when she. It's one thing when you have people that don't have access to the message. And therefore we'd like to think, well, there must be some way that God is going to justify them in virtue of their genuine search for truth. And I think, actually Bill Craig, William Lane Craig, holds a version of this view. At least he's agnostic about that circumstance. But I don't think that the New Testament provides any flexibility there. And Mother Teresa as an example, I mean, so in a certain sense, smitten by this idea that she wasn't even willing when she was there in situ, she's there to tell them, no, Hinduism is a false religion. You're worshiping idols and you're not even understanding the basic nature of God. Because many Hindus understand God is an impersonal being. And in fact he's the only thing that exists. And once we karma out through successive reincarnation, we just kind of become him after a fashion. It's oversimplification, I understand, but it's nothing like Christianity, so how could that. But they're doing the will of God, as it were, as they understood it, and presumably seeking the truth. And so what her view amounts to is I'm not going to tell them about Jesus. I'm going to tell them to worship idols more effectively. That's Hinduism and Buddhism for that matter. I'm going to teach them how to be more effective at violating God's first commandment. Really? Yes. This is what this comes down to. Here's what Paul says, Romans 3. Now he's developing this argument, right? What about all these people, all these noble savages, so to speak, that don't get the message? Well, they're in bad trouble with God. Look at what they did. Romans 1, the last half. Not only do they do these things, but they give hearty approval to those who do them. That's how the chapter ends. And in the beginning of chapter two, and a little later talks about the conscience and how they know right from wrong. They do the very things they accuse other people of doing. They're just as guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty is what he's saying. The first couple chapters and then chapter three, verse nine and following. What then? Are we Jews better than they? Not at all. For we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. Pretty straightforward. Now what? And then he goes and he quotes, by the way, from the Old Testament. Let me just see where he's quoting from. I got to use my magnifying glass. My eyes aren't so good. Verse 10, Psalms 14, Psalm 53, Psalm 5, Psalm 140, Psalm 10, Psalm 59, Psalm 36. So he sent an amalgam of statements from the Psalms and here's what he says. There is none as it is written. Make it clear. Don't miss this. Don't get creative. Look at what the text says, There is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands. There is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together they have become useless. There is none who does good. There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave with their tongues they keep deceiving. The poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their paths and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Whoa, now, you might be able to think of exceptions. This is covering the whole thing. I know. Nice people, too. But Paul is saying, look, none of them are going to qualify on their own. They're all under sin one way or another. And as for those who are seeking truth and doing the will of God as they understood it, well, this is what Paul's assessment of those people are. They're not seeking the truth. Jesus said, the light has come into the world. And the men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. And before Jesus, there was a light. God had a light himself, the creation. Yet instead they suppressed the truth and unrighteousness and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, which of course is happening in Hinduism. And Mother Teresa, as a good Catholic, was apparently encouraging it. She would have religious times, prayer times, or whatever they'd have, and all different people from different religions would all come. Which is fine, except everybody got to read from their own scriptures. So there was no sense of distinction between the truth of Christianity and all these other religions. They were all equally true, at least in her practice. That's why she made gave opportunity for this to take place. I cite this in the article I wrote. That's in str.org now. Again, I'm not trying to dump on Catholics. I'm saying here are two different ideas, and one of them is false. And this idea does give false hope. Two people who don't know Christ. I was actually in a session with Dennis Prager, High Holy Days, and Father Greg Coiro was on. The Capuchin Franciscan friar who I knew because I'd been in interfaith dialogues with him and other situations and radio and TV and other presentations. And here we were talking to a completely Jewish audience. And the same question was asked of both of us by Dennis. And he knew the answer I was going to give, and Greg would give because he knew us both. But the question was, is Jesus the only way? And why? And. Okay, you're first, Greg. So I labored to Answer correctly, but in a way that gave them understanding. Let me just leave it at that for now. And I think that it really got them thinking. But then Greg Coiro came next, and he said, well, Jesus is the only way, and the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. And it turns out not to worry for you guys, because you're already in the church and you don't know it because you're here doing the Jewish thing in high holy days, seeking the truth and doing the will of God as you understand it. It's interesting is whatever I gave with the right hand, just as Paul would have given, he took away with the left. I gave the gospel to these people. And he's saying, you're fine, you don't need that. So that's this view with boots on, right? Shoes on, sandals, whatever. And it was pretty stunning. So this view, the inclusivist view, is false. And from what I could tell, it was a thousand years before the church of any kind began promoting something like this. And I got that from a Catholic scholar, and I cited him in the article that I wrote. I wish I could remember the name. Amy will get it for you. Because I actually did a couple of iterations of this article, but I think the first. The first iteration was. Is one Way, the Only Way, and the second time having similar title. But most of the content is there. But I think the first article was the best one, and I do talk about these things. And the scholar, I can't think of his name off the top of my head now, but he said, yeah, this was unknown in the church for a thousand years. These people, by the way, are sometimes called anonymous Christians. They're really Christians under the blood of Christ, but they don't realize it because they're really following another religion. So it doesn't work. Romans makes it clear that no one fulfills the requirement that's mentioned there in the catechism. Unless you want to mess with Romans, you got to figure that out. You might say, well, that's not fair. How could that be? That's not just. You can have all kinds of complaints. You can't start there. You've got to start with the text and then work out your concerns in light of what the text says so that you're faithful to the text. This view is not. And as I pointed out in the last show, Cornelius is the showcase example of the falsehood of this view. He has a pedigree that's perfect. He fulfills the inclusivist demand to the letter, and it's not enough. He is not saved until he hears the gospel and believes in it. All right, is it called no Other Name One Way or. Anyway, okay, the bearded beast just informed me that. What was the first one? No Other Name was the first iteration. Are both of those on the website? Yeah. Okay, go to no Other Name because I think that's the best iteration of it. The other one is called Once Again, One Way or Anyway. One Way or Anyway. Both are good, but basically they're just iterations of each other. And I got all the details there. The Mother Teresa, the whole deal. There are actually, I think, two issues in the very first one is that no Other Name. Is that. Yeah, no Other Name, Part one and part two. All right, it's all there and then, you know, read it and weep. You can decide for yourself what the text says and what it means and how it applies to people today, no matter where they live. All right, okay, let's take a break and then we'll have calls.
- [19:52]
B
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 Stan Treason followers, but you'll also stay up to date and informed on our latest resources and events. In our current culture, it's important to have something of value to break up your social media feed. So just visit str.org and find the links to all of our social media platforms at the bottom of the homepage.
- [20:32]
A
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
- [21:18]
B
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.
- [22:17]
A
All right, time for some open mic calls. Unless you'd like to call me directly. If you're listening live, 562-424-8714. We got about 40 minutes left in the show, or 35, whatever. I'd love to hear from you if you'd like to call. But it's also great to work through the list of calls that people have left through the open mic system, which is on our website under Podcasts, on our homepage, and then live broadcasts. And if you have a question, and like someone said, I think last hour said, you know, I can't get in, I can't call in at time, but I think it was our friend from Mississippi. But so here it is. I'm leaving my question. And that's a great way to leave a question. If you can't call in on the live show, which is from four until six on Tuesdays, I do two shows back to back. Okay, let's hear from Ed from the Bronx.
- [23:11]
C
Hello, Greg. Ed from the Bronx. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought at one point during our broadcast you had mentioned the possibility that someone who has passed on and who is with the Lord might be able to hear a loved one who speaks to them, let's say, at a gravesite. If that's true, then what would be the difference between that and Catholics who pray for a saint? And we know that these people are alive with the Lord, or we believe that at least asking them to intervene with prayer, because that's all they're doing, is they're asking them for prayer. They're not asking them to perform some miracle from heaven or anything like that. I'm not in the habit of doing that. But my question is if there's a possibility that people who have passed on could hear the living, then what would be wrong with the practice? Thanks very much.
- [24:00]
A
Okay, thank you, Ed. Well, I'm thinking back at my own history with the Catholic Church. It seems to me that it was not unusual for Catholics to pray to a saint and ask for a miracle. Some circumstance was like required miraculous intervention and they were asking for that. But that aside, the reason that though they might be able to hear us, and you're right, I speculated that that does seem to be the case. But I could be wrong on that. My thinking came from, I think it's Hebrews 12 where it talks about since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and that would be the kind of people that we read about in Hebrews 11, which is the. The list of faithful people who many were delivered by their faith and others who died by their faith and others that's in there yet. So this makes up this cloud of witnesses, those faithful people watching us, it appears to see if we'll be faithful. And so that's why the writer of Hebrews says, let us run with endurance the faith that's set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the authority and perfecter of our faith. Now, I think that concluding from that that they are aware of what's going on, which means seeing and hearing, is fair conclusion could be mistaken. But let's just stipulate that I got it right and that they are aware and they can hear, and that I'm not sure how the fact that they can hear us in the sense that they know what's going on justifies us calling on them. The point that they could hear us isn't like, well, they're listening to see if we'll say something to them. It's just that they're aware of what's going on, they're watching the drama unfold. And I think that's what the point of Hebrews is there. And particularly watching the drama unfold of Christians being faithful in the kinds of circumstances that we see described in Hebrews 11. I don't all mean that. What the text suggests is that they're waiting to hear from us individually so that they can respond and do something on our behalf. It's a totally different circumstance. Now, what does that mean if, you know, someone's at the gravesite of their loved one, somebody's passed on to be with the Lord and talks to them, addresses them in the sense that, sweetheart, I miss you, etc. Etc. Does this mean that there's somehow a connection between the two, and they're listening to respond to those kinds of things? No, I don't think it is. And by the way, I'm not troubled by that particular kind of Thing, I mean, if my wife died, I wouldn't have any difficulty saying something. In fact, when my father in law died, he died in our home. The home we live in now was his and now we live in it. I. I said something to him as he was being taken out. I had a last minute and what I said was, I will see you again, sir. That's what I said. So now he was gone, his spirit had flown. I am talking to a dead person, but I'm not beseeching a dead person. I'm not calling on the dead. I'm not saying, hey, Ray, help me out. You're in heaven with God, I need some help. Can you put in a good word for me? There was nothing like that. And so somebody at a gravesite or even afterwards pouring out their heart in a sense to the one of sorts that they lost. Mom, I miss you. I don't think that's a problem. Because what is prohibited in the Old Testament, in fact it's a capital crime, is. Is calling on the dead. It's calling on the dead looking to get. It's called necromancy. And this is what the witch in Endor did. Witch of Endor, at Saul's direction and conjured Saul, Samuel rather. And that's an odd circumstance. You wonder, how was that possible to happen? Well, God allowed it to happen. But not all necromancy is conjuring to call the spirit into your presence, but is still talking to the spirit and getting this like they do in seances, that's forbidden by God. And I do not see how praying to a saint to ask the saint to do something on your behalf is any different than what is prohibited in the Old Testament. And it's not justified because it may turn out that those in heaven can hear us. I don't see the connection, the justification. Just because they can hear doesn't mean it's okay for us to talk in the sense of calling on them and asking for help. Hope that makes sense. Okay, Ed from the Bronx. You know, I'm looking at another one that Ed asked too. They're back to back. Let's just take Ed again. All right.
- [29:57]
C
Hello, Greg. Ed from the Bronx. I have a question this time about Acts 1:26, where it says, then they cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias. So he was added to the 11 apostles. Right. So my question is, is the drawing of lots the same thing they did to divide the Lord's clothing an approved godly practice, or is just this perhaps the best the apostles had in mind? At the time. And the true replacement was selected on the road to Damascus by Jesus Christ himself. Thank you.
- [30:39]
A
Yeah, that's a fair question. And I have actually wondered that myself. And I have come to the conclusion over the years as I've reflected on that particular concern. Maybe they got the wrong guy and Jesus was going to fill in. I guess I just came to the conclusion. It doesn't seem what's going on there. By the way, it wasn't just Paul selected as an apostle who can fit as number 12 there. There were other apostles, and so 13, 14, 15, whatever. Paul was the lead apostle, but as it turned out, but he was humble about that. He talks about himself as the least of the apostles, but there were others that were identified as apostles too and had an authoritative role in the church. So I don't think the numbers work there for us. And there doesn't seem to be any indication at all from the text in Acts 1 that that what was done there was untoward. They shouldn't have done that. There's a lot of space given to this. And let me see here, verse 15 through 26, that's a lot of text describing this transition or finding the replacing Judas on the team. And by the way, Judas was never a believer. And I can't recall the text right now, but there's a text in the Gospels that makes it absolutely crystal clear that he was never a believer in the sense that we think of that. Of course, regeneration wasn't a factor back then because that's New Covenant stuff. And that happened after Pentecost and he's gone, whatever. But the apostles were genuine believers and under Christ as it were yet, and what Christ did eventually for them. But Judas wasn't in that group, but he needed to be replaced because they had to fill out the number 12. And there's a lot of verses given to this. Now, the method that they used, it's interesting because they didn't just draw lots. They had criterion to winnow down the followers of Christ. Because remember, Jesus had concentric circles of disciples. You had not just the 12, but the inner three. Peter, James and John were the inner three, the inner core. You have the other nine to be those 12 disciples. Then you had the 70, which is a larger group then you had 120. So different numbers are referred to in different places. And Peter gets up and stands in the Brethren lives about 120 persons. He said, okay, well, we've got to find a replacement. And how do we do that? There's some requirements. It's Necessary that of the men who one have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. That's the first requirement, beginning with the baptism of John, until the day he was taken up from us. And also one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. So you have two criterion, objective criterion that were given there. Each time they gave a new criterion that winnowed out people, right? And with those two criterion, there were two men left. Verse 23. And what next? Now what? Draw lots, flip a coin. That's all it was. We're just going to do this. And there was a history in the Old Testament of providential signs being ways that God would indicate what he wanted people to do. This didn't happen very often, but it is there. You think of Joseph's sign servant who asked for a providential sign, not Joseph, but the Abraham servant, a providential sign to choose a wife for Abraham's son, so Isaac. So there's a provident. There's a number of occasions where that happens. And this we are still, strictly speaking, in an Old Testament economy because Pentecost had not yet happened. And so what they did is they just flipped a coin after they had winnowed the possible group down to 2. So there is no indication, though, and it's a fair question, Ed, that this is an ongoing practice that should be part of the Christian decision making framework. No indication of that. We just see this is what they did. So this is descriptive and they trusted that the cast of the Lottos from the Lord or something in Proverbs that talks about this kind of thing. So I don't think we should do that. We are not enjoined to do that. This describes what they did pre Pentecost. And notice that there was a series of objective criteria that were in place to winnow them down. I mean, it could have been only one that was left and that would take care of it. There were two or there could have been four. Then they draw straws or find out whatever. But that's how it worked out. I don't think that this is a standard now for us, so. Good question though, Ed. Let me just see if I got it. Jesus did select Paul. There's no question there. But I don't think that Paul was the one that was supposed to be the 12th. All right, let's see what's next here. Let's can. Can Coleman. He's next here. I can answer this quickly. Then we'll take a break. Let's hear from Ken. Hello, Greg, this is Kenneth Coleman from Baltimore, Mississippi. I just had a question about converts versus disciples. Thinking of those people who they, they say they trust in the Lord, but you hardly ever see them at church. They never come to Bible study or, or Sunday school or anything like that. You never see any fruit. Is that a thing like if we put our trust in Jesus and truly, sincerely put our trust in Jesus, we're supposed to be saved. But what if there's no fruit there? Can you just speak about that and how can I help these people? And anyways, I thank you for all that you do. Yeah, talk to you later, Bye. Yeah, Ken, thank you for calling back. Give another question. I think that this, in a sense, this group of people, this category of people is one of the hardest to deal with. You can't get them saved because they think they're already saved. You can't disciple them because they're not saved. And there in Mississippi, I imagine you got a lot of those folk though. They're all over really, because you've got a lot more kind of religious affect to the culture, Bible belt. And I honestly don't know what to do with them. It isn't like there's this magic approach or anything. These people are unregenerate. James makes it clear in James 2, the second half of the chapter and other passages of New Testament texts. But James is a clear one. You show me your so called faith without your works, your fruit, if you will, and I will show you my faith by my works. He is talking about a so called faith. Can that kind of faith save you if you say, oh yeah, I have faith but no evidence of it. Can that faith is what James writes, Can that faith save you? And of course the answer is no, it can't. That's not the real thing. And then he gives a couple of examples of people in extreme circumstances who trusted God. Old Testament, one Abraham, one Rahab. Very different circumstances and very different things they did. Nevertheless, this was an evidence of their actual salvific trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And in the New Testament, if you say you're a Christian and there is nothing there to demonstrate it, there is no reason that we should think that that's the case. Now sometimes this will come up in a conversation and I'm thinking of one in particular that recently it was a dad I was talking to about his son and he'd had conversations with his son who thought he was really saved. I'm really saved. But the question I think that could be asked in that situation is. And this is kind of clever, somebody brought this up once, but I think there's some meat to this, that if it were illegal to be a Christian, and if you were a Christian, you would get arrested, would there be any evidence against you? If there is nothing in your life, either word or deed, that explicitly identifies you with Christ, then how can you say that you're really a Christian now? People who become Christians characteristically have a radical change. Oh, maybe that's too strong, but have a change that begins to build in momentum as they grow in Christ. Sometimes it's radical right out of the gates. And this was true for a lot of Jesus movement people where I became a Christian. It was true for me and other people on a slow burn, but it's a slower growth. And I'm thinking of some other people in my family who. Spouses, for example, of believers, that that was a slow burn. But after all these years, it's clear to me they're regenerate and love the Lord. So there is this thing that drives them now. My sister, for example, my youngest sister, who is now with the Lord, and I'm confident of that. She has a sweetheart, but she made a profession of faith for a long time. And then I didn't see really much happening in her. And then when we went to Florida to baptize my dad just before he died, because he had a radical transformation. Wow. Was that something that she wanted to be baptized? And when we baptized her, her older brothers baptized her in the Gulf of what is now the Gulf of America. I could tell there was a radical difference that followed from that. She was a different person when she talked about the Lord. Now it turned out that some of her habits hadn't changed. I don't mean sinful habits, but she never really was a churchgoer. And I don't know that she read her Bible very much. Now. It was years later that I sent her a copy of the Story of Reality. And she got back to me and she said, this book kind of changed my life. Finally I understand how it all fits together. And I think that was a great move forward for her in her faith. But I don't think that's. I think she was saved before that. And this just brought it all into CRISPR focus. Now, it was two years ago that she went to be with the Lord and I was able to visit her, my wife and I, and the girls in Illinois University of Chicago Hospital as she was fading. And we were with her like three or four days before she left. And she was glowing, glowing with love and confidence in the Lord, knowing that whatever happened, he was in charge. He could take her, he could heal her, whatever. She thought she was going to get better. We thought so, too, because things were looking up, and all of a sudden she was gone. But she went to glory in glory. To glory. I think she was an example of somebody that was a bit of a slow burn and then really came on fire for the Lord, but never engaged. The habits that most Christians who love the Lord engage Bible reading, fellowship, Bible study, prayer. Well, prayer. I know she was doing that, but it just didn't fit the standard. But nevertheless, I was convinced by what I saw and experienced in her in a very difficult time in her life that she knew the Lord. So there can be a range here, I guess, is what I'm saying. But I think what you're concerned with mostly, Ken, is that, Kenneth, is that is these people that, you know, just. It's all lip service. And sometimes I meet people on the airplane and they ask me what I do, and I talk about it, and, you know, and I'm trying to get a rise out of them somehow. And then after I talk for a little bit, I said, and what are your personal convictions? Oh, well, I'm a Christian. And I think to myself, well, you're a Christian. Then why haven't you brought it up? And all this? I'm talking. Other times, I'll tell people what I do. And then I remember one lady said to me immediately, I love the Lord, too. Now, I had a lot of confidence, based on her response, that she was the real McCoy, so to speak. But these others, I'm thinking, why didn't you make common cause with me as a brother in Christ? That's what I would have done. In fact, we were at a meal in Colorado Springs last week, and the owner came and wanted to know that we were enjoying our meal. And he had a cross hanging from his neck. And I asked him, so what's the deal with the cross? And he said, you know, is it jewelry or what? And he said, well, he said, because it's a reminder that I'm with God all the time, and I got to honor him in all that I do. I said, well, that's great. We love the Lord, too, is what I said to him. So I immediately identified with him as a Christian. People who don't do that, I always wonder. They're cultural Christians, but I don't know what about the real deal. So that's where I'm at on that one. Ken and I think if there's no fruit, if there's no real difference between the person who claims to be a Christian and the person who does not claim, the nice person who claims and the nice person who does not claim, if there's no real difference in their life, anything, no evidence against them, then I don't think they're really believers. All right, I went longer than I thought on that. Let's take a very quick break and we'll take our final questions when I come back on Stand to Reason. You can take Stand to Reason with you through our mobile apps. Available for free from the App Store or the Google Play Store, the quick Reference app gives you short, easily accessible courses on our most popular topics like tactics, homosexuality and the Bible, morality, the story of reality, and many more. The Stand a Reason app has all our latest content available at your fingertips. You can listen to our podcasts, check the blog, and access timely and practical resources. They're free, so download the apps today on the App Store or the Google Play Store and start carrying Stand to Reason with you everywhere you go. If you enjoy our apps, you can help other people find them by rating them on the App Store or the Google Play Store.
- [46:33]
B
Are you looking for a community where you can grow in your understanding of Christianity and learn how to defend your faith? Consider joining an STR Outpost. STR Outposts are groups of believers within a local church dedicated to exploring answers to the hard questions about Christianity. Each outpost is led by a trained director who uses STR's content and curriculum to equip members with the tools they need to think clearly and engage confidently with their faith. With around 160 outposts across 38 states and in eight other countries and growing, you're likely to find one near you. Joining an outpost is a great way to connect with others, deepen your knowledge, and be better equipped to make an impact in your community for Christ. To find an outpost in your area, learn more or to consider becoming an Outpost Director yourself, visit str.org outpost or email me trippallman@instopcr.org.
- [47:39]
A
Alrighty, and we're in the stretch here, and we have a question from Dean on doubt and faith. Dean, what's up? Hello Greg. My name's Dean, and I'm proud to say that I'm a strategic partner and an outpost leader. Whoa. First, I'd like to let you know how thankful I am for the great job Tripp's doing. He assisted me personally with a problem that was kind of a sticky one and helped me think it out and navigate it, and it turned out really great. And give glory to God for that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Here's my question. I don't believe I have doubts about Christianity. There are many things I don't understand, but I chalk those up to my own ignorance or his sovereignty. I hear many strong Christians say they have doubts. Is doubt a word like faith, which has changed its meaning? Well, yeah, I read this before. Obviously, we had the call looking at it, and I don't think that's the case, Dean. Faith used to mean an act of trust based on evidence. You have noticia. Let's see, knowledge you got. Now I'm trying to remember the Latin. You have three things, but the last one is fiducia, which is faith. What are they? Noticia. Old timers, huh? A census. Thank you. Bearded beast. Well, I got about 40 years on this guy, so. Like that. Not that many. Et noticia sensus, fiducia. In other words, you now have knowledge that then you assent to its truth and you acknowledge it. But there's another step, and that is putting your trust in it. And the new definition of faith. You don't have noticia. You don't have the knowledge part because you don't know. And so that's what faith is for, for things you don't know. Now, that's not the biblical view. That's the distorted view. Some would say, well, if you know it, then where's room for faith? Well, they misunderstand the biblical notion, and the ancients understood it properly. That's where those three words came from, those Latin words. So I think the way we understand faith now and why I tell people not to use it as a leap, well, this didn't come into play into the early parts of the 20th century, so we've got about 100 years before that it wasn't understood that way. Now, I don't see, Dean, any real change in the word doubt. Maybe the word doubt is misused sometimes. I'm not sure you clarified it. You said there are things I don't understand, but that doesn't mean you're doubting the truth of them. I'm the same way. There are lots of things about God that I don't understand. I don't understand prayer. I don't understand how it works. I don't understand the calculus, how many coins you put in the machine, so to speak, to get the product out. Well, Lewis made it clear on that regard that God is not a machine. He's a person. And so he can say yes or no, for his own reasons. I wish I understood more. We're enjoined to pray. Pray that you don't enter into temptation. Be devoted to prayer, keeping alert to it for the purpose of thanksgiving, pray unceasingly. So there's all these things, and I want to do them, but then I'm thinking, to what end? And you have not. Because you ask not. Okay, great. You asking. Don't receive because you ask with the wrong motives. Okay, I've got to be careful there. Husbands treat wives as a weaker vessel. Be kind to them lest your prayers be interfered with. Okay, so I'm on top of all that. But I still can't get prayer to work a lot of time. And it's discouraging, but do I believe in it? Yes, of course. That's why I do it. But I guess I don't have confidence in my own ability to move God through prayer. But I certainly believe in prayer. That's why it's in the text. And other people seem to get prayers answered. And I got my team nodding at me like this, well, maybe you ought to pray for me more often. Okay. You got to end with God. I don't have. But in any event, I don't understand that. And that's why I've said in the past, the first rule of prayer is to pray. Just do it. And also, action beats intention. Oh, I'll get around to it. By the way, you know, you can't pray today's prayers tomorrow. You can't say, I'll just wait till tomorrow and then I'll pray. You can't pray today's prayers tomorrow. You can only pray tomorrow's prayers tomorrow. So don't miss the opportunity today. But in any event, I don't understand this. It. It's tricky. But it isn't that I doubt God, I guess I doubt my ability in this case. I doubt my ability to have my own prayers answered. But you know the guy who came to Jesus, what was he? He's a leper or something like that. And Jesus asked him what he wants, and he said, if. If you're willing, you can cleanse me. An important distinction there. He knew that Jesus was capable, he was confident Jesus was capable. But he didn't know whether Jesus would want to do it in his case. And Jesus said to him, I am willing be cleansed. And that's something. I pray a lot. I don't know. You're capable. And this thing here, I need help. I need something to happen, particularly usually in the life of some other Person. You pray for another person. Right. And my perspective is you can do it. If you're willing, you can do it, but I don't know if you're willing. But nevertheless, it will never be said of me that I asked not. So I do doubt in many cases that God will answer my prayer. So I don't know, Dean, if that's in the same category of what you're talking about. I don't think the word has changed its meaning. I wouldn't say. I think doubt means uncertainty about a truth claim. Maybe that's a way to define it. Uncertainty about a truth claim. So the claim is that, you know, ask anything in my name and I will do it. That's Jesus in John 15. Right. Okay, working on that one. And by the way, praying in Jesus name doesn't mean saying in Jesus name. There's nothing magical in the words. It's that you're praying in virtue of Jesus. You have access to the Father through Christ. That's kind of what that means. But okay. But I do doubt whether my prayer will be answered. But I don't doubt God. What I take away from that is I don't understand. That's what I mean by the calculus of prayer. But I'm not doubting God. I have had times in my life where I doubted the truth of Christianity. Even after having become a Christian. There were times when I had doubts. But so many of those doubts were resolved because I got more information. Noticia, knowledge. And one of the things that I fall back on, I'd say, well, if the Christian worldview taken as a whole is not true, what are the alternatives? What are the alternatives? Because there's no neutral place that you stand that's safe. There's something that's true and spiritually something. It's obvious to me that we are souls inhabiting a body, unified with their body. It is absolutely obvious to me that God exists. I can't will myself to be an atheist. I know too much. But when it comes to the particulars of Jesus, I kind of feel the same way for the most part. But that's where things get maybe a little more dicey. I could be wrong, I guess. But if I'm wrong, what do I make of the resurrection and the claims of the disciples who, you know, et cetera, et cetera? All the minimal facts, stuff I've talked about before. They died for a lie that they knew was a lie. That's different. And what about, you know, then what's the alternative? That's an important question. You should ask yourself, in cases of doubt, what's the alternative? Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam? No way. I mean, not even close. It turns out that Christians who are faithful Christians, the way they live their life, would qualify for heaven by most other criteria. Not other religious criteria, just saying. So I think doubt is still doubt. It's not like faith having changed its meaning. But you're not sure. You're unsure of the truth of a proposition. And all Christians doubt at some time or another. It's not a sin, I don't think. Not in most cases. All right, friends, that's it for this hour. Greg Koukl here for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. All right. Bye bye.
- [57:29]
C
Now.
- [57:41]
A
It.